The Fountainhead - King VidorBecause I so greatly admired the book as an enthralling, intellectual masterpiece, I was compelled to watch the 1949 film that's based on it. Afterall, the screenplay was written by the author herself. . so I figured they couldn't have butchered the story too severely. Well, Ayn Rand should have stuck to writing novels. Her attempt to adapt her own work into a cohesive and entertaining film fails on a number of levels. It is first and foremost a heavy-handed mess, lacking all the subtlety and grace of the book. It covers most of the necessary ground from the novel in broad strokes, but for some reason it takes care not to bring any of the heart or nuance of the story to the silver screen.
Gary Cooper, as Howard Roark ....is a reasonable substitute for the real thing. He has an inner strength and self-assured presence that belies his seeming reticence. Yet the appeal of Howard was somewhat lost on screen, probably because no actor actually possesses the qualities that make him so enigmatic. Then there's Patricia Neal who plays Dominique Francon. She is note-perfect as an unfeeling, self-loathing goddess who can't stand the existence of greatness in a world as average as our own. I didn't mention her in my review of the novel, but i'd be remiss not to in the review of the film...seeing as how the love story between her and Howard takes center stage here. It's obvious why they chose to play up the romantic elements of the novel, but their unfulfilled love simply added to the core of the story in the book, while here it basically comprises it.
I've already praised Ayn Rand's philosophical musings in my review of the novel, and her message is conveyed here enough times. Unfortunately, it's spouted with the bombast of a person who doesn't believe their own philosophy. That's probably not her fault, however. I personally blame the actor who played Ellsworth Toohey, Robert Douglas. He didn't understand his character in the slightest. He delivers his speeches with a pompous fervor and absolute disregard to the MEANING behind his words, creating a caricature of one of the more interesting villains in a famous piece of literature. Ontop of that, his role was somehow demoted to that of an ancillary character, and his intentions were never even remotely interesting, no matter how transparent they were from the beginning. This was certainly not the case in the expertly crafted novel. In fact, it seems that a lot of the book's integrity was lost in translation. The parallels between the plight of her character Gail Wynand and Ayn Rands screenplay adaptation cannot be more obvious. Many times it feels like she chose intellectual compromise in order to shorten the movie, to make certain characters more likable and certain themes more evident. This is almost patently offensive, considering how vehemently she denounced doing just that within her novel.
It definitely feels that, in adapting her own novel, Ayn Rand watered down her unique vision in order to appeal to the masses. I would find this amusing, if it didn't lessen my respect for the author considerably. If only she, like Howard Roark, would've taken matters into her own hands with her intellectual property. Maybe then she would have destroyed this film before it had the chance to desecrate the spirit of her incredible narrative.
Rating: D-
This music is something I made up really quickly when I realized I needed a song with my review. There was no memorable music in the film, believe me.