"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[9thdoctor]

Last e-mail I received puts the film in 238 theaters

and it started with 11 or 12 ...

Where's your source for 238 theaters? Wikipedia is still listing 84, I'm thinking of updating it. I see that the listing on the movie's website has expanded greatly, but it doesn't look like there's 238 there, and I don't want to count them one by one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

[Philip Coates]

> Where's your source for 238 theaters? Wikipedia is still listing 84, I'm thinking of updating it. I see that the listing on the movie's website has expanded greatly, but it doesn't look like there's 238 there, and I don't want to count them one by one. [ND]

I had done an original count from the movie's site when the number was 84 and have gone back and simply counted the changes as it went to 121, then 169.

As of yesterday, I count 276 theaters in 42 states. (If I'm off, it's only by one or two.)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Greybird]

The first major review has appeared, in Variety. It is not favorable, and not from the reviewer disliking or disrespecting the book, as his first phrase attests.

A monument of American literature is shaved down to a spindly toothpick of a movie in "Atlas Shrugged," a project that reportedly once caught the eye of Angelina Jolie, Faye Dunaway and Clint Eastwood. Part one of a trilogy that may never see completion, this hasty, low-budget adaptation would have Ayn Rand spinning in her grave, considering how it violates the author's philosophy by allowing opportunists to exploit another's creative achievement — in this case, hers.

Targeting roughly 200 screens, pic goes out hitched to a grassroots marketing campaign, hoping to break-even via by-popular-demand bookings and potential Tea Party support.

[...] Since boardroom chats and business dinners are more affordable to shoot than flashbacks and setpieces, "Atlas Shrugged" becomes a series of polite policy conversations interrupted by Fox News-style updates whenever exposition is called for, as in a long prologue that unnecessarily explains why a story re-set in 2016 still relies so heavily on railroad travel.

But even this stuffy, shut-in approach would be reasonable if only the dialogue crackled and the tempers flared from time to time, as they do on nearly every one of Rand's 1,200 pages. The film's rare exception, a faceoff between Dagny and playboy Francisco D'Anconia (Jsu Garcia), makes little sense without the ex-lovers' torrid backstory. [...]

This last element had always worried me. Without enough backstory, it's not easy for newcomers to the novel to keep Rand's huge cast straight, as to inner motivations and subtleties of character interactions. (Atlas needed a treatment in Cliffs Notes well before its having been in print for 40 years, which is about when it got one.)

Debruge concludes, "For the record, the onscreen title reads 'Atlas Shrugged,' sans any 'Part I' delineation." They would do well to include a "To Be Continued ..." closing title, but I've gathered that many in the industry see this as presumptuous — or somehow jinx-inducing.

It would be more honest, though. It's not as if this isn't well known already to be the first of a planned trilogy. Unlike, say, "Back to the Future," which had plans for its two sequels (shot back-to-back) develop only after its box-office success, with a "To Be Continued ..." only being added when it appeared on video.

[Jonathan]

I liked the way Rand analyzed this.

I do too. Rand's love of rebellious bad boys is one of the main reasons that I don't understand a lot of people who call themselves Objectivists, and who claim to be representing the Objectivist Esthetics and the "Objectivist sense of life." They seem to want to conform to some of Rand's inconsistent, subjective aesthetic tastes and rationalizations as an uninformed consumer of the non-literary arts rather than identifying with her tastes as a world-class artistic producer of literature.

Lindsay Pigero is a perfect example. I really don't understand how he imagines that, aesthetically, he has an "Objectivist sense of life." He's all about classicism, tradition, formula, and conformity. He's into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God. And he's enraged about the new, the different and the rebellious. He thinks he's being virtuous by ranting against the "objectively inferior" music of today. That's not the sense of life behind Howard Roark. It's the sense of life of Ellsworth Toohey.

Sense-of-life-wise, Roark is individualism and rebellion. He's rock and roll. He's rap.

And what's up with all of these little submissive weaklings online looking for guidance from Objectivist authority wannabes? Didn't they read Rand's novels? What in the hell did they identify with in her work? Put another way, can you imagine Howard Roark pledging to pay an unemployed, freshly minted PhD to hear her podcast answers to his questions as to whether it was Objectively Okay to like one thing or another? WTF?

J

[PDS]

I liked the way Rand analyzed this.

I do too. Rand's love of rebellious bad boys is one of the main reasons that I don't understand a lot of people who call themselves Objectivists, and who claim to be representing the Objectivist Esthetics and the "Objectivist sense of life." They seem to want to conform to some of Rand's inconsistent, subjective aesthetic tastes and rationalizations as an uninformed consumer of the non-literary arts rather than identifying with her tastes as a world-class artistic producer of literature.

Lindsay Pigero is a perfect example. I really don't understand how he imagines that, aesthetically, he has an "Objectivist sense of life." He's all about classicism, tradition, formula, and conformity. He's into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God. And he's enraged about the new, the different and the rebellious. He thinks he's being virtuous by ranting against the "objectively inferior" music of today. That's not the sense of life behind Howard Roark. It's the sense of life of Ellsworth Toohey.

Sense-of-life-wise, Roark is individualism and rebellion. He's rock and roll. He's rap.

And what's up with all of these little submissive weaklings online looking for guidance from Objectivist authority wannabes? Didn't they read Rand's novels? What in the hell did they identify with in her work? Put another way, can you imagine Howard Roark pledging to pay an unemployed, freshly minted PhD to hear her podcast answers to his questions as to whether it was Objectively Okay to like one thing or another? WTF?

J

Jonathan: I couldn't agree more. I have referred to this as the swagger deficit in Objectivism on more than one occasion. I will never understand this herding phenomena among self-styled Objectivists.

[Xray]

He's [L.Perigo] into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God.

Perigo believes in God?

[Brant Gaede]

He's [L.Perigo] into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God.

Perigo believes in God?

Does anybody care if he does or doesn't? Jonathan has gone literary on us, but you seem oblivious to it.

--Brant

[Selene]

Jonathan and PDS - AMEN!

Xray - no "Pigero" does not believe in as far as I know. See, tongue in cheek, satire and hyperbole for clarification

ND - yes, I actually counted them, it is actually therapeutic for me lol.

_________________________________________________________________

As to the topic of this thread, yesterday's NY Post had this review which was fascinating in it's conflicting statements:

“'Atlas Shrugged'” is over the heads of most of the audience, being thick with convoluted industrial scheming and enough talk about entrepreneurship, unions and monopolies to fill a copy of The Wall Street Journal.

"Despite playing on only a couple of hundred screens (and only covering the first third of the novel), “Atlas Shrugged” is going to have an impact. It’ll make kids want to read the book, it’ll get argued about on widely read blogs, it’ll make some viewers question their assumptions: Why is it, exactly, that we are supposed to hate successful businessmen?

This is Rand’s moment: Her demon vision, despite the odor of brimstone and the screech of axe-grinding that envelops it, seems less and less unimaginable. For all its stemwinders, its cardboard capitalists and villainous bureaucracy, “Atlas Shrugged” makes ringing statements: that wealth has to be created before it can be divided up, that government isn’t necessarily your friend, that the business of America is business.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/pinch_of_galt_7ZxA68RopFjMv6FdZwJNjL#ixzz1J8uYpX3X

The Los Angeles Times chimed in today with this review:

'Atlas Shrugged' finally comes to the screen, albeit in chunks

"The graphic sex scenes of the novel are considerably toned down, earning the film a PG-13 rating and making Rand's story somewhat more palatable to the Christian family audiences who are among those the filmmakers hope to court. "Atlas Shrugged" has long been a sacred text among many conservatives and libertarians, but as an atheist who had an open marriage and wrote unapologetically sexual characters, Rand doesn't fit neatly into any Christian values-based marketing plan.

The reviewer concludes with Employing a strategy similar to the one used on the breakout low-budget horror hit "Paranormal Activity," the producers have asked fans to "Demand Atlas" in their city by filling out a form on the film's website. So far the most eager city is Atlanta, with more than 3,200 requests.

O'Toole is currently working on scripts for the second movie, and — if the first does as well as its makers expect — production could start by mid-September, Kaslow said.

After years of developing scripts and paying for the production, distribution and marketing of this first film, Aglialoro estimated he will have spent more than $20 million on "Atlas Shrugged" by the time it opens. Ironically, given Rand's theories of self-interest, what Aglialoro said he really hopes the movie will do is help other people.

"I hope that by seeing the movie people will win their own competitions," Aglialoro said. "Get the best from within you, and that's how you'll make contributions."

Finally, The Seattle Times reviewer explained that:"...'Atlas Shrugged' is a didactic, theme-heavy movie with characters who are forever explaining themselves.

All this, even limited to one-third of the book, is too much to fit in 110 minutes. The movie attempts to do it, and does fairly well, considering; but I don’t see how anyone could understand the movie who didn’t already know the story.

I am reminded of “Dune,” the movie David Lynch made of Frank Herbert’s science-fiction novel. At 137 minutes, it has fabulous music and costumes, sets and scenes. (It also cost a lot more than “Atlas Shrugged, Part I”.) But Lynch’s “Dune” is not long enough to accommodate characters, politics, religion, technology, biology and ecology that make up Herbert’s world. As a result, unless you’ve read the book, you don’t know what’s going on. The coherence problem was so bad that the producer came out later with 190-minute version, but even with this, it’s better to read the book first."

"Atlas Shrugged," the movie

[Greybird]

[...] The Los Angeles Times chimed in today with this review:

'Atlas Shrugged' finally comes to the screen, albeit in chunks

That's not the Times's review, which typically runs on opening day. It's a backgrounder article which, again typically, appears the Sunday before an opening, for any film which has generated unusual buzz or involves many industry players. This city being the Movie Colony, and the Times's entertainment coverage (which is one of its few true strengths) being what the movers and shakers peruse over their Sunday croissants.

[Selene]

[...] The Los Angeles Times chimed in today with this review:

'Atlas Shrugged' finally comes to the screen, albeit in chunks

That's not the Times's review, which typically runs on opening day. It's a backgrounder article which, again typically, appears the Sunday before an opening, for any film which has generated unusual buzz or involves many industry players. This city being the Movie Colony, and the Times's entertainment coverage (which is one of its few true strengths) being what the movers and shakers peruse over their Sunday croissants.

Steve:

Thanks for the correction, as I am clueless in this area.

What did you think of the statement by the Florida theater lady that the film was being delivered to them in a non-digital format, e.g., on a reel which cost $1,500.00?

Again, I know literally nothing about the difference in the costs between that format and the "digital" format.

Adam

[Selene]

A second NY Post reviewer:

'Atlas' at last After many failed attempts, Ayn Rand’s classic finally gets made as a movie. Sort of.

When Ayn Rand refused to give producer Albert S. Ruddy the rights to her classic book “Atlas Shrugged” unless he gave her screenplay approval, Ruddy played the sort of hardball you’d expect from the producer of “The Godfather.”

He told her he’d simply snag the rights once she was dead.

“I said, ‘Ayn, let’s cut to the chase. I’ll wait until you’re no longer around, when I can do this the right way,’” says Ruddy. “She said, ‘Darling, I’ll put in my will that the only person that can’t get it is you.’ I said, ‘I’m a producer. I’ll have someone else get it.’”

Not Angelina Jolie. Pitt’s partner once signed on to play the role of Dagny Taggart, but Taylor Schilling (here with Jsu Garcia, who plays Francisco D’Anconia), filled the part instead. That exchange took place back in 1971, and what neither could have imagined is that it was merely the first bump in a rocky, four-decades-long odyssey to bring the massive tome — most editions run about 1,300 pages — to the screen.

UPI.com chimed in today with:

"This guy wants to make sure that the message of the movie doesn't get watered down," Broderick said. "He can control the marketing, how much is spent. And if you can get enough people out from those core audiences the first weekend, it can build."

The movie industry has been leery of "Atlas Shrugged" for years, the Times said. A major red flag, the Times said, has been Rand's dense writing and a fan base that presumably would not tolerate the editing required to keep the narrative moving.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2011/04/10/Atlas-appeals-to-the-Hollywood-averse/UPI-40971302450033/#ixzz1J92QihGr

[Greybird]

[...] What did you think of the statement by the Florida theater lady that the film was being delivered to them in a non-digital format, e.g., on a reel which cost $1,500.00? Again, I know literally nothing about the difference in the costs between that format and the "digital" format.

Films are rarely delivered to multiplexes (especially those built within the last decade) on, well, film any more. When they are shown, they're typically opened in several theaters at once, and later moved to the smaller theaters as interest diminishes.

Multiple simultaneous showings or changes of venue aren't easily done with reels of film, as striking the prints in the first place is hugely expensive. Most theaters have gone to digital distribution, where the movie is sent to each multiplex as an ultra-high-resolution file, usually over a private network. Digital projection systems show the film in each theater, controlled by a single office worker, rather than projectionists.

Smaller and older theaters, of course, still have projectors. And any project that doesn't have the clout of a typical national "wide" opening — such as "Scream 4," opening on at least 3,000 screens this Friday — won't justify using the digital distribution system, which does have its own costs. So for such venues and movies, actual film prints are still struck.

The producers are undoubtedly ready to serve up a digitally-distributed version if "Atlas I" adds screens in the coming weeks, but getting into that network will take considerable persuasion and, probably, a hefty up-front fee from Aglialoro.

[Xray]

Perigo believes in God?

Does anybody care if he does or doesn't?

Well if he did that would go against the Objectivist premise 'No supernatural dimension exists'.

Jonathan has gone literary on us, but you seem oblivious to it.

With a type like Perigo, anything is possible.

When my husband saw him on YouTube delivering a speech, he asked: "Who's that? A priest?"

Maybe Jonathan meant that Perigo thinks of himself as an "opinion god" and thus expects his followers to submit to his views.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Maybe it is time to put in for new government funded lenses for your hubby, Ms. Xray?

[Brant Gaede]

Well if he did that would go against Objectivism's premises "no supernatural dimension exists".

Jonathan has gone literary on us, but you seem oblivious to it.

--Brant

The first sentence is yours, not mine.

--Brant

[Xray]

Well if he did that would go against Objectivism's premises "no supernatural dimension exists".

Jonathan has gone literary on us, but you seem oblivious to it.

--Brant

The first sentence is yours, not mine.

Sorry about the mistake. It has been corrected.

Maybe it is time to put in for new government funded lenses for your hubby, Ms. Xray?

His lenses still work fine. He just does not know who Perigo is.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Go See Atlas Shrugged on April 15th

Dear Adam,

As many of you know, the much-anticipated April 15th release of the Atlas Shrugged film is less than a week away! Based on Ayn Rand's classic novel which celebrates limited government, free markets and individual liberty, Atlas Shrugged is being called a made for Tea Party film.

Find a theater near you showing Atlas Shrugged!

Maybe that's because as millions of Tea Party supporters have rallied over the past two years, many have brought with them signs like those above—referencing Atlas Shrugged. As you rally on April 15th for your local < a href="http://7.send-list.com/click/member/1146/3/">Tax Day protest, I urge you to go see this important film.

The film is set in a not-so-distant future in which government has taken control of the means of production, bureaucrats have impose harmful regulations on businesses and turmoil in the Middle East has sent oil prices skyrocketing. Sound familiar?

On April 15th, Atlas Shrugged will be released in 300 theaters across America—but even more theaters are lined up if we can demonstrate our support for this film.

Click here to see where the film is playing near you! If you can't find a showing close to you, demand that the film is shown in your town.

I urge you to take your family, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see this important film on April 15th. Many activists are already organizing to go see the film right now on FreedomConnector. Atlas Shrugged has the opportunity to introduce millions more around the world to the philosophy of freedom. But if that's going to happen—if this life-changing film is going to be shown in thousands of theaters—we need your help.

As thousands of liberty-minded grassroots activists gather across America for Tax Day protests on April 15th, go see Atlas Shrugged. If it's not yet being shown near you, demand that your theater shows Atlas Shrugged. Thank you for all your efforts a nd tireless support.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe

President and CEO, FreedomWorks

___________________________________

This just arrived in my e-mail.

Ms. Xray...you really do not have to respond to one of my dumb spontaneous Junior High School jokes...you know that...right?

[caroljane]

Go See Atlas Shrugged on April 15th

Dear Adam,

As many of you know, the much-anticipated April 15th release of the Atlas Shrugged film is less than a week away! Based on Ayn Rand's classic novel which celebrates limited government, free markets and individual liberty, Atlas Shrugged is being called a made for Tea Party film.

Find a theater near you showing Atlas Shrugged!

Maybe that's because as millions of Tea Party supporters have rallied over the past two years, many have brought with them signs like those above—referencing Atlas Shrugged. As you rally on April 15th for your local < a href="http://7.send-list.com/click/member/1146/3/">Tax Day protest, I urge you to go see this important film.

The film is set in a not-so-distant future in which government has taken control of the means of production, bureaucrats have impose harmful regulations on businesses and turmoil in the Middle East has sent oil prices skyrocketing. Sound familiar?

On April 15th, Atlas Shrugged will be released in 300 theaters across America—but even more theaters are lined up if we can demonstrate our support for this film.

Click here to see where the film is playing near you! If you can't find a showing close to you, demand that the film is shown in your town.

I urge you to take your family, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see this important film on April 15th. Many activists are already organizing to go see the film right now on FreedomConnector. Atlas Shrugged has the opportunity to introduce millions more around the world to the philosophy of freedom. But if that's going to happen—if this life-changing film is going to be shown in thousands of theaters—we need your help.

As thousands of liberty-minded grassroots activists gather across America for Tax Day protests on April 15th, go see Atlas Shrugged. If it's not yet being shown near you, demand that your theater shows Atlas Shrugged. Thank you for all your efforts a nd tireless support.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe

President and CEO, FreedomWorks

___________________________________

This just arrived in my e-mail.

Ms. Xray...you really do not have to respond to one of my dumb spontaneous Junior High School jokes...you know that...right?

protest - you jr high school jokes are usually not that dumb.

Most posters here know what they have to do and don't - it depends on them.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan: I couldn't agree more. I have referred to this as the swagger deficit in Objectivism on more than one occasion.

Heh – "Swagger deficit." I like that.

J

[Jonathan]

He's [L.Perigo] into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God.

Perigo believes in God?

No, what I meant was that Pigero's aesthetic "sense of life" preference is to weep over art forms which contain yearning, to weep about fictional characters who fall in love, to weep about swooning over being in the presence of fictional heroes, and to weep about fictional characters expressing their adoration for God (despite not believing in God himself). He apparently interprets fictional characters' submission to and dependence on God as their admiration of greatness, which, to him, appears to be the highest virtue -- which kind of makes sense: his perspective is that of a consumer of greatness rather than a producer, so it's fitting that he would see his act of observing greatness in others as the best he's ever going to achieve. It's the mindset that makes him think that he's going to save Objectivism and the world with his consumer's tastes in music.

J

[Philip Coates]

From the official movie site: "277 theaters and counting."

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[caroljane]

He's [L.Perigo] into weeping over the beauty of yearning, falling in love, swooning in the presence of heroes, and submitting to God.

Perigo believes in God?

No, what I meant was that Pigero's aesthetic "sense of life" preference is to weep over art forms which contain yearning, to weep about fictional characters who fall in love, to weep about swooning over being in the presence of fictional heroes, and to weep about fictional characters expressing their adoration for God (despite not believing in God himself). He apparently interprets fictional characters' submission to and dependence on God as their admiration of greatness, which, to him, appears to be the highest virtue -- which kind of makes sense: his perspective is that of a consumer of greatness rather than a producer, so it's fitting that he would see his act of observing greatness in others as the best he's ever going to achieve. It's the mindset that makes him think that he's going to save Objectivism and the world with his consumer's tastes in music.

J

J - re producers/consumers/ - how do you think Rand viewed her middlemen - agents, lawyers etc? Were they Willers or second-handers or niche marketers or what?

[Selene]

hmmm good question - facilitators at a minimum.

[9thdoctor]

J - re producers/consumers/ - how do you think Rand viewed her middlemen - agents, lawyers etc? Were they Willers or second-handers or niche marketers or what?

She claimed her agent, or whoever it was who stood up for The Fountainhead, Archie I think his first name was, was a hero.

[Selene]

J - re producers/consumers/ - how do you think Rand viewed her middlemen - agents, lawyers etc? Were they Willers or second-handers or niche marketers or what?

She claimed her agent, or whoever it was who stood up for The Fountainhead, Archie I think his first name was, was a hero.

9th:

Yes. Archie Ogden [bottom of pg. 144 Heller], "He went to bat for the book with his boss, D.L. Chambers, the president of Bobbs-Merrill in

Indianapolis.

When Chambers wired him to reject the book, he wired back: 'If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you.'" Chambers responded: "Far be it from me to dampen such enthusiasm. Sign the contract. But the book better be good."

Later, she did call him a hero and, he was.

Adam