ATLAS SHRUGGED, AND SO WILL AUDIENCES

Boy, what would John Cassavetes think of his son Nick being in this crap?

They better not film anywhere that gives government tax credits to film-makers.

5 million dollar budget? Yeah, this'll look like a quality product.

I must see this.

If anybody ever actually gets a look at it. This really does smell like a placeholder film a la the Fantastic Four. Five Million bucks might well cost less then negotiating a new deal for the book would cost.

Of course if this project vanished, no one would be happier then I,considering my immense dislike for Ayn Rand.
But Atlas is right up there with Stranger In A Strange Land as being the most notroious film based on a famous novel never to make it out of Development Hell. Atlas has been in development, by one studio or another, since the early 70's. It was being promoted as a vehical for Faye Dunaway at one point in the 70's.
Heinlein's novel is just about the only novel that matches it in "It is always in development but no one every pulls the trigger" department.

I don't know that objectivism is any more inherently "evil" than any other political philosophy. Its completely impractical, and actually trying to apply it wholesale inevitably results in mass-misery and collapse, but that can be said of every "ism" or "ity" ever dreamed up. There's a certain amount of useful or at least interesting thought to be gleaned from Rand, once you accept that the "philosophy" was mostly self-justification for what was probably narcissistic personality disorder and perform your own mental editing. I don't think Atlas is especially filmmable for technical reasons (Fountainhead really is the better book) but I'd be intrigued to see someone who's not specifically wedded to the PHILOSOPHY make a working film of the STORY, which is at least unique as social-collapse stories go. That's why I was hoping Jolie's version would get made, since she's apparently a fan but CLEARLY isn't an Objectivist adherent (UN, charity work, etc.)

More immediately, I'd like to see a version of it onscreen just to watch how the Teabaggers react when they realize that this book (which clearly next to none of them have read or comprehended) that Beck has them quoting is actually about a ball-busting proto-feminist, an alternative-energy inventor and a guy who finds self-actualization in adultery teaming up to save the world from "regular joes;" as-written by a hardcore atheist. (Its a "revenge of the nerds" epic, in many ways.) If Ayn Rand were alive to see the emergence of Sarah Palin, she'd probably throw herself off a bridge (leaving behind a 750 page suicide note, no doubt.)

She probably just wanted to swan around looking stylish and giving orders to weak men. It would've been an interesting (and amusing) role for her. Who the fuck is Taylor Schilling?

I hope this is a Trilogy and Part III consists of John Galt's Radio speech! Man, Ayn Rand was a real Visionary!

Between this (which may not even see a proper release, and in any event doesn't have the star power of Ms. Jolie) and the uncertain future of the Red Dawn remake, it's been a rough news cycle for those who frequent Big Hollywood.

Per Wikipedia (I know, I know) the guy producing this trash will also play John Galt. Egotistical much?

I think it is. It's about reveling in greed and showing active contempt for weakness. That's not part of the unintended fallout, that's right there in the text.

The sad thing about Rand is that some of her principles are good. I think rationalism, industry, and capitalism are good things. I think self-determination is an admirable goal. I think that yes, there are instances of "emotional blackmail" out there, and that it's much better to do a good thing because you yourself have decided it's good, rather than because other people have guilted you into it. And yeah, I'm an atheist.

But Rand takes all this to absurd extremes and leaves massive gaps in her reasoning. To the point where she has to build this elaborate fictional edifice that looks nothing like the real world to support her points. I have no idea how an Objectivist utopia is supposed to function, practically speaking. We're supposed to create a world of rugged individualists and elevate selfishness to the status of a virtue, but we're also supposed to abide by this rigid moral code which will somehow be enforced by all the Gordon Gekkos out there. We're supposed to build a functioning society on the foundation of "every man for himself". It makes no sense.

By the way, if Angelina Jolie is an Objectivist--and it's hardly impossible, her dad's a teabagger--she's the first example I've heard of of a self-identified Objectivist who actively contributes to society.

Are there any artists, in any medium, who are Objectivists and who aren't completely terrible (at creative work, I mean?) I know Terry Goodkind is an objectivist, and his stuff is godawful. Obviously Rand herself was godawful. The only self-identified Objectivist artist who was or is any good, that I know of, was Steve Ditko. And even there, the quality of his work clearly nosedived as he tried to inject objectivist themes.

Aside from Ditko creating The Question as an Objectivist, I agree with you.
"We the living" is a good Rand book, and "The Fountainhead" has its moments, but I never could finish "Atlas Shrugged".

Neil Pearth comes to mind, though I don't know if he identifies as an Objectivist specifically - you'll find more people in the arts and especially in tech fields who are "interested" in Rand's work than you will card-carrying Objectivists.

Nick directed The Notebook and My Sister's Keeper. Ship: sailed!

But he made out with his sister in Face/Off!

And he made John Q!!!

Oh...

Agreed. But I was thinking more in terms of politics/philosophy, not quality. Somehow ol' John didn't strike me as the objectivist sort.

I've noticed that most actors don't seem to take such things under consideration. They like certain things about a work and ignore the rest. I think Josh Holloway of LOST is a fan.

That, and actors want jobs?

You just pointed out the huge flaw in Rand's philisophy..she never establishes why in a world in which Looking out for #1 is the highest moral value, and concern for others is weakness, things like theft, murder etc are wrong.
Her attempts to solve this with the whole "theft,murder, etc are evasions of reality" bit fall totally flat.

I agree about Ditko. Frankly, although the art was a good as ever, in the last few issues of his run on Spidey, when he begun to make Peter Parker behave with total contempt toward anybody who disagreed with him, like a good Objectivist hero should, the strip went downhill, and it was probably a good thing Ditko was replaced.

YES!  This movie is out in theaters now!!!

Shorter Ebert review: "Lots of railroad footage. Lots of dialogue about railroads."

 

I almost want to see it just to see the, ahem, trainwreck.

You're a very, very bad man for that pun.

 

It's playing in an art theater by me. I don't know if I could even sit through such a monster load of megalomaniacal bullshit posing as real philosophy just for laughs.  It would hurt my soul.

I generally ignore RottenTomatoes numbers, but the movie is at 6% from the critics, but at an 86% LIKE from audiences.  HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO DECIDE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?!!

 

Even on Ebert's 1 star review, the users gave it 4 stars.  Hahahahahaha

There's something inherently hilarious about "Objectivists" rating a film four stars when a vast majority of them haven't seen the film yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a question for the group: do you think this will be akin to the Ralph Bakashi Lord of the Rings, in that years from now some horrible person will make a sweeping epic out of this turd?

 

The evening shows for this are sold out at DC's Landmark theater...  I'm really really curious if it's just a bunch of Tea Party politicos.

 

What the dudes in Rush took from Rand was being an individual. The story of 2112 was one person standing up the ruling class of priests. I don't think they are republicans. I read somewhere they were against the Iraqi war.

OBJECTIVELY!!!

Uh, no, because LOTR is actually a decent book. With a story and everything.

BAM!

 

I actually think Atlas Shrugged has a pretty cool sci-fi story beneath all the hilarious BS.  If it weren't mired in all of Rand's voodoo, there is some potential for a wacky tale of trains, pirates, perpetual energy machines, secret societies, and sonic amplifiers. 

 

Interesting tangent: I just finished reading Frank Miller's "Adventures of Martha Washington" and towards the end it gets rather Objectivist, with Martha stumbling into a hidden society of innovators and ubermenschen who are able to triumph against the decaying, bloated American society by virtue of their raw technological innovation. Miller even flat-out praised Rand in the afterward to this segment. But what's interesting (besides the fact that Miller's story actually works as an entertaining story, unlike Atlas Shrugged) is that Miller puts more emphasis on the "individuality, creativity, innovation" aspects and the idea that the people in this new society are able to hold a variety of different opinions across the political spectrum--one person is expressly shown to be arguing for socialism, for instance. The bureaucratic, messed-up society Martha escapes from is messed-up more because of its inertia, groupthink, and endless warmongering than because of altruism (in fact Miller leaves out the proselytizing on the evils of altruism altogether).

 

Framed that way, damned if it doesn't seem kinda noble. And not the kind of politics we associate with Frank Miller at all.

I have come to enjoy debates about Rand on the internet. It is funny to watch the shifting ground of the dialogue as people who are partisan to one set of beliefs try to define the work in their terms.

 

But the simple fact is, as a work of art, Atlas Shrugged is just bad. The above poster who described Ayn Rand's philosophy as the self justification of a narcissist, really hit the nail on the head. John Gualts speech is something that is so easily lampooned that it seems the author almost wanted to provoke derision from her critics. The villians are mustache twirly and ridiculous.

 

But in spite of all this, there are some ideas in the novel that I truly do find important.

 

As someone who has recieved a liberal arts education while working in warehouses, driving trucks, and various other manual labor jobs, and has spent the last 15 years working in governement. I can say that her parable of the auto factory that lies within Atlas Shrugged is one of the most well constructed and scathing criticisms of socialism/communism I have ever been exposed to.

 

She argues that people are far more productive when allowed to work for their own benefit, and thus competition and capitalism can create far more wealth in a society, allowing a person who is relatively poor in a capitalistic society to have a much higher standard of living as a person who is relatively rich in a communal society.  I think this is mostly true.

 

I dont think she was completely off the mark regarding the motivations of those who pursue power.

 

Also, her concept of the mutual respect that can exist and grow into a strong bond between highly competant people can really appeal to a reader.

 

So her novels will always appeal to competant, independant people on some level. The Fountainhead does a far better job of communicating her ideas and pretty much works as a novel, though I will always find her notions regarding the relationships between men and women to be bizarre.

 

The Irony of the republicans trying to co-opt the work and make it their own is extremely laughable. Republicans are the party of the rich, the party of right wing religiousity, the party of bigots.  Libertarians and Republicans are completely mismatched. The only concept that is Libertarian that republicans pay lip service to is fiscal responsibility and fighting tax increases. But the reality is that Republicans are not fiscally responsible and are only looking out for the very rich. A Libertarian that votes Republican is truly misguided.

 

Unfortunately I just viewed the trailer for the movie, and it looks like the worst trash imaginable. It is almost as if the fim makers want to destroy the work for all time by creating a film so ridiculous that no idea within the film could ever be taken seriously. I might watch this out of morbid curiosity, the only saving grace for fans of her work is that very few will ever see this film.

 

 

 

Or they could just make a BioShock movie.

 

No, I think the books will appeal to people who THINK they're competent and independent but have no compassion or common sense of their own. I don't think it's a coincidence that very few great achievers are Objectivists, and the few that are are folks like Alan Greenspan, who have fucked up the world economy and offered little of value to society.

 

Rand starts, as I say above, from some decent premises, but she goes howling off the rails really quickly. Her worldview is meticulously constructed to edit out a lot of painful and inconvenient facts, and it's as inflexible as any other extremists'.

 

Also, please stop treating communism and socialism as if they were the same thing. If Rand tried to argue that a socialist society is bound to fail at providing for its citizens, real life has proven her wrong. That's putting aside the point that capitalism and socialism can and do co-exist all the time.

You know, I started playing that game, but never got that far in it.  Lost interest.  So maybe all that wacky stuff wouldn't make for a particularly interesting movie...

I went to Youtube to watch the movie's trailer again for some laughs and came across these additional bits:

 

 

It was lack of government over sight and tax cuts for the rich that ran the economy into the crowd. Did anyone video ever watch the news?!  I know I'm stating the obvious, but some people clearly don't get it.

 

I was hoping Chud would review Atlas Shrugged. I thought it could lead to a literary take down much like Devin's review of Rob Zombie's Halloween.

Edited by Chaz - 4/18/11 at 9:47pm

Either this film is the greatest work of cinema ever crafted or it's a pile of shit.

 

A is A, there is no "inbetween".

And since we don't live in Rand's Objectivist paradise, it turns out it is just an unintentionally funny bore.

I have no idea what someone with no exposure to the story beforehand will make of this movie.  It really is scene after scene of people talking about railroads with people acting like robots (my friend and I started taking note of how little Taylor Schilling blinks in her scenes).  There are lots of names of people, companies, and government actions bandied about at a somewhat rapid pace, and I think I would've been a bit lost if not for the fact that I'm pretty familiar with the book. 

 

The movie really is an adaptation of the Cliff's Notes version of the book.  The most 'adapting' it does is to set it in the near future (2016, to be exact), which makes it more 'currenty' I suppose... but I really think it was simply because the production didn't have the budget to make it a period piece.  Still, I was impressed with the general look of the film.  In terms of its technical merits, it's generally competent.  And not in a backhanded-compliment way.  The only thing that really stuck out as a visual effect was the maiden voyage of the new train that serves as the climax of this first film.

 

Several moments of unintentional hilarity are to be had:  the flat acting, the actors trying to make all the politics and business-dealings sound intense and dramatic, and the final climactic scream that made me the only person cracking up in the theater... 

 

I do kinda love that there is actually a film out where the villains in the story (oh yes, they are VILLAINS) are the ones who speak of helping the needy and the less opportune folk.  It's like a movie made in a parallel universe.

 

There may have been one possible Objectivist (or Rand fan) in the theater.  I heard a female voice laughing at almost any line that seemed to be shooting for the Objectivist part of the crowd.  That was eventually replaced with me laughing at everything else.

 

It's not an entertaining movie.  My attention was basically kept by my brain working to remember how things went in the book to pay attention to how it was adapted.