Casting ‘Atlas Shrugged’: Professionalism Before Politics
by Jane ShaffmasterI was head of the film and broadcast department for a talent agency in the Detroit Metro area. As a casting agent my job was to get the character breakdowns, hold auditions and cast roles for film, TV and radio. My staff and I cast Zebrahead, Hoffa, Renaissance Man to name a few and many award winning commercials. I left the casting biz to coach voice-over artists and produce their CD’s, along with doing free-lance talent coordination for ad-agencies, where I negotiate celebrity talent.
I recently read Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Pam Meister and wanted to offer the perspective of someone who has experience in casting. The post told of Julia Roberts and Angelina Jolie having an interest in the role of Dagny Taggert. It was offered up, and several commenter’s mentioned that they feared Julia Roberts might change the script to reflect her liberal viewpoint. I don’t really think that should be a concern because many times certain actors are mentioned only to create buzz for a project, or to get their name out there, or both. I believe such is the case with Julia Roberts in this story.
So, for the sake of example here, let’s use Angelina Jolie, the suspected front runner. When casting at the Hollywood level, Angelina’s political leanings, opinions, beliefs and practices would not be considered. Assuming that the writer plans to stay true to the book, and the director is on the same page, an actress will not get a say in rewrites. Some actresses can demand rewrites as part of the negotiations, but such instances are rare. Normally, if she will not “play by the rules,” she does not accept the role.
This was the case when Jodie Foster was sought to reprise her role of Clarice Starling in Hannibal. Speculation was she declined the role because she didn’t like how the character in the sequel had been written.
If Angelina accepts the role it is her job to portray the character as conceived and written by the screenwriter, and defined by the director’s point of view. Of course she and director will have discussions throughout the filming process, but it won’t be to change the “bend” of the script. Whether it’s an actress being paid scale or Angelina’s $20 million paycheck, she is a hired professional first; and is expected to do her homework, get inside the character’s world and get the job done without her political persuasions seeping through.
Case in point: Calista Flockhart is a pretty well know, out-spoken liberal, and whether you like her or not, an outstanding actress. On Brothers and Sisters she plays Kitty Walker, a prominent conservative with a lot of zeal. Drawing on her technique and expertise she portrays this character passionately, with believability and depth.
Now with that said, if I were casting the movie I might consider one of the following strategies:
#1: Since the book already a has a following and is now back on the bestseller list, the movie has a built in audience. You don’t really need to cast the Hollywood heavyweights. So, let’s forget about Angelina and mainstream Hollywood for a moment and cast it with no names. OK, maybe the talented lesser known named Hollywooders. Then let’s go to Broadway where the cream of the crop actor’s are, as well as regionally where you’d be sure to find some amazing undiscovered talent. Assuming the screenplay follows the book and the director respects the material, casting stage actors is the cherry on top of this scenario.
Mel Gibson went the way of casting the non-mainstream powerhouse actors when he cast The Passion of the Christ. The most recognizable Hollywood player was Jim Caviezel. Mel did this because he felt the story was the big star and he wanted it made true to his vision. He even started filming without outside funding or a distributor. The story and the buzz made Passion the #12 all time grossing film domestically, #3 all time grossing for the year of 2004, and #1 top grossing “R” rated film of 2004. Unfortunately it was only nominated for three Oscars: cinematography, make-up and original score. (Oh, please my nerves!) The nominations were another fatality of liberal Hollywood, much like The Dark Knight.
#2: Being a conservative and a Christian (oh yes, my friends, a double whammy against me in this business), we could do politically evangelical casting. Bring on the bitter, angry, Obama idolizing movie stars. From the table read, to rehearsals, to shooting, these liberal performer’s might start questioning their politics. Let’s take into account a movie can take between two and a half to five months to shoot, sometimes longer. That gives actors a lot of time for introspection. Furthermore, most of their time on set will be spent alone in their trailers memorizing Ayn Rand’s words and living in the world she and the director created. As the filming continues, perhaps the actors start to see the parallels between the book and the Obama agenda. At this point, with the gentle prodding by the material and its execution, the actor’s would start questioning their political beliefs and allegiance. Then once the seed of conservatism is planted, the stage is set for a sea change in the National Consciousness. Ah, one can dream!
Alas, since Hollywood is Hollywood, I think the big name, raging liberals will get the job. But fear not, whether a movie star or unknown liberal is cast, I think it’s safe to say the material will lead to a “crisis of liberal belief.” This is a good start.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
104 Comments
was watching c-span a year or so back. angelina jolie was talking before a room of reporters about some charity cause. she spoke for twenty minutes without notes. and handled the questions well. if anything she came across as an intelligent but ernest bore. she is also the tattooed baby collecting heroine junkie who gets way too affectionate with her own brother.
and she's just not the woman had pictured in my head when i read the book.
finding an ideologically acceptable actress is going to be impossible. unless you just animate the thing.
Actually Ms Jolie is a pretty good choice for the role. She is nowhere near as far left as her fellow actors, gave a fairly good interview in '08 about McCain and the good he might bring (apostasy!) and from what we've gathered
is a serious woman that the world takes seriously- she supposedly holds her own quite well in cabinet level meetings and knows more than he UN counterparts about Darfur and whatnot.
She is a formidable woman, unlike the lightweight dilletante Julia Roberts. She also wanted to bring this to the screen, it's kind of her baby. You have to WANT to play Dagny Taggert inorder to do it well. We suspect she will be the strongest in the cast; we are kind of dreading the John Galt casting…
…also, Angelina is actually not a flaming liberal and has said that many of her views are similar to Clint Eastwood's. When asked about Obama during the campaign she also gave very cagey answers. I hope she gets the role. She is really the only actress in Hollywood right now that I will pay to see onname alone.
It chills my heart to think that hollywood wouldn't be true to Atlas Shrugged. I certainly agree with Ms Shaffmaster's #1 and would even go so far as to suggest an international cast. The Aussies, Canadians, and especially the British have a fine fraternity of thespians. This is an opportunity to bring a loved classic to the screen. It should be shown respect.
Why are people so set on this being a movie? I want nothing more for this to be shown to the masses but I think that this could be best represented as an HBO mini-series ala John Adams. I agree that the the political leanings of any actors cast are not relevant as long as they are not given any sort of rewrite power.
Thats my .02
I like the idea of casting unknowns. I know Hollywood loves huge stars, but I can almost never see them becoming the characters. Instead, it's just Actor X playing the role of Y.
Nice article, interesting commentary. Welcome to Big Hollywood.
Just as long as Robert Downey Jr. is cast as Antonio.
I agree. Atlas Shrugged is such a long book. I wonder how you could pare it down successfully for a theatrical fim. A mini-series might be a better choice. As far as casting goes, I'd rather see a lesser known actress cast rather than a celebrity who would bring a lot of baggage to the part.
I tend to agree with the idea of unknowns or relative unknowns. This piece will be hard enough to get right on the screen without a bunch of prima donna dilettantes mucking up the process.
I like Jolie (closeness with brother not withstanding), she has an elegance about her. But I'm not against an unknown or lesser known actress. I'd be afraid that watching a movie with Julia Roberts would be like 3D Jaws with that huge mouth. Plus she's irritating. But as long as it's not revised to fit a liberal narrative, I'd love to go see it or the mini series.
I don't think they could get away with straying from Rands vision. The film would bomb and they know it.
No matter who is cast as Dagny, John, or anyone else, that person will not fit the idea many people already have of that character, so it's practically a losing proposition. I agree with the author, talent is very important, but passion is also. Too many actors are too outspoken politically for anyone to believe what they say as a character, and this will ruin the whole point of the story. After all, those of us who have read Rand and follow many of her precepts are more intelligent than the average moviegoer (c'mon, you know we are!) and would laugh out loud hearing Julia Roberts arguing with Lillian Readon over a diamond bracelet.
I have not seen Brothers & Sisters but it is a testament to Calista Flockhart if she can act so convincingly. I simply couldn't get through one line of liberal drivel without laughing or gagging.
Interesting thought on the conversion, if you will, of lib actor/resses becoming immersed in the screen adaptation. The thoughtful libs – yes, i know a few – couldn't help but draw the parallels. They would have to question things that they formerly held so dear. Good read.
Interesting thought on the conversion, if you will, of lib actor/resses becoming immersed in the screen adaptation. The thoughtful libs – yes, i know a few – couldn't help but draw the parallels. They would have to question things that they formerly held so dear. Good read. Oh, God, Julia Roberts…….there is no there, there. What do people see in her? I R Cornfused.
one thing to remember is that now that left wimg idiocy is everywhere even synchophantic Hollywood understands the need to offer token counterpoint; Rand's Objectivism is suitable alternative to Christian thought yet offers much the same philosophy, a 'christian lite' if you will, and those who dare not call themselves conservatives (aghast!) but 'libertarians' (Kurt Russel, Clint, etc.) can come out of the woodwork.
Come to think of it Kurt could be a good Galt…
I said it before and I will say it again. It's going to suck.
Jane, thanks for the thoughts. Your argument regarding professionalism driving the casting decisions is persuasive to this reader. One small quibble. Dagny's last name is spelled Taggart, not Taggert.
Maybe as Dagney
To not compromise the message by the medium is the challenge,people aren't dumb. The kids might miss it, but they're not voting yet. When is the last time a purely adult movie was made ??
I'm thinking "I Am Curious Yellow"
Last I heard, Randall (We Were Soldiers) Wallace was working on the screenplay. Good choice.
And Rand's estate has final approval, as I understand, on the script. They'd be especially careful not to let any liberal doublespeak contaminate it.
Last I heard, Randall (We Were Soldiers) Wallace was working on the screenplay. Good choice.
And Rand's estate has final approval, as I understand, on the script. They'd be especially careful not to let any liberal doublespeak contaminate it — which probably explains why the film adaptation has been so long in coming.
Who's Antonio?
If Jolie was attracted to the role, there must be something wrong with the script – and in my opinion she's not good enough of an actress to believably play someone who is the complete opposite of everything she stands for – someone whose ideals probably disgust her.
I hope not. Ever since they first started talking about the film rights, I worried if they might be purchased and used for the sake of making a bad movie to discourage people from reading the book. You don't have to butcher the script to make a bad movie, especially from this book. Sorry, just skeptical about Hollywood sometimes.
Big important messages have trouble if they aren't packaged up with a nice little bow -sitcom style if you will- due to the short attention span of our dumbed down population. Those who've read the book are not the ones who need the message; the story must appeal to the hard core fans of "The Biggest Loser," "TMZ," and "The Daily Show."
And since the book has a built-in audience, fans will know right away if the subject matter has been tweaked to accomodate liberal sensibilities. But Atlas Shrugged is pretty absolute- change any part of it, and it's not Atlas Shrugged anymore.
I agree with the idea of casting lesser-known actors, especially the John Galt character.
But Dagny should be hot. Just sayin…
Atlas Shrugged is divided into three major parts. Three theatrical films, two hours each, a la the Lord of the Rings. Cable is fine.
Very interesting post. I want to go to Hollywood – now.
I want to be John Galt. Cast me! I'm not even an actor. But I believe those words. Or make me the director, even better!
I am beginning to believe this novel really could be condensed. Today we understand so much more. So much more can be conveyed. It could be a long movie – or, like Lord of the Rings, be filmed at one time and broken into three movies.
I would stylize it – create a fantasy world of the fifties ideal. Fashion fifties -oriented and inspired with a quirky futuristic mode . The essence of the film would be stark rationality set against wild romance.
Seen from the perspective of romance – but romance of the mind. The political/philosophical themes would be the subtext. The mind is where sex resides for smart people And for everyone else too.
One of my favorite movies is the Godfather, which managed to carry a strong and timeless political subtext . The story makes its' own statement, but it is carried forth through conflict.
Rand used conflicts of romance and love and showed the difference between love for another and love for self and how a couple can love the other because they love themselves. Contrasted with the need to live through others, believing they are helping them, when they are really just helping themselves. If you are coerced to love others first, before you know and love yourself, how is your fuzzy idea of love directed at others valid? Love is not something that exists. It is created. And once created, it exists.
I think he meant "cast as Antonio Banderas AS Francisco D'anconia."
Look Randall Wallace is a decent guy. He wrote BRaveheart for crying out loud and We Were Soldiers (Script). He comes across as a pretty cool dude, so if its his script I say run with it. The only problem he has is his editing ability. He often wants to say too much. But still the man comes across as dare I say one of us?
Angelina would be awesome as Dagny. The moment I heard she had been interested I thought you know she has the powerful feminine personality to bring her to life. Lets see what happens. This might set the idiots back in Hollywood back several years.
Thank you for your thoughts Ms. Shaffmaster and I wish I shared your optimism, but I don't. I have no professional standing to disagree with your assessment; but I've rarely seen even a simple book that Hollywood couldn't wreck completely, and AS is far from a simple book.
It may be that this is more a function of the writer, director, etc. than the performers. One supposes an actor or actress must, by definition, be able to assume whatever character is necessary. But I can't escape the same fascinated dread the hardcore comic fanboys must've felt on learning Watchmen was in production; I'd love to see it come out well, but I don't see how it possibly can.
Get Joss Whedon involved. He's already one of us, and he did "Firefly" and "Serenity"–a TV series and a movie respectively with LOTS of libertarian themes.
I don't know. I've seen interviews with Joss and he comes across as not so much the conservative brand of libertarianism as the mushy, moderate, legalize-pot variety.
These are the kind of people who call themselves "libertarian" but voted for Obama.
well I could be wrong.. just the impression I had of him.
Nice post Ms. Shaffmaster. Very informative and pertinent.
There's a big big difference between 'liberal belief' and commnism. I have friends from former communist countries and they hated their communist governments but politically we would call them liberal here in the US. The case is the same for Ayn Rand readers. I know of Democrats who have enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels and Conservatives who didn't much like her. [William F Buckley called her philosophy 'still born'].
But you don't have to buy her complete philosophy to enjoy her books. However, even if you buy some of it there is a clear distinction between the beliefs of the Democratic party and the beliefs [and actions] of the Communists in the 1940's and 1950's. So I could see any good actress play the role and leave it as simply a role they played.
I don't think that dumbing it down will do anything other than detract from the movie and in turn lose any hope of passing the message down to a new generation.
Excellent article. One small point, though: you say that professionalism would override politics even for the most left-wing actors, but then you mentioned that Mel Gibson used "non mainstream powerhouse" actors for The Passion because he wanted to ensure that the story would remain true to his vision. That sounds a bit like a contradiction to me.
Yes, actors are expected to perform on cue, first and foremost to be professionals. Yes, they take pride in maintaining their professionalism, being character/method actors, etc. But I also expect that their world views could affect, consciously or not, the evolution of their performances throughout the artistic process, especially seemingly minor mannerisms, voice inflections, and so forth. Thus I wonder if an actor might deliver what on the surface appears to be a solid performance in portraying a conservative icon, but all the while affecting a subtle ambiguity about the character under the surface, which in turn can have a powerful affect on the audience.
Why does 'Hollywood' want to make this movie? If money were the motivation then we would already have more anti-socialist movies than we do now. I've got a bad feeling about this. That said, Jolie is a much better actress than a lot of people give her credit for. She would do a fine job of bringing the character to life, hopefully in a movie true to the source material.
BTW, If Jolie gets the part, will there be nudity?
Dang I didn't tag it, but as a side note to the poster who brought up adult films (I Am Curious Yellow) I was reminded of one of the rare times my brothers and I had a babysitter while Mom and Dad went to see Last Tango…I made a pact with myself to see what it was that drew them to the movie theater (knowing who they are) and I have yet to see that movie. Leaping over to the other part of my brain that seems to always be involved in something else until it decides to think out loud, if Atlas is made and is a successful delivery I want to see Confederacy of Dunces in the making…and who would play Ignacious P. Riley?
John Galt = Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
Hands down
[tinfoil hat]That could be the plan. Make a crappy movie that dies at the box office, never gets seen by a wide audience and never comes out on DVD. NOBODY will ever attempt to do it right because the prevailing belief will be "see, nobody wants to see Atlas Shrugged made into a movie".
Remember its THE MESSAGE of the book that liberals hate and must suppress.[/tinfoil hat]
Politics aside, Julia Roberts is really only capable of playing Julia Roberts … and Dagny Taggart is not Julia Roberts.
While both Anne Hathaway and Charlese Theron are both pretty far on the left, I think either one of them could do well.
But also, I don't think who plays Dagny is anywhere NEAR as important as who plays John Galt, Hank Rearden and Wesley Mouch.
He probably means 'Francisco.'
Actually, this is true. A friend and fellow Rand-fan and I were discussing recently who might be best cast in an Atlas Shrugged film, and though we could come up with several possible Dagny Taggarts (Jolie being first among them), we were drawing total blanks on John Galt, or any of the strong male characters, for that matter. We agreed that there are simply no MEN left in Hollywood – only boys. Characters like Galt and The Fountainhead's Roark are manly men, with an edge of nerdiness manifested in their extraordinary (natural and untutored) intelligence. I can't think of a single guy in Hollywood who personifies that sort of strength and intellectual curiosity. I have a feeling we're going to have to go to the Aussies or the Scots for this one (Hugh Jackman, Russel Crowe, and Gerard Butler are the only manly men I can think of). Thoughts on Galt?
I think he meant Francisco d'Anconia … and while I could see that working, I think he's a bit too old (it will depend on who they get for Dagny … we have to believe Francisco and Dagny grew up together).
I could see Downey as Ragnar Danneskjöld (although honestly I expect they'll drop him from the story … gotta cut somewhere).
Maybe the sequel can be Danneskjöld's story (I always thought he was underused by Rand … but she always had goofy unrealistic pacifistic tendencies … which I always thought flew in the face of "objective reality").
Hmm … maybe Julia Roberts should play Lillian Rearden.
Actually, I was thinking the Brazilian dude from Love Actually and 300….. what's his name? I think he'd be a great Antonio. Robert Downey Jr. is awesome, but I'd rather him be Rearden: I've already seen him portray a playboy and I'd rather see him in a different role.
Staunchly individualistic athiest? That pretty much sums up both Jolie and Rand.
The only "unRandlike" thing about Jolie is her connection to the UN.
Objectivism isn't Evangelical Christianity blended with Free Market Capitalism. The reality is, Rand was very much a social/moral liberal that detested traditional culture, she's much more a Libertarian (actually close to kook fringe Libertarian) than a Republican.
Honestly I've heard more conservative Republicans (especially Christians) complain about Rand than liberal Democrats.
Dunno, but it's certainly a possibility: I know Rand includes at least one scene of Rearden admiring a nude Dagny, the perfection of her body a reflection of the perfection of her integrity and intellect. It is a moment emphasizing her uniqueness, and Rearden's realization that he has earned the love of a goddess. And what a waste of a beautiful actress (if Jolie does indeed get the part) not to include that scene.
And here you were probably just being facetious.
Dunno, but it's certainly a possibility: I know Rand includes at least one scene of Rearden admiring a nude Dagny, the perfection of her body a reflection of the perfection of her integrity and intellect. It is a moment emphasizing her uniqueness, and Rearden's realization that he has earned the love of a goddess. And what a waste of a beautiful actress (if Jolie does indeed get the part) not to include that scene.
And here you were probably just being facetious.
I agree. Look at the economic aspect. Angelina Jolie costs around 20 million dollars to cast. That's a big chunk of any movie budget. Pick an unknown or a lesser known actress and you make it easier to profit from the movie. This isn't an art film that is expected to lose money. Big name recognition only goes so far.
I'm in the this-doesn't-need-to-be-a-movie camp. Personally I could never stand Rand, thinking she had an enormously bloated sense of self-importance but I still think that it should be a miniseries so they can but that entire d*** speech.
After seeing how he delivered in Serenity, I have to think that Nathan Fillion would be excellent in the lead.
Listen up, Hollywood!
1. It doesn't matter what movie is made anymore…the public can't afford it. The public also doesn't care to see yet another depressing, dishonest, political, sexually exploitive movie.
2. It doesn't matter to the public who 'stars' in the movie.
3. Julia Roberts was once the darling of the cinema. Now, she's right up there with Babs, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda and all the other Socialistic radicals in this country.
4. When 'your' immigration bill and your next stimulus bill and your tax hikes and your universal health care bill and all of the delusional bridges to nowhere get built, you look back and remember the days when you were all famous and respected…and in demand.
5. The upper, middle and lower classes of LEGAL citizens of this nation without borders move to the states that cecede from MexObamaland, you won't be able to make ANY movies if your roles are in English. You also will not have the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the military, laws or that pesky flag that so bothers you. Enjoy your new country for you won't be welcome in the New United States. You taught us well.
Agreed. Here's an op-ed she wrote in early 2008 in the Washington Post called "Staying to Help in Iraq":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Much like other non-liberal celebrities, if you pay close attention, you can spot them.
OFF-TOPIC for Jane:
I love "True Romance" and I have always been amazed at how many future stars were in that one. If one were to go back and watch that film today, you would think it deserved some sort of Casting Hall of Fame award.
It's nice to know one of the people responsible for compiling that cast.
I believe as does the author of this column that the story should be getting top billing. Frankly, I don't care about the actors, but then I never care about the actors, just the performance. If anything, lassoing liberal actors and actresses will dissuade me from seeing the movie as I don't pay to screen those people anyway.
Thanks for the interesting and informative article. Since many celebrities shoot off their mouths and remind us daily of their ignorance, it's easy to forget that they are not political wizards, but ACTORS. They are paid to ACT not pontificate. As Jane stated the storyline would be up to the screenwriter and director and I would imagine that if someone is looking to pursue this project they would be staying true to the story, but then I've been extremely disappointed in most Stephen King films. I also think an HBO miniseries a la John Adams might be the way to go with this. Despite their leftist leanings they did a phenomenal job with John Adams. BTW — welcome to BH Jane.
It's been a while since I read the book, but Antonio, from what I remember, is a playboy-type person (or at least he portrays himself that way) who is friends with Dagny.
With that, I think it's time for me to get 'Atlas Shrugged' off of my bookshelf and reread it.
By the way, Ms. Shaffmaster, thank you for your insight. I, for one, am holding out hope that unknowns are cast, although the idea of a bunch of die-hard liberal performers possibly being forced to question their beliefs is very appealing.
Jerb, NO!!! You can't think that way. Positive energy…like they taught me in yoga class…inhale the positive, exhale the negative…you can do it!
You have to hold out hope…not the audacious kind, just hope.
and don't forget the pirate! I saw him as someone like Fabio–
Ralph Fiennes for Galt—-
for Hank Reardon– still thinking–
Wesley Mouch– for fun, Barney Frank
Dagny– a younger Emma Thompson– I know, you guys want someone extra hot but …..
HBO has put out some great mini-series…..John Adams is one of my all time favorites. Angelina Jolie is smart and sexy…..somehow not quite right. Lets be honest…..she finds a way to squeeze some kind of message into every single movie she has ever been in. Whats Jenifer Garner doing these days? She can do it all and still retain that feminine quality that is both attractive and respectable. I just hope nobody says Nicole Kidman……I don't ever want to see another Kidman movie again.
and don't forget the pirate! I saw him as someone like Fabio–
Ralph Fiennes for Galt—-
for Hank Reardon– still thinking–
Wesley Mouch– for fun, Barney Frank
Dagny– a younger Emma Thompson– I know, you guys want someone extra hot but …..
Jane, the only argument in your post is the following:
Being a conservative and a Christian (oh yes, my friends, a double whammy against me in this business), we could do politically evangelical casting. Bring on the bitter, angry, Obama idolizing movie stars. From the table read, to rehearsals, to shooting, these liberal performer’s might start questioning their politics.
Are they that … "vapid" (for the lack of a better word.), that their politics would change from reading a script.. and then what happens when they have a liberal-message script? They change right back?
I'm a social conservative aka a Conservative, and I'll stipulate that Randians aka Objectivists, Randbots, followers of the cult of Saint Ayn are more intelligent than average movie-goers. However that intelligence is chained to a set of rail tracks. Its powerful in its logic, but excessively confined by ignoring most of reality including the most important parts, but inside its limitations, its quite extraordinary.I imagine if you added the Cosmological Arguement to Rand, and Lewis's Trilemna as well, then you'd really have something.But yes, ya'll are very smart.
This book has already been waiting for 50 years for the film production. Perhaps we can wait another five and digital technology will allow casting anyone from prior film history to play any part. Then Dagny's role can be played by Lauren Bacall, for whom it was written.
Hillary Swank?
I participated in a similar discussion a couple years ago, when this movie project was just beginning to surface. I made the point them that the principle characters are all in their early 30s except for Reardon. Too often names are thrown out there, and they turn out to be actors who might have been just right a decade ago.
The bigger question than casting is, how do you take a story set at the end of the era of railroads and make it contemporary? Or do you forget contemporary and aim for timeless? The problem is, you have to want Dagny to succeed. You want her to save her company. If you make her a railroad executive, then you have to persuade the viewer of the importance of railroads. In the real world, railroads are vitally important to the national economy; but not one in a thousand people ever think about railroads that way. Same goes for steel companies, auto manufacturers, chemical and pharmaceutical companies… all the heroes of the book are the villains of popular culture today.
Lastly, we live in an era of irony. There is no irony in "Atlas Shrugged" the book, nor should there be in the movie. But how do you make a movie without irony.
Julia Roberts is incredibly over-rated as an actress. I will not see the movie if she is cast as Dagny. Rene Russo would be my choice…a real actress, can pull off smart and sexy ( as in The Thomas Crowne Affair), but might be a little too old unless the rest of the characters are made a little older too. Anne Hathaway is way too young to be taken seriously as a railroad executive.
She ultimately supported Obama. From everything I've read she's a seriously disturbed person in almost every way but would still be great as Dagny Taggart. As the author of this article pointed out it will be an actress learning and repeating lines. The one to watch would be the scriptwriter. Which, in my opinion, should be Robert Avrech.
As for Julia Roberts. Please. She's an over the hill hag who never could act.
Unless you're a liberal anti-American there's no way that Joss Whedon is "one of us". He writes some mildly libertarian and sometimes unintentionally conservative stuff but he's miles away from being one.
John Galt = ?
Dagny Taggart = Angelina Jolie
Francisco d'Anconia = Nestor Carbonell
Hank Rearden = Jim Caviezel
James Taggart = ? (Rob Lowe?)
Jolie is politically active with child issues, but even Clint Eastwood said they agreed on many issues. Don't forget when she went to Iraq during the bad days she stated we could not leave the civilians in a lurch and had to help them. She is not a total idiot. I would prefer her over anyone else. It woud be cool to find roles for Downey and Kelsey Grammer as well. I think they can make this into a movie- don't forget that there are millions of young people who would see the movie and THEN go get the book!
That’s the problem…..Jolie can't be both Taggart and Galt. I think Rand was a closet self hater who was ashamed for needing a man. She was so persecuted at the time for her being an atheist that she probably figured only a man like Galt could love her for her contribution. Defining who Galt is today would be a totally different person by Rands standards. Randism…a term she didn't like….is actualy pretty common by today’s standards. If we were going to adapt the book to today’s movie…..It would be Galt searching for Taggart. In that case…..Jolie would be perfect. Rand said it herself…..How would you like to be told you aren't necessary?
Francisco d'Anconia! Thank you folks!
This is why I need to read it again…well, one reason anyway.
Agreed. I don't think Pitt or Jolie are liberals. They've had a stake in Atlas Shrugged for years. You can't be interested in Ayn Rand and be a Statist.
Thats an easy one……Philip Seymore Hoffman
John Galt = Gary Sinise
"The film would bomb and they know it".
When has that ever stopped them? They knew the slate of crappy anti-war films of last year and the year before would bomb, and they made them anyway, because they're VERY IMPORTANT FILMS.
Honestly, I would not put it past Hollywood to screw this up just to take a dig at free markets. I would not put it past Hollywood to screw this up in hopes of keeping a REAL Ayn Rand film from every being made. In the views of the scumbags that inhabit that town, the next Star Wars will make up any losses for them, while they do "good work" with movies like Stop Loss.
Write your comment here…
Good article, but I hope the movie isn't made- I got into Ayn Rand in '66, and I can't imagine any current
actors/actresses doing justice to her work. If it's done poorly, it will do more harm than good.
As far as Angelina Jolie as Dagny, I've always thought Jolie is kind of skanky. I imagine Dagny
with sharp, focused features, like her mind.
I guess my attitude is somewhat like Dominique Francons vis -a-vis Roarks work; pearls before swine.
The country is getting object lessons every day of the perils of ignoring Ayn Rand- and it's only going to
get worse. A Rasmussen poll just released came up 57% pro-socialist, 3% pro-capitalist;
well, with those kind of numbers, f**k them.
Cast young actors in the primary roles, Dagny, Ragnar, and Francisco are all 28-30 years old, John Galt might be a couple years older. Gary Sinise is a decent actor, but he's around 55 years old.
If you want to attract a young audience, if you want to get them in the theaters and make them aware of Ayn Rand, then young actors should be cast in the heroic roles. And the villains should be older unattractive actors.
For Hank: Liam Neeson, perhaps. He and Fiennes have worked together before…
For Wesley: William Atherton has the right combination of self-importance and slime. William Sanderson would work too, seeing as how he's great at playing the kind of person "nobody ever pays attention to" (as Rand puts it) — and it could be great seeing a Sanderson-style nobody rapidly getting drunk on power.
I concur. Gary's great, but he's too old for John Galt. Somebody mentioned Nathan Fillion…
Remind me how old Hank Rearden is supposed to be.
I would've liked to throw James Cromwell in as one of the villains, but I don't think he'd do it.
I don't think Brad would be suited for John Galt, though. Maybe Ragnar…
The Rand estate ARE watching the scriptwriters. They have final approval over the screenplay, from what I understand.
And I wouldn't be too worried — I think they've got Randall "We Were Soldiers" Wallace working on a script now.
Galt? Gary Sinise is a very good choice but I'd vote for Jon Hamm from Mad Men. Maybe because 'Mad Men' is during the same period but Hamm just looks the part.
Galt? Gary Sinise is a very good choice but I'd vote for Jon Hamm from Mad Men. Maybe because 'Mad Men' is during the same period but Hamm just looks the part.
NOTE-
In my previous post I incorrectly stated that a new Rasmussen poll had 57% pro-socialist
and 3% pro-capitalist. I mis-heard the results of that poll on the radio.
The poll has 53% capitalist, 20% socialism, 27% don't know (must be those "moderates").
My guess is very few of the respondents know that what we have here is not capitalism but
a mixed economy, in some ways even worse than out-right socialism, because it allows for a
long, slow death, with a constant supply of new victims.
NOTE-
In my previous post I incorrectly stated that a new Rasmussen poll had 57% pro-socialist
and 3% pro-capitalist. I mis-heard the results of that poll on the radio.
The poll has 53% capitalist, 20% socialism, 27% don't know (must be those "moderates").
My guess is very few of the respondents know that what we have here is not capitalism but
a mixed economy, in some ways even worse than out-right socialism, because it allows for a
long, slow death, with a constant supply of new victims.
Jolie could do Dagny, especially after seeing her deliver the goods in Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. Anyone who can deliver "Alert the amphibious squadron!" like she did is a genius.
The problem with Atlas Shrugged is that Ayn Rand desperately wanted to create a woman who could be as creative and forceful as real men of business…and they simply don't exist. Dagny is a forced character. Reardon exists in nature. Dagny doesn't.
Super characters exist only in comic books and the movies. "The Last Action Hero" demonstrates this well.
In real life, pseudo-powerful women have inherited the mantle left them by genuinely powerful men. See: Teresa Heinz Kerry, or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Neither gets where they are without their husbands.
Rand's view of looters and political moochers sapping the life blood of America from the producers rings true. And it's happening before our very eyes. It's a great read. But Rand really, really wanted to play in a man's world. She created Dagny to be her alter ego. Ultimately, though, Reardon is satisfying because we see him in many, many titans of industry past and present.
We do not see a Dagny in real business.
Dagny is proving difficult to cast because she doesn't exist and the audience has to suspend belief too far.
Could it be the Hollyweird is going to make this movie and make it so vile that no one will watch it? Or maybe the characters will be so heartless in the script that it turns people away that have not read the book?
If they do make it and do it correctly it will have to be at least 2hr 30min long. I do like the idea of it being a 3 or 4 part mini series.
My first choice would be Cate Blanchett – she can play any role. True professional who keeps he private views private and avoids being tabloid fodder.
Angelia Jolie could pull it off – she never struck me as a loon on the left – she comes across more pragmatic and more of a libertarian. I still respect the op-ed she wrote last year, saying we needed to stay in Iraq and help the people – unlike the cut-and-run Hollywood set. Also I never heard her bash Bush.
Julia Roberts would be good in the title role of a feature film version of Mr. Ed – she's horsey looking and can't act – believe me I suffered through her stint on Broadway. Her "performances" on film are manufactured by clever film angles and brilliant editors who manage to piece something from her 100 takes and re-takes.
Anne Hathaway – too young and manly looking. Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman both one Oscars and since then forgot how to act.
How about Winona Ryder – she needs a good comeback vehicle.
A young actress should be cast in the role of Dagny (though please not Anne Hathaway).
There are flashback scenes, to when Dagny was a teenager, when she worked nights as a telegraph operator under an assumed name. It does not make sense to cast a 40+ year old actress in the role of a 30-year-old, then hire a stand-in to play the teenage Dagny.
Find the best 25-year-old actress you can, then use makeup to make her 15 or 35. But don't insult our intelligence with Miss Blanchett or Miss Kidman.
Cate Blanchett looked young enough in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Nicole Kidman is too affected – her last good performances were Moulin Rouge and The Hours.
The sad fact is there are no 25 year old actresses who could tackle the role, the closest actress near that age bracket that is halfway decent is Natalie Portman clocking in at 28.
If you look at the character of Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire the character of Blanche DuBois is supposed to be 30 as stated in the script, however it is always cast with a 40 something year old actress since it makes no sense in calling a 30 year old – "an old maid". And no actress at 30 has ever been able to pull off the performance.
Dagny needs to be a actress with lots of depth and come across strong – very few actresses on the A list fit the bill. Most play ditzes or are one note eye candy. Blanchett comes the closest.
I respectfully disagree. Dagny just has to be herself. The several male leads have to persuade us, Dagny is one who needs to be persuaded. She just has to be earnest and bright and super ambitious.
I agree that Natalie Portman is not right; I like her, but she has forgotten how to be herself on the screen. .
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Casting ‘Atlas Shrugged … [...]
"Dagny is a forced character. Reardon exists in nature. Dagny doesn't".
Brilliant observation. I do agree she's forced, but I think she can exist. However, in the story it is not clear why Dagny and Jim Taggart turned out SO differently given the same upbringing. Another thing I hope can be "corrected" in the movie/mini-series is the tendency of all the hero characters to sound alike. If you were to take any of the speeches of D'Anconia, Rearden, Dagny Taggart and Gault – and put them in a bowl and draw out one speech, I'd challenge you to guess which speech belonged to which character. I think this is where a really strong actor can make the difference. Simply reciting the lines won't do. They have to "own" the lines and give them the personal distinction of THAT character. My $.02
You must be logged in to post a comment.