Cameras role on 'Atlas'

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a comment on Hsieh's site that makes a very interesting analysis of what ARI is now doing. It will probably be taken down since the person insulted the site owner (so the link might not work after a while). I normally would not post such a comment precisely because I do not condone making direct insults to a person when you are in his/her house. Posting insults anonymously makes it worse in my eyes. But the analysis is good. I had not made the connection that ARI is now doing--as policy--what David Kelley was excommunicated for.

Here is the comment without the final insult. The opening quote is a quote from Hsieh's rant and wish for the failure of others. (Now that is a spirit I dislike--wishing for failure like that shows clearly that the value of production is not on the table, but instead the value of one tribe beating another, but calling it--or insinuating that it is-- production. I call that stuff hypocrisy.)

"I fear that IOS/TOC/TAS will rise from the grave with this movie. I suspect they've been desperately waiting for it as their last hope. That's just pathetic: it's clear that their core idea of "open Objectivism" has been an abject failure in practice, particularly compared to the flowering of new and innovative work under the supposedly dogmatic Ayn Rand Institute."

Precisely because, without admitting it, ARI has embraced IOS/TOC/TAS's strategy "open Objectivism." What else do you call changing the name to The ARCIR? Establishing an office in Washington, DC for the express purpose of influencing lobbyists and law makers? Appearing on media outlets like Glenn Beck, PJTV, and John Stossel's show - not just as guests amongst many, but as integral parts of Ayn Rand-themed episodes? Etc, etc. It all gives the impression, to the unintelligent or intellectually dishonest viewer, that Brooke, Epstein, et al are not simply presenting the Objectivist view, but elaborating upon the conservative/libertarian one. This is exactly the type of behavior Kelley was hyterically denounced and excommunicated for.

Of course, ARI personnel doing it current is acceptable because, well, this issue hasn't been discussed by influential Objectivists in 20 years. It hasn't been allowed to be discussed. It's been presumed settled. This behavior is the result of current events causing the world to beat a path to Objectivism's door - which the basics of the philosophy itself said would have happen eventually - and the powers that be at ARI being caught off guard.

They're demonstrating themselves to be abject hypocrites. Individuals who consciously chose not to think about this issue precisely because they wanted to receive more from their involvement with Objectivism than it warrants. Material and professional rewards, to be exact. Now they're counting upon people like Diana - as well as her more loyal readers - to not think of it either. To continue to consider it dead, when it is clearly alive and kicking. They want the co-opting of the strategy David Kelley SUGGESTED AND EXPERIMENTED WITH (ie: didn't advocate and/or consistently practice) to continue unabbated until such time as they can have both the broader rewards of dealing with the public in a "Kelley-like" manner as well as the continued reputation as being principled and "closed."

Such a conclusion does indeed require the death of IOS/TOC/TAS.

"Co-opting of the strategy" of David Kelley indeed. Just like some of the ARI writers are trying to co-opt the input of Nathaniel Branden to Objectivist ideas.

These people should stop it. There's nothing wrong with the truth and there's everything good about loving it.

Anyway, I expect to see a lot of people of Hsieh's persuasion wishing for Aglialoro's failure.

Wishing for the failure of someone's productive efforts is ugly. Not one Randian hero I can think of did this and neither did Ayn Rand (unless it was for the failure of communism or something like that). And neither does any decent person, Objectivist of not.

Shame on the people who do this.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

How does one stuff an 1100 page novel with a complicated plot into a two hour movie made on a shoe-string?

Peter Jackson with a mammoth budget could not put Lord of the Rings into three three hour movies and do it well. He produced an abomination (ask anyone who has read and loved the novels by Tolkien).

My best guess is that this effort with A.S. will make very few people happy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a very interesting take on what is really going on. It certainly sounds plausible to me, although this is speculation and only speculation. It could just as easily be wrong.

More Atlas Shrugged Craziness: Former Director Angry at Being Replaced, May Sue

by Russ Fischer

June 15th, 2010

Slash Film

From the article:

... this movie is just a placeholder project to keep the rights to the material. (Think Roger Corman’s 1994 Fantastic Four film, shot in order to retain the character rights, and never intended to be released.)

Time will tell...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Without a 50 million dollar budget there won't be a feature film. And to do that right would probably require 2-3 times that amount. There should be no big-name actors as it would merely turn into a star vehicle. That would save a lot of money, but this film needs a lot more than talking heads. You get all the palaver you'd ever want just by reading the novel. The medium needs to be honored to honor the novel by bringing to the table what a visual medium is strong in and a verbal medium is weak in. Above all the movie needs surrealism, much like Oliver Stone brought to Natural Born Killers.

--Brant

Edited June 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Dennis Hardin]

While some healthy skepticism is always warranted where Hollywood is involved, I don’t know why some people are assuming that the movie will be a straight-to-video disaster because it is being shot on a limited budget. That could actually be a good thing, forcing Aglialoro to focus more on story and substance and less on flashy bells and whistles. Look at all the megabuck travesties [e.g., Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever, Gigli, ad nauseum] that emerge from mindless fatcats who think the secret to success is big star name recognition and lots of T & A, flying bullets and car chases.

Stars like Brangelina often become the focus of attention instead of the movie’s story line (recall the banal yawner Mr. and Mrs. Smith)—and in the case of Atlas Shrugged, the story line (i.e., the meaning of the unfolding events) is everything. Some of the most interesting and successful films are independent productions that don’t have the luxury of an easy cash flow from a major studio. Without a big studio or a major star, the producers know they have to create something of genuine artistic merit. James Cameron’s original Terminator film—hastily written and shot on a shoestring budget in 1984--is one example. We need to take a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude and not act like a bunch of hand-wringing crepe hangers.

[algernonsidney]

There has been talk of spreading the novel into three or even four movies. My speculation is that he is going to try one in order to see what happens. If it succeeds, he will have plenty of cash for the next one. Hopefully, he got the actors contractually bound to do more movies. Changing actors mid-series would be disastrous.

If people are willing to read the book five or six times, there will be plenty of people who go see it that many times. If the movie is done well, I think it will sell plenty of tickets. Look at how many people are talking about it now, and it has barely started production.

I'm quite disappointed by all the pessimism about this movie. It's almost as if the pessimists would rather be right than see a good movie.

I have no absolutely no idea what to make of Diana's comments. It almost seems as if she thinks that Objectivists should just go into Galt's Gulch right now. Let's keep in mind that Ayn Rand went on Johnny Carson, Phil Donahue, Tom Snyder, and others. Anytime someone offered Ayn Rand a microphone, she grabbed it as long as she could speak her mind without compromise.

Over the past few years, my opinions regarding Glenn Beck have swung back and forth between love and hate. If he invited me on his show, I would do it.

[9thdoctor]

Penn wants a part:

[Kat]

Penn in drag as Dagny?.... yes, I would pay to see that one. LOL

[Jonathan]

I think he'd be a pretty hot Dagny.

[Guyau]

Dennis,

When you referred (#17) to Diana Hsieh speaking on the topic of luck, for an Objectivist audience, I surmised you meant her talk “Luck in the Pursuit of Life: The Rational Egoist's Approach to Luck” to be given next month.*

Dr. Hsieh writes that her Ph.D dissertation from the University of Colorado at Boulder was entitled Better Good Than Lucky: An Aristotelian Solution to the Problem of Moral Luck. “It concerned moral responsibility and moral judgment, particularly the problem of moral luck. I successfully defended it in June 2009.”

Abstract:

Philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons by his arguments for the existence of "moral luck." We intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we seem to routinely praise and blame people for actions, outcomes, and character substantially shaped by luck. This challenge to moral judgment rests on a faulty view of the conditions for moral responsibility and the process of moral judgment. The morally responsible person must satisfy the control and epistemic conditions originally identified by Aristotle in Book Three of the Nicomachean Ethics. When those conditions are adequately explained and developed, moral responsibility clearly tracks a person's voluntary actions, outcomes, and character. Nagel's questions about whether a person might have done otherwise given better or worse luck are irrelevant to the praise and blame a person deserves for his actual voluntary doings. This account of moral responsibility and moral judgment eliminates the appearance of moral luck in the puzzling cases raised by Nagel and others. We can conclude that our ordinary moral judgments of persons are warranted: they do not depend on luck in any problematic way.

I have not studied the topic of Moral Luck. I have the highest confidence in Philosophy at University of Colorado. Diana is assuredly well qualified to speak on the topic of her planned talk. If I were attending that conference, I would definitely attend her lecture and expect to learn from it.

I do not concur with Diana's or anyone’s denigrations of David Kelley’s character, intellectual or moral. It was on account of their (behind-the-scenes) denigrations of David that I stopped my financial support of the Ayn Rand Institute years ago.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Best wishes to those working on making the first film of Atlas Shrugged.

[9thdoctor]

This is interesting. So John Galt doesn’t appear in the first installment, and Johansson says he’s not playing the part.

http://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/exclusive-lfm-visits-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-director-paul-johanssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-i/

So there's an opening for Penn!

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Philip Coates]

I just want to reveal to everyone that I have been cast as John Galt.

But my union contract guarantees me only 25 minutes of filming a week and as many retakes as I want. One time I am able to master the no pain face. Another time no fear. Another time no guilt. And now we are working on putting them all together.

So you may have to wait till 2011 till principal filming for the movie is done.

[Philip Coates]

In a more serious mood, I just read the LFM interview. There are some really promising quotes from the director, Paul J.

I'm beginning to get the sense that PJ maybe gets it. He's obviously a Rand fan, but that of course is not enough:

"There’s a reason it wasn’t made in 53 years. You know? And that’s because nobody could decide what this movie was about."

It's a huge novel. Figuring out what to leave out and what to include, how to essentialize is crucial.

"There are six and seven pages of dialogue in some scenes."

One of the bad things about modern movies is how unliterary they are: grunts, facial expressions, action scenes. The loss of the power and beauty and clarity of language. Compared to the movies of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

"And if it’s going to be a big epic movie with giant plane shots and special effects, which it isn’t, because this doesn’t have that kind of a budget – they’d lose the story in that."

Perceptive. Story has to dominate.

"LFM: her novels remind me of one of those Tamara de Lempicka paintings from the 1920s and ’30s – you know, of those Art Deco women who are always in control, with the sky-scrapers behind them, in the vivid colors.

PJ: Right, right. I actually have one of those pictures in my script.

I cut out pictures from magazines sometimes, for mood – I’ll paste them into my script to give me reminders of feelings and moods. I’m weird like that."

Tamara de Lempicka is a good choice for what he is saying.

"I remind my actors that this movie is about the nobility in man’s spirit. That’s what it really should be about."

[Brant Gaede]

I just want to reveal to everyone that I have been cast as John Galt.

But my union contract guarantees me only 25 minutes of filming a week and as many retakes as I want. One time I am able to master the no pain face. Another time no fear. Another time no guilt. And now we are working on putting them all together.

So you may have to wait till 2011 till principal filming for the movie is done.

The funniest thing about Phil's humor is Phil's attempts at humor.

Phil, keep your hands off Dagny! Carrying her down to the car is a no no. First put a neck brace on, then get a stretcher!

--Brant

EMT--really!

[merjet]

Part II.

[9thdoctor]

Part II.

May as well embed the video. The project's looking better I think...no point debating, we'll see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGL0zUTyttU&feature=player_embedded

[blackhorse]

I have my suspicions about this movie.

In the interview the director said ,"And the laissez faire capitalism she was preaching doesn’t really work either, to be honest with you. People say it does, but that relies on Rousseau’s natural man theory - or Adam Smith – that everyone’s going to be working with pure intentions, and that’s not true either."

[Brant Gaede]

I have my suspicions about this movie.

In the interview the director said ,"And the laissez faire capitalism she was preaching doesn't really work either, to be honest with you. People say it does, but that relies on Rousseau's natural man theory - or Adam Smith – that everyone's going to be working with pure intentions, and that's not true either."

Ah. If only Leonard Peikoff were directing!

--Brant

don't let me get started about those guys who published Atlas Shrugged!

[blackhorse]

Joss Whedon would have been my choice to direct. The problem with making 'Atlas Shrugged' with a guy who doesn't even give credence to the capitalistic system is that you can end up with a movie that is not in keeping with what the book is actually about and what message it is portraying. So, even though there may be artistic merit, if the philosophy of the movie, as Ayn Rand wrote it, is not there and is not grasped by the producer/director then the whole thing can actually end up doing more harm than good in actually explaining the idea's and "spirit" of Objectivism.

Edited July 23, 2010 by blackhorse

[Philip Coates]

The director's personal politics is not necessarily going to determine the quality of the film.

[blackhorse]

That is true Phil. However, I have my suspicions. I guess we will all see when it is released.

Then there is this exchange, too (hat tip; Ed Thompson has it posted at RoR, too)

GM: To return to the themes of the novel. Do you think the characters are beyond good and evil, beyond morality in a Nietzschean sense?

PJ: I really believe that. I really believe that.

GM: That they’re these Promethean, Titanic figures who are above such things?

PJ: I really believe that. Rand uses a lot of things like good and evil in her text but I don’t think she really believed those ideas. It’s like what Oscar Wilde said … I don’t know the exact quote – he said that a book can either be poorly written or well written, but it can’t be evil.

GM: But the novel has that Nietzschean overtone to it.

PJ: Absolutely.

Edited July 24, 2010 by blackhorse

[Jerry Biggers]

OL readers should read both parts of the two-part interview, including the video in the second half that has material not in the print interview.

http://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/exclusive-lfm-visits-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-director-paul-johanssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-i/

It is true that the director's politics (or the actors') does not by themselves indicate that the resulting movie will not be true to what Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (or what she would have included in a screenplay if she had lived long enough to have completed it). However, it does raise concerns when the director voices comments that show that he does not really understand either the novel or other aspects of Rand's philosophy.

Such as the following comments:

From the video segment: "Ayn Rand was not good in metaphysics...one thing she wasn't good at is metaphysics.." He thinks that she is an atheist, but he's not sure about that, either. He does not elaborate, skipping on to other topics.

From the print interview: "And the laissez-faire capitalism that she was preaching, that doesn't really work either, to be honest with you. People say it does, but that relies on Rousseau's natural man theory." [interviewer then charitably suggests Adam Smith, which Johansson uses to nail down his misunderstanding, or ignorance, of Rand's view of good and evil] "..Or Adam Smith - that anyone is going to work with pure intentions, and that's not true, either."

After enthusiastically agreeing with the interviewer that Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged are Nietzschean and "beyond good and evil", Johansson adds, "Rand uses a lot of things like good and evil in her text, but I don't think that she really believed those ideas." Then, he ineptly tries to apply a quote from Oscar Wilde, adding, "It's like what Oscar Wilde said...I don't know the exact quote - he said that a book can either be poorly written or well-written, but it can't be evil."

Other comments by the interviewers, both in the interview itself, and in the text and comments included with the interview on their website, appear to indicate that the script has been altered and that the scriptwriter that was listed on IMDB, for example, is different from the name listed on the movie's own website. From comments that Johansson makes in his interview, one might infer that he has been altering the screenplay during production. But this is not clear, either. Judging by Johansson's comments on what he thinks the novel is about, I certainly hope that he can separate his views from the script (if there still is one).