Atlas Shrugged Gets a New Director
Objectivists to get their night at the theater after all?
It's been twiddling its thumbs in development limbo for nearly five years, but according to Variety, the film adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is on again.
According to the report, Lionsgate has hired House of Sand and Fog director Vadim Perelman to helm Shrugged, as well as rewrite Randall Wallace's script. Angelina Jolie is still attached to star as main character Dagny Taggart.
Interestingly, Wallace will apparently remain involved in the project; the report describes a recent meeting between Perelman and the screenwriter, during which the two conversed in Russian. (Rand and Perelman were born in Russia; Wallace learned the language while doing research for another project.)
Atlas Shrugged, originally published in 1957, revolves around what happens when the great thinkers of the world -- inventors, artists, businessmen, scientists, et cetera -- decide they're tired of being bled dry by the world's "looters and moochers" and go on strike. The book is over a thousand pages long, so there's a lot more to it -- in fact, it helped spawn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which we're totally not getting into here -- but basically, the looters are governments, and the moochers are people who require some sort of aid from others.
As you might imagine, critical response to the book has long been mixed. Rand's point of view has been embraced by neoconservatives and certain creative types, while being roundly rebuffed by others who dismiss what they see as a grossly over-simplistic ideology (and wooden prose). In other words, if this thing ever gets made, we can all expect some entertaining debate.
Source: Variety
According to the report, Lionsgate has hired House of Sand and Fog director Vadim Perelman to helm Shrugged, as well as rewrite Randall Wallace's script. Angelina Jolie is still attached to star as main character Dagny Taggart.
Interestingly, Wallace will apparently remain involved in the project; the report describes a recent meeting between Perelman and the screenwriter, during which the two conversed in Russian. (Rand and Perelman were born in Russia; Wallace learned the language while doing research for another project.)
Atlas Shrugged, originally published in 1957, revolves around what happens when the great thinkers of the world -- inventors, artists, businessmen, scientists, et cetera -- decide they're tired of being bled dry by the world's "looters and moochers" and go on strike. The book is over a thousand pages long, so there's a lot more to it -- in fact, it helped spawn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which we're totally not getting into here -- but basically, the looters are governments, and the moochers are people who require some sort of aid from others.
As you might imagine, critical response to the book has long been mixed. Rand's point of view has been embraced by neoconservatives and certain creative types, while being roundly rebuffed by others who dismiss what they see as a grossly over-simplistic ideology (and wooden prose). In other words, if this thing ever gets made, we can all expect some entertaining debate.
Source: Variety
Related Items
| Movie: | House of Sand and Fog |
| Celeb: | Angelina Jolie |
| Randall Wallace | |
| Vadim Perelman |
|
miniamericanflags writes: on Sep 05 2007 06:27 AM "Rand's point of view has been embraced by neoconservatives" Huh? I've never met a neoconservative that likes Rand. Neocons generally hate Rand because she was an atheist (and Rand did not like conservatives for many reasons). Objectivism is more closely tied to Libertarians (the freedom loving kind, not the Chomsky kind). Basically, if you think you should live your life for yourself, Objectivism is a philosophy to look into. "which we're totally not getting into here" Ok ok, fine. I'll stop, unless I see any more misinformation being spread. I wonder what Vadim Perelman's philosophical views are? Because I don't think anyone who is not intimately familiar with Objectivism should not be working on this film. (Reply to this) |
|
miniamericanflags writes: on Sep 05 2007 06:31 AM In reply to this comment (#1099275) Let me rephrase that, it reads horribly. I wonder what Vadim Perelman's philosophical views are? Because if he is not intimately familiar with Objectivism, he should not be working on the film. (Reply to this) |
|
Jeff Giles writes: on Sep 05 2007 07:24 AM In reply to this comment (#1099275) There's certainly some overlap between neoconservatives and evangelical Christians, but they aren't one and the same. It's true that, as you say, Objectivism probably has wider appeal for libertarians -- but Rand's ideas are also appealing to neocons like Grover Norquist, who care more about free markets and small government than religious beliefs. Since those guys have more political pull than your average libertarian, I opted for the neocon reference. Make sense? Let's talk about movies now. (Reply to this) |
|
giertson writes: on Sep 05 2007 07:37 AM There's already a great adaptation of Atlas Shrugged out now, it's called Bioshock (you may have heard of it?) But yeah, I'm all about a movie as long as Jolie can ditch that ridiculous Transylvania accent that she has in Aleander and Beowulf. (Reply to this) |
|
Crenshaw writes: on Sep 05 2007 08:30 AM I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to mention Bioshock. Anyway, stop giving Angelina Jolie acting roles. Three words: Box...Office...Poison. (Reply to this) |
|
belyle writes: on Sep 05 2007 09:07 AM It seems clear that the author of this article has never read Atlas Shrugged. I agree with the first poster that Objectivism is not something that neocons would embrace, but is more aligned with libertarians. What one has to keep in mind is that Rand's philosophy is a reaction to the changing political climate in Russia, specifically communism. Regardless, I think that the plot is still relevant today and should make an interesting movie. However, I would rather see pretty much any powerful actress in the role of Dagny Taggert than Angelina. I just cannot take her seriously in any role. How about an actress that is known for her serious, powerful roles portraying women of power rather than a plastic action star. (Reply to this) |
|
drtruebl writes: on Sep 05 2007 09:34 AM In reply to this comment (#1099671) Aren't AJ and Brad Pitt semi-believers of the philosophy? I thought I read that once and that was why AJ was interested in doing the movie. Could be wrong on this though... (Reply to this) |
|
surgical writes: on Sep 05 2007 10:04 AM "Neocons generally hate Rand because she was an atheist" This statement is completely silly. Conservative does not equal Christian. And yes, both Conservatives and Libertarians have long expressed admiration for Rand's work. (Reply to this) |
|
miniamericanflags writes: on Sep 05 2007 10:05 AM In reply to this comment (#1099395) Bioshock is a great video game, but it really sucks when it comes to its criticism of Objectivism. It was obvious in the first 5 minutes that the creator of Bioshock knows almost nothing about Objectivism. I would be surprised if he even read Atlas Shrugged. In regards to "AJ and Brad Pitt semi-believers of the philosophy"... they seem to admire Ayn Rand, but they obviously do not practice the philosophy. (Reply to this) |
|
belyle writes: on Sep 05 2007 10:26 AM In reply to this comment (#1099765) Oh yeah, having played bioshock (not finished yet) and read atlas shrugged, I can say 100% that the idea of rapture is based on john galt's society. I think that the video game creators probably did read the book, but chose not to get into the philosophy too much and tried to focus on what they viewed as the downfall of a society where each person is only concerned about his/her well-being. Regardless, I am predicting that this movie will fall short of even Bioshock's portrayal of philosophy. If the movie does choose to pursue the philosophy and delve into the book, it will not be popular, as most moviegoers seem to want explosions and entertainment rather than intellectual stimulation at the movies. There is also the problem of how the writers are going to adapt a 1k page novel into a 2-3 hour movie without suckifying it. Granted, a lot of the book was inside the character's heads and dialogue that was there for the express purpose of furthering the philosophy in the book, but there is still a LOT of story in the book to condense. (Reply to this) |
|
pwnsauce3k writes: on Sep 05 2007 06:12 PM I'll be next in line to say the alleged association of Atlas Shrugged with Neoconservatism is incorrect. It would have been just as easy to mention the number of liberal Hollywood celebrities who admire the aspects of her work that align with their values. It certainly would have been more fitting for a movie news website. This is not meant to be a political digression. "Neocon" is a loaded word that's going to give people an inaccurate idea about the movie to come. This post has done the equivalent of saying that Ann Coulter is rewriting the script, and that could alienate many potential viewers who might enjoy experiencing a narrative with a uniquely NON-conservative/NON-liberal point of view, whether they agree with it or not. I could also say the same about the glib description of "moochers" as "people who need help." They are not simply people who "need help;" they're people who think it's ethical to rob Peter to pay Paul, and are willing to do so themselves, or by political proxy. Atlas Shrugged makes the assertion that someone's need, legitimate or imagined, never justifies theft, fraud, or violence. If this sounds like an interesting moral premise to explore, read the book, or see the movie when (if) it comes out. In an attempt to be constructive, here are a couple films that have some things in common with Atlas Shrugged: Tucker: The Man and His Dream (entrepreneurial automobile inventor fights corrupt political/corporate cartel), October Sky (aspiring young rocket scientist perseveres despite disapproving father), Inherit the Wind (the sanctity of reason and free thought over and above faith and mob rule), Thank You For Smoking (freedom of conscience, thinking for yourself, being truthful with others and yourself). I don't want to debate the merits of Rand's ideas here, this post was meant solely to correct what I feel were misrepresentations of the plot and theme of a book that's about to become a film. If I digressed into normative statements, it wasn't intentional. (Reply to this) |
|
ManofStee1 writes: on Sep 05 2007 06:15 PM I don't know a lot about Objectivism and I haven't read Atlas Shrugged (yet... Bioshock got me interested sadly enough), but the story seems like it would make for an interesting movie. Angelina Jolie should be taken more seriously by people, sure she's not exactly well known for being a high-caliber actress, but she's not just an (incredibly) pretty face. (Reply to this) |
|
Ssillississ writes: on Sep 05 2007 08:22 PM This would be a very difficult book to translate into a good movie. They would either have to re-work the basic premise into a completely new story or leave out/skim over so much that it would either not make sense or end up as a puff piece. If you take the philosophy out of the book you really don't have anything left. It is the focus and reason of every characters motivation. Now dividing it up into two 3-hour movies? They would never do it but that might work. Making this into a comprehensible movie... I wonder what characters and sub-plots will end up on the editor's floor. (Reply to this) |
|
CliveStaples writes: on Nov 09 2007 06:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1100501) "Atlas Shrugged makes the assertion that someone's need, legitimate or imagined, never justifies theft, fraud, or violence." Indeed it does. This is why - if true to the text - Atlas Shrugged will be hated by liberals. The modern "progressives" generally see government as a solution to domestic problems. (higher taxes, social security lock boxes, national health care, gov't daycare, workers rights, etc). Therefore, since Rand's solution to problems generally involves the self-reliant dependence on reason and talent, AS has very few liberal admirers and is virtually ignored in college literature classes. Bottom line: AS is more warmly embraced today amongst libertarians and anti-gov't conservative types than by the 50's/60's socialists who hated Rand then and whose heirs hate her now. As for your list of comparable movies, good try. I don't mind you using your leftist paradigm to judge Rand, but remember Rand is anti-gov't (and pro-capitalist) to the core. (Thank You...Smoking. Funny movie - but passionately liberal) Obviously then, anti-corporate Hollywood hasn't really made a movie that is Randish in nature. Should be fun. (Reply to this) |
|
provotrout writes: on Feb 03 2008 09:23 PM ...to follow up on the "peopel that need aid" assertion: Throughout Atlas Shrugged, Rand portrays characters with varying degrees of intelligence and wealth. She judges them based on their ability to be productive, as opposed to the mistaken perception that she ranks them according to their productivity. Rand takes exception not to the person who needs aid, but to the person that needs aid & expects to be given aid without effort. Rand deems this behavior immoral - the scourge of society. (Reply to this) |
|
unneeudayakumar writes: on Aug 05 2008 06:44 AM I don't know how many of you have read The Fountainhead, which can be said to contain the 'basis' to Atlas Shrugged, Rand's 'magnum opus'. In The Fountainhead, you get to see Howard Roark, very much like Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. Very much like Atlas, Fountainhead also had a lot of 'content' in it - no wasted lines of text, no lengthy descriptions and no attempt of explaining the obvious. Sometimes, while reading a book or watching a movie, we feel like skipping some part, since it is obvious to happen judging from the flow of words/scenes till that part. Few words that convey enormous ideas and crisp dialogues, which are not mere exchange of words, but written in such a way that they reveal the personality of the character are simply Ayn Rand's pen in action. Rand has never,in any of her novels(We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), tried to explain the character to us from a third-person point of view. We get to know them only through what they speak and what they do and the experience the reader gets is far deeper than any author has ever given. So craftfully has Rand written her books(especially Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged). Fountainhead is also a very thick book, eventhough not as big as Atlas. And the whole point of me writing about it is that it was made into a movie in 1949 by director King Vidor. In the movie version, there were many subplots deleted from the original story. But watching that movie made in the 40's gave me the same feeling the book gave me. Maybe because it was Rand herself who wrote the screenplay which simply had all the qualities of her book, eventhough ligher contentwise. Someone who's not read the book ought to watch it first, otherwise my claim can't be justified since the preconcept about the movie in the light of the book could have made me think like that as well. I believe that Atlas Shrugged can be made into an effective depiction of the book, provided the resources(technology and budget) are very effectively utilized by a highly talented director, with a very crisp screenplay and actors who can actually 'act', since the integrity and emotions of the characters is a very powerful aspect of the book. Of course the drama can effectively be mixed with thrills that the plot so lavishly provides. Watching The Dark Knight, I felt Christopher Nolan could have handled this plot very well. Someone who can think like that could make this plot really live, since it's not just action but intellect as well that is needed here in this movie's making.. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |





