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

[Francisco Ferrer]

FF,

Who said anything about the number of pages?

Go past 3 or 4 pages and you have a speech.

Mann has plenty. And try Brothers Karamazov before denying this exists. Maybe you didn't read that one?

Granted, neither presented any long treatises on Objectivism.

Michael

No, no one said anything about number of pages.

Jerry Biggers, on 15 Sept 2014 - 4:51 PM, said:

"I can't think of another novelist, including several philosophers who were novelists, that injected such long and detailed philosophical passages into their novels."

So it is entirely possible that by "long" Mr. Biggers meant not pages but number of minutes in the audio version. The Objectivist Reference Center estimates the timing of the speech at 180 minutes.

Therefore, to be accurate I should have said, I have yet to encounter a full three-hour philosophical treatise in the middle of an audio novel. And, while I did read The Brothers Karamazov, I do not believe there is any one speech in it that would require three hours to read aloud.

[9thdoctor]

And check out the 900-some pages of digressions in Les Miserables.

J

Yeah, the part about Waterloo particularly stands out. Then he puts in a fig leaf of a tie-in to the plot, with Thernadier rescuing Marius's Father (or was it his Grandfather) from the battlefield.

But for me a more relevant example from Hugo is the "this will kill that" section from Hunchback. There Hugo has a scene that's definitely part of the story, then he stops the action and inserts an essay, in his own voice, about the role of architecture in culture and history. Great stuff. If she had followed Hugo's model, Rand could have gotten all the content of Galt's speech into the book that way. Maybe have Galt give a live speech, something short enough that people can actually sit through and absorb, then had printed copies of the whole thing distributed, printed on paper "repossessed" by Ragnar even. No matter, the book is what it is.

BTW, is there anyone else who's seen Part III who can confirm what I said about the guard? It went by pretty fast, but I definitely remember she was pointing the gun at his forehead while talking to him, then at the last moment turned the gun to his right shoulder. Then he was gone. Maybe it was really a ray gun, like in Star Trek!

[9thdoctor]

I can't think of another novelist, including several philosophers who were novelists, that injected such long and detailed philosophical passages into their novels.

If I dig, I can probably come up with a crap-load of authors.

The Savoyard Vicar section from Rousseau's Emile is also pretty lengthy. And of course Rousseau is remembered more as a philosopher than a novelist, but this was a novel, and quite influential. This is actually the part that got him in trouble, the book was burned in public by the hangman and he had to go into exile.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1782rousseau-savoyard.asp

[Wolf DeVoon]

Voltaire's Candide, every page a refutation and mockery of Leibniz.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I started digging and, on TV Tropes, there is a category called Character Filibuster. Lots and lots and lots of example, some better than others (and some weak). Galt's speech is considered there the granddaddy of them all.

One author I did not see mentioned was Marquis de Sade (but maybe I missed it). I read Justine when I was younger (those were the days ). Back then I remember I got real tired of the three part formula after a while:

1. Escape and capture

2. Long-ass philosophical discussions

3. Show time

It repeats like that over and over.

btw - The Grand Inquisitor parable in The Brothers Karamazov is practically a philosophical rant à la Galt.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Seriously, A.S. could not work even if adapted to a mini-series, or even a whole season of hour-long episodes. As soon as they finally got to present the speeches (especially, the speech), the Neilson ratings would drop through the floor.

I agree with MSK's post above, but want to add: If I shot the speech, it would be the most riveting episode of the series.

No brag, just fact.

Wolf,

Don't let me hold you back. Shoot it (cinematically speaking)! Go for it!

I think there are a few Youtube versions from people who tried it.. But, if you can shoot all 60-some pages, great.. Do a demonstration reel. Take it to ARI. I assume that the movie rights, now that it is finished,, return to Peikoff. He vowed to Ayn that he would make sure it was made into a movie. He can't break a vow, not to Ayn! Agliarlordo got him off the hook, temporarily. But now it is his again.

ARI has a lot more multi-millionaires/billionaires around it than TAS ever dreamed of. Well, not quite - I'm sure David Kelley does dream about it!

[9thdoctor]

I assume that the movie rights, now that it is finished,, return to Peikoff.

I thought they were now Aglialoro's for good. When Part I was being made I recall reading that all he had to do was make the one movie and the rights were his going forward, presumably until the book is out of copyright.

[9thdoctor]

Voltaire's Candide, every page a refutation and mockery of Leibniz.

Absolutely not! The part where Candide kills the ape-men in Uruguay (or was it Paraguay) is a mockery of Rousseau and his concept of the noble savage!

[Wolf DeVoon]

I assume that the movie rights, now that it is finished, return to Peikoff.

That's legally impossible. When Aglialoro commenced principal photography, the option was exercised and Aglialoro now owns the movie rights as long as he renews the copyright periodically. If he doesn't, no film rights revert to Peikoff; exhibition of completed films become pubic domain and arguably so do possible mashups of his footage. If I understand the history of shopping the deal to Turner via Ruddy, the option was comprehensive of any and all audiovisual adaptation(s) including TV. Aglialoro holds merchandising, ancillary, derivative, prequel, sequel, and remake rights -- unless he signed a very goofy deal letter outside the customary terms of the entertainment industry...

(which, now that I think about it, may very well explain why Lionsgate backed out, perhaps on advice of counsel).

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near Leonard Peikoff except with a claw hammer.

[Jerry Biggers]

O.K. (sigh), you guys really showed me up. Wait till I get out my Classics Illustrated set!

Seriously, which of these authors spawned a whole ideological movement? (I'm waiting for someone to mention Tolstoy and anarchism?).

To reiterate, Rand built A.S. around the speeches. Philosophy was paramount. After A.S. in was print, she never published another novel, but did write a lot of essays (e.g., VOS, CUI).

If she had just wrote a philosophical treatise and no novel, how much attention would she have attracted? Case example: Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism, by David L. Norton. (Princeton University Press, 1974). Similar views with Rand, but written in a dense, turgid style. One (as in 1) review on Amazon by an admirer, Tibor Machan. How many sold? I don't know.. Ranks 1,462,608 (on Amazon)..

For comparison: The Virtue of Selfishness Ranks, 26,309 on Amazon. Perhaps more importantly, certainly more impressivly: from Ayn Rand Nation (2012) by Gary Weiss (not an admirer of Rand) On this subject: "one of the most popular books on philosophy and ethics in the English language. That's right. I don't mean one of the most popular books at the Ayn Rand Bookstore in Irvine California. I mean the English language." (emphasis in the original).

Atlas Shrugged, by the way, ranks even higher (1,425) and not just as a novel, It was #5 in the category of Philosophy, Political & Social Science on Amazon..

So, where would Objectivism be if she only wrote a philosophical treatise?

[Jerry Biggers]

Why am I arguing this? I originally (years ago, on OL) stated that it cannot be made into a watchable, profitable, movie that would attract huge crowds, and still retain its philosophical integrity.

Wolf, You want to make a 26 episode TV series? Fine. But you have to convince ARI.

But, why bother?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Why am I arguing this?  I originally (years ago, on OL) stated that it cannot be made into a watchable, profitable, movie that would attract huge crowds, and still retain its philosophical integrity.

 

Wolf, You want to make a 26 episode TV series?  Fine. But you have to convince ARI.

 

But, why bother?

 

What does ARI have to do with a TV series, Jerry? Do you have inside information, or making an assumption?

 

according to Brian Doherty, Reason, April 8, 2011:

"His [Aglialoro's] right to make a movie of

Atlas Shrugged (plus one remake) would expire if he was not in production by June 15, 2010."

 

Did he fib about the remake clause? -- and certainly there must be more, like merchandising rights.

Pity we can't see the signed deal letter. Oh, wait a minute. How about the 1993 private placement?

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

BTW, is there anyone else who's seen Part III who can confirm what I said about the guard? It went by pretty fast, but I definitely remember she was pointing the gun at his forehead while talking to him, then at the last moment turned the gun to his right shoulder. Then he was gone. Maybe it was really a ray gun, like in Star Trek!

I saw the movie last night, with somewhat blurry vision. It looked to me like Dagny turned the gun toward the guard's right shoulder. I couldn't tell in the subsequent brief view of the fallen guard if he was supposed to be dead or just injured.

Ellen

PS: Michael, at what theater and at which showing did you see the movie?

Larry was in Chicago Thursday evening through Sunday about noon. He stayed at the Enrights and went with them and some others to the 7:30-ish showing at a downtown Chicago theater. I figure that if you and Kat were at the same showing, you'd probably have recognized the Enrights among the few attendees, but maybe you might have missed them.

Larry saw it again with me last night. I was glad that he was pre-adapted so I didn't have to hear mutters of irritation in process.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

We saw it at AMC Theaters on East Illinois Street. Kat saw it by herself on Friday night and we saw it in family at the Sunday matinee (11:15 AM or so). There were only 2 or 3 other people in the theater with us at that time.

It would have been cool to see the Enrights and meet Larry.

btw - My impression of the guard being shot was identical to what you described. It also seemed to me like Dagny was not a good shot. I couldn't tell if she shot him in the shoulder or if the gun recoiled. I looked to see if the guard was dead, but I couldn't tell. He was in an awkward position--lying down with his head angled kinda funny, maybe against the wall. Real still. Not a typical dead person shot. But then again, not a typical wounded person shot, either.

Michael

[Backlighting]

It ticks me off that whatever AR wrote of the AS screenplay (1/3?) wasn't used.

Perhaps when Lenny's balloon payment on his Irvine abode becomes due he will auction it to the highest bidder. He is, afterall, the self-appointed Godfather of all that pertains to Ayn Rand & her philosophy. Lenny might even pen a book interpreting it.

I'd like to at least see the script & notes, even if it is never used for a movie.

-Joe

[Ellen Stuttle]

I agree that there should have been no conversation.

There shouldn't have been the scene. It was quite unnecessary to the plot, unlike the plot awkwardnesses involving Galt's identity - and the quandary of something having to be done about notifying Rearden that Dagny was still alive after her plane crash, or not notify him and let him suffer.

By Rand's own strictures on the requirements of plot, the guard scene has no need to be there. Suppose it hadn't been there. Would anyone have thought, oh, there should have been a scene with Dagny being sent off to take an entrance alone and a stray guard who hadn't been tied up and gagged with the others popping up for Dagny to shoot him? I don't think so.

I think the scene was an indulgence on Rand's part to make a point about a "subhuman." (Did she explicitly use that word in the scene?)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When Aglialoro commenced principal photography, the option was exercised and Aglialoro now owns the movie rights as long as he renews the copyright periodically.

Wolf,

This is how I understand the law, but I'm not privy to what was negotiated.

Unless I come across anything to the contrary, I believe if anyone wants to do a second version of AS, they will have to go through Aglialoro.

That's actually better than it seems in my view. Aglialoro is a professional poker player.

All we have to do if we want to do a new version is make $100 million or so and cough it up for the production, then make an appointment to see him. I think the rest would follow fairly easily.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

All we have to do if we want to do a new version is make $100 million or so

That's silly. Spanish-language TV rights for $1 upfront, 60% of net broadcast revenue and 50% of other language sales.

Production company will initially run in the red (just like Aglialoro did) making 60 or 70 episodes, start to make profit maybe in year 4 and thereafter. The benefit to Aglialoro is that it costs him nothing and has the potential to reach 2 billion TV households worldwide, dubbed in Portuguese, German, Russian, Bahasa, Hindi, etc. I'm thinking of shooting in Costa Rica, Mexico City studio sets, Miami, Madrid.

Produced in Spanish language, initial release to US market has potential to reach 60 million households. Portada expects the Hispanic content marketing sector to grow from $1.75 billion in 2013 to $3.51 billion in 2018 at a compounded annual rate of 14.9%

Read more: http://www.portada-online.com/2014/06/18/portadas-2014-hispanic-content-marketing-report/#ixzz3DS1RJtjQ

It's ironic that Gene Roddenberry pitched Star Trek as "Wagon Train to the stars."

TV version of Atlas is "Lifestyles of The Rich & Famous in global meltdown."

[Jerry Biggers]

When Aglialoro commenced principal photography, the option was exercised and Aglialoro now owns the movie rights as long as he renews the copyright periodically.

Wolf,

This is how I understand the law, but I'm not privy to what was negotiated.

Unless I come across anything to the contrary, I believe if anyone wants to do a second version of AS, they will have to go through Aglialoro.

That's actually better than it seems in my view. Aglialoro is a professional poker player.

All we have to do if we want to do a new version is make $100 million or so and cough it up for the production, then make an appointment to see him. I think the rest would follow fairly easily.

Michael

Visa or Mastercard?

[Brant Gaede]

When Aglialoro commenced principal photography, the option was exercised and Aglialoro now owns the movie rights as long as he renews the copyright periodically.

Wolf,

This is how I understand the law, but I'm not privy to what was negotiated.

Unless I come across anything to the contrary, I believe if anyone wants to do a second version of AS, they will have to go through Aglialoro.

That's actually better than it seems in my view. Aglialoro is a professional poker player.

All we have to do if we want to do a new version is make $100 million or so and cough it up for the production, then make an appointment to see him. I think the rest would follow fairly easily.

Michael

I much, much prefer Peikoff to Aglialoro in this case. I much prefer me to them in any case.

--Brant

one is a whore and the other incompetent (but would-be whore?)--I take the whore to no sex at all (hey, I've been drinking!)

[Francisco Ferrer]

I agree that there should have been no conversation.

There shouldn't have been the scene. It was quite unnecessary to the plot, unlike the plot awkwardnesses involving Galt's identity - and the quandary of something having to be done about notifying Rearden that Dagny was still alive after her plane crash, or not notify him and let him suffer.

By Rand's own strictures on the requirements of plot, the guard scene has no need to be there. Suppose it hadn't been there. Would anyone have thought, oh, there should have been a scene with Dagny being sent off to take an entrance alone and a stray guard who hadn't been tied up and gagged with the others popping up for Dagny to shoot him? I don't think so.

I think the scene was an indulgence on Rand's part to make a point about a "subhuman." (Did she explicitly use that word in the scene?)

Ellen

Shooting the guard is of one piece with the Taggart Transcontinental tunnel disaster. Some people deserve to die because they don't think like Objectivists.

[Jerry Biggers]

DAGNY CONFRONTS/SHOOTS THE GUARD

Atlas Shrugged verbatim excerpt

Some quality in the tone of her voice made him whirl back to her: she was holding a gun pointed levelly at his heart.

"Listen carefully," she said. "Either you let me in or I shoot you. You may try to shoot me first, if you can. You have that choice—and no other. Now decide."

His mouth fell open and the key dropped from his hand.

"Get out of my way," she said.

He shook his head frantically, pressing his back against the door. "Oh Christ, ma'am!" he gulped in the whine of a desperate plea. "I can’t shoot at you, seeing as you come from Mr. Thompson! And I can't let you in against the word of Dr. Ferris! What am I to do? I'm only a little fellow! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!"

"It's your life," she said.

"If you let me ask the chief, he'll tell me, he'll—"

"I won't let you ask anyone."

"But how do I know that you really have an order from Mr. Thompson?"

"You don't. Maybe I haven't. Maybe I'm acting on my own—and you'll be punished for obeying me. Maybe I have—and you'll be thrown in jail for disobeying. Maybe Dr. Ferris and Mr. Thompson agree about this. Maybe they don't—and you have to defy one or the other. These are the things you have to decide. There is no one to ask, no one to call, no one to tell you. You will have to decide them yourself."

"But I can't decide! Why me?"

"Because it's your body that's barring my way."

"But I can't decide! I'm not supposed to decide!"

"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I'll shoot."

"Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best protection.

"One—" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in terror—"Two—" she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the alternative she offered—"Three."

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.

Her gun was equipped with a silencer; there was no sound to attract anyone's attention, only the thud of a body falling at her feet.

(emphasis added)

In which case, the movie Who is John Galt? differs. Dagny shoots the guard in his shoulder, not in his heart (as in the novel excerpt, above). But, so what?.That is rather insignificant, compared to other changes that they made. This is what you get for $5 million. A case can be made that if that was all the funds they had, then maybe they should not have attempted it. However, I think it is rather amazing what they did do with that amount.

If they had has $100 million plus, and a major production studio backing with some world famous directors and actors, then obviously it would have been better. But that kind of help of that kind was not forthcoming and Aglialoro had searched for 20 years. No major studio wanted to touch Atlas, for the obvious reasons.

[Brant Gaede]

Dagny's avenging Kira.

--Brant

author indulgence

[Wolf DeVoon]

Variety (reprinted in Chicago Trib)

 

...prior installments weren’t very good movies, and it should surprise few that this last one is the worst of the lot... Helmer J. James Manera sports the thinnest resume among the trilogy’s directors, but it would have been hard for anyone to pull this enterprise off. Crowd scenes that should be vast boast a cast of dozens. Stock footage, still photos and an omnipresent narrator awkwardly patch large gaps where the grandiose story goes beyond this movie’s ability to realize. Though under the circumstances tech contributions are OK, “Who Is John Galt?” has the feel of a low-grade TV soap opera, with acting to match. (The biggest name here, Rob Morrow in the hitherto major role of steel baron Hank Rearden, makes just an eyeblink appearance)... dully literal-minded execution that producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow have carried through each installment only makes Rand’s creaky plotting seem more archaic and illogical... It’s hard to imagine anyone having a “Eureka!” experience watching these lame movies, this latest least of all. http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-atlas-shrugged-who-is-john-galt-1201306488/

 

 

The Three Stooges could have done a better job producing Atlas.

 

[Selene]

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.

Dagny shoots the guard in his shoulder, not his head.

Just a quick correction Jerry...