Not only do I have nothing against Jesus Christ or Ayn Rand, I once took one of those tests that is supposed to tell you what your religious and political beliefs are and was told that I belonged in the Quaker church and the Libertarian party. Of course I didn't join either organization, and though I have nothing against either founder, i do have my occasional beef with the way some of their followers make movies.
The other night I was invited to a preview of Atlas Shrugged, a film based on one of the most influential books of the 20th century and had many of the same feelings I had watching one of those Left Behind movies. Then again, at least with the Left Behind movies there were some recognizable actors, albeit TV ones like Kirk Cameron and his gorgeous wife. With Atlas, the only person I had a vague memory of seeing was an actor who played one of Jerry's neighbors on Seinfeld. Not that a movie can't stand on its own without an overpaid actor, mind you, but doesn't an important work like Atlas Shrugged deserve some great actors who are not just recognizable but really good at their craft? There once was a plan, I'm told, to make this one just such a movie, with Angelina Jolie playing the lead character, and a script written by Randall Wallace of Braveheart fame. But Jolie got pregnant and for some reason I can't fathom, they decided not to use Wallace's script.
I now have a better understanding as well of what it must be like for an atheist to watch deeply religious movies, because if you weren't already an Aynd Rand fan, the film was at times very difficult to follow. Fortunately I had my iPhone with me and was able to read Wikipedia entries on the book as I watched, but should I really have to do that? Then there were the numerous references to a sort of transactionalism that the book is famous for, but they kept coming to the point that I just wanted to stand up in the theater and yell "Ok, I got it the first time: people do things out of self-interest. I get it. I get it!"
Ideas come to us through movies, and the notion that the end of the world might be upon us and that we may be left behind because of our wrong choices or that we shouldn't rely on government are interesting ones that are fine to consider. But precisely because they're interesting and important, they deserve to be considered in the best possible light, via seasoned actors, producers and directors at the helm.
I admire anybody who makes a movie, and any movie that gets made is a minor miracle. But doesn't an important book like this deserve better? And at the end of the day, isn't Hollywood to blame for this mess, not a well-meaning financier who tried his darndest and should be honored for putting in yeomen's work?
Shouldn't some of the time, talent and treasure that went into making movies like The Pope Must Diet or Kinsey have been diverted into the making of Atlas Shrugged?
Follow Mark Joseph on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markmjm
John Wellington Ennis: With Release of Atlas Shrugged Movie, a Rise in Rand Rants on Reason
Also scrubbed clean was the backdrop of all this. The book showed us a grim twilight of America, where bitter and disenfranchised people shuffled through rainy grey streets, eyes downcast. That dismal mood was not here. The city, with its gleaming glass towers, clean sunny skies, and well dressed citizens made me feel this world was no worse off than the world of today. Any criticism on the low budget might be that this grimmer world was not portrayed- I didn't feel any "cheapness" otherwise. Critisisms of the direction are misplaced- it was competent. The true falure, I think is the screenwriter's tone-deafness to the character of the novel. Ultimately, I found the film to be bloodless and somewhat dull. I had hoped for more.
The movie leaves out much of the philosophical speeches and musings (mercifully, as this is probably not conducive to a good screenplay), and although the character's motivations are all perfectly revealed as the plot unfolds, perhaps because of that deletion, the passion seems to be stripped out of their actions. Rand was pretty good at combining a philosophical treatise with a Jackie Collins novel, and that aspect has been scrubbed clean from the story. The fact that the Taggerts, Eddie, and Fransisco all grew up together, and that dynamic ( Eddie is secretly in love with Dagny, for instance) was totally deleted.
All the illicit sex was removed (an editorial decision), but so was much of the emotion. The scene where Dagny trades her necklace for Hank's wife's bracelet was much more catty and emotional in the book. Both women realized they were transferring Hank , not just jewlery. Those who best portray their roles are the veteran charcter actors who play the crooked politicians.
(Continued)
Criminy. Don't you guys ever update your patter? I've been hearing this act for 55 years. And I'm only 41.
Taxes buy your roads. The top, very top, expenditures are Social Security (not part of the budget, but paid with taxes), Medicare and the military. Everything else so paltry it doesn't even bear discussion compared to those three items, one of which defends us all and two of which YOU WILL BE DRAWING ON.
Or are you going to donate your Social Security and forgo Medicare? Of course not. Don't tell me, you're justified in taking it because you paid into the system even if you disagree with it.
Hey, know what? My car was rummaged a few weeks ago. Whose car do I get to break into in return?
Why is it assumed that giving people money is better than giving people work?
Why is it assumed that producers would choose not to help the less fortunate?
Why is it assumed that producing something is inherently evil.
This country was built on freedom - not guilt.
It's not. No one says so except your straw men. Remind me again of how many people are being laid off by private industry right now?
"Why is it assumed that producers would choose not to help the less fortunate?"
It's not assumed. It's observed.
"Why is it assumed that producing something is inherently evil."
It's not. Only in Ayn Rand comic books do people say such a thing. Everyone, EVERYONE in government and industry is saying the same thing: "put America back to work, build the future, shovel-ready, incentivize small business, etc etc."
The problem with you guys is you're having this made up debate in your heads between people who want to stiffle innovation for its own sake and you, the brave heroic produces who have the courage to say A=A and live life as a man qua man whose life is oh my god it's coming out in buckets...wait...little headache here. Okay back on track.
Anyway, no one out here, not conservatives, not liberals, no one, is saying "lets stop all innovation and punish everyone's success." We're trying to figure out the best way to stimulate innovation and put people to productive work that they choose for themselves. EVERYONE WANTS THAT. We don't all agree on how to get there, but you are arguing with NO ONE.
Too true. Hence _Atlas Shrugged_ is tanking.
Sometimes you have to walk away from a project no matter how painful.. for your sake and the integrity of the project. Ask Terry Gilliam about Lost in La Mancha. He could have told him.
This apparently was always John Aglialoro personal dream more then it was making Rand's Atlas Shrugged a reality and actually doing it justice.
I hate the politics of Atlas Shrugged and the multiple page long monologues but overall I enjoyed the novel (backs away carefully in shame). Since the teabaggers embraced it as some manifesto it is hard to admit I once enjoyed it.
What I meant to stress the most is Agliloro became so obsessed with it he just couldn't admit it was a bad idea that was impossible to execute and should never see the light of day.
It is not observed. We are the most generous people in the world - but the government would rather demand we go through them to rather than churches or charities.
"Why is it assumed that producing something is inherently evil."
It's not. Only in Ayn Rand comic books do people say such a thing. Everyone, EVERYONE in government and industry is saying the same thing: "put America back to work, build the future, shovel-rea¬dy, incentiviz¬e small business, etc etc."
That is assumed on your part. You believe whatever the government spews out top you.
Not everyone wants that, but it is apparently fact to you. It is the government that stimulates innovation. They over regulate and over tax industries until it can no longer stay profitable. EPA, DOL, IRS, are not helping either. I am not sure why you believe government is the soultion. It is clearly the problem.
Can see why you like this site Shankel.
Good luck, but I wouldn't blame the movie on the actors. I read that book, and my eyes kept rolling so much that I kept losing my place.
That is my only defence, and I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
And a general lack of research on the Tragedy of the Commons.