The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999 TV Movie) User Reviews (40)

objectively speaking...

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 7 July 2016]

"The Passion of Ayn Rand" is an interesting film about the famous and controversial philosopher, adapted from a book by Barbara Branden.

Due to the fact that the script was derived from Branden's book, the emphasis is on her and her bad marriage and less on Rand and her philosophy.

In the movie, Rand (Helen Mirren) becomes involved with Nathaniel Branden (Eric Stoltz), a psychiatrist 25 years younger than she is (and Barbara's husband), and sets up the Nathaniel Branden Institute. When he becomes involved with another woman, she has him banned from the Nathaniel Branden Institute. The movie doesn't say that, but that's true. Stoltz is very good, if somewhat cold. He comes off as a smart man and a sex addict who is unethical.

Helen Mirren likes these roles that de-emphasize her glamour and beauty. She played Alma Hitchcock but she was too glamorous. Ayn Rand was a homely frump. Makeup and clothes did a great job, but Mirren never comes off as frumpy. Nevertheless, she is fantastic, sporting a Russian accent, tremendous passion, and an energetic personality.

As to why Nathaniel would be attracted to Rand, she was a brilliant woman and I imagine charismatic. Barbara, well played by Julia Delpy, was an insecure woman, and his marriage to her was not satisfying.

Peter Fonda does a fine job as Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor, a man Rand loved, but who himself just went along with her and concentrated on things like painting and gardening.

In the movie he becomes a hopeless alcoholic. Part of Rand's philosophy is that you think only of yourself but don't make anyone else unhappy. So she and Branden asked permission of both their spouses to start an affair. Don't tell me they weren't hurt. Branden becomes an integral part of her work until he starts seeing someone else. Not really rational thinking, is it?

When Barbara becomes ill and desperate for help, she calls Ayn, who is having sex with Nathan at the time. Ayn says, "Don't you ever think of anyone but yourself?" And hangs up. That's a true story, too.

I know something of Ayn Rand from reading The Fountainhead and seeing her interviewed. What has most impressed me about her is her prescience, as so much of what she wrote has come to pass.

However, whether she wanted to admit it or not, she was a woman and a human being despite aspirations to be something else. She championed selfishness, capitalism, and reason (you can't make something true just by wanting it to be true). A good example of her philosophy is the phrase "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" which she considered to be the wrong way around.

The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that, like many philosophies, it's impractical. Once it's off a piece of paper, it involves human beings. For instance, she yells at a screenwriter for writing things he doesn't believe in for the studio. I suppose he could quit -- and if he were a brave soul who didn't care about working or money, he could. But most people aren't brave souls and most people can't get along without money. Why not write what you believe in and hand the studio the dreck? That way you can make a living while working to live your best life.

In The Fountainhead, the main character sticks to his beliefs and loses jobs because he won't adhere to the design the client wants. Okay, but it was his business, he wasn't working for someone else. He stuck to his beliefs and found people who bought into them. That's what artists do. The screenwriter would have found a market for his script as well, if he wasn't dead from starvation by then. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark doesn't have a side job, but most people like Howard Roark probably do.

The film sports excellent production values, capturing the '50s beautifully. There are a couple of faux pas -- in one, Frank makes reference to "King of Kings," the silent version, emphasizing that it was the REAL King of Kings. This indicates there was another, but there wasn't until some years later. Also at one point Nathaniel offers to call his wife a cab. It's New York City. You don't call for cabs. Minor points both.

Helen Mirren is always worth seeing. You'll have to make up your own mind about Rand.

the actors shine

[mukava991 · 7/10 · 10 July 2008]

This dramatization of about 17 years in the mid-life of novelist Ayn Rand focuses on her intimate relationship with one of her much younger disciples, one Nathaniel Blumenthal, who changed his last name to Branden (get it? – bRANDen) after establishing a platonic friendship with the author. Eventually the relationship evolved into a love affair with the full if resentful knowledge of their mutual spouses. Although the heart of the film is the love relationship we are also introduced to the social circle of the controversial Rand whose novels featured larger-than-life heroes whose glaring individuality and egoism pit them against the common mass, or "second handers" as Rand called them; she elevated personal selfishness to a high ethical principle, and revered the capitalist way of life. The film is set during the period when Rand was writing her last mammoth novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, which she believed would rock the world and spark a revolution of human creativity and a rebirth of individualism and entrepreneurial, creative spirit. When it became a mere best seller she was shattered and in her demoralized state allowed the young Blumenthal to influence her next career move by founding the Objectivist movement which carried her message in the form of a periodic newsletter and public meetings. Through the device of capturing snatches of conversation at dinners and small meetings as well as question-and-answer sessions at public gatherings, the film takes the time to explore the mind-set of the Rand followers, including the ugly confrontations within the innermost circle as members are emotionally humiliated for not uttering the correct Objectivist formulations in deadly group meetings in Rand's smoke-filled living room. The cult atmosphere is well captured. But the "passion" here is heavily on the sexual-romantic side and lacking in the arena of philosophy. The makers of this film probably felt the TV audience wouldn't sit still for too much cerebral content so some may wonder why people felt so strongly about Rand that they would attach themselves to her the way her followers did.

But the real power in this TV movie comes across in the four central performances by Helen Mirren as Ayn Rand, Peter Fonda as her passive, dispirited, alcoholic husband, the always excellent Eric Stolz as "Branden" and Julie Delpy as his long-suffering wife. Each of these excellent actors has mastered the art of "less is more" in conveying depth of emotion with a minimum of hamminess and take the viewer inside the cult mentality. Rand could easily have been depicted as a monster but Mirren and the screenwriters take care to show us her vulnerable side. You have to admire her whether you agree with her or not. She was a tragic figure worth exploring. Her novels still sell in the hundreds of thousands of copies many decades after their initial release because there is a kernel of truth in what she wrote, something about the value of the individual and the beauty of reason. What she made of those truths is debatable.

A is A and cannot be B

[mi_jack44 · 6/10 · 28 March 2008]

I read Atlas Shrugged in 1964 and thought I'd discovered Atlantis or something. I learned that a friend had seen Ayn Rand speak at Ford Hall Forum was also excited by her ideas. It was a couple years before we learned that there had been a split between Ayn Rand, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden -and many more years before we learned the split had occurred years before we were told about it. (And it was clear that information was covered up, repressed for years.)

So when Barbara Branden came out with, The Passion Of Ayn Rand, and it later was made into the movie - I paid attention and compared what was presented with my memories. Most of what is in the movie corresponds to what I remember. I like the movie's frankness for it shows how damaging Rand was to other people's relationships and how disappointed she was with the men in her circle who consistently fell short of her fictional male characters.

It is notable that every biography of Rand starts with her terrible experience under the Soviets - but none make much of that experience's role in forming Rand's later attitudes and philosophical stance. Her resultant "anti-collectivism" is completely valid on its face but in practice it becomes an excuse for rank selfishness and coldness toward "inferior people."

Rand's fascination with men as fantasy heroes and sexual controllers of women has always been evident and was acknowledged by Rand herself. It is never mentioned how this contradicts Rand's forcefully promoted "principles." She punished all who violated her rules but never thought her own transgressions affected how she should be regarded as one promoting a moral system.

The movie should be seen by all those who have read Rand's works and know at least something of her actual history. It provides the balance of her human flaws to offset the alleged purity of her ideals. A balance she as a writer never accomplished.

Helen Mirren's performance

[apgroner · 29 March 1999]

I agree with Wayne Tolmachoff's review, published here, and with director Christopher Menaul's statement that Ayn Rand probably would have been horrified by the intimate nature of Barbara Branden's fascinating biography of this highly individual and talented novelist/philosopher. I enjoyed and suffered along with Peter Fonda as Rand's pleasant but invisible husband Frank O'Connor and thought that the entire cast was commendable. Unfortunately, the captivating and powerful performance delivered by Helen Mirren in the title role hasn't been mentioned. Critic Geoffrey Gilmore wrote "...it's impossible to conceive of another actress playing Rand" and indeed, who but Mirren is capable of conveying Ayn Rand's sensual intensity and penetrating intelligence, not to mention heavy Russian accent? Helen Mirren shows, through the subtlest of gestures and expressions, Rand's extreme emotional repression and tyrannical control of the people around her. At the same time, Mirren's performance hints at the vulnerability, isolation and loneliness that Rand must have experienced as she destroyed or abandoned one important personal relationship after another. Whether you love Ayn Rand or hate her, this film makes a powerful impression.

Interesting, Enlightening, Superb Performances

[jazzfantastic · 7/10 · 8 December 2008]

As a casual viewer with a cursory knowledge of Rand and her movement, this film, shown through the eyes of someone who had good reason to bear Rand some resentment, was enlightening about Rand and her background, her circle, and to a lesser degree, her movement and philosophy. It's very worth seeing for those things, as well as the excellent performances of all concerned.

I fault the Director for not aging the characters over the 15-17-yr. span, especially the pivotal role of Branden. By the time Branden takes a young student as his lover, he was old enough to be her father, just as Rand was old enough to be his mother when their affair commenced. Not even his weight, attire, or hair were modified, much less his baby face, to show how the passage of time would've affected who he did and didn't find appealing as a lover and life partner by the time he was 40'ish and Rand 60-65.

Rand's pain and fury over losing his love and sex and being dumped for a girl young enough to be her grandchild apparently sealed his fate in the Movement, so failing to age the characters was a key error in an otherwise well-done film.

Rand had the spirit and confidence to go after a man half her age, and the magnetism to land and hold him. Women past 40 are normally confined to older men, and much older, the older the woman becomes. Refreshing. Rand was shown to find the sexual affair intensely pleasant and intellectually freeing, as creative men do. In fact, Rand acted the traditional male role throughout the film, her husband the female role. Also refreshing.

The conscious attempts by all Movement characters to make their actions conform to their belief system was one of the things that consistently elevated this film above a simple adultery drama. Hence, Rand and Branden sought their spouses' consent for their affair, even if they underestimated its duration by a factor of 15 years. Branden and Barbara married as a heroic act despite lack of personal 'fit', etc.

Only Branden seemed to be consistently weak and therefore prone to violating Movement principles via lies and obfuscation, and even he proved to be capable of emotional growth by the end. An interesting and enlightening film with superb performances.

Is this an "Objective" Testament?

[jrfranklin01 · 6/10 · 21 July 2004]

Having read her book Atlas Shrugged, her Playboy interview, and subscribing to the Objectivist Newsletter for a time, I was familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Let me first say that if you haven't read any of the above or her other works, this movie will not have as much meaning for you and you will not understand the significance of some parts.

Since I had delved into Rand's works and was influence by them, even if only temporarily, I have to admit that this film was truly shocking in its portrayal of her. Don't get me wrong, the acting in this film with all of the characters was A+. However, the way they cast Ayn as a character, making her just as human and just as given to her emotions, was quite appalling. You see, in Ayn's work, she stresses the ideal in life, that which is held to the highest, noblest, and greatest - the achievements of the mind. She communicates this in such as way that she appears above others in society, as if sitting amongst that ideal that she preaches. Therefore any other portrayal of her ideal diminishes the viewer's perspective.

**Below there are a few spoilers included to show the flaws of this film to followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy.

Strangely, this movie doesn't seem to be primarily about philosophy, but rather the torments of an extra-marital affair. The film intermingles and blends her philosophy as a backdrop to this. Granted, in her Playboy interview she does not necessarily agree that sex has to be between a married couple, however, this film almost portrays her as some of the villains she describes in her books. I suppose the most obvious reason for this is because it is an account of the non-fiction work of Barbara Branden. She was a close friend and disciple of Ayn Rand. Her husband, Nathaniel (an egotistical and sex-hungry psychologist), has an affair with Ayn Rand. The film begins to get gray here in that it doesn't fully the develop the reason for Barbara Branden's non-sexuality, which in part fosters Nathaniel's cheating on her. What is odd also and perhaps the glorified self-image of the author, is Barbara's depiction as really the only character that held truest to the Objectivist philosophy. Her love for Nathaniel seems mistaken for great admiration and respect of his intellect. Her lack of any sexual expression appears to substantiate this as she has passion for only the intellect and not the physical. Her singular defiance of Ayn's teaching is displayed with her agreement and subsequent self-immolation in allowing her husband to have an affair.

Ayn and Nathaniel, on the other hand, share the same act of uncontrollability in their affections for one another. While this is displayed as logical, they ask their spouses to sacrifice themselves for their pleasure by agreeing to the affair - a big no-no in Ayn Rand's teachings. Ayn's husband, Frank, appears in a fog during most of this, washed up and washed out as he hides in his hidden anguish.

But Nathaniel commits the ultimate travesty in his cheating not only on his wife but now also on Ayn herself. He begins an affair with a young woman he is counseling, while still juggling his wife and Ayn in the mix. This, of course, comes to a head and Ayn is as furious with Nathaniel as if she were his wife. She vows to destroy the man she believes she has made (what happened to the self-made hero she saw in him, the man who did not rely on others?). Strangely, Barbara once again appears noble as she defends her husband's destruction before Ayn.

If I haven't explained it to you Ayn Rand's fans clearly enough, this movie is full of holes in her philosophy. I'll quote a line from Nathaniel Branden in the movie, "A philosophy should not be judged by the actions of its teachers." This statement surely applies to this film! However, I wonder just how "objective" a testament Barbara Branden gave when she wrote the book this film is based on. Because if the teachers can't follow the philosophy and remain true to it, then either the philosophy failed or the teachers never fully understood it in the first place.

Or, The Lack of Passion of Barbara Branden

[yossarian100 · 4/10 · 2 March 2004]

A soap opera about Barbara Branden, even with the lovely Julie Delpy doing the honors, is not very interesting unless one makes Barbara Branden the main character. But, this is The Passion of Ayn Rand, which of course it isn't. Even though Helen Mirren absolutely nails the part and does a great job of capturing the image of Ayn Rand, we just don't get much of a movie here and the whole production smacks of 'made for tv.' I've always been a big fan of Ayn Rand, even though I'm a liberal, and I guess I hoped for something with a little more quality about her writing, philosophy, and the unusual woman she actually was, you know, the passion of Ayn Rand.

Yes Virginia, there really is an Ayn Rand

[lurch-17 · 6/10 · 8 May 2005]

Having read almost all of Rand's works and considering her a brilliant philosopher and writer, I was apprehensive about seeing her personal side in a movie. I was not disappointed. I understand her work very well and was able to completely separate her personal conduct from her philosophy. Was her personal conduct in conflict or harmony with her philosophy? An esoteric question, and I don't care.

She was once quoted as saying that the character Kira, in her book 'We The Living', was the closest thing to an autobiography that she would ever write. Kira was a pure character with heroic characteristics. Ayn Rand in real life was probably not. Again, I don't care. None of this detracts from her philosophy. By the way, don't miss Rand's book-turned-into-film 'We The Living' starring Rossano Brazzi and Alida Valli filmed in Italy during WWII without Rand's knowledge or blessing. It is a cinematic feast. Italian actors, Russian setting, English subtitles and well adapted. Reportedly, Hitler had it canned after one showing because it criticized totalitarian dictatorships.

Back to this movie. It is reasonably well done and very interesting. Hoving subscribed to her newsletter, 'The Objectivist', I will never forget the short column she wrote therein, something to the effect "Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, etc" (after she had dedicated Atlas Shrugged to him).

There is a human side to every hero.

Above all, read 'The Fountainhead', her greatest work. Forget the film, it was poorly adapted (by Rand?) and Cooper/Neal did not do the book's characters justice.

Gloomy Soap Opera.

[rmax304823 · 2/10 · 19 October 2008]

The movie begins with the success of "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand (Helen Mirrin) and covers the next fifteen or so years of her rise to the top of a collective movement known as "objectivism," which became a kind of cult with Rand as the golden-gowned Inca empress. What a dull movie.

Let's see. Mirrin is married to Frank (Peter Fonda), an alcholic wimp who paints and cultivates flowers. The couple take under their wing an admiring young married couple, Eric Stoltz and Julie Delpy. (I'm going to skip the characters' names because they're unimportant historically and dramatically.) Mirrin develops a maternal affection for Stoltz that soon enough blossoms into something more physical. Julie Delpy twigs to this. We know so because she confronts Stoltz: "She loves you! And you love HER!" Mirren and Stoltz meet together with their spouses and tell the truth. They want an open marriage, meaning Mirren and Stoltz get to hump each others' brains out without the same privilege being extended to Fonda and Delpy. The spouses grant Mirren and Stoltz one afternoon a week alone, but the pair have so much fun they begin bootlegging more hours into the arrangement.

Delpy, meanwhile, is having anxiety attacks, which are nerve wracking, as I can testify. In despair she calls Mirren from a café, begging to come to her for advice and succor, and Mirren comes back with a blistering accusation of selfishness. I'm not sure the screenplay recognizes the irony here, because Ayn Rand's "objectivist philosophy" is nothing if it is not a glorification of selfishness. Anyway, a kindly passer-by notices Delpy collapsing in the phone booth and he's a sensitive, caring type, a musician, and escorts her home. The relationship grows warmer but Delpy refuses to break her marriage vows and -- yawn -- excuse me -- she asks Stoltz for the same open-marriage arrangement that he's got. He balks.

He's got nothing to balk about. He's a practicing clinical psychologist and one of his patients, a beautiful young woman, Sybil Temtchine, develops a severe case of what we practicing clinical psychologists call "transference," not uncommon in neurotics. Rather less common is the way Stoltz exhibits what we practicing psychologists call "counter-transference." He humps her brains out too. To such an extent that Mirren begins musing aloud, "When was the last time we made love?" Are you confused yet? I only ask because I'm a little gemischt myself.

At any rate, Stoltz develops a case of conscious or something -- I may have had a period of microsleep at this point -- and resigns from the Institute. Mirren slaps him around, accuses him of treachery, and does her level best to destroy him. But the stalwart Delpy sticks with her husband and resigns in sympathy.

In the end, objectivism has become a terrific success after the publication of Rand's last book, "Atlas Shrugged," although the critics bombed it, and she makes lots of dough on the lecture circuit -- bold, unashamed before challenging questions from the crowd, full of wisecracks, reveling in her celebrity and money. It must be wonderful to have no doubts about one's self.

No viewer will learn very much about objectivism. It's not the central topic of the movie. The title tells it all -- "The Passion of Ayn Rand." That passion extended far beyond any desire to educate or convert the public. It encompassed power, possessions, and wealth.

What more is there to say about this dreary story. There's so much strenuous and lubricious sex in it that it could have shown up late at night on Cinemax except that the girls would all need bigger bosoms, something along the lines of watermelons. The musical score is mostly slow, sad, muted trumpet, straight out of "Miles Davis Plays Music for Lovers." The dialog sucks. "Did you talk to her about our problems?" "OUR problems? You mean that you don't like sex anymore?" There's an interesting story that was waiting to be built around the rise (and subsequent decline) of objectivism. How -- exactly -- does a cult begin? You need a charismatic figure, of course, and Ayn Rand provided it. Then you typically get proprietary sexual relationships and the concomitant jealousies or self abnegation. The difference between objectivism and most cults is that Rand's had a political, even a metaphysical flavor, whereas most are built around some variant of religious salvation. But cults, like Christianity was when it began, need an organizer and solidifier to follow the charismatic founder when he shuffles off this mortal coil. Christianity at least had St. Paul, but who was there to follow Ayn Rand, to organize the objectivists? Her husband Frank? The elderly and reclusive Frank, who lived off Rand's leavings? Frank, the mediocre painter? The wimp who loved Los Angeles because you could grow a greater variety of flowers there? I once spoke to an architect about "The Fountainhead." It's hero's architectural genius creates a gas station that one fictional critic calls, "An insolent 'No' flung in the face of history." "It's all very well," my architect friend admitted, "if you're a genius. But what about the rest of us, who are no more than good at what we do?" Yes. An interesting story is hidden in the shadows of this abject production, but it remains to be told.

Ayn Wouldn't Like It, Viewers Will

[wchoff · 7/10 · 30 January 1999]

"Ayn Rand wouldn't like this movie" said director Christopher Menaul prior to its premier at the Sundance Film Festival. Based on the biography by Barbara Braden, this film focuses on the later years of Ayn's life and her affair with an associate. It would be a difficult task to make a movie that would focus on the genius of Ayn Rand. It is necessary to read her books to find this. Her real passion was for freedom and creativity, a result of being an immigrant to America from post-Revolutionary Russia. Instead, this film covers the sexual passion, which is only a minute element of the complexity of Ayn Rand. Her background, books and Objectivism philosophy are only given brief mention peripheral to the sexual involvement. Approaching it this way does create a more commercial result. It was produced by Showtime, so it probably will not be released to theaters, but should appear on cable soon.

The acting in this movie was outstanding and makes it more memorable. Of particular merit are Julie Delpy as Barbara Braden and Peter Fonda accurately portraying the meek Frank O'Connor.

A movie should be judged by whether it is the best product that can be created by the elements being used. On this basis, it succeeds.

Full disclosure...

[jay-733 · 1/10 · 15 May 2006]

This is not awful based on production qualities, but rather in the domain of justice.

To honestly understand the perspective of the authors, Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, and what they are hiding, see the book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" by James Valliant.

Ayn Rand is so controversial because she challenges the premises of those in power, from religion, to politics, to academia. Just now, more than a hundred years after her birth and 20 years after her death, the truth is coming out on her personal life and more importantly her seminal contributions to the foundations of philosophy. Academia is just opening it's eyes to her ideas and exposing students to this alternative to the history of philosophy. She has literally laid the foundations for ethics and the other branches of philosophy to become a science for the first time in human history.

Just a correction

[BlueGreen · 8/10 · 15 August 2004]

I saw this film three times (but then, I see many films more than once), and if I were to rate it, I'd give it 7-8 (out of 10), for its artistic merits. I knew nothing about Ayn Rand before seeing this film, and it piqued my curiosity. (I then discovered that "The Fountainhead", a very good piece of cinematic work, was based on her book.) But I am basically writing this only to correct what a reviewer said (back in September 2001), quite emphatically and with considerable reasoning behind the statement: that Ayn Rand shouldn't have been portrayed by an "American actress". She wasn't. The role of Ayn Rand was played by Helen Mirren, a truly great British actress. Moreover, Ms. Mirren herself is of Russian extraction, just as Ayn Rand was.

Mediocre, wandering, ill-focused quasi-biopic

[=G= · 6/10 · 29 July 2001]

"The Passion of Ayn Rand" picks up the story of the best selling author and intellectual after "The Fountainhead" and continues through the publishing of "Atlas Shrugged". Although the film spends about equal time between the bio of the brittle and eccentric Rand (Mirren) and the sundry affairs of her closest friends and like-minded followers it does not crystallize the philosophies which established her as a prominent intellectual of the time. In spite of excellent performances by the ensemble, Showtime has only managed another mediocre budget-conscious flick. Recommended only for those interested in Rand.

It wasn't what I thought

[mhbjc · 2/10 · 3 March 2019]

I was hoping for a movie about her. Instead it was about lying. A waste of time.

Good movie by any standards

[rbrtptrck · 27 June 2001]

As an Ayn Rand fan who is interested in anything about the author, I couldn't be sure that this movie was as good a drama as I thought it was, so I showed it to intelligent friends who don't know her work. They all loved it. Complaints that it doesn't project the whole huge structure of Ayn Rand's philosophy are beside the point. This film is about the mesmerizing personality of Ayn Rand and the effect it had on the life of a disciple, Barbara Branden, and that of her husband, Nathaniel Branden, and, perhaps most pitiably, on the life of Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor. Rand was a superior person whom success convinced she was even more superior than she was. Power corrupts, and she became intoxicated by the attention of her devotees, and wound up going against her own principles (enlightened egoism and independence of mind) to demanding that her followers obey her unthinkingly and serve her ends self-sacrificially. None of this validates or invalidates her philosophy. It just teaches us again the ages-old lesson that idols are only human, and pride goes before a fall.,

The Real Disturbing Truth About Ayn Rand in this Erotic Biopic

[wpsacchi · 7/10 · 16 May 2006]

I hope every fan of Ayn Rand's Novels and Philosophy would sit down and view this film. It is an extremely disturbing view of a brilliant Cult Charismatic writer who started "Objectivism" which in reality is a disguise for Hedonism and Rationalism (Truth as one defines it). To say it simply, the woman was demented, selfish, perverted, and evil. Barbara Branden's (Ayn's best friend and Wife of Nathaniel Branden) Book tells the disgusting truth that would make a sailor blush. Helen Mirren is brilliant as Ayn Rand playing her with such honesty that one wonders which one of the artists is on display. The sex scenes with Helen Mirren (Almost 60?) and Eric Stoltz will shock you with its passion -- and only two fine actors could "perform" these scenes without one wondering if this is a joke in poor taste. Peter Fonda proves once again that he is one of our finest actors playing Ayn's supportive alcoholic husband.

For those of you who felt that Ayn Rand's Novels "changed your life," I suggest that you view this film and see what kind of behavior spurned such "Heroic Individualism" which in my opinion is crap served up as an appetizer. Does anyone actually believe that you have to love yourself before you can love others? True love is sacrifice of one's self at your own peril for the sake of others. Ayn Rand had none of the qualities to admire in a Heroic figure!

I want to believe...

[CommieTT · 6/10 · 15 April 2002]

This film depicts what I suspect Ayn Rand was really like in her personal life: bitter, angry, lacking in self-confidence and intensely concerned what people thought of her. This, of course, totally goes against what her philosophy and novels purport: objectivism.

But, since that philosophy is so anti-people, it is easy to understand why not even the person who formulated this outlandish theory -- nor her most ardent follower, Nathanial -- would be able to live up to it.

Near the end, Nathanial's wife, Barbara, contradicts Ayn by saying something like, "compassion: it's what humans do" to Ms. Rand. This, for me, neatly sums up what Ayn Rand's life was about: the antithesis of compassion.

Though the film itself is nothing spectacular in its acting, script, effects or direction, the message it puts forward is important. The message is that if a philosophy so much goes against what people feel to be correct (as objectivism does), it is quite probably unworkable and undesirable. To me, that was the most important theme in "The Passion of Ayn Rand."

My rating: 6

Tabloid Paper Like Biography of Ayn Rand

[ebiros2 · 3/10 · 28 December 2012]

It's obvious from the story that this is not an objective biography of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is portrayed like some kind of a sex maniac in this movie.

One thing is accurately portrayed, and that is that Ayn Rand couldn't live what she preached. Her objectivism fell apart in her personal life, and with the relationship with her husband. She was an author with an idea, but what good is an idea that you can't put to practice ? Ayn Rand's objectivism in this sense was a silly effort to intellectualize.

The movie focused excessively on Ayn Rand's personal life. She has done more in society than just live her life in the bedroom. Movie is not a good presentation of her life or her career in this sense.

The acting and the production was good in this movie, but the contents fell short of giving a balanced view of Ayn Rand's life.

Great performances, but...

[Qanqor · 7/10 · 26 September 2008]

I once had a music professor who, on assigning us a biography of Beethoven, commented thusly: the story of the life of a master is necessarily the story of what they were NOT master of. This perspective is particularly apropos to the The Passion Of Ayn Rand, both the film and the book.

The original book is actually a full biography of Ms. Rand, and includes the good, the bad, and the indifferent. Through it, one discovers and comes to know this remarkable woman, a brilliant mind who achieved so much against such long odds. Through it one also gets to see the dark side, when her fame and success ultimately brought her adulation and worship that, sadly, went to her head. Even her staunchest supporters must admit that she really went a bit loopy there after she made it big. Certainly any serious admirer of her philosophy (such as myself) is almost painfully struck by the ways she violated her own philosophy during this period. And this too is a fascinating insight and, to my mind at least, doesn't diminish her philosophy one bit.

The main difference, though, between the film and the book is that the movie doesn't have the time to tell Ayn's whole story, nor does it even attempt to. It is not surprising to find that it focuses exclusively on the sordid, albeit fascinating, romantic affairs that marked her relationship, and ultimate severance with Nathaniel Brandon. And granted, this certainly is one of the most, uh, *interesting* parts of her life. But the down side is that, by focusing exclusively on this part of her life, it really tends to show both the woman and her philosophy in a pretty poor light. This is really not a problem for those of us who already know her work and understand what Objectivism is really about, and for this audience, the movie is indeed a treat. The performances are excellent, especially Helen Mirren as Ms. Rand, and it really brings to life what the whole thing must've been like.

But one really does worry what the uninitiated come away thinking. Ayn really does come off like some cult-leader tyrant of some crack-pot philosophy. It's really not that the movie is trying to do a hatchet job on her, it's just that, because it doesn't have the time or interest to actually go into her philosophy, there's no way you could really figure out what Ms. Rand was really on about, from the few stray comments she makes out of context.

Mind you, some people who DO know her work still think she's a crack-pot. And that's fine, so be it. But I do encourage anyone who hasn't actually read Rand to do so and judge for themselves, rather than being negatively influenced by this film. I would recommend The Fountainhead as a good place to start (the novel, not the movie).

Too many inaccuracies

[robert3750 · 4/10 · 30 July 2019]

Helen Mirren gives a very skilled performance as Rand, but I couldn't get past the inaccuracies that are all too typical for Hollywood. Nathan did not have Barbara with him when he first met Rand. Rand wouldn't have danced in her house in California. She didn't learn to dance until many years later, in New York. The Collective grimly excommunicated people from the group who didn't think and feel as they "should" have. Why was Patrecia's name changed to Caroline? Barbara's book gives a much more complete picture of Ayn Rand and her philosophy than this dramatization. As for those who want to blast Barbara's book, Google The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism to see why he's guilty of the errors he accuses Barbara of.

Claustrophobic

[D.H. · 6/10 · 21 March 2000]

From the very beginning of The Passion of Ayn Rand there is a feeling that one is watching people fall down a well, one after the other without concern for their own well being - never mind others (that would altruistic and therefore, forbidden). Though the film is not without interest (and gratuitous Showtime-worthy sex scenes), one can't help but feel trapped by the one note tone of dominance and submission. When the credits roll, the viewer understands exactly how the Brandens' must have felt when they breathed sighs of relief after having freed themselves from the boorish Ayn Rand.

Rather disappointing

[williamhagerup · 3/10 · 1 February 2006]

This television film gives a very light handed treatment of a writer and thinker that has had a great influence on many people. Helen Mirren does, as always, a great performance, and the film is worth seeing for her only. I just get a funny feeling about somebody wanting to make such a short and rather mediocre piece of art, about an alleged affair that there to this day is bickering about whether happened at all. As I mentioned; the film is worth seeing for Helen Mirren, but otherwise I recommend Rand's writing, as time much better spent.

For those who still would like to see it, I believe it would be useful to know both sides to the conflict between the Nathaniel Branden camp and the Ayn Rand camp. I have not too much interest in this, but just knowing the basics, such as this film does not give you 100% proved facts of the matter, but an adapted presentation of one side of a deep conflict.

I think the film would be much improved by taking Branden's story into account and take the other point of view into account as well, and base the film on that. That way the film would at least be something more than a propaganda tool for the anti-Rand camp.

Ayn Rand revealed !

[angela-33 · 10/10 · 18 July 1999]

It's too bad this movie didn't show in theaters, because even though the story is true, it plays with all the drama and excitement of well-plotted fiction. For those who are not aware of the Ayn Rand mystique, she was a philosopher who presented her ideas in the form of novels, most notably, "Atlas Shrugged", "The Fountainhead" (also a movie with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal), and "We The Living". Her personal life held all the excitement of her novels. Her fight against the established Judeo/Christian ethics of mid-century America was highlighted by the ideological clashes among the intellectuals of her time. Her romance with a man 25 years her junior was an example of her fearless and innovative thinking. The movie begins with her introduction to the man who would become her lover, and it is the former wife of that man who has authored the book on which this film is based. So it is very up close and personal, leaving Ayn Rand's personality flaws glaring while her genius is underplayed. Helen Mirren does an outstanding job of portraying Miss Rand; she has copied the look and mannerisms and attitude of a unique individual, revealing the strength of character that drove this woman whose ideas radically changed our culture and still do.

Ya Had to be There; The Script Writer Wasn't.

[rajah524-3 · 7/10 · 5 May 2009]

But I was. So I'll try to offer some insights. Ayn was an idealistic absolutist. So was young Nathan Brandenburg (at the time). He grew out of it. Barb forgave him (sorta). Ayn was also a narcissist of the first order. She believed she knew the way things should be. When her staunchly anti-socialist books began to "fly" in the '40s (especially on college campuses), her certainty was fueled by a wildfire of intellectual acclaim.

Written decades after the events in the film here, Barb's book does a remarkable job of illustrating the popular force of Ayn's views in an essentially conservative era. That Rand's "idealistic capitalism" fell into disrepute in the flood of equally absolutistic, radical liberalism that overwhelmed the collegiate world in the late '60s is no surprise.

Ayn was gone when I came to know Nathan a decade later. Objectivism's time had not quite come and gone, but it was slipping. Nathan had -- to some extent -- rehabilitated it as "self-esteem," and the concept took off for a time. Until it, too, began to take a bashing from those who saw it without -really- seeing it.

Like so much of what springs forth from the idealistic impulse, objectivism, self-esteem and libertarianism are big concepts that are difficult to maintain in mental, emotional and behavioral grasp. Popular culture will only want as much of such idealism as suits its more mundane purposes. The ideas here that combined with others to become the "human potential movement" of the '60s and '70s were bound to be corrupted.

The import of Barbara's fine book is that it makes it clear that the idealist -is- human, and that he (and she) will corrupt their idealisms in the service of whatever narcissistic imperatives they may have. Ayn seduced Nathan to energize her to be able to complete the book. Nathan fell into his own human traps. But it does not mean that the enormous contributions they both made to the further development of self-understanding are any less worthwhile.

Unfortunately, the film does not live up to the book. Korder's and Gallegher's screenplay includes all the -facts- that matter, but the presentation of them is flat and, save for those of us who did have some personal connection (even if it's only having been bowled over by -Atlas Shrugged- or -The Fountainhead-), un-intriguing. Or maybe one should blame the director; save for the sex scenes (oddly) and Ayn's reaction to her protégé's replication of her own denied human needs, there's not a lot of "fire" here.

And that -is- sad to me. Because the human potential movement in general, and NBI in particular, -are- worth understanding, as much for their considerable contributions to our culture as for the -very- problematic circumstances surrounding many of its biggest "stars" (e.g.: L. Ron Hubbard, Jack Rosenberg a.k.a. Werner Erhard, Jose Silva).

The Nathaniel Branden I knew, by the way, had much of Ronald (R. D.) Laing's insight with a very patient and ethical persona. Which is to say that he understood what the "white collar gurus" of the time understood, but he wasn't into using it sociopathically. I'm not so sure, however, that I could say the same thing about some of the people close to him.

If you -are- a student (or former member) of the white collar "self-exteem" cults of the '70s and '80s (e.g.: est, The Forum, Silva Mind Control, psi), you may find "The Passion..." interesting for that reason.

This is crappy

[bastiaan_t · 1/10 · 25 January 2011]

Having read Atlas shrugged I do not consider the plot contained in this film to be possible to be based on truth. The woman is simply to brilliant to fall so low. The film is completely without meaning and I would like to argue it was made solely by opposers of rand's philosophy to discredit her. I'm not even kidding, I mean that exactly as I wrote it. It's completely obvious as she is displayed as a complete hypocrite to her own philosophy. Seem to preposterous to be true? That's a trick a lot of people use nowadays. The greater the lie the easier it is to cover up because nobody will believe it. Think 9/11. Every now and then a person comes out with something that is so good, bad people feel it poses a threat to them, so they pull these kind of stunts. They just can't face the contrast of the virtue and brilliance with their own depravity. As an example, on wikipedia it says Ayn Rand used to condemn homosexuality as being evil. That's like the oldest trick in the book next to accusation of racism. This film came out in 1999, more then 15 years after the death of Ayn Rand. If she were to be alive she would never have approved. This is so pathetic and it really makes me angry though maybe I shouldn't be because anyone worthy will feel the same as I do anyway.