James Wood for Dr. Stadler?

...wasted & thin. A mean & ugly Gary Cooper could have played him.

I agree Ted, he has more the look and intensity of a Rand villain. He'd make a great Jim Taggart.

Colleen Dewhurst would have been perfect to play Ma Chalmers (the soybean advocate) but as she is deceased, I'd cast Kathy Bates.

As for Spacey, I like him, but as John Galt? He could definitely play a hero, but he has the look to me of one of Rand's villains.

I'd also like to see Denzel Washington as Hank Rearden.

Dewhurts's image is from http://gfx.filmweb.pl/p/3679/po.145016.jpg

I'd vote for Kevin Spacey to play Galt.

Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Jackman!

Cate Blanchett would make a great Dagny.

as Lillian Rearden. Bob Balaban as James Taggart. James Cromwell as Stoddard. Peewie Herman as Wesley Mouch. Although I have too much respect for Peewie.

who would people pick to play the villains?

PLEASE STOP HERE
if you will be offended by the discussion of homoeroticism in Rand

I mean it, I do not like "touching people's values" in this way unless they consent. Okay? ...Did you find that you were, Jeff, or could under other circumstances have been sexually aroused by Galt as portrayed, as opposed to Francisco or Ragnar? I found the "bar of gold" scene particularly emotive, if not overtly erotic, and expect that even purely heterosexual men will understand why male-oriented women might find that scene more "concrete" than any of Galt's, save the torture scene. My apologies for the hijack.

Ted

And by "bite" I meant attack without provocation, not "take the bait." Again, Jeff, I think you may be taking me as hostile in my arguments in a way here & elsewhere that was never intended.

Further, I didn't really find the torture scene erotic either, sorry.

"But you also evaded my questions." Ok, I'll bite, this once.

One thing, Ted, you will never observe if you live to be 200 is me evading anything. Ignoring, maybe. But, I don't know what questions you mean. I skimmed through your last few posts and didn't see any question marks, except this one: "Who could pull off that scene?"

Did you have some questions (other than that one, which I took as rhetorical)?

By "say" I meant "emphasize," by "bum" I meant "anonymous drab person," and by "get into," I mean that I had to read three times into the Fountainhead before I got past page 70, whereas I had no prior trouble with Atlas, Dostoevevsky, Mellvile, Hugo or many others. Given my praise for the book, I don't think the fact that I said I had a hard time "getting into it" at 16 was a put down, but a call not to be discouraged.

When I am unclear, at least I don't bite when simply asked for explanation, or impugn the understanding of those who disagree with me. And I don't mean to imply here that you fall under either of those malign designations either. If anything, Jeff, I am sad that you don't iterrogate me more often.

Just to make it clear:

Rand's fictional corpus outranks Tolkien's corpus in my view, and they outrank Frank Herbert's. Heinlein, and then Niven are my next favorites, for very different reasons. But Rand's and Tolkien's works outrank all else whom I have read not in translation by quite a margin. I believe Hugo might do so, but have found it difficult to stomache his translations, and tedious to read his longer works with a dictionary at hand. Other individual works like I, Claudius rank very high, but then I could never get past page 20 of the Golden Ass. I have been unable to get a good translation of Quo Vadis Oh, and I forget Orwell. His novels are uneven, but when at his best, he's my #3 I recommend the four volume collection of his non-fiction most highly.

[I grant that "bum" was sloppy, because there was another actual character who was a real bum. - But you also evaded my questions.]

Ted, sometimes (about half the time, actually) I find your posts impossible to decipher.

Galt wasn't the bum (if by that you mean the bum on the train), he was the man in the Taggart cafeteria who lunched with Eddie Willers, and pumped him for information.

And, I really don't know what you mean by this:

"Atlas is certainly much easier to 'get into.'"

Neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged are difficult to read for even average people, as evidenced by their sales figures, if nothing else.

And, this:

"I still can't say how important the work is." is mystifying.

If you are referring to Atlas Shrugged, I'll give you some hints.

AS is one of the greatest books in the history of literature, and will remain so for several hundred years at least. Hence, artistically it is hugely important.

It is also one of the most important works in the history of philosophy and will remain so for as long as human civilization remains in existence at a level that would even make it possible for them to read.

Much valid criticism of Objectivism and Ayn Rand can be made. But that she is an historic figure and that her works will rank with those of the top 100 geniuses of the last 2500 years, is true beyond any reasonable doubt.

That Galt was the Bum right away, Jeff, but I found the desire to have sex with Francisco, Hank & Ragnar realistic. I assume you found none of them sexually alluring yourself I do remember saying "yeah, me too" when I read the criticism of his characterization as flat, I had already come to it on my own. I think for once, Rand felt what she wanted to portray, but didn't realize that other's wouldn't quite get it. The task was huge, to characterize an anonymous character. I think, as art, The Fountainhead is superior. Atlas is still more entertaining and instructive. But the ending is its weakness. Which I recommend first depends upon the reader. Atlas is certainly much easier to "get into." I still can't say how important the work is. Again, Rand is the only author whose works I have actually dreamt about finding as unpublished manuscripts in Manhattan used-book stores.

Ted

Floating abstraction? Odd, I've heard many people over the years say this about his character. I never had that reaction; quite the opposite. Maybe it's because I guessed he was the guy in the cafeteria right away.

Regrettably, I can't think of a known actor of the right age range working who can play Galt, nor Rearden, Francisco, Ragnar, or any other Randian hero. Heston is far too old for Rearden and Gregory Peck is dead. The only actor who ever looked like Galt was John Philip Law (Hurry Sundown, Barbarella) but he didn't really have the acting chops for it.

There are several actresses who could play Dagny quite well, but Jolie definitely isn't one of them. I'm appalled by the casting suggestions I've heard over the years. Clearly, apart from Bidinotto whose picks are incomprehensible, no one making them has ever seen movies from the 1940s or 1950s when real men and women were acting in the movies.

Jeff

"In Literature, as in love we are astounded at the choices of others." Andre Maurois

Update: I take it (partially) back. His looks aren't right, but Nathan Fallon has the acting talent and the gravitas to play Galt.

I like Pitt as Ragnar Danneskjöld and Benicio as Francisco Domingo Carlos Andrés Sebastián D'Anconia because they are a matching set. I find Galt's character in the novel too much the "floating abstraction" since his actions are in the wings until the last third. Almost might as well have Hugo Weaving in a mask, such an impact he makes as a fleshed-out person in the novel. Only his torture scene strikes me as visually concretizing him. Who could pull off that scene? Whover could would be the man to cast. I haven't yet seen Craig, so don't know if he's the man for the job. The Movie could actually overcome the abstractification of Galt, so long as we actually see Galt's face without recognizing who he really is. But how to do that is beyond me.

Ted

Just saw Casino Royale. Is almost as good as Goldfinger, which makes it the 2nd equal Bond movie of all time in my book.

Picking the perfect actors for AS characters, that is.

Crowe is *not* right for Ragnar; the man is too solid & blocky. And the timbre of his voice isn't even close.

Here's Ragnar, and perhaps even Galt...

Daniel Craig, the new James bond.

If you want to see what a real beautiful Scandinavian looks like, here's a young Max von Sydow, although he's a Swede, not Dane. (May my Great-Grandfather Kjær forgive me.) Crowe's a scrappy butch mongrel who might as well be Welsh or French for his looks. And he's as pretty as a Basset Hound. The problem is, I don't know who to suggest, But Brad could play Ragnar, and I don't care who plays Galt, so long as he can film in the U.S.

Crowe is no Norse God.

Ted

Does anyone remember the suggestion that Rearden was originally to be black? It's a shame Adams Reed's no longer here, he knew that story.

The image is from http://www.filmkultura.hu/2006/articles/essays/images/azember/15.jpg

You've convinced me. I am in full agreement.

- Jason

Brad & Beinicio, Separated at Birth
perfect for Galt & Francisco
The image is from http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1373832.jpg<

Linz,

So long as you interpret Crowe's behavior that way, I can't fault you. But to my mind he is more the Squiggle in Norman Juster's The Dot and the Line. I prefer the Line, since he is much more likely to become unrepressed, than the Squiggle is to become eloquent.

If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. Once acquired it will only take about five minutes to read, and it perfectly encapsulates much of what you have been saying for years.

Of course, best is to be Galt or Francisco.

...but the NZ cricketing brothers Jeffrey and Martin are cousins of Russell.

I found out that little titbit in an interview with Russell in the Daily Telegraph. Russell also claims that his wife and kids have toned him down.

"He credits his marriage in April 2000 to singer-songwriter Danielle Spencer and the birth of his two sons – one is aged two and the other two months – with mellowing him considerably."

"A devoted cricket fan – his cousins Jeff and Martin Crowe both played for New Zealand – he is disappointed that the filming schedule of American Gangster means that he will not be in Australia for the forthcoming Ashes series, although he has no doubt about the outcome. "It's going to be very different this time – you're going to get smashed," he says. "I want to see a reverse of what happened last time." Even that is said with a smile and a laugh, without the customary Crowe aggression."

Friendly, modest, subdued: is this really Russell Crowe?

but Russel as Ragnar? Most definitely. He looks great blonde.

At worst, Linz, he could always sign up for the Army or the Foreign Legion. Or pay hicks in the outback to line up and take his abuse. Or they could film Atlas in his Aussie Homeland, to avoid him having to make payoff and pay import tarrifs for his Fosters.

I say Benicio Del Torro for Francisco and Lena Olin for Lilillan Rearden. I am torn between having Pitt play Ragnar or Galt. But Crowe is no Nordic type fit for Ragnar.

Ted

Sp. corrected, I swear I wasn't drunk when I posted this.