Passing the torch!

[Dodger]

Apparently Dodger hasn't seen the new version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DeCaprio as Romeo. Possibly the worst remake of Romeo and Juliet I've ever seen. Truly horrible.

I really hope that the movie holds at least a candle to the book.

Why would make assumptions such as that? It is never a wise decision to assume something about someone else, no matter how small of an assumption it may be.

You should ask next time

Anyways, I have seen the 'new version.' It wouldn't have been so horrible if they kept the original setting in place. I dont think it was produced to be taken seriously.

Atlas Shrugged, however, is something that needs to be taken seriously and needs time to be created. I've often daydreamed about how the movie would look.

[Greybird]

Apparently Dodger hasn't seen the new version of Romeo and Juliet [from 1996] with Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo. Possibly the worst remake of Romeo and Juliet I've ever seen. Truly horrible.

It takes all kinds to make a world, methinks. I was captivated. Not every viewer could get past the first 20 minutes, with the cold-water splash of Baz Luhrmann's translation of the story to current over-stylized — and baroquely well-mannered and overdressed — street punks. (His superb "Moulin Rouge" had a similar initial shock.)

For many of us who stuck with it, the retelling was touching and, for once, believably tragic. Claire Danes, who played Juliet, was luminous and sensuous, especially opposite DiCaprio and in that swimming pool.

What was horrible, to me, was Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard (1936) playing them three times as old as what was called for in the play. Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting (1968) did it well, but Zeffirelli was too much in love with his weathered Italian settings. (Luhrmann romanced his modern venues, but did so to consciously create symbolism, and that was more interesting, if sometimes excessive.)

[william.scherk]

We are not communicating if you don't read my posts *literally as they are written*, not adding your own extrapolation.

Me, I like Phil. No doubt if we both ended up at some O-ist conclave, he and I would spend much time yammering at each other and dancing a mad tarantella . . .

However, I wish Phil was my friend and not just a voice/face on the screen. If he was my friend, he might pay attention when I twit his style . . . or when I suggested he take control of his own life and behaviour, rather than teach teach teach as if all whom he encountered were enclosed within the four walls of his lecture theatre . . .

Galt love the man, here is what I wrote in a long ago thread on SOLO & R0R:

Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence

and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read

carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way

sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and

arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions.

If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write

"Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would

attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal

depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid.

More than once."

-- I will read you as I find you, Phil, wherever your taste for discussion leads you. Please don't take my mild critique to heart. Knowing how to amend one's own behaviour is not common.

WSS

[BAMF]

Apparently Dodger hasn't seen the new version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DeCaprio as Romeo. Possibly the worst remake of Romeo and Juliet I've ever seen. Truly horrible.

I really hope that the movie holds at least a candle to the book.

MOST movie versions of Shakespearean plays (at least the ones that I've seen) differ VERY little from the actual play (even using whole speeches word for word, etc). That was Dodge's point, if I'm not mistaken. He was just saying that Atlas should be approached the same way. Do not alter much, so as not to ruin the flavor of the original.

[Chris Grieb]

Kori;

There were a lot complaints about the cut made in some of the plays. I can remember being at the Oliver version of Hamlet and someone saying they cut a certain passage.

When I saw Henry the Fifth there were passages that were not in either of the two movie versions

Edited April 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris,

I remember putting on a Henry the 4th part 1 with my class in college and we had to make cuts or the length would have been insurmountable. I'm amazed that they were actually able to get most of Henry V into the movie. I need to go see Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, been meaning to for a while.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

The Kenneth Branagh version is very well done. Very gory.

The stage version I saw was with Harry Hamlin playing Henry V.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

> a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and

arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions....Wonderful, wonderful educator...Hat too tight....Please don't take my mild critique to heart. Knowing how to amend one's own behaviour is not common.

WSS, I wouldn't be "thin-skinned" about the above comments at all.

I can see why you would say that about my style, so I don't take offense at your criticism of me. In fact (unlike MSK - and I simply don't want to have to explain -that- again) I think you make some good points that I could take to heart on some occasions when letting depression, frustration, or irritation get the better of me.

Phil

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In fact (unlike MSK - and I simply don't want to have to explain -that- again) I think you make some good points that I could take to heart on some occasions when letting depression, frustration, or irritation get the better of me.

Now what on earth am I supposed to do with this?

Uhmmmmm...

Let's see. Hmmmmmm... Got it...

AGAIN???

How can anyone explain AGAIN what they never explained in the first place?

Well, maybe that might be too aggressive.

It is true, but is sounds snarky.

How about something more light?

(scratching head)

Got it! I'll take my cue from WSS.

Hat too tight?

How about shoes and underwear?

Now that'll make anyone grumpy.

Nah... that sounds a bit disrespectful.

Some people get really touchy if they have big feet.

Should I turn the other cheek?

Phil, you are so right.

I don't know what got into me.

After studying your posts hard and rereading each

23 TIMES

I have discovered my critical flaws and failings.

I am soooooooooo unworthy.

Totally.

But I will try to mend my ways and ABROGATE INDEPENDENT THINKING from my soul altogether and...

Oooooppps... How did that sneak in?

Hmmmmm... Let's try more friendly.

Stop, Phil.

Phil, please stop.

Hey! Now that worked!

How about some more?

Oh, stop, stop, stop.

You.

Stop, gosh darn it!

(starting to laugh)

Oh, puhleeze... Pretty please, stop.

Pretty pretty pretty please with sugar on top.

Stopstopstopstopstop...

(tears starting to stream down)

Dayaamm!

No, that won't do at all.

There's got to be something cool and useful to do with this.

What does one do with a catty remark?

ARF, ARF!

Michael

[william.scherk]

. . .

What does one do with a catty remark?

. . .

-- if yours, hone it. If at you . . . puuurrrrrrrrr (and wait for the danged mouse to cease the squeeks) . . .

WSS

[Mike Hardy]

I'll see if I can get George Smith to post his theory of Freud's superiority to Jung right away. -- Mike Hardy

I'm not out of here yet, Michael Hardy; not till tomorrow. And George Smith doesn't have a theory of Freud's superiority to Jung. And I'm amazed that you didn't comment on my writing "dire straights of doom" instead of "straits." I fixed it, but not before MSK quoted the original. The word "straights" didn't look right when I posted, but I couldn't think why not until I saw that passage picked up by MSK.

E-

___

Maybe George can develop such a theory in the next few hours.

And maybe Julius Seizure may be inspired by some of your comments

to post something on ATL2. -- Mike Hardy

[Danneskjold]

Dodger, I was referring to how you say that people stick with the Shakespearian script. Seeing as that movie contradicts that point, I think it was a fair assumption, based on your statement, that you had not seen the movie. A large part of of deductive logic is assumptions based on fact.

[BAMF]

I assumed that Dodger meant, not all, but quite a few movie versions of Shakespearean plays turned movie. However, he never said all, he never said some.

[Jonathan]

It would also be interesting to determine the level to which people who read the fiction really understood what they read.

Jim

I'd be more interested in learning how much understanding is enough. If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist, is the idea that she really can't be counted yet as someone to whom Objectivism has "spread" because she hasn't spent decades attending academic programs offered by O'ist organizations?

J

[Jonathan]

And maybe Julius Seizure may be inspired by some of your comments

to post something on ATL2. -- Mike Hardy

Did Julius Seizure study at the feat of that grate philosopher, Role end Parakeets?

All sew, does Seizure bee leave, as many Objective Fists a pier two, that others never halve quite an add a quit understanding of a philosophy, and, they're four, mussed sack rough ice there other interests and bee cum nothing butt perineal stew dents of the philosophy? If sew, is their a training coarse on Role end's philosophy that eye can sine up fore?

J

[Philip Coates]

> All sew, does Seizure bee leave, as many Objective Fists a pier two, that others never halve quite an add a quit understanding of a philosophy, and, they're four, mussed sack rough ice there other interests and bee cum nothing butt perineal stew dents of the philosophy? If sew, is their a training coarse on Role end's philosophy that eye can sine up fore? [Jonathan]

Well, as I mentioned the training program is hierarchical. But the above shows you have clearly mastered the entry level course - Hillbilly English - on which everything else is based.

That is required before you can be initiated into the higher mysteries of Rand's philosophy...which is a fifty-seven year program requiring lots of self-flagellation and 4 A.M eight mile runs in army boots. So I'm going to waive (or wave) the requirements in your case as long as you can show me a transcript which indicates that you have passed a test on chapters 25-27 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in Greek.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist...

Jonathan,

After being in several acrimonious discussions over who is really an Objectivist (and a lot of silliness over who isn't), what you just wrote here is probably the best definition of a newcomer Objectivist that I have even come across.

I'm serious.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist...

Jonathan,

After being in several discussions over who is really an Objectivist, and reading a lot of acrimony and silliness over who isn't, what you just wrote here is probably the best definition of a newcomer Objectivist that I have even come across.

I'm serious.

Michael

[galtgulch]

I believe that there are individuals who arrive at a naturalistic scientific view of the real world, are aware early on in their lives that the supernatural is a fantasy realm which does not exist in reality other than in the minds of believers. The individuals I am talking about have a commitment to reason and rational evidence, are inclined toward the sciences, have an innate skepticism about others assertions, and also accept the implicit moral standard of life on earth.

I believe that man's life is the implicit standard within the medical profession but obviously there are those physicians whose religious upbringing subject them to conflict when the subject of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy arise.

What I am suggesting is that by the time some individuals first encounter a novel of Ayn Rand their own understanding in the realm of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics may very well be such that they discover a kindred spirit in Rand regarding those fundamental realms of philosophy.

I think that explains the appeal of Rand's philosophy to many who encounter it. Others might certainly have more obstacles to overcome to understand it and to adopt it.

Of course those who grew up and came to understand the world, the criteria for knowledge and ethics on their own did not call themselves Objectivists and I am not suggesting that Rand's dramatization of her philosophy and her explicit statement of it is not a staggering achievement.

I know that in my own situation I was reading Asimov, Gamow, Sir James Jeans, Heinlein, Clarke, G.G. Simpson, Harzanyi, and others, and was aware of the battle between Science and Religion throughout the centuries. I recall telling a young Rabbi when I was ten or eleven, "If the Universe always existed, there would be no need to hypothesize a God to create it!" I always found natural explanations for the "miracles" in Bible stories in Sunday school.

I found Rand to be a kindred spirit and as tough a row as it is to hoe I believe Objectivism is the antidote in the philosophical realm and expect that as long as it takes it will ultimately prevail. The rest will be relegated to the realm of mythology where it belongs.

galt

[Kat]

I'd be more interested in learning how much understanding is enough. If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist, is the idea that she really can't be counted yet as someone to whom Objectivism has "spread" because she hasn't spent decades attending academic programs offered by O'ist organizations?

Yup, that would be me, and I count.

Spreading Objectivism should be about the ideas, not indoctrination or earning the title by shelling out enough time and money to learn every nuance. Either you get it or you don't. I remember Reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and it was like finding a long lost friend that I never knew I had. Her name was Ayn Rand and she was the first person I knew of who actually shared my worldview... and understood.

Kat

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'd be more interested in learning how much understanding is enough. If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist, is the idea that she really can't be counted yet as someone to whom Objectivism has "spread" because she hasn't spent decades attending academic programs offered by O'ist organizations?

Jonathan, no I don't consider spending decades a necessity and I don't consider academic programs necessary unless someone wants to attend them. However, I do think it is complex philosophy and can be understood on many levels and can also be misunderstood. How much is enough should be decided by each individual based on their goals in life and their interests.

I also don't think that qua philosophy, Objectivism is the solution to most people's life problems. I don't go into work or my social activities thinking how can I apply Objectivism today? I simply look out at reality and at my life and try to do what needs to be done. That is applying Objectivism, but without all of the mechanistic trappings.

One thing I will agree with MSK on is that the incessant worry by many over who is and is not an Objectivist is a distraction from people achieving their purposes in life and is also an other-centered approach to life and isn't that an irony for an Objectivist?

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

I'd be more interested in learning how much understanding is enough. If a person reads Rand's novels, then some of the standard Objectivist non-fiction, is excited and inspired by it and begins calling herself an Objectivist, is the idea that she really can't be counted yet as someone to whom Objectivism has "spread" because she hasn't spent decades attending academic programs offered by O'ist organizations?

Jonathan, no I don't consider spending decades a necessity and I don't consider academic programs necessary unless someone wants to attend them. However, I do think it is complex philosophy and can be understood on many levels and can also be misunderstood. How much is enough should be decided by each individual based on their goals in life and their interests.

I also don't think that qua philosophy, Objectivism is the solution to most people's life problems. I don't go into work or my social activities thinking how can I apply Objectivism today? I simply look out at reality and at my life and try to do what needs to be done. That is applying Objectivism, but without all of the mechanistic trappings.

One thing I will agree with MSK on is that the incessant worry by many over who is and is not an Objectivist is a distraction from people achieving their purposes in life and is also an other-centered approach to life and isn't that an irony for an Objectivist?

Jim

Jim; I think your next to the last paragraph is excellent. Objectivism is a philosphy for living on earth. It is not the living.

[Jonathan]

Well, as I mentioned the training program is hierarchical. But the above shows you have clearly mastered the entry level course - Hillbilly English - on which everything else is based.

That is required before you can be initiated into the higher mysteries of Rand's philosophy...which is a fifty-seven year program requiring lots of self-flagellation and 4 A.M eight mile runs in army boots. So I'm going to waive (or wave) the requirements in your case as long as you can show me a transcript which indicates that you have passed a test on chapters 25-27 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in Greek.

Thanks. I'll drop the transcript in the mail tomorrow. After completing the 57-year program, do I get a framed diploma and a wallet badge?

J

[Philip Coates]

Ask me in 56 years.

[John Dailey]

Phil:

~ As I've e-m'd to Chris (Sciabarra) more than once: --- "Keep on truckin'!"

~ Your posts, as I've e-m'd to you, do seem often quioxtic (mostly because of some other places you put them.) However, most of any who consider themselves as O'ist-oriented (or at least interested enough in 'Randism' to criticize rather than use it) will, as I'd say most often have, find your posts always 'thought-provoking', which is the best praise I can give any writer of books, articles...or posts.

~ I'd say that this forum, at this stage, is the most read forum for non-spleen-venting oriented searchers for rational discussions.

~ Keep on postin'...here. (Ok: RoR also.)

LLAP

J:D