"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Jerry Biggers]

But, wait a minute!

Haven't "we" (Rand fans) been down this road before? I don't think her admirers fled, en masse, after the movie version of The Fountainhead was released. And in the case of that movie, according to Barbara Branden's biography, Ayn Rand was both the scriptwriter ("My script was shot exactly as I wrote it." although she later regretted it, due to its brevity and additional cuts [p. 211-12]) and (p. 209) essentially directed Gary Cooper in his delivery of Roark's trial speech. Although the movie opened to mostly scathing reviews, Rand responded in a letter printed in The New York Times, that Warner Brothers gave "...a great demonstration of courage and consistency: they have produced the most faithful adaptation of a novel to ever appear on screen."

Apparently, Rand still had fans around when her next novel, Atlas Shrugged, was published in 1957. So, if "we" survived a so-so version of The Fountainhead, "we" will still be around even if the movie is less than successful (and that is yet to be determined).

[CNA]

I do not want people to look at the film and decide that Atlas Shrugged is a novel about people doing lots of weird stuff that makes no sense. How is that going to help Objectivism?

I don't think it is going to help at all. Being dishonest doesn't help in the least bit. It only makes the situation worse and you have more to lose with evasion and denial and trying to make something into what it's not. Honesty is where it is at, brutally honest, and will only help you and benefit you in the long run.

Not everyone is going to be happy with the movie and there will be those that are completely happy with it. Again, I hope the ones that did not like it is a very very small group and it does extremely well. Perhaps my taste in movies is not similar to others. But my issue is this not only did I not like the movie but others were making similar comments underneath their breath of their disappointment and so forth. I went into the bathroom after the showing and there were two women in the bathroom that were talking about the movie and expressing the same unhappiness that I had. One person, I don't know who the person is, who was sitting relatively close to me said after the movie was over -- they stood up and looked over at me and said with a look of concern on his face, "This ain't it." This is what I am talking about and people expressing such comments underneath the breathe and their disappointment in ways that speaks volumes but not speaking up and saying, hey, you guys, I didn't like it because of such and such reason. I was asked point blank right afterwards when standing up to leave of, "What did you think?" I'm not going to lie and I said, "No. I didn't like it."

Anyway, honesty is where it is at but it seems those that do not carry a favorable review and what I heard coming from some people that may be connected with various groups and so forth are not coming out publicly and saying anything. But anyway...

I haven't stayed up on all the reviews that are coming out but what I have been told is there's not many O'ists that are expressing their dislike but I'm basing this on what I've been told as I've distanced myself from all of this quite a bit. I don't have much of an interest in non-O'ist views right now because even if the movie was a blockbuster and one of the greatest movies released they will hate it because of what it represents. There is one person who is an O'ist that I know who saw the movie before I did who holds a far worse opinion than I do but has refused to publicly speak about the movie which I completely understand where he is coming from and protecting that which they value and I won't say anymore.

Angie

Angie,

Your comments are fascinating—not only regarding the movie itself but the attitude of fear which you personally witnessed: Objectivists are afraid to speak up and criticize the film. You would expect that coming form the ARI crowd—if Peikoff had orchestrated the thing and was brandishing his Don Quixote sword--but this pressure to either praise the film or shut up is emanating from the so-called “tolerant” wing of Objectivism.

Astonishing, in a way. I cannot thank you enough for your candor.

Dennis

You're welcome, Dennis. I'm not a bit surprised though either way from ARI or other groups. It's been well documented and all the "blow ups" if you will and honestly I have no desire to be associated with groups such as that. I have good friends without a doubt who are O'ists but I don't label myself as being with this group or that group. But it obviously is having some impact on some not wanting to come forward. In my case, I have no associations with either side if you will nor do I fear reprisal for being honest and my being disappointed and expressing it publicly. Perhaps my knowing the book so well and love of Rand that my expectations were too high in what I know the potential outcome of the movie could be. Honestly, I doubt very seriously that any adaptation would do the book justice and capturing all of its glory. It just needs to be presented in such a way to bring more awareness and to bring in more that are interested in the philosophy and helping to name their values that they've been living by but unable to name thus far what they are and this is the goal. But as you, after what I saw, I definitely have legitimate concerns that it may be more off-putting and a turn off to those new to the philosophy; ie, more damage done than good. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer or what have you stating somewhere to read the book after viewing the film as the movie doesn't do enough justice and showcasing how beautiful the philosophy is.

[Dennis Hardin]

But, wait a minute!

Haven't "we" (Rand fans) been down this road before? I don't think her admirers fled, en masse, after the movie version of The Fountainhead was released. And in the case of that movie, according to Barbara Branden's biography, Ayn Rand was both the scriptwriter ("My script was shot exactly as I wrote it." although she later regretted it, due to its brevity and additional cuts [p. 211-12]) and (p. 209) essentially directed Gary Cooper in his delivery of Roark's trial speech. Although the movie opened to mostly scathing reviews, Rand responded in a letter printed in The New York Times, that Warner Brothers gave "...a great demonstration of courage and consistency: they have produced the most faithful adaptation of a novel to ever appear on screen."

Apparently, Rand still had fans around when her next novel, Atlas Shrugged, was published in 1957. So, if "we" survived a so-so version of The Fountainhead, "we" will still be around even if the movie is less than successful (and that is yet to be determined).

Jerry,

I'm not concerned that Rand fans will flee. I'm concerned that those who have never read Atlas Shrugged will have even less incentive to do so if the film misrepresents her ideas--or makes her philosophy look bizarre and incomprehensible. Or worse, if the film becomes a laughable travesty comparable to Showgirls.

Take a look at this allegedly 'positive' review by Matt Welch of reason.com:

My five-word movie review as someone who hasn't read the book is that lovers, haters will both enjoy (for different reasons, obviously). You cared about the story and the protagonists, the look and sound were mostly (and surprisingly) handsome, Dagny in particular and Hank were good, and there are some pretty awesome capitalism, bitches!-style moments. Felt a bit like they were speeding through the material, and so characters (and ever-present cable news shows that cared deeply about the construction of rail lines) did a lot of heavy expositional lifting that didn't much resemble dialogue or news broadcasts. The bad guys sometimes seemed cartoonishly venal rather than arriving at their badness through some sort of logic. I didn't really understand why Dagny put up with her no-good brother for even one second.

[CNA]

But, wait a minute!

Haven't "we" (Rand fans) been down this road before? I don't think her admirers fled, en masse, after the movie version of The Fountainhead was released. And in the case of that movie, according to Barbara Branden's biography, Ayn Rand was both the scriptwriter ("My script was shot exactly as I wrote it." although she later regretted it, due to its brevity and additional cuts [p. 211-12]) and (p. 209) essentially directed Gary Cooper in his delivery of Roark's trial speech. Although the movie opened to mostly scathing reviews, Rand responded in a letter printed in The New York Times, that Warner Brothers gave "...a great demonstration of courage and consistency: they have produced the most faithful adaptation of a novel to ever appear on screen."

Apparently, Rand still had fans around when her next novel, Atlas Shrugged, was published in 1957. So, if "we" survived a so-so version of The Fountainhead, "we" will still be around even if the movie is less than successful (and that is yet to be determined).

Jerry,

I'm not expecting a mass exodus of those that "already" admire Rand because of the movie. Far from it. We will always be here and will survive. What I am saying is will this movie the way it is presented do more damage in bringing in new people to the philosophy as I stated a bit earlier to Dennis. The base foundation of the philosophy is present in the movie and I can't deny this. But, there are many issues with the movie and will this ultimately turn off those that are new. Unfortunately, after viewing what I did, I don't have a desire to see Part 2. If I am asked by someone new to the philosophy which I've been talking with a friend of mine that is not aware of the philosophy and he asked about the movie and I told him to please read the book first before seeing the movie as I don't think the movie does adequate justice to the philosophy. I don't want the movie to fill his head with potential misconceptions and misunderstandings and present confusion. As I've stated in earlier posts, the potential for confusion to a new viewer is definitely there because of how difficult and choppy the movie can be, how abrupt and no lead ins, etc., to help "build" it up enough to make it cohesive enough and putting it together to make enough intellectual sense rather than a bunch of people doing weird things.

In what I'm understanding of your post, you are strictly speaking of those who are already "in" the philosophy. I'm not speaking of those already in the philosophy but those potential new people who may be brought in and bringing that much more awareness to it. The movie will no doubt spark interest and making enough sense to some on different levels and their potentially wanting to pursue it but will it be enough of a blockbuster so to speak to get massive coverage and interest and really making an impact? I don't know at this point. It may very well but it may not. After what I saw, my hopes for it have been diminished because of it.

Angie

[Selene]

I can only share the following, I saw the Fountainhead as a movie, before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. I was quite young probably about 13 or so. I loved the movie for a number of reasons:

1) I was a Gary Cooper fanatic having seen High Noon when I was about 8 or 9 with my parents;

2) the concepts in the Fountainhead - the individual's struggle against the crowd, the pride in one's own ideas, the comittment to fight for what you knew was right and the peace that comes with the realization that you are the only person who is responsible for your decisions spoke dramatically to me.; and

3) the fact that I had parents who taught me to question and to think for myself.

I did not read the Fountainhead until after I read Atlas.

Film is a perfect medium to reach the masses in today's US society.

If you have a friend who is a reader, like I would imagine Angie's friend is, then it is smart to recommend the book.

However, most of America's young folks are not readers, sad to say. Therefore, this is the perfect medium for Ayn's ideas to make their new penetration into the culture.

Additionally, the timing is perfect. Take a look at the US. People know at a gut level what is wrong. This gives them the skeletal framework for further investigation.

I am doing what I do with Atlas. As soon as I find out where the damn film is going to be shown, I am sending tickets to the folks who have not read the books, but are interested in what I have been saying about them. The deal is, that if they like the film, they will give two (2) tickets to two (2) friends with the same agreement.

My method has worked well for forty (40) years with spreading the book to folks and I see no reason why the film will not work with the current population that is more visually medium oriented.

Another reason to get folks into the theater, rather than the DVD at home type of viewing, is what Marshal McLuhan noted about the darkened movie theater individualizing the visual experience and the openness to persuasion. Even though you are in a "crowd," your attention is individualized to a great degree and your distraction quotient is virtually zero. Your vision is telescoped to the screen and the persuasion level increases dramatically.

Take a look at Triumph of the Will and the darkened night meetings in Germany.

Adam

I know the film is going to work exceptionally well in spreading the ideas

Edited February 28, 2011 by Selene

[Jerry Biggers]

Dennis, Angie:

Unfortunately, I was rushed when I made that post regarding the The Fountainhead movie, and did not finish my line of thought. You are both right, those already convinced of the worth of Rand's philosophy will not walk away from Objectivism after seeing the Atlas Shrugged-Part One movie, even if they find that the movie did not live up to the book or meet their expectations, anymore than did fans of The Fountainhead.

That was one point that I was trying to make, but the real question is what effect the movie will have on those who have not read the book. Angie, you have the advantage that you have seen the movie and can report on your own conclusions and on those of others who were at the screening. It is quite obvious from your very interesting postings that you are quite concerned about what you saw as deviations from the book's message, and of the method that the producers used to present the story line where they have changed the flow from the book's narrative by pasting together some scenes that are not in Part One of the book. These appear to me to be legitimate concerns, but I do not know how many more who saw the movie share your concerns (and. of course, other viewers could completely disagree with you and yet your conclusions could still be right). Since I have not seen the movie yet, I can only note your concerns and revisit them after I have seen it.

To make an analogy to The Fountainhead movie, some who have seen it consider it to be awful. I, on the other hand, generally like the movie and consider it to be a rough approximation of the essence of the novel, while noting some of its various shortcomings. Considering the mindset of the film industry at that time , I think that it is amazing that even that truncated version of the novel's message made it to the screen.

Angie, what I would advise you to do (if I may be so presumptuous), is to write out your concerns in the eloquent manner that you have presented here, and send them to John Aglialoro, and anyone else that had a major role in its production. I think that it is quite likely that they want audience feedback and that was the reason for this early pre-release showing. It is my understanding that studios have often had this type of previews and; in some cases. have made considerable changes in the dialogue and scenes before the movie was sent to the theaters. So, if you have such strong concerns, strike now while the iron is hot. I am sure that you have already considered this and my comments may seem trite, yet I felt that I must make the suggestion anyway, since you feel so strongly about these issues.

Dennis, I share your concerns, and might go further in that I have said on this forum (as have several others) that I do not feel that a successful movie adaptation of the novel can be made. To be blunt, it is unfilmable. It simply doesn't fit that format and attempting to do it will only result in making major compromises to the plot line and most importantly to the several long philosophical passages. But, I won't belabor the point. It is now virtually certain that the current production will be released. It may have some shortcomings, but there it is. Maybe they will make some changes based on comments from those at the preview. Maybe they won't. Either way, if The Fountainhead movie did not damage interest in Rand, it is quite likely that Atlas Shrugged, Part One will not do so, either.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The movie is what it is.

It will go to market.

It will attract a huge interest in Ayn Rand's ideas.

These are unstoppable events.

From what I have seen so far, I am perfectly satisfied that it keeps to the spirit of the book. Other people I greatly respect and admire--ones who were present at the viewing--hold the same opinion.

Frankly, I don't care if the movie stirs up interest in some Objectivist movement or other. I prefer people of goodwill thinking for themselves anyway. I am totally happy that Rand's main ideas penetrate into the mainstream, as many have done already, so that people can live in peace with a chance to pursue their dreams to the best of their ability.

Rand once said in a Q&A something to the effect that if the world turned into Galt's Gulch, it would be boring. I agree with her.

I believe this movie will be a tremendous conduit for more such penetration of her ideas. And I predict great success for it.

Frankly, it's good to see the movie creating controversy already. When people disagree passionately, a lot of buzz happens.

Michael

[CNA]

Dennis, Angie:

Unfortunately, I was rushed when I made that post regarding the The Fountainhead movie, and did not finish my line of thought. You are both right, those already convinced of the worth of Rand's philosophy will not walk away from Objectivism after seeing the Atlas Shrugged-Part One movie, even if they find that the movie did not live up to the book or meet their expectations, anymore than did fans of The Fountainhead.

That was one point that I was trying to make, but the real question is what effect the movie will have on those who have not read the book. Angie, you have the advantage that you have seen the movie and can report on your own conclusions and on those of others who were at the screening. It is quite obvious from your very interesting postings that you are quite concerned about what you saw as deviations from the book's message, and of the method that the producers used to present the story line where they have changed the flow from the book's narrative by pasting together some scenes that are not in Part One of the book. These appear to me to be legitimate concerns, but I do not know how many more who saw the movie share your concerns (and. of course, other viewers could completely disagree with you and yet your conclusions could still be right). Since I have not seen the movie yet, I can only note your concerns and revisit them after I have seen it.

To make an analogy to The Fountainhead movie, some who have seen it consider it to be awful. I, on the other hand, generally like the movie and consider it to be a rough approximation of the essence of the novel, while noting some of its various shortcomings. Considering the mindset of the film industry at that time , I think that it is amazing that even that truncated version of the novel's message made it to the screen.

Angie, what I would advise you to do (if I may be so presumptuous), is to write out your concerns in the eloquent manner that you have presented here, and send them to John Aglialoro, and anyone else that had a major role in its production. I think that it is quite likely that they want audience feedback and that was the reason for this early pre-release showing. It is my understanding that studios have often had this type of previews and; in some cases. have made considerable changes in the dialogue and scenes before the movie was sent to the theaters. So, if you have such strong concerns, strike now while the iron is hot. I am sure that you have already considered this and my comments may seem trite, yet I felt that I must make the suggestion anyway, since you feel so strongly about these issues.

Dennis, I share your concerns, and might go further in that I have said on this forum (as have several others) that I do not feel that a successful movie adaptation of the novel can be made. To be blunt, it is unfilmable. It simply doesn't fit that format and attempting to do it will only result in making major compromises to the plot line and most importantly to the several long philosophical passages. But, I won't belabor the point. It is now virtually certain that the current production will be released. It may have some shortcomings, but there it is. Maybe they will make some changes based on comments from those at the preview. Maybe they won't. Either way, if The Fountainhead movie did not damage interest in Rand, it is quite likely that Atlas Shrugged, Part One will not do so, either.

Jerry,

I apologize for this being so short but have been working and taking a bit of a break now but have to get back to the grind. You are right, understood, and have considered it and will do. As is obvious, there are those that may hold opposing views and this is a given. I would thoroughly enjoy more exchange but unfortunately the real world is calling as usual and a very busy week ahead.

Mike,

I agree that there are those that hold opposing views and again this is a given. Each will judge on their own if they like the movie or not. Some will walk away thoroughly happy but others who will walk away disappointed for various reasons and that the book is just too complex to successfully be adapted to the screen without Ayn here to help. But even then, still may be too complex. There's many areas of her book that would be very difficult to adapt to the screen such as the "introspection" of the main characters and their thoughts and what they are feeling and integrating these and the questions that they ask themselves and answering those questions throughout the book such as Hank when riding with Dagny on the John Galt Line and the inaugural run or the "introspection" that Dagny engages in after being rescued by him and brought to his home and then her asking herself questions when John is away that night while she is at his home and she is pacing his floors wanting him to come back and she is thinking to herself all the while and her trying to figure out what exactly it is that she wants. These are all important aspects that would be very difficult to successfully pull off in a film that is trying to convey all of her philosophy and then adding this also to the movie. It would take many many different parts, such as Atlas Shrugged Part 12 and so forth. It would be too much.

I truly hope, despite those that have expressed concern, that it will be successful enough to have enough of an impact. It will have an impact without a doubt but the question is will it be enough and we'll all soon see.

Angie

[Dennis Hardin]

I can only share the following, I saw the Fountainhead as a movie, before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. I was quite young probably about 13 or so. I loved the movie for a number of reasons:

1) I was a Gary Cooper fanatic having seen High Noon when I was about 8 or 9 with my parents;

2) the concepts in the Fountainhead - the individual's struggle against the crowd, the pride in one's own ideas, the comittment to fight for what you knew was right and the peace that comes with the realization that you are the only person who is responsible for your decisions spoke dramatically to me.; and

3) the fact that I had parents who taught me to question and to think for myself.

I did not read the Fountainhead until after I read Atlas.

Film is a perfect medium to reach the masses in today's US society.

Adam

I know the film is going to work exceptionally well in spreading the ideas.

Adam,

There is no reason to think that the film version of Atlas Shrugged will convey philosophical ideas in any way comparable to The Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand not only wrote the screenplay for The Fountainhead, she fought with King Vidor constantly throughout the production to insure that the film stayed faithful to her novel. She even worked directly with Gary Cooper on his courtroom speech and managed to save that scene just as she wrote it (even though Cooper was clearly just reciting lines that meant little to him).

Neither the director nor the screenwriter on Atlas Shrugged have a clue as to what the novel is really about. How could they possibly inject philosophical ideas into a project when they have no grasp of the philosophy? Any Objectivist ideas presented in the film will be largely implicit and entirely dependent on the story closely following the events of the novel. We have reason to suspect that this may not be the case.

The impression I took away from the trailer is that fidelity to Ayn Rand’s plot-theme was not high on the list of the director’s priorities. Otherwise, the trailer would have conveyed something coherent about the story. The flashy superficialty of the trailer make it much more likely that the producers (John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow) and the director (Paul Johansson) fit the mold of A.H. Woods, who produced Rand’s Night of January 16th for the stage:

This was my first (but not last) encounter with the literary manifestation of the mind-body dichotomy that dominates today’s culture: the split between the ‘serious’ and the ‘entertaining’-the belief that if a literary work is ‘serious,’ it must bore people to death; and if it is ‘entertaining,’ it must not communicate anything of importance. (Which means that ‘the good’ has to be painful, and that pleasure has to be mindlessly low-grade.) A.H. Woods was a faithful adherent of that school of thought, so that it was useless to mention the word ‘thought’ to him, or ‘idea’ or ‘philosophy’ or ‘sense of life’ in connection with any theatrical matter. It would be inexact to say that he was antagonistic to such concepts: he was completely tone-deaf to them. . .

Ayn Rand, Introduction to The Night of January 16th

[kiaer.ts]

Or worse, if the film becomes a laughable travesty comparable to Showgirls.

Everyone knows that the problem with Showgirls was Gina Gershon's career-destroying nose job. Neither Jennifer Grey nor Jennifer Jason Lee were cast for this movie.

[kiaer.ts]

Frankly, I don't care if the movie stirs up interest in some Objectivist movement or other. I prefer people of goodwill thinking for themselves anyway.

Yes, you keep saying that.

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis, I share your concerns, and might go further in that I have said on this forum (as have several others) that I do not feel that a successful movie adaptation of the novel can be made. To be blunt, it is unfilmable. It simply doesn't fit that format and attempting to do it will only result in making major compromises to the plot line and most importantly to the several long philosophical passages. But, I won't belabor the point. It is now virtually certain that the current production will be released. It may have some shortcomings, but there it is. Maybe they will make some changes based on comments from those at the preview. Maybe they won't. Either way, if The Fountainhead movie did not damage interest in Rand, it is quite likely that Atlas Shrugged, Part One will not do so, either.

Jerry,

Atlas Shrugged would definitely be a challenge to bring to the screen, but I think it could be done. Not on a shoestring budget, obviously, and not with a breakneck shooting schedule. But a talented director with planning and ingenuity could get it done and done well. And I don’t think it would take a multi-episode movie marathon.

The incredible arsenal of technical tools available to a director today make just about any project feasible. Look at what has been done with films like Inception. It is just a matter of investing the time and energy to make it work.

One thing that would be required: some basic grasp of the novel’s theme. It always helps to know what the hell your work of cinematic art is trying to say.

[Dennis Hardin]

Or worse, if the film becomes a laughable travesty comparable to Showgirls.

Everyone knows that the problem with Showgirls was Gina Gershon's career-destroying nose job. Neither Jennifer Grey nor Jennifer Jason Lee were cast for this movie.

Want to know something funny? I hesitated to use that as an example, because I liked Showgirls.

I hope I like Atlas Shrugged as much.

[jriggenbach]

Frankly, I don't care if the movie stirs up interest in some Objectivist movement or other. I prefer people of goodwill thinking for themselves anyway.

Yes, you keep saying that.

If there's anything Michael likes as much as he likes people "thinking for themselves," it's "checks and balances." You know, the ones that work so brilliantly well that they've prevented the U.S. government from ever doing anything shameful in more than 200 years of existence, so that anyone who dares to criticize this noble and heroic record is automatically convicted of "hating America" and "blaming America first."

Just making sure everything's clear. Please carry on as you were before.

JR

[Dennis Hardin]

The movie is what it is.

It will go to market.

It will attract a huge interest in Ayn Rand's ideas.

These are unstoppable events.

Really? Sounds like the march of the Hegelian Absolute.

I hope you're right. I've heard that's how Karl Marx got his big break.

Rand once said in a Q&A something to the effect that if the world turned into Galt's Gulch, it would be boring. I agree with her.

Yes. We all need a little irrationality to liven things up now and then. So true. That woman knew better than to take ideas too seriously.

I believe this movie will be a tremendous conduit for more such penetration of her ideas. And I predict great success for it.

Well, it appears to be headed for the smaller art houses. I don't think James Cameron and George Lucas are too concerned at this point.

Frankly, it's good to see the movie creating controversy already. When people disagree passionately, a lot of buzz happens.

Michael

You got that right. You should see my e-mail inbox. Can you feel the love?

[Greybird]

[...] The impression I took away from the trailer is that fidelity to Ayn Rand’s plot-theme was not high on the list of the director’s priorities. Otherwise, the trailer would have conveyed something coherent about the story.

Please give us one actual example of a preview, any preview, that conveys "something coherent about the story." They simply do not do that. They're equal parts of hints about the cast members' demeanor, flashy action, elements of atmosphere, witty or pithy lines pulled out of context, and promotional bombast.

This one is no exception. You can't communicate significant plot elements in 150 to 180 seconds. It's inherently impossible to do so with an artwork that typically runs for nearly that many minutes.

I think the divination from the preview has gotten out of hand. I also see expectations of a philosophical tome, or the Cliffs Notes for one, to be put up on screen. Atlas has a masterful plot, it is a novel, and when Rand strained to make it a philosophical treatise (Galt's speech, and to a lesser extent others'), it became a different book entirely.

They clearly filmed the novel. It's entertainment. It's not likely to change the world. Almost no movie does or ever has.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If there's anything Michael likes as much as he likes people "thinking for themselves," it's "checks and balances." You know, the ones that work so brilliantly well that they've prevented the U.S. government from ever doing anything shameful in more than 200 years of existence, so that anyone who dares to criticize this noble and heroic record is automatically convicted of "hating America" and "blaming America first."

Jeff,

It's so odd to see you doing "us against them" package deal arguments.

(This means roughly, "If you do not agree with everything I say, you are for my enemy.")

You're far better at satire. This kind of argument makes you sound like a two-bit tribal thinker.

btw - I don't know if you have read my posts long enough to realize I have been blasting the Patriot Act ever since it came out, the USA government getting in bed with dictators and training their secret service like with the Condor Operation, etc., etc., etc. In other words, if you go through my posts, except for some embarrassing excesses I did when I started on SoloHQ under Perigo--which I later retracted, I can't think of one instance where I blasted anarcho-capitalists for hating America, blaming America first, or the standard litany of victimization phrases you so heroically defend against.

In other words, I'm not one of your "us against them" enemies. Never have been. I do not agree with you on some things (for instance, I defend a constitutional republic), but I am far, far from a neoconservative. My writing proves it. (It's a think for yourself kind of thing. Can you believe it? Some people mock thinking for yourself. I wonder what they want?)

To quote your wise words: just making sure everything's clear.

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] if you go through my posts [at OL,] I can't think of one instance where I blasted anarcho-capitalists for hating America, blaming America first, or the standard litany of victimization phrases you so heroically defend against.

I can. (In mistaken response to what became my wasting of effort. Jeff also made a fitting response on that one, as did others.)

It's not hard to find them, Michael.

[George H. Smith]

I think the divination from the preview has gotten out of hand.

You seem to believe that we should see a film before we review it. I suppose you also believe that we should read a book before we review it.

People like you take all the fun out of life.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

I didn't blast anarcho-capitalists. I blasted the slant in your post.

I still think it is slanted. I even gave my reasons. To quote myself:

My reading comprehension goes deeper than just a surface message.

I recognize slant when I see it. To paraphrase you:

• The USA has all the money in the world to spend on wars, military empire, etc., and China--at least--does not.
• The USA does its military empire evil in other countries and China--at least--keeps all its own military empire monkey-business internal (except for North Korea).
• Some folks now need USA-imposed "Heimatsicherheitsamt permission to fly, as well as be sexually molested" which China--at least--does not practice.
• Ayn Rand wrote in "semi-hysteria" about China and the USA.

If need be, I can quote your own words and even give you statistics on how many times you outright bash the USA and qualify China in the same breath. If I decide to really go for it, I know I will find a lot more. I admit, that was a nice touch saying Rand was semi-hysterical so as to try to discredit her views on this.

I objected to your manner of comparisons, which I believe misrepresent a real threat, not to your own objections to the USA government's monkeyshines.

I strongly object to defending or downplaying a dictatorship in order to bash the abuses of power of another government. I consider that to be poor rhetoric and logically flawed--even when taking the NIOF principle as a starting point.

I, personally, don't like any dictators--not Chinese ones, not USA wannabe ones. You are free to like or excuse the dictators of your own choice. (Jeff, at least, thinks this is "outstanding.") If that is not your case, I suggest a different form of rhetoric, but that is also your choice.

I like my bashing straight up, without defending other bad guys in order to make a point. That's my choice.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Question: If some producer wanted to make another version of Atlas a decade from now, from whom would he need to get the rights?

Ghs

[Selene]

Well folks:

Atlas Shrugged Movie Train Barrels into Washington D.C. and New York - ah ha - I see a plan

"The Nation’s Capitol is where this film should be seen,” remarks film producer Harmon Kaslow. 'There’s never been a more relevant time for the movie’s release. From Wisconsin’s teacher’s Union woes to Libya’s dictator’s demise, it’s as if current events were ripped right from the pages of the book.'"

Smart move, they are thinking the way I want by linking the film to current crisis issues.

The exclusive events will be held at:

Landmark E Street Theater

555 11th Street NW

Washington D.C. 20004

WHEN: 2 pm on Wednesday, March 2nd.

Tribeca Cinemas

54 Varick Street

New York City, NY 10013

WHEN: 6 pm on Thursday, March 3rd.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Question: If some producer wanted to make another version of Atlas a decade from now, from whom would he need to get the rights?

Ghs

I read that the reason they started production when they did was to preserve the rights, and that they now belong to Aglialoro henceforth. What happens when the novel goes into the public domain is the next question. Obviously he doesn’t own the rights forever, but do they expire later than the novel’s copyright? I don’t know, but I saw it explained somewhere, I forget. Within a decade, though, I believe this hypothetical producer would have to get them from Aglialoro.

[Selene]

'Atlas Shrugged' pushing high-speed rail?

This appeared in Green Tech, on 2-17-2011:

"Dialogue in the trailer signals that the book's ideas promoting the value of capitalism, rational self-interest, the intellectually elite, and minimal government interference in society still hold. However, as one might expect, some aspects of the original story appear to have been tweaked for the film version."

Adam

[caroljane]

Adam, will you be going after fan tickets for the NY screening?