User reviews

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.,

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought Helen Mirren, Eric Stoltz, and Julie Delpy did a great job, especially Helen Mirren, who can convey such shades of emotion so seemingly effortlessly. The movie held my attention because I kept wondering what she would do next, especially when she was seducing a much younger man.

Unfortunately, she failed to make us understand why Ayn Rand had such a hold on (some) people. I blame the script for this, I guess, but the writers may not have understood her success, such as it was, themselves. The places where we come closest to getting it are the scenes with Rand in front of large audiences, where she displays wit and aplomb. In the scenes where she is dominating a small group of regular disciples, it's hard for the viewer to understand what hold she had on them.

Other remarks: Julie Delpy's American accent wobbles occasionally, but Mirren's Russian accent is great. Peter Fonda is in this movie, which normally keeps me away, but his natural woodenness fits his character in this movie.

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.