View the Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer Today!

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

Michael,

I think Ayn Rand put a lot of thought into that scene between Dagny and the guard.

"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."

That was Rand's way of assuring the reader that malevolence was no part of Dagny's motivation, and that any act of killing on Dagny's part constituted a last resort and a necessary defense of her values. She may well have thought it important to add that scene as a way to put Dagny's earlier threat against the "Washington boys" in that context.

[Dennis Hardin]

Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

Yes, of course. But can a gentleman disagree with a pretentious ignoramus? And if he does, will that be fine?

Confusedly,

JR

Given the context, it is obvious that this insult by JR was directed at me.

I take pride in that.

[Dennis Hardin]

Re: Rearden comes home

The scene is totally flat. Just a bunch of people talking with no real effort to convey the underlying intensity of the dramatic conflicts involved. And Grant Bowler is about as convincing as an industrial genius as Adam Sandler. Here is the paragraph in AS that immediately precedes Rearden giving the bracelet to Lillian:

“He put his hand in his pocket. When he touched it, the reality of the bracelet swept out everything else; he felt as he had felt when the liquid metal had poured through space before him. . .the gesture of his arm was that of a returning crusader offering his trophy to his love. . .”

Needless to say, Grant Bowler conveyed none of that. He was just another married guy handing his wife a gift. And it’s probably unfair to criticize him for that, since neither the director nor the screenwriter had a clue as to what a man like Rearden would be feeling at that moment.

I recall another writing project of Ayn Rand’s that suffered a similar fate:

“By the time the play opened on Broadway, it was dead, as far as I was concerned. I could feel nothing for it or about it but revulsion and indignation. It was not merely a mangled body, but worse: it was a mangled body with some of its torn limbs still showing a former beauty and underscoring the bloody mess. On opening night, I sat in the back row, yawning—not out of tension, but out of genuine boredom, since it was an event that had no value-meaning for me any longer.”

[anthony]

Re: Rearden comes home

The scene is totally flat. Just a bunch of people talking with no real effort to convey the underlying intensity of the dramatic conflicts involved. And Grant Bowler is about as convincing as an industrial genius as Adam Sandler. Here is the paragraph in AS that immediately precedes Rearden giving the bracelet to Lillian:

“He put his hand in his pocket. When he touched it, the reality of the bracelet swept out everything else; he felt as he had felt when the liquid metal had poured through space before him. . .the gesture of his arm was that of a returning crusader offering his trophy to his love. . .”

Needless to say, Grant Bowler conveyed none of that. He was just another married guy handing his wife a gift. And it’s probably unfair to criticize him for that, since neither the director nor the screenwriter had a clue as to what a man like Rearden would be feeling at that moment.

I recall another writing project of Ayn Rand’s that suffered a similar fate:

“By the time the play opened on Broadway, it was dead, as far as I was concerned. I could feel nothing for it or about it but revulsion and indignation. It was not merely a mangled body, but worse: it was a mangled body with some of its torn limbs still showing a former beauty and underscoring the bloody mess. On opening night, I sat in the back row, yawning—not out of tension, but out of genuine boredom, since it was an event that had no value-meaning for me any longer.”

Dennis,

Well said, I believe, and a revealing quote of Rand's that I'd forgotten.

It is exciting and encouraging that Ayn Rand has been entering the American mainstream, lately.

So the exposure to an even wider audience by the film is worth plenty in terms of countering collectivist tendencies there.

As well as the potential of winning some 'converts' to Objectivism.

But, and this is one of those times I wholeheartedly hope I have to eat my words, I far prefer that this is a completely forgettable movie interpretation of Atlas Shrugged... if it has been rendered as 'safe', palatable, and entertaining.

"Atlas" should equally shock and uplift audiences - and force them to re-evaluate their approach to the moral base of capitalism, and individualism.

Watering down the characters and their words and actions, by the script-writer and director, - from either not comprehending the principles, or intentionally - would be an injustice to Ayn Rand's work.

Still, too early to tell.

(I would be happy to admit my doubts were stupid and unfounded.)

Tony

Edited February 23, 2011 by whYNOT

[PDS]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

Michael,

I think Ayn Rand put a lot of thought into that scene between Dagny and the guard.

"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."

That was Rand's way of assuring the reader that malevolence was no part of Dagny's motivation, and that any act of killing on Dagny's part constituted a last resort and a necessary defense of her values. She may well have thought it important to add that scene as a way to put Dagny's earlier threat against the "Washington boys" in that context.

I think Ayn Rand put a lot thought into every sentence she penned. But does that mean the screenplay for AS should be a duplicate of the novel? Obviously not, and that's the rub, because even if every scene kept by the screenwriter was verbatim from the novel, the decisions regarding scenes omitted would be second-guessed as well.

I understand trepidation that the screenwriter may have missed the mark in places (let the professional screenwriter who wouldn't cast the first stone), but I don't understand prejudging a painting when we have only seen a corner of the canvass.

There are very few pieces of good news in Objectivism nowadays. Why not give the people making this film a good old-fashioned "benevolent benefit of the doubt," at least until April 15?

Edited February 23, 2011 by PDS

[RightJungle]

Gosh, I feel almost embarrassed to bring up my mundane subject of the big protest in Des Moines. I chose Selene's suggestion for one side of the sign; Who is John Galt? Atlas Shrugged the Movie, April 15, 2011. It did bring a few strangers over to talk to me. On the other side it read: Taxed to pay Union Dues? Wha?!

The union members were bussed in in really big touring buses. They were mostly big guys who looked like they work out every day. Hmmmm.

We were mostly a bunch of softies. We had a pretty good crowd between 12:00 and 1:00, but then the vast majority of them had to get back to work.

The really aggravating thing, above and beyond the hauled in Hoffa clones with their pre-printed signs was the fact that a bunch of union members were bussed in from around Des Moines on school buses. Dang it all, anyway.

Got together with a couple of Objectivists who drove over from Council Bluffs and Omaha. That was fun.

The one question everyone asked me about the movie was "Will it show in Iowa?"

Mary Lee:

I am hoping that they increase the opening to all fifty (50) states, but I am clueless as to what that would involve in terms of risk ti return ratios.

What did the strangers ask?

Were the goons displaying any purple? Windbreakers etc?

Adam

The strangers didn't ask anything, they had big smiles on their faces and said things like, I hope we will be able to see it, Looking forward to it, It doesn't look like what I expected, and a couple of people who said that they hadn't read the book, but they planned to see the movie. Enthusiasm from Rand fans is a little piece of Heaven.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Mary Lee Harsha

[jriggenbach]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

Michael,

I think Ayn Rand put a lot of thought into that scene between Dagny and the guard.

"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."

That was Rand's way of assuring the reader that malevolence was no part of Dagny's motivation, and that any act of killing on Dagny's part constituted a last resort and a necessary defense of her values. She may well have thought it important to add that scene as a way to put Dagny's earlier threat against the "Washington boys" in that context.

I think Ayn Rand put a lot thought into every sentence she penned. But does that mean the screenplay for AS should be a duplicate of the novel? Obviously not, and that's the rub, because even if every scene kept by the screenwriter was verbatim from the novel, the decisions regarding scenes omitted would be second-guessed as well.

I understand trepidation that the screenwriter may have missed the mark in places (let the professional screenwriter who wouldn't cast the first stone), but I don't understand prejudging a painting when we have only seen a corner of the canvass.

There are very few pieces of good news in Objectivism nowadays. Why not give the people making this film a good old-fashioned "benevolent benefit of the doubt," at least until April 15?

But . . . but . . . we have two world class experts on movies here on this list - two experts next to whom Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick would all blanch (if not quail)! Surely you wouldn't want them to withhold their harsher criticisms of the new film, just to spare our delicate sensibilities?

Incredulously,

JR

Edited February 23, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Selene]

JR:

I am getting used to your "style," that was funny.

In this Q&A: The Atlas Shrugged movie trailer we learn about the intentions of the screenwriter. Lo and behold, they actually had a concept behind the trailer!

Well, as one of the owners of OL has stated over and over again...DAAYAAM!

"TA: The jumps between the Wyatt’s Torch scenes and the early train wreck threw me momentarily, but I doubt any but the most fanatic fans would have picked up on that. The trailer was remarkably well-integrated and did an outstanding job of introducing the story to an audience unfamiliar with the novel. At the same time, you revealed a number of spoilers — like the John Galt Line. What’s the balance your team aimed to strike between drawing in viewers and not ruining the surprise?

"I think it was Roger Corman who said that a good trailer should show action, something sexy, and an explosion. We have all three." <<<<a side insert

O'Toole: In the trailer, you never see the train make it over the bridge at any point. Only you, who know the book, would recognize that as a spoiler. More often than not these days, trailers give away whatever they need to in order to entice audiences to see the movie.

This is well worth the read.

Might even be a good movie, what do you say we do not judge a movie by it's trailer?

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

Michael,

I think Ayn Rand put a lot of thought into that scene between Dagny and the guard.

"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."

That was Rand's way of assuring the reader that malevolence was no part of Dagny's motivation, and that any act of killing on Dagny's part constituted a last resort and a necessary defense of her values. She may well have thought it important to add that scene as a way to put Dagny's earlier threat against the "Washington boys" in that context.

I think Ayn Rand put a lot thought into every sentence she penned. But does that mean the screenplay for AS should be a duplicate of the novel? Obviously not, and that's the rub, because even if every scene kept by the screenwriter was verbatim from the novel, the decisions regarding scenes omitted would be second-guessed as well.

I understand trepidation that the screenwriter may have missed the mark in places (let the professional screenwriter who wouldn't cast the first stone), but I don't understand prejudging a painting when we have only seen a corner of the canvass.

There are very few pieces of good news in Objectivism nowadays. Why not give the people making this film a good old-fashioned "benevolent benefit of the doubt," at least until April 15?

But . . . but . . . we have two world class experts on movies here on this list - two experts next to whom Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick would all blanch (if not quail)! Surely you wouldn't want them to withhold their harsher criticisms of the new film, just to spare our delicate sensibilities?

Incredulously,

JR

Kubrick is dead, the other two appear to be alive.

You mean that lauding or criticizing an as-yet, unfinished , unreleased film, on the basis of 5 binutes or so of snippets is,....going too far?

[anthony]

But . . . but . . . we have two world class experts on movies here on this list - two experts next to whom Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick would all blanch (if not quail)! Surely you wouldn't want them to withhold their harsher criticisms of the new film, just to spare our delicate sensibilities?

Incredulously,

JR

JR, :thumbsup:

Gents, all of you are right - and I asked for that.

B)

[Dennis Hardin]

But . . . but . . . we have two world class experts on movies here on this list - two experts next to whom Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick would all blanch (if not quail)! Surely you wouldn't want them to withhold their harsher criticisms of the new film, just to spare our delicate sensibilities?

Incredulously,

JR

Do you really think you can intimidate me into silence with this kind of crap, JR? I am saying what I think, based on what I see. Obviously that annoys you. I really don’t give a shit. I’ll take your bait and say, “Damn right! I am a world class film expert.” (In fact, I am just a human being with eyes and a mind. Those are the only qualifications anyone needs.) Now you can post another clever insult using the other half of Peikoff’s indictment of McCaskey, and I will feel even greater pride.

From our ‘Top Ten List of Funniest Insults by Notable Objectivists’:

“I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual. . .”

Or maybe you would prefer to come up with a more original insult this time.

Or better yet, grow up.

[Jerry Biggers]

Perhaps I am stating the obvious here. (If so, duh!) To quote a cliche, you can't judge a book by its cover, but it does give an idea of what the publisher thought was important. The same is true with these very brief clips that the movie's producers have released.

So, either we say nothing (because we havent seen the whole film), or we comment on what was released (as an indication of the producers' intent).

Oh, wait! I forgot, we can always pull a Peikovian maneuver, and pronounce judgment before reading the book/seeing the movie (as with Barbara Branden's bio on Rand)!

Edited February 23, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[jriggenbach]

I guess this is a little off topic, but have you ever spent any time around one of those people who believes (or appears to believe) that everyone is always thinking about him, talking about him, concerning themselves with him, almost to the exclusion of all the rest of reality? "Exaggerated Self-Reference," someone once told me it was called. But she was full of shit, by and large, so that may not be the actual term used.

JR

Edited February 23, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

Michael,

I think Ayn Rand put a lot of thought into that scene between Dagny and the guard.

"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."

That was Rand's way of assuring the reader that malevolence was no part of Dagny's motivation, and that any act of killing on Dagny's part constituted a last resort and a necessary defense of her values. She may well have thought it important to add that scene as a way to put Dagny's earlier threat against the "Washington boys" in that context.

I think Rand wanted Dagny to kill the guard so she set it up so that she could and would. The rest was just words dressing out the situation. The guard killed Kira in WTL and now it was payback time for such in AS. Look at the Soviet Union Rand escaped from, but kept the rest of her family, and the function of guards for such a country.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Pedro Almodovar should direct The Foutainhead, and if you don't believe me, watch Volver and Flower of My Secret.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Ted Keer

[caroljane]

I think Rand wanted Dagny to kill the guard so she set it up so that she could and would. The rest was just words dressing out the situation. The guard killed Kira in WTL and now it was payback time....

--Brant

I agree with this. One level on which AS can be read is as an extended revenge fantasy, revenge on an entire irrational immoral world and the evil characters who symbolize it. There are so many scornful smiles, so much calm not-caring, so much "but I don't think of you" that the reader knows that much has been cared about and thought about and raged against.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... have you ever spent any time around one of those people who believes (or appears to believe) that everyone is always thinking about him, talking about him, concerning themselves with him, almost to the exclusion of all the rest of reality?

Jeff,

Yes.

Michael

[caroljane]

... have you ever spent any time around one of those people who believes (or appears to believe) that everyone is always thinking about him, talking about him, concerning themselves with him, almost to the exclusion of all the rest of reality?

Jeff,

Yes.

Michael

JR how can you even ask such a rhetorical question?

Michael owns this forum.

[George H. Smith]

... have you ever spent any time around one of those people who believes (or appears to believe) that everyone is always thinking about him, talking about him, concerning themselves with him, almost to the exclusion of all the rest of reality?

Jeff,

Yes.

Michael

I have never known such a person. After all, how can someone else honestly believe that everyone is always thinking and talking about him when it is obvious that everyone is always thinking and talking about me?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Re: Rearden comes home

The scene is totally flat. Just a bunch of people talking with no real effort to convey the underlying intensity of the dramatic conflicts involved. And Grant Bowler is about as convincing as an industrial genius as Adam Sandler. Here is the paragraph in AS that immediately precedes Rearden giving the bracelet to Lillian:

“He put his hand in his pocket. When he touched it, the reality of the bracelet swept out everything else; he felt as he had felt when the liquid metal had poured through space before him. . .the gesture of his arm was that of a returning crusader offering his trophy to his love. . .”

Needless to say, Grant Bowler conveyed none of that. He was just another married guy handing his wife a gift. And it’s probably unfair to criticize him for that, since neither the director nor the screenwriter had a clue as to what a man like Rearden would be feeling at that moment.

If the three parts of "Atlas" are successful, we might see one of those satirical take-offs that have become popular with horror flicks and films like "300."

In this version, Rearden could pour hot liquid metal into Lillian's outstretched hands, while saying, "Here is your trophy, fresh from the furnace of my love."

This scene would certainly convey intensity; it might even elicit enthusiastic cheers from some viewers.

Ghs

[Selene]

He could also place her into a mold and bake her in one of the plant's furnaces...baked bitch

[George H. Smith]

I just received an email from a female correspondent who is a huge fan of Atlas Shrugged. A friend of hers just saw the film at a studio and was "disappointed" with it. She will be seeing the movie tomorrow and will keep me posted.

I don't know if the version in question is a rough cut or the final cut. We shall see.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

He could also place her into a mold and bake her in one of the plant's furnaces...baked bitch

Yeah, that would work, especially if a Peter Lorre type played Hank Rearden.

If you happen to like the classic ballad "My Old Flame," I strongly recommend that you don't listen to this version by Spike Jones. It will ruin the tune for you forever. You will need to watch the entire video to understand its relevance to Peter Lorre.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9D2A32KUTq0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

[Selene]

Good one George:

The distinctive voice, even when he was young. One of my favorite performances of his was as Dr. Einstein in Arsenic and Old Lace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDdyTW8Twls

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Re: Rearden comes home

The scene is totally flat. Just a bunch of people talking with no real effort to convey the underlying intensity of the dramatic conflicts involved. And Grant Bowler is about as convincing as an industrial genius as Adam Sandler. Here is the paragraph in AS that immediately precedes Rearden giving the bracelet to Lillian:

“He put his hand in his pocket. When he touched it, the reality of the bracelet swept out everything else; he felt as he had felt when the liquid metal had poured through space before him. . .the gesture of his arm was that of a returning crusader offering his trophy to his love. . .”

Needless to say, Grant Bowler conveyed none of that. He was just another married guy handing his wife a gift. And it’s probably unfair to criticize him for that, since neither the director nor the screenwriter had a clue as to what a man like Rearden would be feeling at that moment.

If the three parts of "Atlas" are successful, we might see one of those satirical take-offs that have become popular with horror flicks and films like "300."

In this version, Rearden could pour hot liquid metal into Lillian's outstretched hands, while saying, "Here is your trophy, fresh from the furnace of my love."

This scene would certainly convey intensity; it might even elicit enthusiastic cheers from some viewers.

Ghs

Wow!!! The ultimate response to Lillian's shrewish character!!

Now that is truly inspired improvisation! I bet George has other ideas for scenes that would definitely guarantee that the movie-goer will be thinking about this movie long after he leaves the theater.

And how about a Peter Lorre clone to play a sniveling James Taggart? Or Philip Rearden?

Edited February 24, 2011 by Jerry Biggers