Atlas Pt 2 Is All Go

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2012-04-21 08:59

Mr Aglialoro evidently said to the critics of Pt 1 at one point, "You won" and decided to abandon the project. But he recovered from his funk and Pt 2 is being filmed [edit, October 15—is now showing] as we speak.

http://reason.com/archives/201...


Three cheers for animation!

Tom Burroughes's picture

Animation should not be sneered at, at all. Many fine films are animated - and of course there is the fabulous material that comes out of Japan. I have quite a large collection.

I remember watching The Incredibles in a movie theatre a few years ago. I absolutely loved it - it reminded me of the excitement of watching a film as a kid but with all the more grownup stuff thrown in.

hey doug

seymourblogger's picture

Don't knock animation. Some of the most sophisticated stuff comes our way through that medium. Go to youtube to see the 6 min animation called Rabbit and see that there's nothing silly in it.

I agree about Anthem would be wonderful. Have you seen Persepolis Marjane Satrapi's autobiography of her childhood in Iran as the regime changed in the mid 70's. Awesome animation done by her.

I am so glad the idiots who made Atlas didn't get their hands on Fountainhead. Yes it was a miracle it got made, but there was a window at that time with the House UnAmerican Activities becoming powerful and the film industry under attack for being pink if not outright red. So since Rand had testified for them against the film industry, they probably wanted to suck up with congress and do Rand's book, which was a best seller by 48 having come out in 43 and worked its way up by word of mouth. The movie catapulted it mainstream where it has been ever since.

Anthem would make a great Virtual Reality game as that seems to be the way now to influence youth culture. It's quite something if you stick your head in that door (no pun intended). Movies are just not going to do it anymore unless they have a solid knowledge of VR gaming underneath the floor of it as did The Dark Knight Rises, an incredible film, and I won't even add IMO. The entire political system of the western world was cut open in that one.

Seymour

Doug Bandler's picture

Interesting commentary on the 1949 film. I agree with all your points. Still its a wonder that it was even made. I think it would have been better for the culture to remake 'The Fountainhead' rather than 'AS'. Actually, I think a really good stylistic adaptation of 'Anthem' would be better than anything else. Make it just the way they made '300'. Attack altruism and egalitarianism directly in a comic book type of format. That would probably work best in our infantalized culture.

x-ray

seymourblogger's picture

He was too old but that didn't seem to be a consideration in those times. They had their stable of actors under contract and used them. They weren't concerned with finding the exact right person for anything. It was a miracle Gone With The Wind got Vivien Leigh instead of Linda Darnell who would have ruined it. They used the actresses until they couldn't pass for young anymore and then threw them out in the dirt. Veronica Lake ended up working in a restaurant bar in NYC. Betty Hutton cooked for a monastery. Doris Day's husband/manager bankrupted her.Hedy Lamarr had trouble paying her rent. Sonia Henie now she was different. A shrewd biz lady.

Cooper has these what are supposed to be sexy smirks that just look like a little boy having "dirty thoughts" and I began to wonder about his real sexual orientation the other night. He just seemed uncomfortable with love scenes and usually as an actor he didn't play in them but was more western or stalwart businessman whatever. The other thing I didn't like about Cooper was his relief and "I'm a good boy aren't I" attitude with Enright for being appreciated, which was not how Roark would have been.

I guess it just comes down to that he didn't really GET the character of Roark. Neal was very good and trying to get Dominique and Massey was fine, a little off in the love scenes but not too far off.

If you have seen Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, you will see Pattinson very off in the sex scene with MacKenzie, a woman of color. He is also very off in all the sex scenes in Bel Ami, and his gay directors obviously had no idea how he should have been either and the fine women actors weren't going to direct him. So it was a mess.

Submitted by seymourblogger on Thu, 2012-11-22 07:29. Hi x-ray

Xray's picture

Hi Janet.

"I think at the time Cooper was far and away the best choice." (end quote Janet)

I haven't seen the film but thought of Gary Cooper as being too old to play a young man like Roark.

Thanks

Xray's picture

Submitted by Jmaurone on Thu, 2012-11-22 03:15.

"but I was just answering Xray's question." (end quote Jmaurone)

Thanks Jamaurone for posting Rand's comments on G. Cooper's performance in TF.

sorry maurone for x-ray too then

seymourblogger's picture

Hi x-ray.

Yeah, that's all well and good...

Jmaurone's picture

but I was just answering Xray's question.

for jmaurone

seymourblogger's picture

I just rewatched Fountainhead last night after many years. Gary cooper was not awful, considering it was a 1949 film, but here's what I thought. The extras related that Cooper wanted to play Roark and went to Warner and agreed to a 2 film contract if one was Fountainhead. so he got it. It was early in his career. So here's how I thought about it if that is true and I have no reason to think it isn't. Cooper responded to the theme and spirit of the Fountainhead BUT he did not BELIEVE it. His mind agreed with it, but he lacked the psychological conviction that it demands. He was a Hollywood star and had already probably made many compromises before this. So he could not deliver Roark's speech with absolute conviction. He was saying lines. (This is what happened to almost every actor in the Cronenberg's recent film Cosmopolis. They all sounded like they were repeating DeLillo's dialogue without understanding it. C didn't get it, the reviewers didn't get it, so audiences didn't get it. It dribbles down like Reagan's "trickle down" hypothesis.)

And this is what I find lacking in Cooper's performance. His facial expressions in the quarry seem sexually snide, his response to Dominique when she comes to him over Cortland and he refuses her but uses her to help him dynamite Cortland.

The film was so hampered by the Christian morality and censorship that it simply couldn't exist as the film it should have been. Neal was excellent and was a very minimalist actress, as Cooper was in this and Massey, who was excellent. The three of them did not emote or posture, but they were the only ones.

I think at the time Cooper was far and away the best choice. HIs thumbs down at Neal's audition speaks volumes about him. The woman he began a mad passionate affair with was denied when he first saw her. Was he already afraid of the consequences? Did he simply not want to acknowledge the sexual attraction he felt for her.

The emotion that does exist is between Gail and Howard. We have a gender issue here in Rand's Fountainhead that is explicit in Vidor's film also. I have also noticed this in other Cooper films particularly that western one where the criminal on the run ends up wounded and nursed by an Amish/Mennonite woman and they fall in love but he leaves. He is on the bed, chest nude a lot and feminized in it. The same with Clark Gable and Franchot Tone on the beach in Mutiny on the Bounty. I think Hollywood was aware of gender trouble, and the gay male audience that they signaled to with these scenes.

And I have seen Frank and yes he and Cooper do look alike. Rand had to compromise a great deal of her novel to get it made. She did the screenplay and it was awkward in places, but she got her message out. And the entire time the book was selling and the film was being made and shown, an American named Victor Herman was in the Soviet Gulag watching guards eat Franco American spaghetti out of cans and wanting to murder them all. And he was there during the House UnAmerican Committee Hearings, and Solzhenitsyn was either in the Gulag or exiled to the provinces, his writing secretly hidden by people risking their lives.

I have come to see that Rand was not a fanatic in those days, or rather she was, but it took a fanatic to combat the insidiousness of the philosophical underpinnings that caused American intelligentsia to find favor with the Soviet Empire. Today it is only the post modern thinkers, the POMO that Lindsay hates so much, that are in agreement with Rand on this. The totalitarianism that is masked by Socialism.

Rand was Nietzschean and if you don't grasp this about her, you can't really understand her deeply enough, as she deserves to be understood. All the right wing libertarian political stuff is just surface masking her bedrock of contemplative thought so deeply influenced by Nietzsche. Every word of fiction she wrote betrays traces of Nietzsche. All those paradoxical inversions one after another. There was no way Cooper was ever going to understand Roark that well. Neal was trying for she was the Nietzschean strategist in Fountainhead. Rand gave her a written rundown of Dominique's psychology (Journal, Letters?) that was wrong but Rand had to put it in psychological terms for Neal and Vidor to understand, their language.

A little story. Cooper used to patronize my ex mother-in-law's family jewelry business in NYC. Her father designed jewelry for Cooper to give his wife Rocky, a socialite who was Catholic, so no divorce was possible for him. He thought so anyway. He designed a little platinum and diamond baby carriage charm for Rocky when she had a child and I had one also given to me as an engagement present. It was a careful and sentimental present for a husband to give his wife I thought. He would never divorce her and marry Neal and she finally left him and later married Roald Dahl. An interesting choice for a Dominique eh.

I think Rand did the very best she could. She wrote the screenplay and her contract said no word was to be changed. But she had no control over the film and it shows. If you read her Journal on that part of her life, she had scenes in her mind that she wrote that were just perfectly seen and perfectly Nietzschean I might add.

Rand on Cooper

Jmaurone's picture

Rand, commenting on Cooper in a letter to Isabel Paterson, 1948 (in LETTERS OF AYN RAND):
"The star is Gary Cooper, and I am delighted about that, because of all the stars, he is my choice for Roark. His physical appearance is exactly right-he looks like Frank."

And to Pincus Berner, 1949:
"I can see your point in feeling that Gary Cooper's performance should have been stronger. Personally, I feel satisfied with his performance because, even though the real Roark of the book should have been strong, there is no actor in Hollywood who could have come closer to being the right type for it than Gary Cooper. I would rather see the part underplayed than overdone by some phony-looking ham."

Submitted by seymourblogger

Xray's picture

Submitted by seymourblogger on Thu, 2012-10-25 22:50.

"I happen to be quite sophisticated when it comes to film. On reading Rand's Journal - have you read it BTW? - I am also aware that she was quite sophisticated. She knew how a face should look, how a scene should look." (end quote SB)

In that context, it would interest me whether Rand thought Gary Cooper was a good choice for the role of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead.

tom

seymourblogger's picture

I happen to be quite sophisticated when it comes to film. On reading Rand's Journal - have you read it BTW? - I am also aware that she was quite sophisticated. She knew how a face should look, how a scene should look. IF you just want rational people playing a part, then why not just make a sort of reading script documentary.

If you are going to do something, do it the best you can. If you haven't the ability or money to do that, leave it alone. To get it out for election time is cynical.

Film critics do not write criticism the way Sandefur does, at least if they are not hacks at it. It is a rather good college undergraduate review of a non film student, perhaps an English composition assignment. It was OK, but tells you nothing about the film and how it was envisioned and constructed.

And we will see about Lindsay. He has gotten rid of people for far less than disagreeing with you, although all were warned to not disagree with you too strongly. Or something or other as I vaguely remember it. I rarely come here or anywhere on The Randroid Belt.

Tom

Don E. Klein's picture

Notice her post on this thread dated Sun, 2012-10-14 22:29, she acknowledges that she hasn't seen either movie, yet she goes on to say how awful they both are. She's simply a troll, and here you are pleasuring her till she wails like a banshee in mid-orgasm.

Seymourblogger, I doubt

Tom Burroughes's picture

Seymourblogger, I doubt Lindsay will ban you: he would have done so long ago by now if he had wanted to administer the bullet.

I was defending Tim Sandefur's review for its intelligence and perception and I stand by my comments. All the characters you refer to were thoughtful. They were rational. And to be balanced, in this sense, is not the same as avoiding reaching a conclusion: ie, that this was a decent film, but could have been even better. And your claim that this film was "embarrassing" is just bizarre.

Grow some backbone in debate rather than assume that everything is a personal attack. Believe me, if you think that, how are going to work out when you are being genuinely attacked?

Tom

seymourblogger's picture

Rand in her life and in her fiction did not look for thoughtful and balanced. That is a sound bite from FOX news. Rand was an iconoclast. Is Roark thoughtful and balanced? Is Galt thoughtful and balanced? Is Francisco thoughtful and balanced? Is Dagny? Is Dominique? You may have read her but do you comprehend and understand her?

Don't argue with me anymore. You and I will never agree. Unless you want me to get banned by your admirer Lindsay, which of course he would dearly like to have a rationalization to do.

"I am not looking for

Tom Burroughes's picture

"I am not looking for thoughtful and balanced."

That is not something that Rand would have admired. To analyze a film requires thought, or thoughfulness.

Tom

seymourblogger's picture

I am not looking for thoughtful and balanced. I happened to have studied with the great film critic of the 20th century and professor at Annenberg Amos Vogel who wrote Film As A Subversive Art. He was a man of such integrity that he refused to go to the film event of the year when he found out Leni Riefenstahl had been invited. He taught her Triumph of the Will, and her Olympiad, but he condemned her fascist Hitlerian politics. Rand would have approved eh?

Your critic is simply good but mediocre. If one does not have standards of excellence then one cannot appreciate the Stoddard Temple. Correct?

My beef is that it could have been a great work of art and should have been. To put out a mediocre film of Atlas is a travesty. And an insult to Rand.

Seymourblogger, from my

Tom Burroughes's picture

Seymourblogger, from my knowledge of Tim S., who goes to a lot of plays, enjoys poetry, has reviewed many films, I would say your statement that he did not know much about film is unfounded. The review is thoughtful and balanced - he recognises the faults, as well as the qualities, of this film. Sandefur is an objectivist (not a capital-O one, mind); his comments on Rand and the critics of her point of view are invariably thoughtful and on-point. I recommend his blog to anyone. (He is also a campaigning lawyer of the best kind: he fights for property rights).

I certainly don't rate this Rand movie as a work of genius on the same stage as say, The Godfather, or Casablanca, or for that matter, A Man For All Seasons (film version). It is, nonetheless, a pretty good attempt to capture some of the qualities of Rand's great book, and is certainly not "embarrassing". If it succeeds in getting people to read the book as well, even better.

I haven't seen Cosmopolis yet so I cannot comment on that.

Tom

seymourblogger's picture

Your link was a decent review although not by one who knew very much about film. For you to compare 2 with 1 is not the point. Just because you thought it was better than 1 does not make it a good film. Compare it with excellence and it will flop. BTW this is how Ellsworth Toohey destroys the ability to recognize excellence. It seems Toohey has gotten to everyone here.

Both are mediocre movies at best. I say the same for Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, only I judge him worse as he evilly eviscerated DeLillo's novel to rip its heart out. DeLillo is following Rand in Cosmopolis in taking down the system. See Zizek in his JARS article on Rand.

Tom

seymourblogger's picture

Ask yourself what a film of a very long book has to do in terms of the compression of plot?

I refer you to Gone With The Wind which Rand certainly knew and her work on Fountainhead, also a very long book altho not as long as GWTW or Atlas.

It is an embarrassment to Rand. She would never have allowed it to be this way had she been in control.

My verdict on the film

Tom Burroughes's picture

I thought the film was - with some exceptions - an improvement on the first. The person playing Rearden was more credible as the sort of man who had struggled to build a business; I did not, however, think his wife was as good as in the first. The first was more obviously malevolent. D'Ancona is miles better this time around, though: his acting in the scene at Dagny's retreat is excellent.

The woman playing DTaggart is a bit older than in the first - she does okay I think and is generally convincing as a capable, but harrassed COO of a railway business. But I found it slightly hard to deal with the age difference between the two actresses.

The railway smash is handled well: it makes the points that Rand wanted to make that the crash was not something that people "deserved" but an illustration of what happens when people default on reason and evade the evidence of their senses. That is a powerful moment in the film; it has to be done right.

The guy playing Wesley Mouch is great - his evil is credible; he's not an absurd Bond villain. You can imagine him in actual office. I also quite like the "Wet Nurse" and Taggart's assistant.

It is going to be interesting to see how they handle part 3. Here is a good review by Tim Sandefur. http://sandefur.typepad.com/fr...

This may be an imperfect film - no film is going to please everyone - but in general I endorse what Lindsay says here. Seymourblogger's claim that the film is "embarrassing" is odd: it is not embarrassing at all. Ask yourself what a film of a very long book has to do in terms of the compression of plot? (Rand was a script writer herself, and knew about the cuts that have to be made.)

I am looking forward to part 3. How they handle the speech will be very interesting.

Oh Linsay

seymourblogger's picture

This has nothing to do with what you have labeled pomo in your befuddled mind. Nothing at all. It is just a bad movie, an embarrassing one. Rand is a great writer and her novel deserved an equal film. It could have been great but not by these people. And it needed a huge budget for production. 20-40 million is a cheapie. If you are going to do something do it right. Or don't bother doing it.

Reply to Linsay

seymourblogger's picture

I have no quibble with the message of Rand's Atlas. My negativity is toward the clowns who made her novel a travesty in Atlas 1 and again in Atlas 2. It would take a superior director and superior cast and it has neither. Nor did Atlas 1.

The Cronenberg also eviscerated DeLillo's Cosmopolis, so Rand has nothing to do with the way I feel about the quality of her novel's film or DeLillo's.

Rand controlled Fountainhead as much as possible. In her Journal she wrote her ideas down which were not included but should have been. She had a wonderful sense of how the visuals in a scene should look. Choosing actors to portray her characters is as fine an art as a top plastic surgeon or a world re-known portrait painter. Those are they kind of eyes you need to cast this film. These people wouldn't even know what I was talking about and probably the ones here don't either. A pity.

Exception to pomo-trash ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here's a review of Pt 2 which is an exception to the pomo-bile being heaped upon it by the usual pomo-trash, including the pomo-trash within our own ranks who heaped such pomo-wank on Pt 1:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/m...

Lindsay

seymourblogger's picture

Rand herself wanted Fountainhead to be as good as she had the power to make it good. She did not have script control nor editing control. But she was highly invested in it as a work of art. And it was, with all its flaws.

These Atlas productions, however correct they adhere to her philosophy, are still hack movies. No one who is any good wishes to be associated with them and certainly not in giving them a pass just because they are philosophically Randian true. If that's what you want, make a documentary. Give it to someone like Fincher and you would have what you wanted and what I want.

The real point is ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Objectivists" who trashed Pt 1 are themselves trash. It wasn't Ben Hur, but it wasn't remotely the stinker they joined with pomowankers in portraying it as. "Objectivists" such as this deserve the Islamofilth dirty bomb that's coming their way precisely because of attitudes such as theirs: a lazy, whim-worshipping refusal to get in behind what they falsely claim to be their values when those values are under attack and on the line. They jerk off while Western Civilisation burns. They themselves will soon burn at the hands of the filth they appeased. Objectivist karma.

marcus

seymourblogger's picture

Of course they will change for 3. This one is going to bomb at the box office so they will not want to be associated with it anymore UNLESS they tied them to a contract but then they would have to specify the starting date and time for shooting which they are not going to do until they find out if this one does better. They are amateurs at this biz.

Now if only David Fincher had done it. Benicio del Toro for Francisco, Fassbender for Reardon, ? for Dagny maybe Tea Leoni a greatly underrated actress, Galt ?But no really good actor is going to sign on with these clowns. And they would want far more money than they would ever pay for anyone good. Not that they would know who was good anyway.

As for the person asking me about Cosmopolis. Well the Cronenberg eviscerated it and took all of Rand out of it.

The cast change really pays off...

Marcus's picture

Please don't tell me that they will change again for part three!

Interview with the producer

gregster's picture

Don't worry about her / it Don.

Q: It’s clear that you have a point of view about things as they are in real life. I heard that some investors in the film actually wanted it to come out before the election. Is that true?

Harmon Kaslow: Absolutely. Yes. The author Ayn Rand was a staunch capitalist. She loved America. The issues that are before us in this election deal with capitalism, the economy, energy. The hope of the people who support us is to get the film into theaters before the election, so that it can expose the swing voters to the direction in which this country is going, unless we embrace the founding principles of this country.

The aspiration is that the film can be a tool to get like-minded people in communities into a theater, and then talk about these issues, get excited, get activated, and hopefully find other people who support that position.

Q: Can you say who these investors are?

HK: These are just patriots, people who love liberty, they’re successful businessmen who were inspired and influenced by Atlas Shrugged and wanted to join John, in creating its legacy as a motion picture.

Posted HBL by Greg Zeigerson.

For Seymour

Don E. Klein's picture

Aren't you the crone who was wetting her nappies over Cosmopolis? And how did that work out for you?

Here's a good clip from the movie, on the assumption there's anyone here worth conversing with.

For Klein

seymourblogger's picture

Sorry I don't want to ruin the images in my head with an inferior production even if it is better than Atlas 1. I didn't see Atlas 1 either for the same reason.

A really good animation would be wonderful.

Recommendable

Don E. Klein's picture

It's quite good, a big improvement over Part 1. The cast change really pays off, particularly with the new Rearden.

For Jack Kemp

seymourblogger's picture

Thanks for taking the time to review it. It sounds awful though. I didn't see Atlas 1 because I don't want it embedded in my mind from the way I read the book. I think I'll pass on 2 also, so thanks for helping me decide. You did nothing wrong, so I am not being critical of you.

Review of 2 on Tea Party Nation

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Review of 2 on Tea Party Nation:

http://www.teapartynation.com/...

Atlas Shrugged Part II better than the first movie

Jack E. Kemp

After the NY Post's film critic Lou Lemenick panned Atlas Shrugged Part II, I was surprised to see that it was playing on opening day in my local outer borough neighborhood's smaller Regal movie chain theater. For that to have happened, someone who saw it was impressed. I recall the first Atlas Shrugged movie opened in New York City at only one or two Manhattan theaters and never got into this particular neighborhood movie house. So I took a short walk and went to see the film.

What I found was a film that had much better pacing and drama than Atlas Shrugged Part I - and a new cast. The first film's Dabney Taggert looked like a local tv news reader from a middle market, barely out of college. She was too young for the part of someone running a major business. The current Dabney, played by Samantha Mathis, is more mature and much more fitting for the part without being a "lady of a certain age." There were also some surprise appearances such as a cameo by Teller of the magic act Penn and Teller - and comic actor Diedrich Bader (formerly of the Jim Carey Show) as scientist Quentin Daniels. Esai Morales as Francisco D'Antocia and John Rubenstein were two other recognizable names in the cast.

The story begins with something out of the ending scenes, a high speed private jet chase through the mountains of the West, and flashes back to tell what lead up to it. The preceding events included heavy handed government regulations hamstringing the producers of society to produce "fairness" and "equal distribution." As I listened to government official Wesley Mouch, played by Paul McCrane, and others argue this viewpoint, it sounded like an Obama stump speech written by David Axelrod...word for word. Wages were frozen. People could not quit their jobs. The government seized all patents, copyrights and corporations. All this motivated talented individuals to leave the society, making references to John Galt in notes left behind. Novel author Ayn Rand - and the film's producers - were showing us what a hard leftist government such as the Obama administration would do to our freedoms, given some additional time and opportunity. Speaking of television commentators, the ones shown in the film parroted the government's rationalizations of "fairness" in slick and soothingly worded statements for public consumption. They were totally believable: I thought I was watching CNN or ABC.

Gasoline in this movie was over twelve times as high as the current California prices, effectively ending private auto travel and restricting airline schedules to once a week flights for those few that could afford a ticket. As much as the government wanted to jail Henry Rearden, the nation's best steel producer, for some "fairness" violation, the court knew it couldn't run his vital company without him. Still, the government seized his tangible assets and made him essentially their employee in a form of indentured servitude without end. Using recent news as inspiration, there was even a government Czar to insure "fairness" was enacted. And the movie dramatically ended with you wanting to see the sequel, Part III.

Although this is will not draw the crowds of a Saw movie, consider it Saw for the "Economy and Freedom," an economic horror story. Go see it.

Quick! Tune in to Sean!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hannity is just about to preview his movie debut in Atlas 2.

Showtime!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Atlas Shrugged Part II opens in just days. Join us on October 12th all over the country at Atlas Shrugged Part II movie "Events" everywhere as we celebrate Ayn Rand's ideas once again making it to the silver screen. What's an Atlas Event? An Atlas Event is a night out at the theater celebrating Ayn Rand's ideas with like-minded individuals. Let's all meetup coast-to-coast on October 12th and make it a night to remember. Don't forget to wear your Galt Gear!"

http://thegulch.atlasshruggedm...

Premiere

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The neo liberals are the

seymourblogger's picture

The neo liberals are the present day liberals. They are bankrupt at their core and I think Zizek explains this better than anyone ever has or probably ever will.

Hyper-tabloiding comes from Nietzsche through Baudrillard and Rand. Rand, Baudrillard and Bataille were the only three I have found that began with Nietzsche very very young and stayed with him throughout their life. I guess I shouldn't discard Heidegger either here. Babette Babbich of Fordham now is the great Nietzsche scholar on an international level as she has studied significantly in Germany, reads him in the original, and edits a Nietzsche journal which she started. Babbich clears up many misconceptions about Nietzsche that were the consequences of poor English translations until rather recently, and the fact that Hitler idolized him. It was at this point that Rand's footnotes to Nietzsche were scrubbed out of Fountainhead before publication and scrubbed out of her Journal by Peikoff as he was anathema. But Nietzsche rules Rand, her great loved mentor and adversary with whom she warred all her life, as did Heidegger who ended up by saying, "Nietzsche ruined me." A famous quote that Babbich takes to the woodshed.

If the left wants to destroy her, then you will know you are dealing with neo liberals. The radical left is quite different. Instead of proceeding through classical Hegelian dominating Discourse, Zizek has inverted and now instead of oppositions we are getting the intertwining of opposites, each extreme revealing and concealing its opposite. Too involved for this place but I invite you to one of my blogs on this http://aynrand2.blogspot.com and if you register on disqus I will be sure to get your comments quickly.

Old affiliations die hard. Just like objectivism in its fundamentalist presentation was also hard for me to give up and it is not totally gone in over 50 years. I don't want it to be. It is clear with cyber-capital (as opposed to capital) that there is no product involved in it, just pure speculation, which DeLillo makes clear in Cosmopolis. Marx also says this about capital but as Baudrillard says, he didn't go all the way to the end, to Death. The Dark Knight Rises goes all the way to the end of the leftest position and ideology, all the way to Death. Christopher Nolan has made the most visionary film in our time. Cosmopolis could also have been but Cronenberg ripped the heart out of it. The people producing and filming Atlas are film morons so that will suck its heart out. We are left with Hunger Games as a possible future: A Virtual Reality Capitol and an excess of real reality in the districts.

I read all this through media: films; books; Events etc.

They don't like me very much here.

Question and comments

Doug Bandler's picture

When you say "neoliberals", who do you mean? Are they moderate Leftists? Or Conservatives with some Classical Liberal leanings?

like using Rand's technique to be more tabloid than the tabloids, to go to hyper tabloiding them into implosion.

I'm curious about this. Are you referring to Rand's uncompromising denunciation of her enemies? Or the use of sex in her books? What do you mean be "hyper-tabloiding"?

The right and the libertarians are not radical enough and the neo liberals are so far out of the game that it doesn't matter. The radical left gets her.

This I agree with. But even though the Left gets her, all that means is that they want to DESTROY her. You get the impression from reading many Leftists attack Ayn Rand that such is their hatred of her that they would love to resurrect her from the dead so that they could kill her. That is how evil the Left is. But I get a sense that you have sympathies with the Left. I don't. I have hatred for them.

To Bandler Actually the left does not dismiss Rand

seymourblogger's picture

Not at all. the neoliberals do but that is because they are bankrupt at their core. Zizek does not dismiss her at all. In fact he calls her his great enemy, which is an honor. One respects their enemy and battles with them. Rand got the selfishness for capitalism from Marx, believe it or not. Sometime I will get around to it on my ayn rand2 blog at blogspot, but other things are more important right now, like using Rand's technique to be more tabloid than the tabloids, to go to hyper tabloiding them into implosion. Not that I expect anyone here to understand but it is edifying when about 5 people can form a core to back the tabloids into a corner and make them yell uncle. Put them in a catch 22. Rand was more capitalistic than the capitalists. Zizek calls this "over indentification" in his JARS article on Rand. Or it can be regarded from the conceptual observation of the unknown knowns and now I have really lost you all. But Rand is alive and well and stronger than ever. The right and the libertarians are not radical enough and the neo liberals are so far out of the game that it doesn't matter. The radical left gets her.

Aglialoro said what?

Doug Bandler's picture

“The left dismisses Ayn Rand,” [John Aglialoro] says. “The version of her that they attack is childish, it’s a cartoon.” But he understands why.“I wish she didn’t say ‘selfishness’ as she did. That she was for ‘selfishness.’ She was human, and probably meant that in a rhetorical way. But if she was on this earth again, maybe she’d put it another way.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

This is a typical statement of Brandroid KASSlessnes. Its everything Lindsay exposed in his Rational Rage speech (which was awesome). If Aglialoro stood in front of me, it would take all my will to not slap him in the face. Yes, that would be an initiation of force although a justified one. This statement is just pathetic. And yes, I could spit.

That story is inconceivable...

Olivia's picture

but smacks of truth... George is a blacker version of Barack utterly. We already know the hypocrisy of his value system,
it's the Middle East which concerns me though. This is so fucking insidious if he gets a second term.

Pomowankers ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... are starting in before the thing is even out:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyss...

Cooooooooooooooool

Ross Elliot's picture

I do.

Nice retort. Very coooooooooooool.

cool

seymourblogger's picture

If you say so.

Hey, Janet...

Ross Elliot's picture

...I've said elsewhere that AS1 was not a particularly good movie.

I do however admire the wherewithal that was required to bring it to the screen.

Here's the thing: would you rather have had AS *not* attempted as a movie?

It would be easy to say, where was your money and where was your writing, and where was your production skill, when it came to this thing, but that would disqualify us all from from being critics, wouldn't it?

Fact is, someone did put up the money, and the effort. And they didn't do it lightly, not in this culture.

Better than awful Ross

seymourblogger's picture

Well in comparison to shitty maybe it's just ....... a word someone give me a word.

Right you are Marcus

seymourblogger's picture

But I think this crew is a tad old fashioned would you say? Awful from the trailer. I didn't see 1 and I think I'm going to skip 2. I don't enjoy seeing Rand's work turned into a shitty movie.

Dagny...

Ross Elliot's picture

...seems better in this trailer.

I salute the sheer drive that this production must have taken to be realised.

This is a labour of love, done on a small budget, and thank capitalism that so much can be now be done with so little money. Esai Morales looks good; I'm a fan of his.

Fifty Shades of Atlas...

Marcus's picture

Given the popularity of the book, the film should show all the sex scenes between Hank and Dagny in all their graphic glory, inclusive the bruises Dagny collects as trophies. Mention the contract aspect too.

FSOG type romance popular now? Ayn was on the case years ago!

Sean's in it!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Awful. Cringeworthy

seymourblogger's picture

Dagny is ghastly. The hair, the face her voice. What is wrong with these people.

That was disgraceful but, somehow, unsurprising

gregster's picture

Here's a good trailer for Part Two!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

Anyone seen ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Obama's America, 2016? Seems to be all the rage. Apparently The Filth has a clean brother, whom he ignores:

Stills from Part II

gregster's picture

Oh, rubbish!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Taylor Schilling was woeful as Dagny. Wooden. Wholly lacking in emotional depth.

Utter bullshit, again. "Wholly lacking in emotional depth"?? From a Sinatra fan??!! As I've said, and as is being ignored, there's a great treachery involved here: the lack of loyalty to their values being displayed by [pseudo-] Objectivists. As I've also said, it's ARI- and Ronroid-driven. And I'm just annoyed that the Islamofascist dirty bomb that will deservedly get them will get me also.

As I've said previously...

Ross Elliot's picture

...Grant Bowler as Hank did well.

Taylor Schilling was woeful as Dagny. Wooden. Wholly lacking in emotional depth.

Bullshit

Lindsay Perigo's picture

But I'm wondering why none of the originals came back? Not that I'd want to see any of them back. Lamentable.

Bullshit, Ross. Hank and Dagny were terrific. And Ellis. And James for that matter. And most of the rest of them.

There's a contemptibly mindless Randroid/Ronroid conspiracy against this movie. As I've noted elsewhere, the participants will get what they deserve, by dint of the very things the movie (and before it, the novel) points up. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. My only irritation is that I too may be taken out.

Interesting

Ross Elliot's picture

I checked out the cast list.

Esai Morales as Francisco may do better. I'm a fan of his.

But I'm wondering why none of the originals came back? Not that I'd want to see any of them back. Lamentable.

coitus

Shane Pleasance's picture

interruptus

Well don't stop there Fred ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And????!!!!

Gang

seddon's picture

The new Dagny (the entire cast is different for Part II) and the new Hank were at the TAS summer seminar, along with the director, producer and 1/3 of the screenwriting team. Due for release on 10-12-12.

Fred

Trailer

gregster's picture

Atlas Shrugged II

 

 

mmm.

No tangent there, Ross...

Craig Ceely's picture

...but don't forget about Allen West.

Good trailer...

Ross Elliot's picture

...but Hannity? All that terrible Randian atheism?

Some of these guys must have a terrible time with Rand. Hannity is sharper than O'Reilly but they're both Catholics. Stossel claims agnosticism.

The more I see of O'Reilly, the worse he gets; the more I see in him the true seeds of the conservative compromise on everything. The status quo that invariably shifts one step back, two steps forward toward the triumph of statism. The tough Irish kickass should not fool anyone. He'd be happy with authoritarianism as long as it fulfills his popish upbringing.

Rand was so very right, so perceptive, on the idea of psycho-emotional response: you indoctrinate them, then they react without thinking, and no amount of rational discourse can penetrate. And that's the heart of the conservative as well as the liberal.

Okay, I went off on a tangent there. End rant. Ayn Rand. End rant. Get it? Oh, never mind.

Reed

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'm an idiot. Of course I can do that.

See, Shane, though I be a cheapskate, I shall go to the ball after all Eye

You should be able to connect

reed's picture

You should be able to connect your computer to the TV.

Do you have a TV with HDMI input and a computer with HDMI output?

Yep, ebooks Linz. Reed,

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yep, ebooks Linz. Reed, sounds good, but I don't want to watch AS on a 23 inch computer monitor Smiling

I bought part 1 from Amazon

Shane Pleasance's picture

I bought part 1 from Amazon several months back - and not being the Hubbard cheapskate I have several zone-free players. I would just prefer a locally zoned disc if available as it makes it easier to loan the disc out.

Mark

reed's picture

You should be able to play any zone dvd on your computer with XBMC.

Shane

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ordering details were posted here. I'll put them up for PT 2 when I get them.

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No one on Trademe wanted your bookshelf? Must be a glut. Or all those e-books. Eye

And I've still not managed to

Mark Hubbard's picture

And I've still not managed to see part I yet (he says looking at his wrongly zoned DVD sitting uselessly on the bookshelf that no one wanted on trademe).

Will make a splendid birthday

Shane Pleasance's picture

Will make a splendid birthday present for me! hint hint!. May I ask, where do you buy yours from?

Here it comes!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As far as I know...

Marcus's picture

......this French brand was not inspired by Atlas Shrugged, but after discovering it by accident recently (with all the imagery) I can't help thinking it is.

Or at least: what a coincidence!

Sure...

Ross Elliot's picture

...it's okay, but it ain't great.

I, too, loved seeing my heroes on the screen. I profoundly salute the effort made to bring AS to the big screen. In itself, that is heroic. But in a dramatic and romantic sense, the movie failed. There were moments, but overall, it was tepid.

Limbaugh & Atlas

gregster's picture

RUSH: I have seen the movie. It's okay. It will entertain you. It'll make the point.

The call is out

gregster's picture

The chance to be an extra in Pt 2. Come on you guys up there - get to it!

Conditions:

You must be available to be on set between the hours of 7PM Tuesday, May 15th and 7AM Wednesday, May 16th.

You must bring formal dress appropriate for a wedding reception. Yes... that Wedding reception.

Airfare and lodging expenses not to exceed $2000.00.

http://blog.atlasshruggedmovie...

Um...thanks for the answer...

Jmaurone's picture

to a question I never asked...

jmaurone

seymourblogger's picture

If you want an intelligent response to your question:

http://aynrand2.blogspot.com/2...

In her Journal, quoted by Peikoff in the 1996 anniversary edition of Atlas Rand says quite clearly that while Fountainhead was about the personal, the theme between Toohey and Roark, Atlas will not be about the personal relationships except as is needed to explain their personal relationship to each other. It will be about the WORLD! (Emphasis mine.) The world as RELATION, how the world is affected by the withdrawal of knowledge. (Intro page 1,2,3) This is what I go into in detail in the above link.

The characters can be seen as predominantly FLAT characters as elucidated by Forster, and Darren in his post on Around the Randroid Belt http://randroidbelt.blogspot.c... . Bartleby by Melville is a FLAT character. Edward Cullen in Twilight is a FLAT character. Galt is FLAT. Roark is FLAT.

FLAT is not a pjorative label. Not at all. But I would say that the characters in Atlas are predominantly FLAT. The action and change is in the WORLD!

Tom...

Ross Elliot's picture

...there has never been a good Bond movie.

You can applaud bits here and there, but nothing measures up to Fleming's writing.

The travesty I was referring to...

Ross Elliot's picture

...was Starship Troopers.

But I'm more than happy to give my opinion on AS.

Ah!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks Joe. How the hell did I miss that?!

I've restickied that thread.

Right here...

Jmaurone's picture

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

"Many of you, Joe, Lindsay, Sandi and especially Michael make excellent points about the movie. Tonight was my first time viewing it and I was relieved that Dagny indeed had a limo, lol. The bridge was cool, Dagny was sharp, Lillian a bitch, loved Wyatt, Rearden was solid. Loved the news reporting, and the writers got the lines right. But the total reminded me a little bit of the people at an objectivist conference, a little stiff.

"Was it Rand that early on thought it might make a good television series? That would have given more time for the story to unfold. One liners are great and all that, but developing the context for them is what sets them up to explode, I would have liked to have had a better sense of why they say what they say.

"Perhaps the biggest issue is the scope of written Atlas, the world events, the intelligence, and wealth of experience, the luxury, and grand romanticism (as in art like Tosca, Aida, Hugo, Tchaikovsky, Franco Correlli, Delacroix). There are lots of films that tug on the heart strings but with fairly simple stories...but romanticism is altogether a much more vast and complicated animal. It needs brilliant artists for every aspect of the production. Lol it is one of the unfortunate things of romanticism it has to be brilliant and succeed everywhere or it can fall short, and sometimes embarrassingly so.

"In all I really liked it a lot, didn't blow me away. 3 or 4 stars out of 5."

Oh, you mean Part 1, yeah.

Newberry's picture

Oh, you mean Part 1, yeah. And even rated it. It is somewhere on this site.

Michael ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Have you seen it?

L: "And why is Newberry

Newberry's picture

L: "And why is Newberry silent?!"

Lol, because I don't have an opinion about it. I can say I had a fun evening with David Kelley when he was in L.A. He and his entourage came to my open studio and then we went out for drinks. The topic of AS movie did come up but only briefly.

moeller

seymourblogger's picture

dto paraphrase that quote by Einstein:

The minds that got us into this mess are not the kind that will get us out of it.

To know how to cook you have to know how to eat - Barbra Steisand, Prince of Tides

To know how to make good films you have to have watched a lot of good films.

To write well you have to have read well.

Do not expect anything better from these louts. Film education takes time. Just like any other kind of learning.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

No, my argument is don't let mediocrity become the standard for the good. Eye

I see the filmmakers are trying to correct the defects from ASI -- the most important of which is the screenwriting. Good. I hope it turns out better.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.