Atlas Shrugged is Stalled

[Brant Gaede]

The novel GWTW was published in 1936. The movie came out in 1939. AS the movie should have come out in the early to mid 60s. Now there has been too much cultural drift apart. AS is not a novel about individualism but about top-down authority. The right top-down as opposed to the wrong. After the Vietnam War Americans became more and more alienated from authority. Many Objectivists became libertarians. Rand and the orthodoxy didn't change. They floated away into the clouds. The cross-over year was 1968, for both Americans generally and Objectivists (because of The Break). Quite a coincidence. It was something you could almost feel in your body.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Atlas Shrugged is going to be easier to film, not more difficult, than Gone With the Wind.

All right, maybe that's a bit exaggerated...

What I mean is that GWTW is an episodic story kind of like a soap opera. AS is episodic, but it has a well-defined theme driving the episodes—one that can instruct all kinds of decisions, including things like lighting, music and scenery. If the right director is doing it, he will see this and tie it all together. It's easier when you have the theme defined, not harder. And the aesthetic punch is powerful when things complement each other.

I have no knowledge about why Perelman bowed out, but I would wager that a different world-view was somewhere on the scale. From what I perceived, he was not chosen on the basis of his sense of life, but on the basis of having a similar personal history to Rand (immigrant from oppressive country, etc.). Since his sense of life clashes with Rand's (and I think it does based on the reviews of his films I have read), he was a wrong choice as a director and it is better to deal with this now instead of later.

For the naysayers, I say you are full of baloney. I say follow the money. When money only from one dedicated idealist is on the table, you can string things along like has been done. The moment some heavy-hitters start putting some heavy cash in, they want it back with profit.

They are not... er... altruistic toward Rand or anyone, meaning they will not leave tons of their own money lying around out of a sense duty to some philosophical message or artistic ideal. They are... (God, I can't say this without laughing because it is sooooooo obvious to all but certain people in the Objectivist world)... CAPITALISTS!

Michael

[Dragonfly]

We'll never see that movie.

[Greybird]

At least we won't see what Vadim Perelman would have done to butcher it. After wasting two hours of my life energy on "House of Sand and Fog" — a putrescent, plot-potholed, postmodernist mess — I feared he would shred anything of dramatic or philosophic value left in an unavoidably truncated screenplay.

We can't assume that this has no commercial potential, though.

"Forget it, Louis. No Civil War picture ever made a nickel."

— MGM head of production Irving Thalberg to president Louis B. Mayer, Fall 1936

Despite the industry disdain for a long behemoth of a novel, David Selznick plunged in and bought the Wind movie rights. Ironically, he lacked enough capital to get it finished, so MGM infused cash and distributed it.

Still, that whole development process took three years, from bestselling book release to Atlanta film premiere. Atlas has been a possibility in play for eleven times as long, since Albert Ruddy's first attempt in 1974. I wouldn't put anything on hold for this one.

[BaalChatzaf]

What I mean is that GWTW is an episodic story kind of like a soap opera. AS is episodic, but it has a well-defined theme driving the episodes—one that can instruct all kinds of decisions, including things like lighting, music and scenery. If the right director is doing it, he will see this and tie it all together. It's easier when you have the theme defined, not harder. And the aesthetic punch is powerful when things complement each other.

Fiddle dee dee!

AS may be episodic, but it is first and foremost a novel about -ideas-. It is the clash of -ideas- that is the real action of the novel. This is not the case with GWTW. GWTW is about people, their doings and (above all) their feelings shown in the context of the American Civil War. The main triumph GWTW, the movie, is the burning of Atlanta and Rhett telling Scarlet to go f**k herself (in effect). GWTW was conceptually easy to make, but it required a lot of money to give it the epic scope of the novel. The motion picture industry had done that before and successfully. What about -Birth of a Nation-? Or the first and second -Ten Commandments-. The motion picture industry is about FX and kinetic frenetics, not about ideas. Motion pictures have to -move-!

Now I ask you, how does a -motion picture- encapsulate a novel whose high points are not battles, not cataclysms but lectures and speeches? The pivot points of AS are lectures coming out of the mouth of Francisco, Ragnar and John Galt. If the movie leaves these out, it fails to capture the novel. If the movie leaves these in it will put the audience to sleep. The closest to an Epic Scene that the movie version of AS could produce is the power failure of New York City. Been there. Done that. Just look at the old T.V. clips from 1965. You don't need Angelina Jolie for that. The closest thing to the John Galt Line, that such a movie could present is a magnetic levitation railroad to Ellis Wyatt's energy producing complex. And it shouldn't be just oil either. Ellis Wyatt should be making energy using a controlled fusion reactor machine. Now THAT might keep the audience awake. In that case the movie AS is more like science fiction (that is a good place for FX). Think of -Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow-. By the way, Angelina Jolie was in that movie.

It turns out there was a movie in which a Bright New World was built by Men of the Mind. It was -Things to Come- released in 1936 (I was an infant then), based on the novel by H.G.Wells. It even has altruists and reactionaries destroying technology. I think the movie-fication of the Wells novel was as good as gets in capturing a novel based on ideas. Back in 1936 the public was much more open to Gee Whiz extraveganzas. The current public has been thoroughly jaded by -Star Wars- and such like FX loaded entertainment. If AS is treated like science fiction (in particular alternate history time line scFi) it just might fly as a movie. Think about that.

Once again, I say, if the thing is made, you will not like it. It will fail to convey the novel -as it was written-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 23, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Your desire to not see the movie made ever is showing.

Unfortunately reality is not going to accomodate you. The money men are now in.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Your desire to not see the movie made ever is showing.

Unfortunately reality is not going to accomodate you. The money men are now in.

Michael

We shall see. In a way I hope they make the movie. It will be an abomination and I will enjoy seeing you react to it. The I will say (with glee) "toldya so!".

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The I will say (with glee) "toldya so!".

Bob,

I didn't want to say your glee was showing just out of politeness, but since it comes from the horse's mouth...

Michael

[Rodney]

The main thing to preserve in an Ayn Rand novel is what she called the "plot-theme." The intellectual theme of ATLAS SHRUGGED is, as we know, "the role of the mind in man's existence." The plot-theme is the portrayal of the consequences of the withdrawal of the men of the mind against an irrational moral code.

With these elements in mind, it is possible to scale down, trim characters and events, and make the necessary adjustments that flow from these changes and from the fact that movies are a different medium. Ayn Rand was well aware of these problems.

Whether the finished movie would be a success depends upon a lot of things. THE FOUNTAINHEAD was only mildly successful, in my opinion, but this is not because of Ayn Rand's approach to writing her novels. It may be in part the nature of the adaptation done by her, the delivery of the lines by the actors, etc.--it was certainly not because of the intellectual aspect of the novel upon which it was based and the fact that the ideas are often explicitly referenced in the dialog.

There is no conflict between intellectuality and drama. Also, one may observe that the most mundane events can become charged with psychic impact when there is a moral issue at stake. I remember a long time ago seeing a movie in which the climax consisted of the villain opening a door and being confronted with a snarling dog with hatred in its heart. This scene packed the punch of a sledgehammer. Yet the audience knew about the existence of the dog, and that it was logical the dog should be there just then. But by that point in the film, we had forgotten all about the dog.

Edited June 26, 2008 by ashleyparkerangel

[algernonsidney]

I want to see Atlas Shrugged made into a movie. I also want to see it done right. A bad movie would be worse than none.

I definitely think it will be made.

We are more likely to see a bootlegged version of it. I personally would have no objection to this whatsoever. If they respect the novel, I will cheer on anyone who does it. Rand is dead, so it isn't going to take any money from her pocket anyway.

The movie does not need someone like Angelina Jolie to be a hit. You could find someone who could do just as well in the major roles for $5000 or $10000. I know people who could do these roles. The most important thing is that you get people who truly respect the novel.

Ayn Rand fans are going to see this movie no matter who the cast is. Such a movie also wouldn't require a lot of advertising either. Again, Rand fans would be the best advertising.

When do the rights go public? The day that all of Rand's material is in the public domain will be a great day in the history of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff and his leeches will finally have to fend for themselves.

[Mindy Newton]

I want to see Atlas Shrugged made into a movie. I also want to see it done right. A bad movie would be worse than none.

I definitely think it will be made.

We are more likely to see a bootlegged version of it. I personally would have no objection to this whatsoever. If they respect the novel, I will cheer on anyone who does it. Rand is dead, so it isn't going to take any money from her pocket anyway.

The movie does not need someone like Angelina Jolie to be a hit. You could find someone who could do just as well in the major roles for $5000 or $10000. I know people who could do these roles. The most important thing is that you get people who truly respect the novel.

Ayn Rand fans are going to see this movie no matter who the cast is. Such a movie also wouldn't require a lot of advertising either. Again, Rand fans would be the best advertising.

When do the rights go public? The day that all of Rand's material is in the public domain will be a great day in the history of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff and his leeches will finally have to fend for themselves.

Do you have any ideas as to modifications of the story to bring it down to movie-length? My husband and I talk about this once in a while. One is to collapse Francisco and Galt. They are the same person. When Francisco turns playboy, he is doing the shrugging, and he is recruiting others, etc. Since he knows Eddie, he can be an unidentified friend Eddie meets for coffee, and those expositions can remain in. Otherwise, the story is chiefly the story of Reardon Metal. What do you thing?

= Mindy

[Neil Parille]

I don't think it will ever be made into a movie.

-NEIL

____

[Mindy Newton]

I don't think it will ever be made into a movie.

-NEIL

____

Why not?

= Mindy

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't think it will ever be made into a movie.

-NEIL

____

Why not?

= Mindy

The novel is too complicated to be captured by a reasonably sized motion picture. Perhaps a T.V. mini-series, but not a motion picture. Also the ambiance of the novel is 1940s to mid 1950s. This is way too dated for a contemporary audience. Our society is totally computer oriented. Computers were never once mentioned in -AS-. And trains!!??? That is so retro. There are very few cross country trains now. Almost all rail traffic is either freight or commuter rail.

Also the premise has become outmoded. Our society (in the short and medium run) does not depend on a few (or hundreds) of original and independent thinkers. There are millions of them out there and the chance of a general strike of brain-folk is infinitesimal. As long as our society remains semi-free it will run. It will run on only three cylinders, perhaps, but it will run.

And where will Galt's Gulch be hidden? Current satellite technology would reveal its location in a day. A temperature refractor (the disguising mechanism used in the novel) will not block infra-red or high frequency electromagnetic emissions. The Strikers would have to live in caves, like the al Queda folk do in Tora Bora.

Here is the long and skinny; the internet and other computer networks is a safe home for original people. Ideas will be disseminated. The government cannot stop it. Right now there is too much original thinking going on for our society to collapse for lack of ideas. The only thing that can bring us down is either a general and destructive war or a total government tyranny. The first is possible and the latter is unlikely. Americans do not like to be pushed around. That is why the fascism of our government is "friendly fascism" or "fascism with a smile". There is also no room for a corrupt labor leader to have much influence in tyrannizing the country. Labor unions now represent less then 20 percent of the working folk.

Shall I go on?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Mindy; I am beginning to come to think Atlas will not get made. I had fairly high hopes after I attended the 50th anniversary of the book but it just doesn't seem to jelling. The removal of the director was the worst sign.

[algernonsidney]

Do you have any ideas as to modifications of the story to bring it down to movie-length? My husband and I talk about this once in a while. One is to collapse Francisco and Galt. They are the same person. When Francisco turns playboy, he is doing the shrugging, and he is recruiting others, etc. Since he knows Eddie, he can be an unidentified friend Eddie meets for coffee, and those expositions can remain in. Otherwise, the story is chiefly the story of Reardon Metal. What do you thing?

= Mindy

If any of these modifications are made, I hope the movie is never made. If it becomes a movie, I want it done right by people who actually respect the novel. If you respect the novel, you aren't going to collapse Francisco and Galt. I think such a movie would be a complete abomination.

If that means breaking it up into several movies, then go right ahead. I want the movie done properly.

As Bob Evans used to say: "Down on the farm, we do it right. Or we don't do it."

[Greybird]

[...] The movie does not need someone like Angelina Jolie to be a hit.

Unfortunately, with the star-driven system that has come to pass in the last fifty years, after the demise of the studio system, it needs someone like her to get financed.

When do the rights go public? The day that all of Rand's material is in the public domain will be a great day in the history of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff and his leeches will finally have to fend for themselves.

For Atlas, 2052. For all her work, through "The Ayn Rand Letter," 2071.

The leeches of all kinds will probably yet again manage to extend the copyright periods, by buying off Congress, for such pre-1978 works. (It's now 95 years after publication or, if not published, copyright registration.) On the other hand, digital technology may have made copyright entirely moot long before then.

[Roger Bissell]

What I think, Mindy, is that some talented, Objectivism-sympathetic novelist should write a novel based on the ~theme~ and the ~plot-theme~ of Atlas Shrugged, but changing the concrete events and characters so as to fit a present-day setting. The Internet should play a central part in the conflict. And transportation and metals should probably ~not~ be among the industries focused on (for the Dagny and Hank characters). The novel could even be called The Strike (Rand's original title for Atlas).

I agree that anything approaching an adequate presentation of Atlas would be impossible to cram into a 2-3 hour movie. It would be horrendously truncated to the point of unrecognizability. Perhaps a mini-series would work. That's why I favor moving on and coming up with something new to promote the philosophy -- whether a new novel/screenplay or a tv series. But I have no idea whom to approach for writing it.

REB

[sbeaulieu]

Granted that times have changed, I would still like to see Atlas Shrugged be true to the book, and in the past setting. It would be a snapshot of that period and what those people had to deal with - a great historical epic. We might learn more from it than a present day setting.

~ Shane

[algernonsidney]

Also the ambiance of the novel is 1940s to mid 1950s. This is way too dated for a contemporary audience. Our society is totally computer oriented. Computers were never once mentioned in -AS-. And trains!!??? That is so retro. There are very few cross country trains now. Almost all rail traffic is either freight or commuter rail.

Also the premise has become outmoded. Our society (in the short and medium run) does not depend on a few (or hundreds) of original and independent thinkers. There are millions of them out there and the chance of a general strike of brain-folk is infinitesimal. As long as our society remains semi-free it will run. It will run on only three cylinders, perhaps, but it will run.

Please don't go on. This is perhaps the lamest excuse for not making it into a movie.

How about all those people who went to see Russell Crowe in Gladiator? That movie was a lot more dated.

How about all these people who still watch movies like The Sound of Music and Gone with the Wind?

"Dated" movies come out all the time. People watch them.

[algernonsidney]

Unfortunately, with the star-driven system that has come to pass in the last fifty years, after the demise of the studio system, it needs someone like her to get financed.

That's a ridiculous comment. You are saying that it needs to be made more expensive to get financing. Are you also going to say that it will get more financing if they spend more money on special effects? Maybe they should also buy really expensive cameras, too?

The star-driven system is falling apart. Lots of people own cameras and make their own movies. Kevin Smith made Clerks for $25,000 and made the second movie for only three million. I think Atlas Shrugged could be done right for as little as $500,000.

The leeches of all kinds will probably yet again manage to extend the copyright periods, by buying off Congress, for such pre-1978 works. (It's now 95 years after publication or, if not published, copyright registration.) On the other hand, digital technology may have made copyright entirely moot long before then.

Fortunately, Sonny Bono is dead now. I'll bet anything that Disney will be lobbying for it again. But it only applies to the USA. Disney isn't going to bribe every legislature all over the world.

Atlas Shrugged will definitely be made into a movie. It will get to the screen as a bootleg.

That's why Piekoff sold off the rights. He knew that those rights would eventually be worthless and that he could get somebody to buy them. He cashed out.

Next thing you know, Piekoff will be digging up the bones from Ayn Rand's grave and selling them on Ebay. He'll do anything to make a dollar off stuff he didn't produce, since he's totally incapable of producing anything himself.

[Brant Gaede]

Next thing you know, Piekoff will be digging up the bones from Ayn Rand's grave and selling them on Ebay. He'll do anything to make a dollar off stuff he didn't produce, since he's totally incapable of producing anything himself.

This is blatantly untrue.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know about as much as everyone else, but the last I read on this, the money people in the movie continue to be committed and so is Angelina. They are probably seeking a new director right now.

Michael

[Greybird]

Unfortunately, with the star-driven system that has come to pass in the last fifty years, after the demise of the studio system, it needs someone like her to get financed.

That's a ridiculous comment. You are saying that it needs to be made more expensive to get financing. Are you also going to say that it will get more financing if they spend more money on special effects? Maybe they should also buy really expensive cameras, too?

The star-driven system is falling apart. Lots of people own cameras and make their own movies. Kevin Smith made Clerks for $25,000 and made the second movie for only three million. I think Atlas Shrugged could be done right for as little as $500,000.

Well, then, you're changing the context, I'd say. From "making a film for mass release within the worldwide theater-distribution networks" to "making a film, period."

The national and international distribution organizations, working with theaters / cinemas of mass audiences, have been using and demanding star-driven product for fifty years. It's a closed system. Stars have become necessary to attract massive capital (except for some genre works, on rare occasion), huge audiences and video sales are required to provide it, and those audiences generally want to see established stars.

It used to be a system owned by the Hollywood studios, but that was pried open in two stages. The studios sold their domestic theaters before 1950 to settle antitrust threats, and the more fluid and prospering markets abroad ended up separating distribution from studio control by the 1980s.

If you're going to have a film within this system, using the latest and greatest techniques on the technical side, then, yes, you need an Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt. Otherwise, partnerships and stockholders aren't going to take the risk of providing the capital.

That's not the only system, by any means. The entire "indy" system has its own theaters, but only in the larger cities that can support them. Those filmmakers work through major film festivals and other routes to critical cachet and recognition, hoping that the larger distributors will take up what they create. It rarely happens, but often enough to keep them hopeful. (Such as with "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life.")

A third system has sprung up to feed pay cable, with HBO and Showtime being the main players, garnering awards and attention. That doesn't involve box office returns, and it has entertainment conglomerates backing them up and backstopping costs. (Such as with "The Passion of Ayn Rand.")

A fourth route, with distribution solely via the Net, is still in embryonic stages, YouTube notwithstanding. It's far from settled how an audience will be found that will pay for seeing such works.

If you're saying that you want a movie made in any way possible, then of course it could take any of the three major routes.

It's too late for that, though. The decision has been made. Peikoff has already been paid millions for the full film rights to Atlas. They've been traded to yet other parties by now, and currently are with Lions Gate, a major (if second-tier) producer.

The only way to recoup that sunk investment is to have the result go into the large-scale distribution network in theaters. And for that, either stars glom onto the project — whether in performing, directing, writing, producing, or all of these — and stay with it, or it doesn't get made.

[Barbara Branden]

Ashley: "The main thing to preserve in an Ayn Rand novel is what she called the "plot-theme." The intellectual theme of ATLAS SHRUGGED is, as we know, "the role of the mind in man's existence." The plot-theme is the portrayal of the consequences of the withdrawal of the men of the mind against an irrational moral code.

"With these elements in mind, it is possible to scale down, trim characters and events, and make the necessary adjustments that flow from these changes and from the fact that movies are a different medium."

I agree with you. Many people have said that Atlas is too complex, too long, too intellectual to be made into a movie, but I've long been convinced that such a view comes from a failure fully to understand the movie medium on the one hand and the function of a plot-theme on the other. Certainly Rand thought her book could be made into a movie or a television miniseries without damage to its story, characters, or ideas. It's the plot-theme that has to guide the script writer; it must be the final court of appeals on what can be cut, what can be changed, what events and/or characters can be telescoped, what can be added, etc. (I once suggested -- to hoots and hollers of heresy -- that in the movie, Rearden and Francisco could become a single character. I still maintain that it could -- and perhaps should -- be done, done effectively and without violence to the plot-theme. )

Barbara