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

[Brant Gaede]

Not a bad post, J, but of course as a writer she would treat "visual art as if were literature." By the time she finally got over to photography she was completely off base. She was such a great writer it was easy to overlook how she wasn't an actual authority on so much she wrote about and that was way beyond art. She needs to be studied as a rhetorician and polemicist as much as a philosopher and artist.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

She was such a great writer it was easy to overlook how she wasn't an actual authority on so much she wrote about and that was way beyond art. She needs to be studied as a rhetorician and polemicist as much as a philosopher and artist.

That's the trick with her essays. She produces such a powerful flow of apparent logic, the lack of evidential basis and actual logic can go right past being noticed in the sweep of the prose.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

If she had been alive during any attempt to film AS, I think that she would have prevented its visual success. I think that she would have stood in the way of any original thinking about how to match the visual style to the verbal.

My suspicion is the opposite, that she'd have been a help. Granted the error of her statements about photography, but realize that she was applying her meaning of "art." I think that she was as much limited by her definition as by lack of knowledge of the techniques.

The script for Red Pawn was a film script, and I think it begs to be filmed.

She did the film script for The Fountainhead, which I think works well visually.

There's also her praise of Fritz Lang as cinematographer, and the reasons she gives for the praise - his way of conceiving of film.

At any rate, I'm glad you clarified. You had me worried there that you don't "see" the visual power in her literary descriptions.

Ellen

[Francisco Ferrer]

Clearly, you have me mixed up with someone else. I am not an Objectivist. I disagree with Rand on nearly everything, with the exception of the moral and practical need for laissez-faire capitalism. I am not interested in converting anyone to Objectivism--although it's worth pointing out that such was the apparent aim of the producers, and now what do they have to show for it?

I see, you're not an Objectivist. So I misidentified you as being uptight and fretting about people not being converted by the films to Objectivism. You're actually uptight and fretting about their not being converted to laissez-faire capitalism.

If there is doom--it won't be mine.

Yeah, I don't think that you feel doomed, or that you like doom per se, but rather that you like the feeling of being above the doom. You seem to really enjoy finding something to bitch about so that you can feel superior to it.

As I made clear in my review of this movie on this thread, http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14641&p=217206 Atlas Shrugged is an unintentionally hilarious film.

Your review doesn't sound like laughter. It sounds like bitching and disappointment. It comes across as too personal and important to you to be laughter.

If I have pointed out how far the movie deviates from the style and content of the novel, it is only to show how clueless the filmmakers were about the original property. They must have skipped the big book and read an internet summary instead.

No, I think that the problem is that the book isn't something that translates well to film. It's romanticized, heroic talky-talk. It's not cinematic. It would be quite difficult for even the best people in Hollywood to make a great film (or films) of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand called her style Romantic Realism. The people who produced these films decided to go contemporary, thus placing more emphasis on the Realism half of the equation, and the films' harshest critics (at least the ones that I've read) have suggested that the style should have leaned even farther toward the Realism side -- they wanted deeper character development (much deeper than what was contained in the novel), they wanted realistic-sounding dialog (despite its not being in the novel), etc.

I think the opposite approach should have been taken. Every frame of the films should have had the look and feel of a clearly alternate reality. On a previous thread, Michael Marotta suggest the visual style of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, as well as possibly steam punk/diesel punk. And I agree that the novel demands something like that when translated to film: more Romanticism than Realism in the mix -- both in visuals and in acting. Maybe even something like Sin City. The posed, talky-talk artifice needs to be ramped up rather than toned down.

Of course, if you would like to challenge anything specific I said about this turkey, go ahead. You've seen it. You apparently liked it more than I. Now is the time to speak on its behalf.

I don't think that any of the three films were great, nor were they bad. Compared to their contemporaries at Redbox or on Netflix streaming, I'd say that they're better than 50 or 60 percent of their competition.

J

Uptight? Not as long as it's some other fool's money down the drain. I've never told an acquaintance to read Rand's magnum opus in order to understand the free market. If the film tanks, there will be other, better books to read about freedom. When I mentioned that Atlas the Movie would become a sign of misdirection, it was only to point out how badly the producers had failed at what they set out to do: introduce people to Ayn Rand. I cannot imagine a worse introduction.

A couple of years ago, Water for Elephants was made into a movie. I was not a fan of the book, but I recognized how clumsily the filmmakers had treated the source material and what opportunities they had missed. My criticism of AS3 is on the same level. It's rather like listening to Bartok being badly played. Better not at all than badly.

You can search these forums. I've never had much admiration for the novel, much less a personal attachment to it. In fact, I once incurred a barrage of anger when I criticized Rand's passage justifying the deaths of train passengers in the tunnel disaster. If you feel that I am wrong to "bitch" about AS3, all you have to do is write a positive review about it and demonstrate that the film deserves praise, not criticism. In the absence of a set of reasons to like Atlas, my bitching is entirely justified.

(And by the way, are you certain that your bitching about my bitching to make me feel superior to the filmmakers is not just to make you feel superior to me?)

Finally, I like your idea of doing Rand's work in the style of Sky Captain. But that does not invalidate any of the bitchy remarks I made in my review.

[Jonathan]

Alright, Francisco, it's pretty clear to me now that I've misread you. My apologies.

J

[Francisco Ferrer]

I want to thank you . . . and say I'm stunned. I'm not used to that kind of courtesy and honesty on internet forums.

[PDS]

Well done to both of you, I say.

[Ellen Stuttle]

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. [....]

[....]

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)

Rand used the similar phrase "responsibility of thought" in a 1969 essay, "What Is Romanticism?"

The Romantic Manifesto

1975, Signet Second Revised Edition

pg. 96

Classicism [...] was a school that had devised a set of arbitrary, concretely detailed rules purporting to represent the final and absolute criteria of esthetic value. In literature, these rules consisted of specific edicts, loosely derived from the Greek (and French) tragedies [...]. Some of that stuff was based on Aristotle's esthetics and can serve as an example of what happens when concrete-bound mentalities, seeking to by-pass the responsibility of thought, attempt to transform abstract principles into concrete prescriptions and to replace creation with imitation.

I think that there are a number of other essays post-Atlas in which she used one or more of the above phrases ("the responsibility of consciousness," "the responsibility of rational cognition," "the responsibility of thought").

Ellen

[Wolf DeVoon]

Atlas 3 - Domestic Total as of Sep. 21, 2014: $743,609

[PDS]

Atlas 3 - Domestic Total as of Sep. 21, 2014: $743,609

Goodness gracious.

[Backlighting]

That's about 1,000 tickets. Geez.

[Wolf DeVoon]

That's about 1,000 tickets. Geez.

2 more zeroes. 90,000 tickets @ $8

Thursday gross $32,568 = $135 per theater = 17 people (at 2 showings per theater)

Let's see what happens this weekend.

[Backlighting]

That's about 1,000 tickets. Geez.

2 more zeroes. 90,000 tickets @ $8 = about 370 admissions per theater. Let's see what happens this weekend.

My bad. Of course you're correct.

-J

[Wolf DeVoon]

$32,568 was for Thurs, Sept. 18 - movie played only 10 days according to Box Office Mojo

Total Est. Tickets: 89,300

Domestic Total: $743,609

...but the official movie website says 85 theaters are showing Atlas 3, and Fandango has tickets available

for instance 5 shows a day in Annapolis booked through Tuesday Sept. 30

4 shows a day at 4 multiplexes in and around Ogden Saturday Sept. 27

No national box office data after Thurs, Sept. 18

---------

UPDATE: Box Office Mojo says "If daily reporting stops for a given movie it does not necessarily mean the movie is no longer playing in theaters, and the movie may continue to be tracked on a Weekend and Weekly basis" -- so maybe an update on Monday?

[Backlighting]

Wow. Just 85 theaters in the U.S. showing it.

Deep Throat (circa 1972) might still be playing in more theaters than that.

-J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Official website: 85 screens 65 screens

4 screens in Denver, 11 showings today

1 screen near Seattle, 1 show today

1 screen near Chicago, 1 show today

not playing in New York City

not playing in Philadelphia

not playing in Houston

not playing in San Francisco

not playing in Hollywood

2 screens in Orange County, 7 shows

2 screens near Salt Lake City, 5 shows

1 screen in Pittsburgh, 5 shows today

[Brant Gaede]

Are you a masochist or sadist?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Are you a masochist or sadist?

--Brant

I dunno. Jerry advanced the idea that the movies would sell books. I think they poisoned the brand, made us look foolish.

[Brant Gaede]

Are you a masochist or sadist?

--Brant

I dunno. Jerry advanced the idea that the movies would sell books. I think they poisoned the brand, made us look foolish.

It's poison, but not nearly enough for poisoning.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Atlas 3 box office update:

Date Rank Weekend Gross % Change Theaters Gross-to-Date Week #
Sep 12–14 19 $461,179 242 $461,179 1
Sep 19–21 35 $132,412 -71.3% 210 $743,609 2
Sep 26–28 - $31,002 -76.6% 65 $830,210 3

...down to $100 per showing

...if four-walled (paying theater rental) they're losing money

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm beginning to see a trend here........This must be your favorite movie! Celebrate now, before it sinks into obscurity. It may end up as fodder for an Objectivist "trivia" game....to pas the time in the re-education camps.

but, in the meanrime, I would like to be "fly on the wall" of the next Board of Directors meeting at The Atlas Society. Remember, the whole reason for the second renaming of Kelley's original IOS was to capitalize on what they were sure was to the box office success of the Atlas movie(s)..

[Selene]

Remember, the whole reason for the second renaming of Kelley's original IOS was to capitalize on what they were sure was to the box office success of the Atlas movie(s)..

Thanks Jerry, was not aware of that fact.

Wow, that was exceptionally poorly thought out.

A...

nothing like making the same mistakes as were made in the '60's and wearing blinders in terms of outreach.

[Wolf DeVoon]

This must be your favorite movie!

I'm just a sore loser. "A pox on all other productions!" I used to growl -- but honestly I never expected an amateur home movie *

Don't worry about the guilty. They'll congratulate each other for heroically sacrificing themselves for the good of others.

_____________

* a term of art in Tinsel Town

[Wolf DeVoon]

Today's trivia. Atlas 3 is still playing in "toss-up" states. Not in red states or blue states -- except Mormon Utah, solidly red, and Orange County, a conservative enclave in Southern California. It never had a shot at wide release (3,000+ theaters). The last 65 screens seem to be drawing friendlies and Ron Paulites instead of the general public. Not a very controversial take, but that's what the numbers suggest.

There was a sniff of general interest in Part 1 (500,000 paid admissions) and Part 2 (371,000 paid admissions) but the big payoff of "Who Is John Galt" never happened (about 90,000 tickets total before it closes next week). Apparently Part 2 killed the franchise, opening on 1,000 screens. Part 2 was nominated for two Golden Raspberry Awards -- Worst Director and Worst Screenplay -- and slammed by 21 of 22 film critics. It had a respectable indie budget, estimated at $16 million, with preview screenings at Heritage and Cato. Kelley was personally invested in promoting Part 2 with cast interviews. It was Aglialoro's best shot and it stunk.

No sense blaming the critics. There was no general audience interest in Part 3, because Part 2 was so poorly executed. There will be a boxed set of DVDs pushed at friendlies, but the brand has been irreparably damaged. Terrible box office of Part 3 is the proof.

This should never have been attempted by true believers, suckered by Kaslow.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Speculating that Part 2 killed the franchise, I downloaded it from Amazon. Detailed notes follow. However, I can sum up what I saw in one sentence. Jerky, incomprehensible script littered with soap opera scenes was totally miscast. The result looked nothing like Atlas Shrugged, even if you know the story. It was an epic blunder to cut Atlas into three episodes with three casts.

ATLAS PART 2 NOTES made while I watched it:

1. incomprehensible 1st act

2. totally miscast -- pudgy Dagny comes off as an emotional, worn out bimbo; Stadler lightweight, Quentin Daniels Jewish (WTF?!) skinny James Taggart miscast and misunderstood his role, sloppy casual Francisco a mental and physical midget, whispering Hank no steel titan, absolutely wrong Lillian, absolutely wrong Eddie (and absolutely wrong interpretation of Eddie's character to boot), badly miscast Wesley Mouch, unbelievably wrong Mr. Thompson... plus Hannity-Beckel-Williams throws us totally out of the story into the literal present and conjures Barack Obama playing golf.

3. too many sappy TV soap opera scenes; too many "shoe leather" scenes

4. none of the ideological speeches make a whit of sense, cut to ribbons; they sound ill-tempered, jokey and fake

5. Directive 10-289 comes off as laughably unreal

6. crowd scenes (Rearden trial, reaction to 10-289, street riots) are not Atlas Shrugged

7. steel mill located anywhere near Philadelphia is silly, and furnace breakout completely mishandled, Francisco did nothing

8. Dagny and Francisco at Woodstock incomprehensible

9. Jeff Daniels is supposed to be a goddamn hobo!

10. Intensely stupid decision to end with aircraft chase and Twilight Zone fx

------------

POSITIVE COMMENT #1: Kip Chalmers and Winston Tunnel handled nicely
-- but they forgot to show us drunk engineer, fight over danger, vague orders ("Give Mr. Chalmers an engine")

POSITIVE COMMENT #2: computer generated imagery (rails, Galt plane, Dagny crash) OK

POSITIVE COMMENT #3: Putch did OK with action sequences

POSITIVE COMMENT #4: Kaslow put most of the money on the screen, looked like at least $12 million of the $16 million

-----------

WORST SCENE: "I am John Galt" a ridiculous finish, awful delivery, completely blew it