Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro on Ayn Rand's Enduring Impact

[Jerry Biggers]

Well,.. gee, What makes you think that..I was only referring to but myself .....(??) :blush:

anyone

Lighten up!

(me, of course)

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand was entitled to her bad moods. She did have good reasons, all considered. As for the bad reasons, . . . ? The bottom line is the same. Good outweighs the bad or we don't appreciate our positions as consumers.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

everyone other than Pup BaBoon.

If I see you in person we will settle this instantly.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include... insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

[Backlighting]

"If only...." Usually, but not always, the product of rumination, particularly about oneself, but also about others. Often leads to personal regret, self-condemnation, depression. In most cases, useless, because it is "water over the dam," etc.

In the case of reviewing past accomplishments, failures of others, particularly an author, i.e., Ayn Rand:

If only she had, taking the wisdom and hindsight that I now have over 50 years later), .....

If only she had Roark doing this,.....If only she had Dominique doing that..... Then there's that building blow-up, the interesting ways that the courtroom scene could have been written,.If only ........

There there's Atlas, full of mistakes, literary errors (the critics told us so), the speeches, so awkward and unrealistic,.......... If only she had........

then there's the tunnel scene......, If only..... and the torture scene!,....the book's ending, so silly! But, if only,......

And then there's the antics of Peikoff and Kelley!

And, Aglialoro! Ohmygawd!!! ...... the mistakes, the if onlys are,....well........endless.

Damn! If only Rand had consulted with me before making all these errors!! I should have been a novelist!

No, wait! A movie producer! If only Aglalloro.had done this!...Or done that....!! If only he has the wisdom that I could have given him!

I wonder why anyone even reads these books?

Rear seat driving.

Monday morning quarterbacking.

Yup. IF only the queen had balls she'd be king.

Last time I checked none of the critics here have written a novel as original & compelling as Atlas Shrugged.

[Wolf DeVoon]

then there's the tunnel scene.

Jerry, what's wrong with the tunnel scene (sequence of scenes)?

[Brant Gaede]

everyone other than Pup BaBoon.

If I see you in person we will settle this instantly.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include... insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

It will have to be with words or somebody's going to be wrong.

--Brant

I don't know about a duel or a boxing match with rules and seconds

reminds me of an old Daily News editorial cartoon from 1961 or '62: JFK is victorious in the ring with Big Steel crunched to the canvas, "I beg your pardon. You're not an SOB afterall!"

[Jonathan]

everyone other than Pup BaBoon.

If I see you in person we will settle this instantly.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include... insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Be specific. How are we going to settle it if you see me in person? State what you imagine that you're going to do.

J

[Selene]

I hear you & appreciate the reply.

It wasn't until my 30's that I believed I could afford the little ones. But I never found "the one" to have them with and, as you know, the years fly by. I did, however, open a nursery school while married. Had 3,4 & 5 yr olds from some 80 families. They were a joy. Sold it after the break with my other half and headed West. No regrets & never looked back.

J.

Your type of "split/divorce" are "easier" in that you can basically "reduce it to business."

When I function as a mediator, one of the more challenging issues when a couple have children, is that

money and power follow the children which is, of course, insane.

The State supported industries that have burgeoned exponentially determine that the "children" become

inventory.

Law guardians are appointed to represent you and your partner's children. Psychiatrists, psychologist, social workers, supervised visitation centers, forensic evaluators...and that is just the tip of the

financial empire that is built on manipulating families and, upon information and belief, channeling

children into the clutches of the local and federal state.

Follow the money babes!

A...

[Jonathan]

everyone other than Pup BaBoon.

If I see you in person we will settle this instantly.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include... insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Be specific. How are we going to settle it if you see me in person? State what you imagine that you're going to do.

J

Are you going to huff and puff and blow my house down?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Water balloons at ten paces!

--Brant

mix in some fun, sell tickets!

[Brant Gaede]

everyone other than Pup BaBoon.

If I see you in person we will settle this instantly.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include... insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Be specific. How are we going to settle it if you see me in person? State what you imagine that you're going to do.

J

Are you going to huff and puff and blow my house down?

J

I'd just give it a gentle shove.

--Brant

hope your insurance is up to date

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

This is exactly what I was talking about with Dagny's inner throughline. Rand being Rand, though, would not be content to leave this as an abstract value judgment. She had to make it concrete.

How about, without a smidgen of guilt or remorse, shooting one of these subhumans dead in cold blood, one who is apparently innocent of anything that directly attacked her values just to make it extra-hard? That's pretty concrete.

Michael,

I think you're probably right about what Rand was trying to do with having Dagny shoot the guard.

Doesn't change that I think the sequence isn't well set up, or logistically plausible (even in the mythic world of the book) - and that it makes the good guys look dumb in how they handled it.

So there we are.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Yup. IF only the queen had balls she'd be king.

Last time I checked none of the critics here have written a novel as original & compelling as Atlas Shrugged.

As best I'm aware, no one here has produced a movie even as poor as the Atlas trilogy. Therefore...

I.e., do you mean the general principle you appear to be adopting, that no one is entitled to critique an art work if he/she hasn't created one that's on a comparable level?

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you're probably right...

I'm going to frame this.

[Brant Gaede]

I think you're probably right...

I'm going to frame this.

I'm trying to think of something to spoil this for you.

--Brant

be patient

[Backlighting]

Yup. IF only the queen had balls she'd be king.

Last time I checked none of the critics here have written a novel as original & compelling as Atlas Shrugged.

As best I'm aware, no one here has produced a movie even as poor as the Atlas trilogy. Therefore...

I.e., do you mean the general principle you appear to be adopting, that no one is entitled to critique an art work if he/she hasn't created one that's on a comparable level?

Ellen

You find the movie horrible---me too. Some may not though, no?

Critique is good. Just seems like it's over done imo.

-Joe

[Guyau]

Addition to discussion of Rand's scene of Dagny shooting the guard*

From Atlas Shrugged: “Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness” (1148).

It may be of interest to notice that Rand had used that distinctive phrase “the responsibility of consciousness” also in The Fountainhead. There too it was used in a scene in which a sympathetic woman, Dominique, confronts a man with a stark choice. That man is Peter Keating, a developed character we already know by this stage of the novel. In this scene, we see him once again selling his soul. In the preceding scene, Peter had visited his true love Katie, had unloaded some of his guilt over having testified against Roark in the Stoddard Temple case, and had proposed marriage to Katie. She had agreed, and they made their plans. In the next scene, Dominique, whom Peter had long desired, and desired for a trophy wife, appears at Peter’s home. He had been packing for his wedding trip.

“Well, sit down Dominique. Take your coat off.”

“No, I shan’t stay long. Since we’re not pretending anything today, shall I tell you what I came for—or do you want some polite conversation first?”

“No, I don’t want polite conversation.”

“All right. Will you marry me, Peter?”

He stood very still; then he sat down heavily—because he knew she meant it.

“If you want to marry me,” she went on in the same precise, impersonal voice, “you must do it right now. My car is downstairs. We drive to Connecticut and we come back. It will take about three hours.”

“Dominique . . .” He didn’t want to move his lips beyond the effort of her name. He wanted to think that he was paralyzed. He knew that he was violently alive, that he was forcing the stupor into his muscles and into his mind, because he wished to escape the responsibility of consciousness.” (ET XIV, 392–93)

Rand speaks, after Atlas, in at least one essay of “the responsibility of rational cognition.”

It is against this faculty, the faculty of reason, that Attila and the Witch Doctor rebel. The key to both their souls is their longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic cognition of an animal. Both dread the necessity, the risk and the responsibility of rational cognition. (FNI 15)

[Brant Gaede]

This fits in with the lady upon whom Rand based the Keating character who wanted to marry a movie producer and did. She also had a problem with thinking things through to logical conclusions for those would have interferred with what she wanted. Thus, "the responsibility of consciousness."

--Brant

I better get to work on that myself (after a few more feel-good indulgences)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

Really good catch.

We hear all the time that rights come with responsibilities.

A rational consciousness does, too.

Something to think about and ponder at length.

Thanks.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

This fits in with the lady upon whom Rand based the Keating character who wanted to marry a movie producer and did.

The lady - Marcella Bannett Rabwin - didn't marry a movie producer. She was working for a movie producer, David Selznick, when Rand knew her in the early 1930s. See post #11 on "The Fountainhead" thread.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Yes.

--Brant

(ego crash)

[Ellen Stuttle]

You find the movie horrible---me too. Some may not though, no?

I suppose that some might not think the movie's horrible. Meaning Part III. I thought that Part II was at least passably a movie. I'm not sure if I think Part I or Part III was worst. I thought that Part I seemed thrown together (which it was), but did have some visually appealing features and some spark of energy, especially because of Taylor Schilling's figure and walking stride.

Add: And I thought that the actress who played Lillian Rearden suited the part in appearance and gave a good performance.

At the showing of Part III which my husband and I attended, none of the other twenty or so people in the audience seemed enthused. There was no applause when the movie ended. Not even sounds of whispered conversation. I thought the audience feeling tone seemed "glum."

A friend of Larry's and mine who went to the showing with us is someone who seldom goes to a movie. He said he didn't that much mind it, but thought that no one who hadn't read the book could follow what was supposedly going on.

Ellen

[Backlighting]

I'll see #3 when it hits Redbox in a few months.

If nothing else it will be a reminder to open the book, once again, & go on the journey. As before, new gems of wisdom will be discovered.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'll see #3 when it hits Redbox in a few months.

 

Highly unlikely.

 

http://www.redbox.com/search/?q=atlas%20shrugged&d=

[Wolf DeVoon]

.

 

The free market has spoken.

 

$611,197 domestic total 1st week ÷ 5 shows a day ÷ 242 screens = $72 per showing

                                                       (most venues have dropped it to 2 shows a day)

 

for comparison:

Atlas Part III opening weekend  $   461,179  -  $1,906 per theater

Atlas Part II  opening weekend  $1,751,572  -  $1,731 per theater

Atlas Part I   opening weekend  $1,686,347  -  $5,640 per theater