The Atlas Shrugged Trailer … Shrug
They said it couldn’t be done. And maybe it shouldn’t have been.
It’s taken over 50 years for Ayn Rand’s seminal, 1,000+ page work, Atlas Shrugged, to get adapted for the big screen. I’ve lost count of how many writers, directors, big-name stars, and studios have been attached at various points to this mammoth project. Angelina Jolie. Not Angelina Jolie. Randall Wallace (whose script culled the novel down to a 2 1/2 hour film and was supposed to be not bad). Lionsgate. Not Lionsgate. Vadim Perelman. Not Vadim Perelman. Miniseries. No, not a miniseries! One movie. No, wait, three movies! You practically need a spreadsheet to keep track.
Look, I am not one to beat down anyone for trying their best to make a film independently, as producer John Aglialoro has been trying to do with Atlas Shrugged for over 15 years. That’s tenacity, people.
And I am not going to get on a soapbox about Objectivism, which, as it happens, I know a few things about because there was a time, many years ago before I became an Evil Socialist Liberal, when I identified with much of Rand’s philosophy. I met my ex on an Objectivist discussion board, so in a way I guess you could say I owe my four younger children to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.
And I know that it’s not really fair to judge a movie solely by its trailer, and that good movies have wretched trailers, and vice versa. However … okay, you’re just going to have to go watch this trailer for yourself. Go ahead, now. No, really, it’s okay. But maybe brace yourself a bit.
Back? Okay. Now maybe it’s just me, but I never fully appreciated just how atrociously bad Ayn Rand’s ear for realistic dialogue was until I heard it expressed in this trailer. Maybe part of it is the direction and the delivery, but sweet Mother Mary! What is with all the yelling, and the laughably earnest line delivery, and the dude who looks like he’s trying to channel Philip Seymour Hoffman but doing it badly?
I get that to a large extent their hands were likely tied on the dialogue. The Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Peikoff (who sold rights to the novel to Aglialoro) probably had all kinds of stipulations in there about not changing Rand’s language and having to pull dialogue directly from the book. And if they had changed it up too much, the Objectivist fan base for the film would have had a conniption. They take their Rand very seriously.
I’ll reserve complete judgment until I watch the entire film. Maybe it all comes together really well, and it will be as moving and emotional and artistic as a film based on an Objectivist novel can possibly be (have you ever heard Objectivist poetry? I have. I wish I hadn’t.). But good Lord. This is just part one, there are two more parts slated … I just hope the last film isn’t three hours of John Galt’s big speech and nothing else, because that? Would be excruciating.
If you’re interested, by the bye, you can read about what it took to get the film made over here.
Did you watch the same trailer as I did? It’s so unbelievably perfect in every way, except for a few familiar faces, not to have put a “major” star in the film was perfect casting. People will go to the movie to see the movie, not to see a “name”. Finally an adult film I can’t wait to see! No vampires, no blood spattering, no senseless romantic tripe, just a really GREAT story that has changed the lives of so many and will continue to as long as there are intelligent, dedicated individuals in the world. It’s just too bad that Rand never lived to see this.
You say Ayn’s dialogue is “atrociously bad” as it was expressed in the trailer. I hope you realize, none of the lines in the trailer are from the book. Check your premises…
Last poster nailed it.
Despite my liberalism, Rand was a major influence on my youth (not a great thing all around but an enlightening one) and while I reject her selfishness bs, her writing is excellent and her dialogues are perfect examples of back and forth screenwriting. And she knew her Bond.
The trailer did for me what trailer’s are intended to do–make me eager to see the film. It did just that. I looks like it has captured exciting scenes, but I agree the character of Hank Reardon in the few lines of the trailer seemed a bit low energy and sinister-voiced. No problem, though, the overall couple minutes nailed it.
To pundits like Kim the only thing that counts as “intelligent discourse” is “I’m Gay”.
> What is with all the yelling, and the laughably earnest line delivery
Did you miss the fact that drama is based around conflict and that means people may have strong opposing values and some may even be ‘earnest’ about them. And gosh, goodness, sweet Mother of Mary, they might even … (shudder)… YELL about them.
Dollars to doughnuts that Ms. Voynar never read the book even though she says she has a history in Objectivism. My guess that she is a child of “The Fountainhead.” Better yet I bet she watched the movie instead of reading the book.
To think that the dialog from the Atlas Shrugged Trailer was pulled directly from the book is laughable. Perhaps she wishes that it was produced through Disney or Pixar using the cast of Madagascar.
Roundup of responses to all the charming Objectivists who’ve popped over to chat/offer decidedly unimaginative personal insults):
A) I’ve read Atlas Shrugged in its entirety, three times. Fountainhead twice, but not until after I read We the Living, which I’ve read four times. Plus every single work of Rand’s non-fiction. Plus Peikoff’s OPAR, and more discourses and debates on the subsets among the various factions of Objectivists, the Peikoffians vs the Kelleyites, ad nauseum.
B) I am not going to cull through 1,000 pages of AS and pull lines of dialogue here and there to contrast and compare how exceedingly close in tone to Rand’s dialogue the dialogue that’s in the trailer is. It may have been a few years since I read Rand, but the tenor of that dialogue is about as Randian as you can get. And I fully expect the movie to follow that with exactitude, because if YOU know anything about ARI, Peikoff et al, then you should you know they are anal as hell about that. These are people who quote Rand verbatim in their intellectual papers, their public debates, their private lives.
Besides with, if you think AS is the be all, end all of rational thought and that Rand was brilliant and AS her most brilliant work, why on earth would you NOT want her brilliance revered by adapting her work as closely as possible? We’ll be lucky if they trim Galt’s speech down from the roughly three hours it takes to recite it out loud down to maybe 12-15 mins. But don’t hold your breath on that.
C) A real Objectivist would know that resorting to attacking me personally rather than laying out your own logical arguments that actually refute anything other than nitpicking whether the dialogue is word-by-word translation is a laughably amateur effort. Try harder, eh? An Objectivist shouldn’t slack.
D) Either the movie will suck, or it won’t. We’ll see in April. My impression of the trailer was not favorable. And frankly, I would MUCH rather see a good adaptation of AS than a shitty one, and I hope sincerely it doesn’t suck. Whether you agree with Objectivism or not, there’s no disputing Rand’s cultural influence and the impact AS has had on the lives of millions of people, and I hope now, as I always have, that if this is going to be done it would be done right.
E) Fountainhead, the movie, I didn’t see until several years after I got into Objectivism and Objectivist circles and after I’d delved into most of the non-fiction. Also, that is a really bad movie.
F) You obviously don’t read me often if you think I only write about LGBT issues or would ever suggest most films produced by any big studio or, in particular, using the cast of Madagascar, to be remotely desirable.
G) Check your own bloody premises.
H) Objectivists are tiresomely predictable in their ranting. Christ, guys, at least bring out some of your big gun Objectivist advocates if you’re going to attempt an assault.
…. and lastly … seriously, Objectivist folks, lighten up, will you?
“She knew her Bond?” Does this mean that she knew enough to plagarize from Ian Fleming, or does this mean she appreciated the efforts of 007, a tax paid government civil servant, to bring down the kind of greedy and lawless figures Objectivists take as heroes?
Response to Comment B, “And I fully expect the movie to follow that with exactitude, because if YOU know anything about ARI, Peikoff et al, then you should you know they are anal as hell about that.”
Hmmm. Anyone who claims to know anything about ARI would know that Peikoff sold the movie rights years ago. Neither he nor ARI have any control over any aspect of the film. The producers may follow Rand “with exactitude”, but it won’t be because of ARI.
What was that about checking bloody premises? : )
RvB, it means if you read her terrific book of essays on art, “The Romantic Manifesto” she devotes half-a-chapter to Fleming’s novels and the first two Bond films. She GETS them and tell me if you disagree with her opine of DR. NO:
“Contrary to somebody’s strenuously spread assertions, there was nothing “tongue-in-cheek” about the first of these movies, Dr. No. It was a brilliant example of Romantic screen art—in production, direction, writing, photography and, most particularly, in the performance of Sean Connery. His first introduction on the screen was a gem of dramatic technique, elegance, wit and understatement: when, in response to a question about his name, we saw his first closeup and he answered quietly: “Bond. James Bond”—the audience, on the night I saw it, burst into applause.”
This is based on a book by L. Rand Hubbard?
govwatch says:Anyone who claims to know anything about ARI would know that Peikoff sold the movie rights years ago. Neither he nor ARI have any control over any aspect of the film. The producers may follow Rand “with exactitude”, but it won’t be because of ARI.
Actually, govwatch, John Aglialoro acquired the rights some 17 years ago, they were about to expire if he didn’t start shooting by June of last year. Hardly the point.
It’s true that very often when you sell adaptation rights, you give up the right to have any control whatsoever over the final product. Many authors won’t sell adaptation rights for that reason. There are, however, authors of certain clout who are able to sell adaptation rights while also retaining the right to exercise a certain degree of control over the finished output. J.K. Rowling is one. So is Stephenie Meyer.
So, while I am not privy (and neither, I expect, are you) to the precise terms of the rights agreement Aglialoro hammered out with Peikoff, I do know from personal experience how controlling and exact and demanding of loyalty to Rand’s vision (or, to be more precise, what their particular view is of Rand’s vision) the ARI folks are, and I don’t imagine for a minute that Peikoff, who is Rand’s heir apparent, would have just signed over rights to Atlas Shruggged with no stipulations whatsoever as to having, at the very least, approval over the shooting script.
I mean, seriously. Do you even know anything about ARI, Peikoff, et al? The bloody faction split within Objectivism over issues that most people would look at and say, “Huh? What the hell?” These people take everything — and I mean EVERYTHING — about Rand more seriously than you can even begin to imagine if you haven’t ever engaged in that circle. And you honestly think Peikoff would just blithely sign off rights to Rand’s most seminal and beloved work — the novel that she wrote specifically to encapsulate her entire bloody philosophy — to some producer to just do what he wanted with, with no approval rights? You are delusional.
If you do actually know anything about Objectivism as it is largely practiced and proselytized by Rand’s followers today — Peikoff in particular — I can’t imagine you would come here and say something so banal.
Thanks for the tip on Rand’s liking Bond, very useful for some work I’m doing. Surprised she likes Bond…her writings seem to indicate she’d consider Auric Goldfinger more of her ideal man.
I was encouraged more by the interview of director Paul Johansson at http://www.LibertasFilmMagazine.com than I was by the trailer. By “encouraged” I mean, convinced that the film(s) will do justice to the book. Aside from that (A) I agree with the tenor of what Kim has said, (B) I’m slightly disappointed with the (mild) hostility shown in the comments, and (C) pleased that the comments are relevant to the coming movie and did not degenerate into the long-winded showoffy bloviations seen in the comments at the movie’s official website.
Fuck Ayn Rand and her shitty crap.
Speaking of Any Rand and her non-fiction, the author/friend she chose to explain how money works and how the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression in her book “The Unknown Ideal” was the perfect choice. Before Alan Greenspan was corrupted by the power and pressure of Washington DC, he penned “Gold and Economic Freedom”.
I would pay to see Ms. Voyner try to articulate Greenspan’s explanation in that essaay, whether she agrees or not. My guess is that she got wrapped up in the love stories among other things while reading Ayn Rand’s fiction and totally missed the point. And the technical stuff in Rand’s non-fiction went right over her head.
Meanwhile, we are ALL likely to pay the price of people not understanding the reality of money. Here’s the best 6 minute explanation that supports this theory that I’ve seen. Maybe people could watch this during a commercial break of American Idol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFf4TxiFDho&feature=relmfu
I thought this trailer was awful. But none (or negligibly few) of the lines were directly from the book.
It’s very poor reasoning to use your view of ARI and Leonard Peikoff as “controlling” to infer that they *must* have had some kind of control over the dialogue. (Yaron Brook, the Director of ARI, has stated that they didn’t.)
Bottom line… have some truth in labeling. If you want to write about how bad you think Ayn Rand’s writing is, use her own writing to back it up. Fair is fair.
lol she makes liberals elites so mad
Rand was brilliant in her own way, but stupid as a log with statements that smoking did not cause cancer or “we will build smokestacks to the moon.” Her notions of clear, concise thought and heroism are just fine by me though.
I read somewhere that Rand wrote the movie script for Atlas Shrugged. She must have made it known in her will that no adaption of her novel into a motion picture should be made possible unless made out of her own script, ditto.
Todd, Ayn Rand announced in her final public lecture before her death that she was writing a script for a miniseries of Atlas Shrugged. She didn’t complete it.
Everyone who is making a big deal about matching-dialogue should do some research on the various aesthetic mediums and their relationship to each other.
A movie shouldn’t be a patchwork of the novel, nor a transcription. As a different medium, everything has to be adapted to a feature film. This may or may not require altered dialogue, settings or characters from the novel (you can find out more through ARI lectures).
When a writer once presented a screenplay of Atlas Shrugged to Ayn Rand, she criticized it because it was trying to be too much like the novel.
Setting aesthetic theory aside, those who haven’t caught up with Objectivism are running out of time. Those who’ve fallen off the bandwagon, their time is up! lol
Farabute, you speak as a true adherent of Objectivism … and part of reason I “fell off the bandwagon” of Objectivism and shifted completely to a very nearly Socialist worldview is that hardcore Objectivism is just as fundamentalist and close-minded at its core as the most fundamentalist of religions.
Any religion or philosophy that’s so insistent on their view being the ONLY correct view, with such arrogant refusal to consider the validity other points of view — and the rights of others to disagree — can only remain insular and self-feeding.
“running out of time?” and “their time is up!” … sigh. Objectivists tend to make their detractors points for them, usually without realizing it. And certainly without ever acknowledging it.
You’re right. You are an Evil Socialist Liberal.People have the right to own what they produce.