July 25, 2010 -- I spoke with Dagny Taggart the other night. “It’s a huge honor to be part of this film,” said Taylor Schilling, who plays the heroine in John Aglialoro’s independent production of Atlas Shrugged. Tuesday evening, July 20, marked the completion of filming. We caught up with Aglialoro and his team in a weary but ebullient mood as shooting wrapped after an intense five-week schedule.
The movie covers Part I of Ayn Rand’s novel, with two more films in the planning stage to tell the rest of the story. With six months of editing still to go on “Atlas Shrugged, Part I,” Aglialoro expects it to be ready for release by next March—unless it is accepted for Cannes or other major festivals, which would probably mean a June release.
* * * In entrepreneurial courage and talent, the film project to date is fully the equal of the story it tells, Dagny’s heroic struggle to build the John Galt rail line. Having optioned the film rights to Atlas in 1992, Aglialoro (pictured above with producer Harmon Kaslow and director Paul Johansson) has worked with a number of studios and independent producers, with one project after another coming to grief. In the ten years I have been advising him about scripts, I have read at least six distinct scripts for everything from TV miniseries to feature films. Hopes ran high for a deal with Lionsgate Films and Baldwin Entertainment for a single feature-length film, with a good script by Randall Wallace and Angelina Jolie as the lead. After that effort fizzled, Lionsgate undertook a lower-budget miniseries last fall. But the script proved unworkable and Lionsgate withdrew altogether. By March of this year, Aglialoro was back where he started.
And time was running out. His option was set to expire June 15 of this year unless an adaptation of the novel was in principal photography. If he met that deadline, the rights would be his indefinitely. If not, they would revert to the Estate of Ayn Rand, to be optioned to someone else—or put on the shelf.
“I knew I would always regret it,” Aglialoro says, “and would feel that I failed Ayn Rand, if I didn’t make a final effort.” In early April he took the plunge, teaming with veteran producer Harmon Kaslow. Over the next two months they formed a production company, “The Strike” Productions, Inc.; opened an office in Los Angeles; created the script, which Aglialoro co-wrote with Brian Patrick O’Toole; hired the production team and crew; auditioned cast; and lined up locations for shooting the film. Paul Johansson signed on as director just nine days before filming was to begin, after the first director was fired.
Cameras rolled on June 13, two days before the deadline. *** "Atlas Shrugged is...a liberation of the human spirit. That’s what I get from making the movie. And that’s what I want people to get from watching it.” -John Aglialaro
The Hollywood press has taken a dismissive view of the project. How could an outsider hope to produce a successful film with so little time, a reported budget of $5 million, a director with limited film experience, and a cast without stars?
Offsetting those limitations, however, is the passion of the producers, cast, and crew to realize the vision of the novel. That’s why Johansson took on the challenge of directing on such short notice. (Though Atlas will be his first film, Johansson has considerable experience directing TV, with an Emmy to his credit.) Schilling was attracted to the lead roll because she loved Rand’s work, having read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Many crew members came on board at less than their usual fees just to be part of the project. As for the budget, the producers says the actual figure is at least twice the reported $5 million. And Atlas is not really a star vehicle. The power of an adaptation, and its ultimate success or failure, turn on how well it captures Rand’s narrative and its meaning. As an independent production, this adaptation has pursued that goal directly, without having to bargain with studios, stars, or screenwriters who don’t get it.
On these and many other points, Aglialaro addressed the skeptics in a video message addressed to attendees of The Atlas Society's recent Summer Seminar:
Atlas Shrugged Teaser from The Atlas Society on Vimeo.[See link below] * * * But we had a different question for him on the eve of the wrap: Having read and reread Atlas Shrugged over so many years, did you learn something new about the book from the process of actually filming Part I?
“I wouldn’t say I learned something about Atlas that I didn’t know before. What I did get was a refortification of its values and principles.
“I have been an entrepreneur with companies in different industries—from airlines to health care, oil services, and exercise equipment—and I have had to deal with government in every one, at every step of the way. It’s a constant drain of time and energy. We could be in the 24th century today, in terms of technology, innovation, and wealth if it were not for all the controls that society puts on the individual. Whether it’s religion trying to control our spirit or government trying to control our lives—they take so much of the nectar from each life. It’s like a gun to your head, and you have to bargain constantly for permission to live and expand and find self-fulfillment.
“Atlas Shrugged is my fortification against all that. It’s a liberation of the human spirit. That’s what I get from making the movie. And that’s what I want people to get from watching it.”
Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism was set forth in her epic novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and in her brilliant non-fiction essays. The Atlas Society promotes Objectivism and its core values: reason, achievement, individualism, and freedom.
They've made a film of this, huh? Interesting. I've never read the book but heard a lot about it.
It's always been highly controversial. People seem to either love Ayn Rand or hate her passionately. One thing is certain, there's no mistaking where she stands,-and that's one of the things I admire so much about her work.
The novel itself (Atlas, in this case) is a heck of a wild ride, so pay no attention if you've heard it is at all "Dull" -- I suspect those who say this have just read the Cliffs Notes,....or more likely, haven't read it at all. This great antipathy seems to be caused by the size of the book, which strikes fear into their hearts. Lol.
But, I recommend it HIGHLY. We've got some good material here, in the Philosophy section, if you're interested. The infamous "John Galt's speech" -- :-)))
I really liked the book when I read it, completely overwhelmed by it really. Thanks to being exposed to some good criticism of it I now have a more balanced perspective (IMO), but it was my first exposure to philosophy ever and I fell in love. I've come to disagree with much of what Ayn Rand believed and preached, but I have to really appreciate the chain of events it started for me. I was just an ignorant video gamer back them, I picked up the book while waiting in an airport because I enjoyed a game that was supposedly based off the book. Talk about getting caught off guard.
Yep, sometimes it's scary, how the things that are very important to us often arrive just by the merest chance - yes, I know exactly what you mean. Who knows, if you hadn't found that book at the airport, today you might not be on the interesting intellectual path that you, indeed, are on.
It's part of what makes life so interesting... :-)
In what area, btw, did you decide to part ways with AR?
So, do you think they'd make a mainstream Hollywood movie out of material created by real opposition? Only if the message is materially changed. If this sells Rand's message, then it only adds weight to the argument that Rand was a clever insider. Mee thinks, anyway
So, do you think they'd make a mainstream Hollywood movie out of material created by real opposition? Only if the message is materially changed. If this sells Rand's message, then it only adds weight to the argument that Rand was a clever insider. Mee thinks, anyway
Ha. She was no more a clever insider than YOU are. Atlas Shrugged, and indeed ALL of her books, speak more than eloquently of the values of the author, for 'those who have ears to hear', as the Bible says. Can you not recognize the celebration of the individual, and the paean to man's independence that permeates the novel, and is the heart and soul of the story? It's almost laughable to question Rand's ethical credentials -- like asking Mary Poppins for job references! Ayn Rand, since the very beginning of her career, has *always* and *consistently* striven for one thing only: a human being's right to live his own life in the way he himself chooses, so long as he doesn't infringe on the rights of others. She has never deviated from this, and if you check out the themes of all of her works, you will see that what I'm saying is true.
Secondly, the movie hasn't been finished yet, and I know that for almost fifty years now, they've somehow succeeded in *never* getting this movie filmed, despite its enormous popularity and appeal. So I am not at all certain "something" won't just happen to throw a monkey wrench into finally getting it on film. If it does make it to the theatres, I have no doubt the Best Propaganda Mechanisms on Earth can dredge up more John Dodds to discredit Rand and make her into a great evil, and a great threat to America. One thing I am sure of, though, is that the message wll not be materially changed. The man behind the film is a long-time ardent admirer of Rand's, and will remain extremely faithful to the spirit of her work. So that means you, TL, will get a real chance, via the film when it comes out, to judge for yourself whether she (Ayn Rand )is or isn't an admirable figure, and one who's often been badly misrepresented.
On a side note, I've been really surprised, that Dodd's cheap slander/libel was far more effective than I ever would have thought possible. I'm really startled that that nogoodnik's words could carry so much weight, and with not even a shred of evidence in sight. Sheesh. A really sad state of affairs IMHO...which should receive serious attention, and be thoroughly discredited as completely deficient criticism.
On a FinalNote, I want to say: Atlas should be a GREAT GREAT viewing pleasure for all those lucky enough to see it. I for one cannot wait.
It's not laughable to questions Rand's morals, it is reasonable. She supported the idea of pre-emptive war, as well as pre-emptive violence called government and taxes. She deviates from individual rights with both of those views. She thought a human being had a right to life to live how he chooses, so long as he didn't infringe on the rights of others, and so long as he paid his taxes. For all her praising of the individual, she saw people as collectives where it is okay to start killing them because their government does not line up with her vision of a "free" country, which is purely hypocritical with her own view on government and taxes. She dresses it all up nicely with some exceptional sophistry, her "morals" sound great...sometimes, but she disregards the very things she praises with he own beliefs and teaching.
It's not laughable to questions Rand's morals, it is reasonable. She supported the idea of pre-emptive war, as well as pre-emptive violence called government and taxes. She deviates from individual rights with both of those views. She thought a human being had a right to life to live how he chooses, so long as he didn't infringe on the rights of others, and so long as he paid his taxes.
I thought the following might be useful in illustrating Rand's view on taxes:
Quote :
Taxation
In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance. The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions. “Government Financing in a Free Society,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 116.
Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future. What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved. The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing. “Government Financing in a Free Society,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 118.
In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . . . How would she know it, if all the voices she hears are telling her that we must soak the rich? No one tells her that higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, hers will be gone, along with her savings and her husband’s job—and no power in the world (no economic power) will be able to revive the dead industries (there will be no such power left).
In addition, you said:
Quote :
For all her praising of the individual, she saw people as collectives where it is okay to start killing them because their government does not line up with her vision of a "free" country, which is purely hypocritical with her own view on government and taxes.
Care to support this with any actual quotes or evidence? Those are some very serious charges, that she is a killer...
There is not a huge reason to quote her books IMO, there is a stark contrast between her dressed up writing and her actual views and opinions on the real world.
From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q & A, these are all just collectivist reasons to go to war and kill innocents, because she did not view them as innocent or guilty individuals but as a guilty collective. Some champion of the individual.
"If we go to war with Russia, I hope the ‘innocent’ are destroyed with the guilty. ... Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who’s standing behind him. (p. 95)"
"Whatever rights the Palestinians may have had – I don’t know the history of the Middle East well enough to know what started the trouble – they have lost all rights to anything: not only to land, but to human intercourse. If they lost land, and in response resorted to terrorism – to the slaughter of innocent citizens – they deserve whatever any commandos anywhere can do to them, and I hope the commandos succeed. (p. 97)"
"Even as a writer, I can barely project a situation in which a man must kill an innocent person to defend his own life. ... But suppose someone lives in a dictatorship, and needs a disguise to escape. ... So he must kill an innocent bystander to get a coat. In such a case, morality cannot say what to do. ... Personally, I would say the man is immoral if he takes an innocent life. But formally, as a moral philosopher, I’d say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. ... Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right – subjectively. (p. 114)"
This quote here:
Quote :
In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance. The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.
Sounds all nice and everything, but she is basically saying she wants it to be voluntary but the practical application of that (which is the crux of the issue) should be passed off to someone else because it is too complicated. Then in practice, she actually supports the US form of non-voluntary taxes by living here and supporting the government. She didn't resist, she didn't even speak out against the government (only certain policies). This is the same exact thing she is accusing the Russians of doing, guilt by association, and the same reason she thought it was okay to kill them - because they weren't innocent because they didn't resist. She didn't either.
From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q & A, these are all just collectivist reasons to go to war and kill innocents, because she did not view them as innocent or guilty individuals but as a guilty collective. Some champion of the individual.
"If we go to war with Russia, I hope the ‘innocent’ are destroyed with the guilty. ... Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who’s standing behind him. (p. 95)"
I challenge this (HIGHLYdoubtful-the bolded part) quote- can you provide a link? (According to the Objectivist website "Objectivist Living", the quotes used in this book - "Ayn Rand Answers" - have been acknowledged by the author to be edited, and so are not reliable.)
Thanks. I will address your other points afterwards.
They are from Ayn Rand Answers like I said, I don't have a link to a book. If you want to think editor edited Rand into a war monger then that is fine with me. She has said many similar things at many different times to many different people. If you read the Playboy interview she did she talks about invading Russia and says the same basic things. That is just one example, look at her other interviews, or look at records from her meet up groups, this is common knowledge if you look at Ayn Rand the person rather than her fiction.
Having the moral right to invade Russia and kill innocents because she didn't think they were innocents (collectivism) was something she felt strongly about, she also viewed the Palestinians the same way. In Atlas Shrugged the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold is an icon for the very same viewpoint, only thanks to the magic of fiction he really is able to attack without killing innocents. In the real world you likely will not be able to bombard factories and not have innocent people injured and killed. She rationalized away their innocence by accusing them of supporting the soviet union.
She used sophistry to make up grandiose reasons as to why this was acceptable rather than just admitting she was choosing a political side (US/Israel). I presented a counter point and it is up to you to decide if you want to look into it, I am not going to a be a research bot for you to satisfy your skepticism.
I wrote the page numbers on the quotes, no I can't link it, sometimes you need to pickup a book and read something offline.
http://freedomkeys.com/ar-playboy.htm
No I won't mail you the book or playboy mag, but I told you where to find them.
Really, is there any reason I would want to debate you...? Since you're neither polite nor reasonable, IMO. I might grant you your point partly -- AR is certainly not a conventionally "kind" person -- and does sound harsh (IF she is quoted correctly, that is, a big "if" according to the editor.) But from that it doesn't follow that she is a murdering monster, which is your view of her.
I don't think I need to point out that that view makes any fruitful discussion between us highly unlikely, and so it would be a waste of time for both of us. I hope you can see the truth of this, and I'm sorry this is the case. So, another time, perhaps.
Clairvoyant
Posts : 241 Join date : 2009-11-19
Subject: Re: "Atlas Shrugged" Filming Wraps Up! Mon 02 Aug 2010, 10:04 am
[quote="Explorer"][quote="Clairvoyant"]
Explorer wrote:
Really, is there any reason I would want to debate you...?
Because you don't want to live in Randian fantasy land?
ScoutsHonor
Posts : 1360 Join date : 2009-10-20
Subject: Re: "Atlas Shrugged" Filming Wraps Up! Mon 02 Aug 2010, 10:48 am
Actually, you're wrong - I'd move to Galt's Gulch in a minute.
Last edited by Explorer on Mon 02 Aug 2010, 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________ "For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root." David Thoreau (1817-1862)
anonymously email me by clicking here
Ben Steigmann
Posts : 114 Join date : 2010-05-21
Subject: Re: "Atlas Shrugged" Filming Wraps Up! Wed 04 Aug 2010, 2:17 am
I am not an anarchist. In my view, the function of government is to serve as a protectorate, and to not only protect against foreign aggressors, but also land monopolists and parasitic international bankers. Thus, if you combine Michael Badnarik's "It's good to be king", Ellen Brown's "The Web of Debt", and Henry George's "Progress and Poverty", you woud have a good approximation of what I believe are viable political-economic solutions. I agree with a transition to nation-states temporarily, if we are able to throw off the parasitic beast, but Ideally, I would like to see the transition to City-States where people are able to have access to power.
Nevertheless, I will post the following libertarian-anarchist's criticisms of Ayn Rand, as they are highly relevant: