| | Michael, we don't really disagree on the primary importance of an actor's ability to project the appropriate psychology and character for a role. In the case of a landmark novel with culturally iconic characters, however, I do think that the major roles, at least, should be cast with actors who also bear a fairly close physical resemblance to the descriptions in the source book.
You can get more creative with the secondary and tertiary roles -- for example, my suggesting a black Morgan Freeman as Hugh Akston. There, I went solely for the psychological essence of the character, rather than for a physical type, because the former is the only thing truly important about the Akston character.
But for Galt, Dagny, Francisco, Ragnar, and Rearden? No, I don't think just going for a psychological type is sufficient. For those beloved characters, Rand's physical descriptions are embedded in millions of minds; and the casting people just can't afford to thwart fan expectations by picking actors whose look strays very far from what is in the novel.
Imagine casting in "Gone With the Wind" Errol Flynn as Rhett Butler, for example. Yes, he was as dashing and cocky as Gable; but he didn't have quite the "look" of the character in the book. As a result, it just would not have been the same film, and millions of the book's fans would have been upset.
Interestingly, I suspect that of the major parts in Atlas, you probably have more latitude casting John Galt than any of the other heroes. The two main reasons are that he spends far less time "on stage" in the novel than do Francisco and Rearden, and -- IMHO -- his physical description never concretizes for the reader as vividly as theirs do.
For most of the novel, Galt is a shadow on the sidewalk, a voice on the radio, an unseen sounding board for Eddie Willers. He is a ghost, an archetype, a legend. When he finally appears, as Dagny opens her eyes in the valley, Rand gives us a very, very long description freighted with many evaluative abstractions about pride and arrogance and intelligence, etc. -- so many details and editorial comments, in fact, that I as a reader experience a "crow epistemology" problem: my mind is overwhelmed with too much to absorb in order to successfully visualize the essence of his appearance. Rand's best stylization of Galt concerns his distinctive manner of speaking. But overall, I think Rand portrays his intellect much better than she does his physical appearance, which just doesn't gel for me as successfully as does Francisco's or Rearden's, whom she described in bold, essential strokes. Many other readers -- especially women -- have told me the same thing over the years: for them, Galt is more mind than body.
That's why in suggesting Russell Crowe for that role, I went mainly for an actor of the appropriate age who could convincingly project great intelligence, and strong, masculine leadership qualities. I asked myself: Who plausibly could be cast against a Liam Neeson and a Christian Bale as their leader, and also romantic competitor for Dagny? Face it, the Hollywood pickin's are slim. I'm convinced Crowe has the screen presence and other qualities to pull it off.
All of this is moot, of course, if "Brangelina" want the Galt-Dagny parts. They are just too big in the business to say "no" to. To say that these roles would be a stretch for either actor is a huge understatement. But in some films they have displayed more talent and range than either their public images or glitzier screen roles suggest.
We could do worse.
|
|
