Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
A.West

Angelina Jolie Discovers Ayn Rand

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

One problem with turning AS into a movie, and it has something to do with a 60 page monologue :P

But really, that thing was described as going on for at least two hours. How could such an important part of the book be translated onto screen? (without boring much of the audience)

Although I do think a movie such as this would make a good response to "an inconvient truth"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aspiring (hobbyist) filmmaker, the thought of gathering together a dedicated group of Objectivists with acting ability and doing this movie appeals to me. But I think the possibility of obtaining the necessary rights to produce the film would be slim. Even so, I like the idea of a small team of us assembling for the purpose of translating this novel into a film. I have never shot an epic film before, but the idea intrigues me.

I actually had an idea of all the people in Galt's Gulch being the members on this forum, haha. They could use us all for extras, that way the Gulch remains pure O'ist :D As for another part for the gulch scene (this is an idea of my own, not in the book, and only Rush fans will get this) I have a vivid image of Dagny walking by a car garage and Niel Peart (Rush drummer, lyricist) is a mechanic working on a red corvette (allusion to the song Red Barchetta) and blasting some Rush on the radio in the garage. As for other real life O'ists in the gulch; Peikoff, Binswanger, Greenspan, and all those guys should be in there too. The whole Atlantis chapter could be a celebration of Rand's influence on the world as well as being part of the story.

One problem with turning AS into a movie, and it has something to do with a 60 page monologue :P

But really, that thing was described as going on for at least two hours. How could such an important part of the book be translated onto screen? (without boring much of the audience)

Although I do think a movie such as this would make a good response to "an inconvient truth"

I think if they do the movie, they will montouge it and highlight the most important parts of the speech. If they did a mini series they should do a whole episode devoted to just the speech. The commercials for the week preceding the episode could say, "Mr. Thompson is giving a speech,etc.." :P It gives me chills thinking about all this.

On a sidenote, even if the movie is bad, can you imagine if you were sitting in the theater to see a movie and all of a sudden the trailer comes on, I'll become giddier than a schoolgirl if that happens. At the end of the trailer it should say "On (insert date of movie release) Atlas Will Shrug!" errrrr I want to experiance that, if only I could direct :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One problem with turning AS into a movie, and it has something to do with a 60 page monologue :D

But really, that thing was described as going on for at least two hours. How could such an important part of the book be translated onto screen? (without boring much of the audience)

Dr. Leonard Peikoff issued some interesting comments concerning a movie based on Atlas Shrugged. He delineated several major ideas that the movie should convey to the audience for the movie to be deemed an outstanding success. I believe they were something along the lines of:

  • We should always be thinking and not let ourselves become intellectually lazy.
  • We should always and only resort to reason when thinking.
  • Be wary of religion.
  • Selfishness is a good thing; never sacrifice yourself for others.
  • Never sacrifice others for yourself.

I generated this list from memory. It would be great if someone could find a reference for this and point out any misrepresentations of Dr. Peikoff's views that I may have inadvertantly posted.

Needless to say, for the movie to be popular (and yet retain its quintessential messages) it will have to become more visual. This probably means that John Galt's speech will have to be condensed to a few minutes. The direction can even be done in such a way (i.e. jumping from soundbyte to soundbyte) so that it is clear that the audience is only getting the major points of the speech and not the entire speech that the characters in the movie are hearing.

It might also be better if the movie focuses on more visual sequences as opposed to the lengthy dialogue in the book. In particular, I think the riot at Rearden Steel can be especially exciting if it is portrayed on the screen well.

I personally loved the movie V for Vendetta which I perceived as a visually stunning movie that presented many deep ideas to the audience in a riveting fashion. Needless to say, Atlas Shrugged will have some different ideas, but I think that it would be smart to go for a similar marketing strategy.

Needless to say, trying to pack too much of the book into the movie will be an inevitable failure. The movie instead should be viewed as an almost three hour cinematic translation of the book that hopefully can inspire many viewers to go and read it.

Although I do think a movie such as this would make a good response to "an inconvient truth"

Why do you think that an Atlas Shrugged movie would be a good response to An Inconvenient Truth ? I do not remember anything in Atlas Shrugged that addressed global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose Jolie understands Rand, or she may even value her as a talented writer but I don't see how she seriously can say that she understands and appreciates her philosophy considering her whole humanitarian give-of-thyself-peace-above-all approach to life...Maybe she's changed but I certainly haven't seen her let up on her humanitarian efforts...However I can see her as Dagny she may not have been my first pick but I can see it. There's a part in the book when Rand describes Dagny standing outside at the train station and how elegant and out of place she looked among the metal, but at the same time perfectly at peace and a part of it, I can see her pulling that off.

Reardan- John Schnieder, he may be old but he just oozes with integrity and moral consistency, or may just be associating that with his character on Smallville, well I can see him playing that part well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that an Atlas Shrugged movie would be a good response to An Inconvenient Truth ? I do not remember anything in Atlas Shrugged that addressed global warming.

because many global warming activists support using the state to handicap industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Maybe she's changed but I certainly haven't seen her let up on her humanitarian efforts...

I don't know anything concrete about Ms. Jolie's humanitarian efforts, but I don't see that her being charitable would disqualify her from being an objectivist. She is ostensibly wealthy enough that she is not going to be making sacrifices in her efforts to save children in africa or whatever. Cut the poor gal some slack. I'm starting to think that I might not be an objectivist either since I donated money last year to ARI's book project. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know anything concrete about Ms. Jolie's humanitarian efforts, but I don't see that her being charitable would disqualify her from being an objectivist. She is ostensibly wealthy enough that she is not going to be making sacrifices in her efforts to save children in africa or whatever. Cut the poor gal some slack. I'm starting to think that I might not be an objectivist either since I donated money last year to ARI's book project. :confused:
Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't suppose Jolie understands Rand, or she may even value her as a talented writer but I don't see how she seriously can say that she understands and appreciates her philosophy

This could be very true; I've met a lot of people who, apparently, liked AS for the quality of its writing, but obviously its philosophy had no effect on them. Honestly, I don't know how anyone could separate the two.

I'm reading AS right now, and the very first woman who came to mind when Dagny first appeared was Angelina Jolie. So I guess one really likes the idea of her being Dagny, or hates it completely. Personally, I don't find her all that attractive, so the prospect of her "sexing up" the character is impossible in my mind.

I must be one of the few people who wouldn't want to see Hollywood cozy up to Objectivism. If this were to happen, I am absolutely positive that it would defame and undermine Oism, branding it as just another Hollywood fad like Scientology or Kabbalah. And do you really want to see Paris Hilton lugging around a copy of The Fountainhead? Me, either. Although that would be hi-larious.

I hate the idea of Tom Selleck as Rearden. But mostly because I don't like Tom Selleck, period. I was actually picturing Aaron Ekhart as Rearden, with Orlando Bloom as Francisco, and Paul Giamatti as Taggart, but those last two choices may be too "Hollywood".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

Thanks...for the back-up, and perhaps I should have been more informative on what I know of her motives behind it before posting. But yes I have looked at her motives and you are right it reeks with altuirism and I can't see how she could possibly agree with Rand... So here are some quotes from Ms. Jolie herself...I am not saying they disqualify her from playing the role, but I think they serve to help prove my original point that she is not objectivist and does not understand Rand if she claims to be a fan of her philosophy.

"Without pain, there would be no suffering, without suffering we would never learn from over mistakes. To make it right, pain and suffering is the key to all windows, without it, there is no way of life."-Jolie

" BUT I LOVE FLAWS, and I love real things, and I love scars and wrinkles that I see coming--I love it. When you see life on a face or a body, it's beautiful." -Jolie

Hardly characteristic of a woman who is supposed to be looking for a "face without pain...or guilt" and this also leads me to believe that she seens pain as the greatest virtue, which clearly goes against Rands philosophy. Also, it shows what she values in people...flaws...a very popular romantic belief that our flaws are what make us beautiful and "real" but one I don't think you can hold as an objectivist.

"That's the reason we kind of exist. It's like our Job. To give to each other. And learn from each other. To capture moments of people. So it's really strange to have somebody ignore the obvious human being right in front of them." Jolie

There's her motive behind her charity, because she believes it is her job to give, the reason she exists..

These are just a few quotes by her that make me believe that she is not an objectivist, as I did not provide any evidence on my original post as to why I believe that she doesn't understand Rand. I do not think that just because she gives she is not an objectivist-it is her motives and reasoning behind it that make me believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question that Miss Jolie does not qualify as a spokes person for Objectivism. But do not think one needs to be an Objectivist to play one same way an actor does not need to be a serial killer to play one. As long as, during the press conferences, she does not claim that she is an Objectivist I do not have a problem with her playing the part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no question that Miss Jolie does not qualify as a spokes person for Objectivism. But do not think one needs to be an Objectivist to play one same way an actor does not need to be a serial killer to play one. As long as, during the press conferences, she does not claim that she is an Objectivist I do not have a problem with her playing the part.

That is very true. I think the main concern is really the script as opposed to the actors. I don't think Jolie is the greatest actress but she can act, so she isn't the worst person to play Dagney.

Worst thing that will happen: the movie sucks, Jolie misuses it to play up her altruistic efforts, and more people read the book.

The best thing that will happen: the movie is great, more people read the book.

More people will be exposed to it either way. I don't think a bad movie will do as much long lasting damage as some fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

Ouch...*rubbs bottom*...consider me summarily spanked. For the record I'm not that bad of a guy. I did in fact "peak" at comments and actions of hers but failed to find anything particularly revolting. My time constrained shortage of research was why I pointed out my own lack of expertise on the subject of Angelina Jolie in my original comment. Sorry for any offense.

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" BUT I LOVE FLAWS, and I love real things, and I love scars and wrinkles that I see coming--I love it. When you see life on a face or a body, it's beautiful." -Jolie

Well, I'm curious what the context was for this statement-- she is an actress, after all. All by itself, this statement seems like it might be implying that she thinks flaws, scars, and "wrinkles" (?) are the same as "real things," life, and beauty. But if she was talking about roles she likes to play, that could just have easily been a list of different type of characters she's attracted to playing. IE, "real" characters, flawed characters, scarred, wrinkled, alive, physical, or beautiful. She could just be saying she likes the challenge of dynamic or complicated roles. But then, I'm not sure exactly where that quote came from (and I don't know much about Jolie besides what I read about here, and on the front page of the tabloids in the supermarket checkout line).

Based on what little I do know, though, I can see a good side and a bad side to Jolie as Dagny. The good side is that she really is a beautiful lady. I think the interpretations some seem to have of Dagny as "hard" and "plain" or unglamorous are totally off-- in fact, almost offensive given the way Dagny is described throughout the book. It seems to imply that some people think, in order to be productive and intelligent, a person has to be plain and unattractive. I believe that's false, and the opposite of what any decent art should present, especially something Ayn Rand related, so I think a glamorous beauty should play Dagny. But the bad side is all of the absurd, altruistic political publicity she's been generating for herself lately. Besides being deeply disturbing, philosophically speaking, based on my observations of Hollywood, I notice that that sort of thing seems to correlate with actors going through slumps in their career when they give a bunch of mediocre performances. I don't know why.. Maybe they feel "I'm doing so bad at my job, maybe I should feed the hungry or something to make myself feel worthwhile!" Or maybe they get so involved with their greater cause, they start to neglect their career. Has anyone else noticed that type of pattern with actors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the odds of a movie actually getting made anytime soon? At the rate this is going I could see us playing the "cast Atlas Shrugged" game with the kids from the Harry Potter movies before the thing actually gets produced.

Emma Watson as Dagny Taggert...? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the odds of a movie actually getting made anytime soon? At the rate this is going I could see us playing the "cast Atlas Shrugged" game with the kids from the Harry Potter movies before the thing actually gets produced.

Emma Watson as Dagny Taggert...? :huh:

An animated version would be cool. Get the people that animate Ghost in the Shell or the Pat Labor series...it would be good. There are plenty of great "unknown" voice actors out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An animated Atlas Shrugged film would be way, way beyond anything they have ever done to date in this area, though. It would be a nice challenge for some of the companies in that field :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An animated Atlas Shrugged film would be way, way beyond anything they have ever done to date in this area, though.
How do you mean, exactly? It would be intellectually too advanced, or the animation would be too difficult? The latter is certainly out of the question (have you seen Final Fantasy? Or... any animated movie in the last five years?). And I don't understand your position as the former, either. One, there are plenty of philosophical animated movies out there, and I enthusiastically endorse the Ghost in the Shell movies and series, for example, which Sherry mentioned.

Besides that, if the writers and director know what they are doing, I see no reason why it is more difficult to get a message or story across in an animated movie than a live-action movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you mean, exactly? It would be intellectually too advanced, or the animation would be too difficult? The latter is certainly out of the question (have you seen Final Fantasy? Or... any animated movie in the last five years?). And I don't understand your position as the former, either. One, there are plenty of philosophical animated movies out there, and I enthusiastically endorse the Ghost in the Shell movies and series, for example, which Sherry mentioned.

Besides that, if the writers and director know what they are doing, I see no reason why it is more difficult to get a message or story across in an animated movie than a live-action movie.

Actually, I watch a great deal of animated movies and shows, and I think it could be done without any problems. A combination of good animation and good voice acting is all it would take. Atlas Shrugged is a great book, but it is after all, only a book. If it can be made into a live action movie, it can be made into a cartoon. (That's just my opinion.) I am not a fan of Final Fantasy. When I say the people from Ghost in the Shell, I think they could pull it off because I am impressed with what they have done. I don't mean that they should do AS in that particular style.

Barefoot Gen is a moving animated movie, it came out in either early 90s or late 80s about a Japanese boy during the end of WWII (after the bombs were dropped).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I meant mainly because of the size of the film (because it would likely consist of multiple parts to do the book justice) and the intellectual content, yes. I am not that knowledgable about those types of films, though, so I guess I'm wrong on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah. You realize what this means? It means her boyfriend is gonna play Galt and spoil the surprise.

There are probably worse choices for Dagny. There are better ones, too. I still have general doubts about the whole thing ever getting made, anyway. Like I said before, how exactly do you make an anti-union film with union workers?

-Q

Edited by Qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For Francisco IT WILL BE! Jude Law. For Akston, Anthony Hopkins. A beautiful unknown actor will be fine as Galt because it will go along with the "Who is John Galt?" gimmick. And if he starts preparing for the role now, then I think Ryan Phillipe will be Ragnar because of his utter beauty. Unfortunately no actresses come to mind. The woman who played Dagny Taggart in Meet Joe Black I thought was pretty good, though.

Americo.

I changed my mind. Francisco will be Wentworth Miller of Prison Break. Jude Law's time has passed.

Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...