Fountainhead Movie Mentioned

[argive99]

I was watching Brad Pitt being interviewed on Charlie Rose and he mentioned that Oliver Stone still has interest in directing a remake of the Fountainhead. Pitt said some interesting things regarding both architecture and the novel. My question here is why would Oliver Stone have any interest in the Fountainhead? I guess I am engaging in a little psychologizing here but what could a lover of Fidel Castro see in Howard Roark? He can't possibly like Roark. Does he want to butcher it purposely? Or can his mind hold such contradictions that he can actually admire an individualist in an artistic setting but dispise him in a political one?

[Areactor]

Wow. This really bugs me. Quentin Tarantino had sold Natural Born Killers to Oliver Stone and Stone nearly changed the whole script. Tarantino decided to disown Natural Born Killers. Michael Madsen even turned down the lead role because Tarantino didn't even want his friend to touch the movie. Just imagine what could happen to the Fountainhead.

[AshRyan]

Wow. This really bugs me. Quentin Tarantino had sold Natural Born Killers to Oliver Stone and Stone nearly changed the whole script. Tarantino decided to disown Natural Born Killers. Michael Madsen even turned down the lead role because Tarantino didn't even want his friend to touch the movie. Just imagine what could happen to the Fountainhead.

Roark would become a psychotic product of his upbringing who dynamites a housing project and kicks puppies for laughs.

[AshRyan]

I was watching Brad Pitt being interviewed on Charlie Rose and he mentioned that Oliver Stone still has interest in directing a remake of the Fountainhead. Pitt said some interesting things regarding both architecture and the novel.

Just curious, is there a transcript of this interview? I'm wondering what "interesting" things Mr. Pitt had to say about The Fountainhead.

[argive99]

Just curious, is there a transcript of this interview?  I'm wondering what "interesting" things Mr. Pitt had to say about The Fountainhead.

I don't know about a transcript, perhaps maybe on Crarlie Rose's website ther might be info. Pitt didn't say much but what he said did seem to indicate that he at least appreciates the significance of the depth of Ayn Rand's writing. He said that the Fountainhead was so deep and complex that a 2-3 hour movie would not really do it justice, but that a 6 hour movie would be needed. That said, he would still like to play the role. This subject was brought up because apparently Pitt has an interest in architecture and when asked about combining acting and architecture, he mentioned the Fountainhead.

[danielshrugged]

There is an audio archive at http://www.charlierose.com/archives/archive.shtm but you'll have to wait a little while before they post last Thursday's show, which is the one that included Brad Pitt.

[Betsy]

My question here is why would Oliver Stone have any interest in the Fountainhead? I guess I am engaging in a little psychologizing here but what could a lover of Fidel Castro see in Howard Roark? He can't possibly like Roark. Does he want to butcher it purposely? Or can his mind hold such contradictions that he can actually admire an individualist in an artistic setting but dispise him in a political one?

For an answer, see "Counterfeit Individualism" in the April 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.

[Betsy]

This subject was brought up because apparently Pitt has an interest in architecture and when asked about combining acting and architecture, he mentioned the Fountainhead.

Unfortunately, Brad Pitt's favorite architects are the boring Daniel Libeskind and the wildly irrational Frank Gehry according to an article in USA Today.

Too bad he didn't name a real Howard Roark -- the architect who created the house Pitt's wife Jennifer Aniston's co-"Friend" Courtney Cox lives in -- the great (yet relatively unknown) John Lautner.

[AshRyan]

Libeskind and Gehry?! They're awful! Have these people even read The Fountainhead?

(I checked out Lautner, though, and so far I'm pretty impressed!)

[Areactor]

Isn't Libeskind doing the WTC?

[Areactor]

I have absolutely no knowledge of architecture. Would anyone explain to me while someone like Lautner should be chosen over Libeskind and Gehry?

After checking out some of Gehry's work, I say their UGLY for sure!

[AshRyan]

Isn't Libeskind doing the WTC?

Unfortunately, yes. Actually, he's "co-designing" it with another, more conservative architect (can't think of his name off the top of my head) who was brought in when Libeskind's original designs were not well received. Their collaborative efforts aren't much better though.

I have absolutely no knowledge of architecture. Would anyone explain to me while someone like Lautner should be chosen over Libeskind and Gehry?

After checking out some of Gehry's work, I say their UGLY for sure! 

Well, I think you've just answered (at least in part) your own question!

[Areactor]

Well, I think you've just answered (at least in part) your own question!

True, but I don't know if I have the knowledge to actually judge architecture by anything above my emotional reactions.

But Jesus, Gehry's buildings are the uglist I've ever seen! I wouldn't even put them in a Sci-Fi series!

[stephen_speicher]

I have absolutely no knowledge of architecture. Would anyone explain to me while someone like Lautner should be chosen over Libeskind and Gehry?

After checking out some of Gehry's work, I say their UGLY for sure! 

The reasons which distinguish Gehry's ugly works from Lautner's beautiful creations, are manyfold. Just to briefly identify two fundamentals among many others:

Gehry's architectural shapes convey a sense of the arbitrary, random distortions of lines and curves implemented by meaningless use of materials. Lautner's works are purposeful, intentional, dramatic conflicts of lines and curves resolved into a whole, each section reflecting the nature of the material used.

Gehry's buildings bear little to no relationship to the site upon which they are built. It is as if they were transplanted whole from somewhere else, with no concern for the surroundings. Lautner designs unique creations which seem to grow from the site, leaving one with the sense that nothing else in existence could or should have been built here other than the one which Lautner designed.

[AutoJC]

(Brad Pitt)  said that the Fountainhead was so deep and complex that a 2-3 hour movie would not really do it justice, but that a 6 hour movie would be needed. That said, he would still like to play the role. This subject was brought up because apparently Pitt has an interest in architecture and when asked about combining acting and architecture, he mentioned the Fountainhead.

Inclined to agree with Pitt here.

It remains a mystery as to why Rand chose to condense the book content in the manner that she did for the movie.

I thought it was important to include some insights as to what led to Roark's winding up in the quarry.

Pitt is the type of actor who would try to bring Roark's personality to life- and succeed.

One of the movie's great strengths was how Patricia Neal and Raymond Massey brought their characters to life.

[dondigitalia]

I thought it was important to include some insights as to what led to Roark's winding up in the quarry.

I haven't seen the movie (it is so hard to find at video stores in my area; Netflix doesn't even have it), and can't imagine how The Fountainhead could say everything it needs to say without the pre-quarry events.

Pitt is the type of actor who would try to bring Roark's personality to life- and succeed.

I agree 100%.

He is a fantastic actor. I can think of no other I would rather see in the role of Howard Roark.

I'm amazed that he remains sans-Oscar (correct me if he's won one that I'm not aware of).

[AutoJC]

Unfortunately, Brad Pitt's favorite architects are the boring Daniel Libeskind and the wildly irrational Frank Gehry according to an article in USA Today.

He needs to really delve into the architecture picture beyond the media hype. Once he does, he'll change his mind.

Frank Gehry is a fraud, in my opinion, because he violates the adage of architecutre many of us believe in that "form follows function." The seemingly exciting Guggenheim Bilbao is a glaring example of this. It is strictly an exercise in shell-like forms, where the interior is a stark exercise in cold warehouse modernism.

The Sydney Opera House and TWA Building are far more exciting examples of architecture than anything Gehry does.

Daniel Libeskind is a stark modernist and makes no bones about it. His forms are simple and jewel-like three-dimensional geometry. His spire-like tower for the WTC site was initially exciting before it was watered down by David Childs, that Peter Keating of today's architects.

Too bad he didn't name a real Howard Roark -- the architect who created the house Pitt's wife Jennifer Aniston's co-"Friend" Courtney Cox lives in -- the great (yet relatively unknown) John Lautner.

Thaks for rekindling my interest in John Lautner. I think he may have designed a home in Carmel on the waterfront, and, back in 1989, that was the first I've heard of him.

He is most certainly one architect who can carry on the great legacy of architects like Wright who understand man, materials, and nature.

[stephen_speicher]

Pitt is the type of actor who would try to bring Roark's personality to life- and succeed.

Have you seen Troy?

I have very much enjoyed some performances by Brad Pitt before, but I find his acting to be uneven. Perhaps he is the sort of actor whose performance is very dependent on the director. Based on what I have seen, I would not trust Pitt to grasp what is needed in the role, just by himself.

[AshRyan]

Frank Gehry is a fraud, in my opinion, because he violates the adage of architecutre many of us believe in that "form follows function."

Not only does he violate that principle in his building, he explicitly doesn't follow it as a matter of principle. I read a quote from him in a magazine a few months ago in which he spoke dismissively of that principle, something along the lines of, "Architects need to discard the old-fashioned superstition that form should follow function."

(Actually, it might have been Libeskind who said that. I can't remember off the top of my head. But I'm certain that it was one of those two. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if both of them have said things like that on record.)

[Areactor]

Anthony Hopkin would make the best Ellsworth Toohey in my opinion!

[AutoJC]

Not only does he violate that principle in his building, he explicitly doesn't follow it as a matter of principle.  I read a quote from him in a magazine a few months ago in which he spoke dismissively of that principle, something along the lines of, "Architects need to discard the old-fashioned superstition that form should follow function."

(Actually, it might have been Libeskind who said that.  I can't remember off the top of my head.  But I'm certain that it was one of those two.  Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if both of them have said things like that on record.)

Ash, it was indeed Frank Gehry who said that.

It reminds me of Robert Venturi's infamous quote to lampoon Mies Van Der Rohe- "Less is a bore."

[argive99]

Have you seen Troy? 

I have very much enjoyed some performances by Brad Pitt before, but I find his acting to be uneven. Perhaps he is the sort of actor whose performance is very dependent on the director. Based on what I have seen, I would not trust Pitt to grasp what is needed in the role, just by himself.

You know Stephen, this may be because Achilles is such a hard character to portray for a modern audience. Hector fights for values that are far more recognizable to a modern mindset and thus is far more sympathetic. Also Pitt does not have the Brittish accent which puts him at a disadvantage. Still, I thought he did well and gave Achilles a nice combination of arrogance and depth.

But I agree that for a character as sophisticated as Howard Roark it would be neccessary for him to have a director that knew the character and exactly how to portray him.

[stephen_speicher]

You know Stephen, this may be because Achilles is such a hard character to portray for a modern audience. Hector fights for values that are far more recognizable to a modern mindset and thus is far more sympathetic. Also Pitt does not have the Brittish accent which puts him at a disadvantage. Still, I thought he did well and gave Achilles a nice combination of arrogance and depth.

I'm sorry to say I could barely stand to watch him as he fumbled through that movie. But, to be fair, it was not simply his own poor acting, but the terrible script which he followed.

The best parts of Troy were the opening and closing voice-overs. Everything in between was terrible. The opening voice-over gave the promise of exciting, glorious, heroic events, and the closing voice-over seemed to acknowledge that such events had taken place. If they did, they sure were not in that movie.

There simply was nothing, and no one, of epic proportions, no larger-than-life characters performing larger-than-life deeds. If Zeus saw that movie he would destroy them all with a series of thunderbolts!

The people who wrote the script and directed the movie did not have a clue about the meaning in that Ancient book.

But I agree that for a character as sophisticated as Howard Roark it would be neccessary for him to have a director that knew the character and exactly how to portray him.

It requires understanding, not necessarily agreement. A person who knows ideas and how to portray them is needed, even if the director's own personal values are contrary to Objectivism. Of course, ideally, it should be someone who both understands and agrees with the philosophy, but if I had a choice of just one, I would prefer a good director with understanding to a poor director who was in agreement with the philosophy.

[argive99]

There simply was nothing, and no one, of epic proportions, no larger-than-life characters performing larger-than-life deeds. If Zeus saw that movie he would destroy them all with a series of thunderbolts!

The people who wrote the script and directed the movie did not have a clue about the meaning in that Ancient book. 

I actually had that thought too. I think this is because the producers of the film chose to remove the gods from the story and make it into a sort of political/economic tale of woe so to speak. By doing that they probably robbed the story of its grandeur. I always loved the Illiad because I saw the main conflict to be humanity's struggle to have control over their own lives and to be free from the gods. I almost think it was one of mankind's first attempts at grasping free will.

There is a scene in the poem where Achilles chases the god Apollo even after he knows who it is. He actually flirted with the idea of attacking Apollo until Apollo reminded him that gods cant die. Achilles tells him that for the gods nothing matters, there are no consequences, and he then says something that I doubt could exist in any monotheistic religion. He tells Apollo that if he had the power he would make him pay. Can you imagine a devout Christian, Jew, or Moslem challenging their god in such a way. To me that should have been the focus of the story. But I might as well ask for the elimination of the personal income tax. Hollywood wouldn't be able to reach such an irreligious conclusion.

So given the constraints placed on the movie by the culture, I enjoyed what I saw as a decent way to spend a couple of hours. And I came away with a personal goal: to look as "ripped" as Brad Pitt. Damn he was in shape.

[oldsalt]

Does anyone know who designed the new art museum in Milwalkee? Have any of you seen this building in action? The building sits on the edge of the lake and takes the form of a noble ship. The large amount of glass involved required awnings to aid in protecting the glass from the sun. The solution is an awning that rises from the sides of the upper structure, seemingly on a mast, and transforms the structure to that of a bird, with swept-backed wings, taking flight. I know nothing of archetecture, but I do know boats and the water environment -- I live on a boat and have spent most of my life on the water. Seeing this building in action brought tears to my eyes.

As for Brad Pitt: He sure is prudy, but I've never seen him display the kind of intelligence he would need to play Roark. Cooper didn't understand the part (and it showed), but at least he had Miss Rand there to lead him. I wouldn't waste the time contemplating where the likes of Oliver Stone would take Pitt.