Atlas Shrugged is Stalled


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sigh. Every time I look at Jodie Foster these days, I think, "No one -- but NO ONE -- else could possibly play Dagny Taggart as well as she could."

And Jolie -- never. :(

Judith

Have you seen Michael Clayton? I think that Tilda Swinton could make a good Dagny. Obviously she couldn't be creepy like her character in Michael Clayton, but I think she could pull off the gravitas and drive of Dagny.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see Jodie Foster as Dagny. Tilda Swinton - no. After seeing her in Michael Clayton... ewww... that was such a disgusting character. I know it was supposed to be a disgusting character, and she did a good job with the role, but I think people might remember that role and mistakenly see Dagny as a negative character because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen Michael Clayton? I think that Tilda Swinton could make a good Dagny. Obviously she couldn't be creepy like her character in Michael Clayton, but I think she could pull off the gravitas and drive of Dagny.

Haven't seen the film. I looked her up on the web, though, and saw that she played the White Witch in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" from a few years back, which I DID see. I certainly did notice her in that film. Didn't make me think of Dagny, but she's certainly a serious actress, and I'd much rather see her than Jolie in the role.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the problem Laure has, but with this director. I can't help but remember how putrescently awful "House of Sand and Fog" was, in plot (de)construction, in lack of plausible casting, in illogical character motivations — and I fear for what is being left out or traduced in this screenplay.

A movie of this book had Sterling Silliphant associated with it once, fergawdsake. Who merely won an Oscar for his screenplay for "In the Heat of the Night." To descend to a Vadim Perelman, who doesn't even have much affinity for the book, is a comparative nightmare.

Angelina Jolie strikes me, especially after "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," as bringing far more than enough of both brains and beauty to the role of Dagny. With the realities of star-driven financing, I'd say she's more than fans of Atlas have any right to hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Have to agree with Greybird: if Jolie ain't doin' it...no one is. --- I find her...believably adequate, at least.

~ Wishes for others instead are no more than moot...wishings. What other actress has otherwise shown more than casual interest, hmmm? 'Nuff's been said about varied wishings about 'The Perfect Actress' for Dagny at this point, methinks. It's Jolie (in our lifetime) or no one. --- At the rate this movie's been 'developing'...I'd say no one.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no hope for a director who doesn't think Atlas is great literature. Love Letters wasn't any great shakes as a novel, but Rand radically improved it. This guy isn't going to radically improve Atlas. I suspect it's going to be the equivalent of painting by the numbers. In any case, I don't think it's going to be made. It should have been made 20-40 years ago. Now it's completely out of its time. The Fountainhead would stand up better, except you can't make a movie with the hero blowing up buildings after 9/11 unless you are adressing a Muslim audience.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fountainhead would stand up better, except you can't make a movie with the hero blowing up buildings after 9/11 unless you are adressing a Muslim audience.

Brant,

Actually, that is one hell of an idea for dramatic contrast to highlight to different philosophical principles. In essence, Roark destroyed what he created because he wasn't paid. Suicide assassins destroy for other reasons. They want to conquer the individual will of everybody through fear and subjegate it to the rule of someone or something. And they lash out because they feel their tribe was attacked.

Blowing up a building is a rather emphatic concrete form for both messages.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fountainhead would stand up better, except you can't make a movie with the hero blowing up buildings after 9/11 unless you are adressing a Muslim audience.

Brant,

Actually, that is one hell of an idea for dramatic contrast to highlight to different philosophical principles. In essence, Roark destroyed what he created because he wasn't paid. Suicide assassins destroy for other reasons. They want to conquer the individual will of everybody through fear and subjegate it to the rule of someone or something. And they lash out because they feel their tribe was attacked.

Blowing up a building is a rather emphatic concrete form for both messages.

Michael

But crudely you'll end up sanctioning both. So, no.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

That was cute.

But of course I would not sanction both. I think it is wrong and senseless to blow up buildings out of spite. Not when you can blow up a whole city. What a waste!

More bang for your buck, as they say...

:)

Michael

This is interesting. I was just now poking around Wikipedia looking for an obscure film, One Summer Love, with Beau Bridges, when after jumping from link to link I came across Michael Cimino, whose career was defined by The Deer Hunter and Heaven's Gate. After the disaster of the latter he wrote 27 drafts of a screenplay for The Fountainhead, but because of Heaven's Gate it was a no-go.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ After seeing HEAVEN'S GATE, my impression of Cimino is that he gets really wrapped up in every 'tree' (scene), doing it well, but then can't edit himself to show 'the forest' (er, Big Picture, pardon the pun) within enough time for the audience to not fall asleep. --- As a comedian once said about a bad actor's movie, "No, it wasn't a bomb; bombs go off. This just went on, and on, and on..."

~ Cimino would make THE FOUNTAINHEAD a dry well no one would go back to.

~ However, generally, MSK's got a point about presenting bldg-blowups as having an honorable stature, 9-11 memories nwst; prob is: that'd have to be grafted into any re-make to explicate the difference 'twixt Roark and Bin Laden (regardless Roark was doing his own, and Binny does only everyone else's.)

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds pretty promising to me!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2487

Adam

I got some good chuckles thinking of Rand reading (and reacting to) the following from that interview:

Box Office Mojo: What makes Dagny a great character?

Michael Burns: She is strong and smart but [she's] also flawed; she's really stubborn, almost dogmatic at times, and, if you remember the book, she goes down hard. She really does everything she possibly can to save the railroad. She's got a brother who's a buffoon that's allegedly her boss, a sort of checkered life with lovers and an interesting dynamic with people who work for her and with her. She fights to the bitter end when the great minds of the world go on strike before she capitulates. That's a really interesting character.

Box Office Mojo: Do you see her as the main character?

Michael Burns: Certainly, in the first two acts of the movie, Dagny Taggart will be the lead and, in the end, that's who the audience is rooting for, so, if there were one lead, I think it would be Dagny. But there are other fantastic characters, [playboy] Francisco [d'Anconia] who basically fleeces all these people that he thinks have been taking advantage of society—obviously [industrialist] Henry Rearden, or Hank Rearden—and this great character, the pirate Ragnar [Danneskjold] and John Galt, who's sort of a tangential character in many ways, but certainly a central character.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds pretty promising to me!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2487

Adam

I got some good chuckles thinking of Rand reading (and reacting to) the following from that interview:

Box Office Mojo: What makes Dagny a great character?

Michael Burns: She is strong and smart but [she's] also flawed; she's really stubborn, almost dogmatic at times, and, if you remember the book, she goes down hard. She really does everything she possibly can to save the railroad. She's got a brother who's a buffoon that's allegedly her boss, a sort of checkered life with lovers and an interesting dynamic with people who work for her and with her. She fights to the bitter end when the great minds of the world go on strike before she capitulates. That's a really interesting character.

Box Office Mojo: Do you see her as the main character?

Michael Burns: Certainly, in the first two acts of the movie, Dagny Taggart will be the lead and, in the end, that's who the audience is rooting for, so, if there were one lead, I think it would be Dagny. But there are other fantastic characters, [playboy] Francisco [d'Anconia] who basically fleeces all these people that he thinks have been taking advantage of society—obviously [industrialist] Henry Rearden, or Hank Rearden—and this great character, the pirate Ragnar [Danneskjold] and John Galt, who's sort of a tangential character in many ways, but certainly a central character.

Alfonso

Alphonso, I was literally laughing out loud, but I enjoyed the way his mind worked particularly about future platforms before they really existed. Additionally he exhibits genuine conviction and he acts on it. My kind of man. Plus Ragnar has always been my favorite character and I hope he develops him because the love and tension between his course of action and most of the other characters is delicious. And I have always been basically an "outlaw type personality".

If I remember, you are in China doing business? If that is correct, could I ask you to take a cursory look for a Dr. Chou, he was a urologist and on the Chinese National Bridge Team, he was here in the United States in Queens County, NY City in the late 8o's [89-92 I think]. He was here on a $950,000 research grant with his wife [a party member] to shunt around lower spinal paralysis. Pretty smart guy. I lost track of him. I also seem to remember that his brother or brother in law was the head of the Pekin police. If that would be an imposition, forget I asked, lol. If I can return the favor, you need only ask.

I enjoy your observations.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Well, it's good that he's focusing on which 'character' should be prioritized in presentation, I guess. I also guess that he hasn't decided yet on whom to play up as The Icon representative (er, 'The Face') of AS.

~ I wonder if he sees the 'subject-matter' (you know: that 'intellectual' stuff grafted into the book?) as relevent? Eh-h, as long as everybody's photogenic in a known best-seller, what's that matter? Can't wait to hear how E! will cover this.

~ This does not bode well. I'm seeing, at best, a very Impressionistic (in the full 'ART' sense of the word) presentation of AS coming.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

BREAKING: Vadim Perelman Shrugs off 'Atlas'

by Kim Voynar

Jun 19, 2008

Cinematical

From the article:

Well, here's some news I've been hoping to write up for a long while now ... director Vadim Perelman has officially dropped the adaptation of Atlas Shrugged, which is presumably still set to star Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart. Perelman signed on to the project last September, and as recently as April ComingSoon.net reported that the project was still a go. It may or may not still be moving forward, but I have it from the most reliable source possible -- Perelman himself -- that it will not be going forward with him at the helm.

This ought to fan the grapeline flames for a few days in O-Land...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not surprised?

I will make a flat out statement: The novel -Atlas Shrugged- can not be reduced to a visual presentation of feasible length, it is too long and complicated. Further more the texture of the story is too embedded in world built around 1940, 1950 technology. If it is presented as it was written then you get a movie that resembles -Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow- except that it will be serious and not satire.

If perchance a motion picture (or mini-series) entitled -Atlas Shrugged- IS produced it will be so unlike its original namesake that those who enjoy and even cherish the real -Atlas Shrugged- will gnash their teeth and rend their garments.

I have a real live example of how an extensive and highly textured novel did not translate well. Contrast the motion picture trilogy entitled -Lord of the Rings- with the original novel. It was an entertaining motion picture and totally ignored the "back story" on which LOTR (the novel) was based, to wit the world created by Iluvatar (Tolkien's version of God) and the Valar. The nature and role of the Elves can not be understood or appreciated in the absence of the "back story". Peter Jackson gave it as good a shot as one can expect from a company that makes a movie which will return a profit. The end product was not a good adaptation of the originating novel. And LOTR did not have a problem with cultural artifacts. An audience can accept the premise as a kind of "fairy tale". -Atlas Shrugged- by its nature can not be so presented.

Let's face it. The folks in the U.S. are well beyond choo choo trains. They will not buy the notion that the entire system will collapse if a few hundred or a few thousand people (very talented people to be sure) take a hike. Our technology is driven by the work of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, and most of them are NOT at odds with the basic politics and economy of the country so they will NOT go on strike.

-Atlas Shrugged- the motion picture is doomed. It either will not be made, or if made, it will be an abomination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make a flat out statement: The novel -Atlas Shrugged- can not be reduced to a visual presentation of feasible length, it is too long and complicated. Further more the texture of the story is too embedded in world built around 1940, 1950 technology. If it is presented as it was written then you get a movie that resembles -Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow- except that it will be serious and not satire....

If perchance a motion picture (or mini-series) entitled -Atlas Shrugged- IS produced it will be so unlike its original namesake that those who enjoy and even cherish the real -Atlas Shrugged- will gnash their teeth and rend their garments. ...

-Atlas Shrugged- the motion picture is doomed. It either will not be made, or if made, it will be an abomination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The equivalent of every word of this could be -- and was -- said about the possibility of making a film from Gone With the Wind.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make a flat out statement: The novel -Atlas Shrugged- can not be reduced to a visual presentation of feasible length, it is too long and complicated. Further more the texture of the story is too embedded in world built around 1940, 1950 technology. If it is presented as it was written then you get a movie that resembles -Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow- except that it will be serious and not satire....

If perchance a motion picture (or mini-series) entitled -Atlas Shrugged- IS produced it will be so unlike its original namesake that those who enjoy and even cherish the real -Atlas Shrugged- will gnash their teeth and rend their garments. ...

-Atlas Shrugged- the motion picture is doomed. It either will not be made, or if made, it will be an abomination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The equivalent of every word of this could be -- and was -- said about the possibility of making a film from Gone With the Wind.

Barbara

Great answer, Barbara!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make a flat out statement: The novel -Atlas Shrugged- can not be reduced to a visual presentation of feasible length, it is too long and complicated. Further more the texture of the story is too embedded in world built around 1940, 1950 technology. If it is presented as it was written then you get a movie that resembles -Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow- except that it will be serious and not satire....

If perchance a motion picture (or mini-series) entitled -Atlas Shrugged- IS produced it will be so unlike its original namesake that those who enjoy and even cherish the real -Atlas Shrugged- will gnash their teeth and rend their garments. ...

-Atlas Shrugged- the motion picture is doomed. It either will not be made, or if made, it will be an abomination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The equivalent of every word of this could be -- and was -- said about the possibility of making a film from Gone With the Wind.

Barbara

Not true. GWTW does not have the philosophical complexity of AS. GWTW is told in terms of actions, feelings and emotions much more than ideas. GWTW is more historically oriented than philosophically oriented. By the way, Americans are so history challenged these days, GWTW might go completely over their heads. When the movie came out in 1936 the facts of the Civil War were generally well known to the broader public. The movie was made less than 80 years after the war and the effects of the war were deeply embedded in the daily life of Americans.

The two novels are not comparable, except maybe for page count.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about you pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now