RoR: Forum

I believe you could communicate your concerns to the producers via the Atlas Society web site http://www.atlassociety.org/tas/membersonly/index.asp.

Post 1

Friday, January 11, 2008 - 8:24am

Look on the bright side. Nobody takes Huffington seriously. If Sklar's head were anyplace anatomically feasible she'd be writing somewhere else. The piece's only significance is as a symptom of how thoroughly the book has become pop-cultural common coin.

Post 2

Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:55pm

I believe you could communicate your concerns to the producers via the Atlas Society web site.

I guess you are referring to my concerns about the integrity of the film version of Atlas Shrugged. I know from past experience that production companies working on properties as well-known as Atlas are besieged with all sorts of advice from the book’s millions of admirers. I doubt if I would get much of a hearing. My only input would be to totally reject any suggestion of changing Taggart Transcontinental into an airline. That particular nightmare always makes me wake up in a cold sweat.

Post 3

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 2:18am

The piece's only significance is as a symptom of how thoroughly the book has become pop-cultural common coin.

I would agree that this is probably an extreme example, but no more so than the viewpoint expressed by Whittaker Chambers in 1957:

From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"

On the other hand, strung out religionists like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved (and even Paul Harvey) praise Atlas, while self-professed Rand aficionado Angelina Jolie traipses around the globe as special envoy for United Nations refugees. And I have personally met people to whom Atlas ranks second only to the Bible.

People seem to have some bizarre capacity to screen out data that does not mesh with their world view. They read Rand and twist her carefully chosen words to conform to their particular model of reality--which is why it is so incredibly difficult for a radical new philosophy to make inroads on our culture.

Post 4

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 5:33am

I agree that the reference from Sklar in Huffington is a reflection that Atlas is in the popular culture.

I also see some wisdom in the perspective offered because I perceived the same thing. We do not have television in our home, but I do have CNN.com for my homepage and my primary email is via AOL.com so I see the mainstream twice. Therefore, I knew about the writer's strike and I thought that it was telling that these talking heads cannot talk unless someone writes their words for them. I understand the impact on movies, tv productions, etc., but it was Jay Leno being sandbagged and Ellen Degeneris backpedalling that I found amusing and revealing.

On the other hand, I am not so worried that other people misunderstand Atlas Shrugged or Objectivism or the words and deeds of Ayn Rand. You can find all of that here.

Outside of the secret clubhouse, we object to people knowing our callsigns and handshakes. There is a fear -- beginning with the beginning, hence the "Students of ...." clubs on college campuses, lest anyone speak for the Speaker -- that wider knowledge of the premises and conclusoins will lead to a plethora of heterodoxies. And indeed, it has.

I never trusted Angelina Jolie and I was a bit leery of that Hollywood issue of New Individualist, though I bought 10 copies. She has a movie to promote. She can hardly say that the ideas are reprehensible and the storyline is ludicrous. Angelina Jolie may be one of those people who repeat the words that other people write for them.

Post 5

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:07am

M.E.M writes:

I never trusted Angelina Jolie and I was a bit leery of that Hollywood issue of New Individualist, though I bought 10 copies. She has a movie to promote. She can hardly say that the ideas are reprehensible and the storyline is ludicrous. Angelina Jolie may be one of those people who repeat the words that other people write for them.

Bob Kolker responds:

It's called acting. That is what actors do. Right? Speak the speech I pray thee etc. etc....

Bob Kolker

Post 6

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:42am

Dennis,

I really think that you are asking too much from a movie. I understand that, given your current sentiment, you will not be let down if you don't find immediate, positive, identifiable change in our culture after this movie hits the box office. There's perspective in that. But I have personal experience the spirit of which contradicts the spirit of what it is that you wrote. For instance, here are 3 memorable lines from 2 movies which have stuck with me and helped me to live well ...

The Shawshank Redemption [Andy Dufresne (played by Tim Robbins) speaking to "Red" (played by Morgan Freeman)]:

"Get busy living, or get busy dying."

The Fountainhead [Howard Roark speaking to Ellsworth Toohey]:

"But I don't think of you!"

The Fountainhead [Howard Roark speaking at his trial]:

"I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life."

These quotes (embodied in their philosophically-rich and ideationally-colorful scenes) have often popped into my head at key times in my life; empowering me to act in my own genuine self-service. And, from my perspective, that's enough to ask from a movie (that it positively impacts your individual life). And the experience of objective beauty (a combination of "what's good" and "what's right") is, in itself, moving.

So, though you wrote this piece well and made several great points, this personal gratitude -- which my own movie experience allows me to feel -- offers a different perspective than that which you had portrayed in your piece. In sum, I find that a useful question for judging movies is: "What's in it for me?"

;-)

Ed

Post 7

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:40am

Bob K: It's called acting. That is what actors do. Right? Speak the speech I pray thee etc. etc....

I understand and appreciate that. The same issue of New Individualist touted other stars whose admiration for this or that work of Ayn Rand -- Fountainhead or Atlas, typically -- had nothing to do with their current project. Rob Lowe, Jim Carey, their statements were just answers to questions from other sources that NI gathered for the article. "What was your last book?" Answer: The Fountainhead. It really makes you think about life. Fine, as far as that goes. But Angelina Jolie has a direct vested interest in the pre-arranged sales of tickets to millions of AR admirers... AND... her own recent actions belie any understanding of what she read.... if she read ...

Post 8

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 12:20pm

Michael,

But Angelina Jolie has a direct vested interest in the pre-arranged sales of tickets to millions of AR admirers... AND... her own recent actions belie any understanding of what she read....

Not necessarily. That may be a hasty generalization. Engaging in personal, private charity (adopting 3rd-World kids) is not necessarily immoral. The argument that she's a role model -- and, therefore, ought to exemplify specific characteristics of Randian heroes -- is faulty also, in that it relies on a proposed duty (for popular folks).

What's required for a justified moral judgment of her character is something more directly and objectively wrong -- such as a speech against capitalism, or something more on that order.

Ed

Post 9

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:27pm

Good perspective, Ed. And thank you for the kind remarks about my article. I agree that I am probably expecting too much from the movie, and that it would be healthier to look at it from the perspective of what positive impact the movie might have for me personally as opposed to the culture at large.

The older I get, the less I tend to expect in terms of drastic cultural change. But there is a part of me that wonders what it would be like to see the film version of Atlas get the same attention as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

I like all of the lines you quoted. When I think of films that impacted me, I think more in terms of characters as opposed to specific lines. Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan, for instance, or Sean Connery as James Bond. In my childhood years, it was Roy Rogers and Superman. (I absolutely despised Hollywoodland’s recent cynical portrayal of George Reeves, although I have no idea as to its accuracy.)

If there is such a thing as a spiritual ledger, there is no way I could ever calculate how much those heroes (and I should include Hank Rearden on that list ) meant to me at various stages of my moral, emotional and intellectual development.

Post 10

Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:31pm

Jolie is looking for a good gig and starring in a movie version of AS could well be one. Actors and actresses rarely share the values and perspectives of the characters they play. Gary Cooper was no great fan of Ayn Rand's ideas, nor was Patricia O'Neill (?). Too bad but quite normal. If they do their jobs well, however, their personal failings in philosophy or politics should not be of much consequence. Same with the producers. Of course, fans of Rand may get too ebullient about making a movie of AS but they need to face reality.

Post 11

Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:02am

Dennis, thanks for the article. I didn't really read it as a potential criticism of the movie. I thought it was about how Atlas Shrugged as a book can seem to mean anything to anyone, by taking vague similarities and not pointing out key differences. Your discussion of the WGA was worth the article itself, but connecting it to the wider point highlighted it as an instance of this kind of misunderstanding.

It's interesting that the whole idea of Atlas Shrugged's strike was to invert the idea of the typical strike. They don't work, and are happy to let others try to fill their shoes. They are stepping out of the picture entirely. In that context, the WGA is laughable. They're protesting that Leno writes a few of his own jokes. I read there was also concern that the Colbert Report (or maybe The Daily Show) was just a little too funny without writers. They were worried that someone might have written the jokes after all. These aren't people showing how important they are by stepping out of the picture for awhile. These are people demanding through force that nobody else is allowed to do the job, and then they use their position to extort money. It's the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. The fact that they share a strike in common is crazy, given the complete reversal Rand was going for.

On the Jolie topic, does anyone know what the timeline was? Did she make her statements praising AS before she connected to the project, or after? I'm not terribly interested in her views or how that would affect the movie, but I'm curious whether this assumption has been checked at all.

Post 12

Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 4:22am

the world we return to will be just as embroiled in bureaucratic stagnation and the suffocating quagmire of rampant irrationality as ever, and will remain so for a long time to come

Mr. Hardin,

I understand your frustration, but I'd ask for some perspective:

While it is true that world culture and politics is less than optimal, and is enmeshed in the factors you've identified (bureaucracy and irrationality), it's important to remember that this has been true for civilization for the entirety of human history

If you look upon history and societies in the past and judge them on the standards of what is "reasonable" in the 21st Century, yes, it is true that all of the societies sucked. I don't know if that's necessarily a productive exercise, however.

The question is whether, piece by piece, society is throwing off the mesh. Thing aren't the best, but they're getting better.

Post 13

Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 10:23am

Even the longest journey begins with a single step. :)

Post 14

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 1:01am

Joe,

Thanks for the nice feedback. Your comments are on target. I wanted to break the news to the striking writers that if they wanted to get inspiration from Atlas Shrugged, they should be identifying with Orren Boyle and Wesley Mouch, not John Galt.

Angelina Jolie told Tina Brown of CNBC that she was “very into Ayn Rand” in October of 2004. She began working with the United Nations in 2001. She fancies herself an ambassador for human rights, while lending her prestige to an agency that props up dictators around the globe--from Iran and Cuba to Libya and Syria, from North Korea to Venezuela—even as its corrupt “Security Council” adopts resolutions designed to defame and destroy the state of Israel. If she really wanted to help refugees, she should be devoting her energies to shutting it down.

Steven,

I appreciate the perspective you offer. It’s true that, with all its drawbacks, America today is a vast improvement over just about any civilization that has ever existed (with the possible exception of Ancient Greece). Every one of us should count his blessings. But I read news stories about suicide bombers and look around me at smart, educated people who despise atheists and still believe in the Ten Commandments fifty years after Galt’s Speech, and I truthfully just do not understand. And I am fairly sure I never will.

And I suspect that those who may chastise me for being impetuous don’t really understand it either. (This is not directed at you, Steven. BTW, are you related to the former 49ers quarterback?)

Fifty years seems like a long time for a single step.

Post 15

Monday, April 28, 2008 - 9:50am

TV Crew members still feeling effect of writer’s strike (News link)

“Although hard figures are not available, union officials say that thousands of crew members who normally would be busy at this time of year are still idled because of the sharp contraction in television production. Some union locals report a quarter of their members are sitting at home…”

Congratulations, Writers’ Guild, you criminal gang of gun-toting thugs. I am sure the self-righteous writers and their “leaders” still believe they are wonderful paragons of idealistic virtue. For all the incalculable human suffering their little crusade caused, it makes you wish you believed there was a hell.

Post 16

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 9:54am

Now add the ultimate altruistic irony to the whole situation: strikes by any Hollywood (or New York theater or TV) union have nothing whatsoever to do with getting any appreciable amount of money for the overwhelming majority of writers who actually write most movies and TV shows.

Contracts are always about minimums, residuals in 'out of the way areas', etc that don't amount to any significant percentage of money to those who are actual working writers on any major film or TV show. It's all about ensuring a floor for the overwhelming majority of the union members who make a pittance yearly by contributing occasionally to a small film or show.

So, in order to 'help the needy' an entire TV season is disrupted, film production delayed, etc costing all concerned many millions (not to mention the customers who don't get the product).

Hollywood union leaders have a mentality firmly stuck in 30s-style socialism. (Witness the recent comments by the leader of SAG who fervently wants a strike.)

Post 17

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 12:25pm