Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’
by Pam MeisterFirst off, let me ask the question: in today’s PC, non-sexualized world, am I allowed to use the word “actress?” I guess I’ll chance it.
My friend Kitty sent me this link to an article about the ongoing saga of turning the 1,100 page book “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand, into a feature film:
Rand’s popular but polarizing book — it’s derided by many literary critics but has a huge public following — tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive trying to keep her corporation competitive in the face of what she perceives as a lack of innovation and individual responsibility.
A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie previously had been reported as a candidate to play the strong female character, but the list is growing and now includes Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway.
Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book’s themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages — making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.
Rumors about Angelina Jolie’s interest in the film have been swirling about for some time, but Charlize Theron? Julia Roberts? Anne Hathaway? What’s up with that? Let’s take a look at these lovely ladies and their left-wing credentials, talented actresses though they may be:
Julia Roberts: During a fundraiser for Al Gore’s run for the presidency back in 2000, she explained her preference for Democrats over Republicans by saying the word “Republican” is right between “reptile” and “repugnant” in the dictionary. Tee hee. She also described former President George W. Bush as “embarrassing. He’s not my president and he never will be either.”
Back in 2006, Roberts was also in favor of California’s Proposition 87, which would have taxed oil to fund alternative energy research. (It ultimately failed at the voting booth.) I guess growing your own kale stamps out the carbon footprint of traveling on private jets.
Charlize Theron: According to this bright light, Americans are just as oppressed as the good folks of Cuba. From a CNN interview:
Theron: No, but I do remember not too long ago some people getting fired from their jobs in television because they spoke up on how they felt about the war.
CNN: Do you think the lack of freedoms in Cuba are parallel to the lack of freedoms in the United States?
Theron: Well, I would, I would compare those two, yes, definitely.
Has she ever heard Dwight Schultz’s story of being called a “Reagan a**hole” by director Bruce Paltrow at Schultz’s audition for the television show St. Elsewhere? My guess would be no. Theron, like Roberts, didn’t have nice things to say about Bush either, calling “him irresponsible and taking exception with politicians in their very expensive suits and air-conditioned buildings, telling us how our soldiers are doing in Iraq. “I wonder what she thinks of her man Obama in his expensive designer suits in a wintertime toasty-warm Oval Office, telling us how our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan.
Anne Hathaway: The young woman whose road to stardom began by playing a princess of a fictional European country, is really concerned about the disparity of wealth in America. “Right now, the disparity between the uber-rich and the uber-poor, it’s worrying and it’s not getting better. We need to focus on a way to just get our economy back, to get it back on track.” By the way, Hathaway earns $5 million per film, and might be on her way to asking for $8 million. Maybe she’s talking about the disparity between her salary and that of Angelina Jolie, who earns $15 million per film…
And what about her support for Obama during the election? Was it due to his policies, his experience, his ability to get the job done? Not so much: “He inspires us to be the best Americans we can be.” Wow, that’s deep. I understand so much more now.
Frankly, out of the three, Hathaway seems to be the most obvious choice, as Theron and Roberts are just a little too long in the tooth to play the young Dagney. Darn it, there I go again with the non-PC stuff. According to the “Today Show,” 40 is the new 20. Sorry.
What’s so confusing here is that Ayn Rand’s writings reflected views that are antithetical to those held by left-wing libs, especially many in Hollywood:
Politically, Rand wanted to provide liberal capitalism with a moral foundation, to take on the prevalent notion that communism was a noble if unworkable idea while the free market was a necessary evil best suited to flawed human nature. In this she succeeded brilliantly (even if the notion that socialism failed because it has never been properly tried is still alive and well among the intelligentsia). Her arguments against “compassionate” redistribution–and persecution–of wealth have lost none of their power in the decades after they were made.
Perhaps they think the script will ultimately “improve” the book to match current politically correct views on life and society.
If these ladies are serious about being in the film, they’d best start reading the book now. Maybe they’ll be finished with it by 2010, which is when producers Howard and Karen Baldwin are hoping to start filming.
As Kitty said in her e-mail, “You’d think they wouldn’t be caught dead in a ‘conservative’ movie. Which only goes to prove that Hollywood lefties do have their price.” Seeing as the movie’s projected budget is currently in the $50 million range but could go up, I can see her point.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
250 Comments
Don't worry, they'll change the story to fit the politics of the actresses. Bush will be the president and hedge funds and Big Oil will be the bad guys.
Or maybe, if they choose Roberts, they can turn Atlas Shrugged into a romantic comedy?
With regards to your first point. I can't be the only woman who finds calling women "actors" really, realy insulting. (Can I? Serious question.) It reinforces the idea that there's just a male universe, hence the use of "actor" and "female actor", (not "male actor" and "female actor") with women on the periphery. Also, why is it supposedly complentary to call a woman an "actor", but insulting to call a man an "actress"? Is there something wrong with being female? It's not PC, it's just misogyny.
I'd actually like to see someone like Angelina Jolie in this role. Maybe I'm not giving the women featured here enough credit, but I don't see them being able to show the required quiet inner steel that would be required. These guys bring waaay too much baggage, even if they could step up.
Randall Wallace is doing the screenplay. He wrote BRAVEHEART and WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE, two movies with conservative viewpoints. I doubt that he will butcher it. These actresses probably heard that this was a great role and have no clue as to what the book is about. I have heard that Jolie is actually a follower of Rand.
I can't imagine any of these actresses actually reading Atlas Shrugged. It's very long and doesn't have any illustrations in it. Probably, the most in depth thing they ever read is the latest issue of Vogue.
Why are you so surprised by this? Just because Ayn Rand was a hardcore fiscal conservative does not mean she was conservative. In fact, from what I understand, Ayn Rand was exceptionally liberal when it came to social issues. It's not really a surprise that liberals would latch onto the entire stupid premise of objectivism.
Actresses and actors pretend in every film, it's what they do– pretend to be smart, pretend to be courageous, pretend to be educated. It's always a hoot the way the politicians and MSM interview them as if they really are the way they pretend to be. I wonder, if one pretends to be a conservative….. maybe no more invitations to testify before congress?
She wasn't a conservative. She had a unique world view that doesn't fit into conservatism ad definitely not into liberalism. She had some choice advice for conservatives in 1956 which they will have to heed if they want to ever take power again. Get rid of the Social cons, and I agree.
I've heard that about Jolie too, and hope she gets the part, at least over these other three. When I saw that list, I had a hard time believing that they knew what it was and still wanted to do it. I was wondering when BH would comment on it, because the idea of any of those three in this movie is almost laughable. Though maybe they'd learn a thing or two?
And yes, getting rid of "actress" is silly and insulting.
I've read that Rand's estate is very adamant that they won't let her work be perverted with any Liberal nonsense. I think several screenplays have been rejected because they haven't held up the standard that the Rand estate demands. If it makes it to the screen it will have to be true to its message. I personally think that Roberts, Theron and Hathaway don't really understand the contradictions between their professed beliefs and their desire to do the film. I bet a lot of the interest is simply because it's something Jolie wants to do and the other women would love to pluck this plum out from under Jolie. Angelina is the only one I'd give credit for being intelligent enough to actually understand what Rand's philosophy was.
Oh NO. Not J. Roberts again! Please!
How about Angie Harmon for the role?
I'm sure any of these actresses would be just as convincing playing Dagny Taggart as Denise Richards was playing a nuclear physicist.
I know she doesn't have the star power of Theron and Roberts, but how about Angie Harmon?
I was thinking the same thing…. not only would i guess they have not read Shrugged. but I have my doubts they've ever read any Rand and comprehended what was being told. If "understanding" Rand was a requirement.. my guess would be the closest of the lot would be Jolie, but I don't' know if she has the look I think of when I think of Tagert (of course, she could prove me wrong.).. I keep thinking Rachel Weisz would have the right look(?)
Can't disagree with the assertion that many actresses are bimbos who are just good at pretending, however, has it occurred to anyone that maybe the reason these women might want the role is that if it's true to the book, it would be one of the few genuinely strong female roles in the history of modern cinema?
What people who were fired from the jobs in television can Charlize be speaking of? Fired for speaking up about the war? No one comes to mind. Perhaps Charlize should go back to spandex cat fights?
Incidentally, Anne Hathaway isn't just rich now, she grew up rich — her father is a partner at a big law firm. So like all of her ilk, she really, really wants to take from the middle class to give to the poor. Because giving her own money away just would never occur to her — her father probably has it all nicely tied up in trusts, foundations and shelters.
I really don't think that this book has a chance to get translated into a movie because the Rand estate has final approval rights. Judging by some of the comments above, even folks that think they understand basic premises of Objectivism miss dreadfully. Well, unless you entirely change the definition.
Benjamin Pierce's comment made me laugh out loud. Contradicting the definitions and your own philosophy in the same comment is just stupid. The thought of liberals latching on to ANY philosophy is beyond my comprehension.
The right people need to write, direct and act in the script. Anything else would be a travesty. Hollywood will hate it. Maybe time for an Indy to come along and produce it. I am hard pressed to think of a female lead? Or maybe make it a comedy and cast Jeanine Garofolo.
Does Angie Harmon have the skill to pull it off? I think Jolie does, and so does Theron. Hopefully they get someone with the skill to be faithful to the character and the spirit of the story.
From what you understand …. have you read the book?
Anything with Jeanine Garofolo in it would be a horror movie…..
Reading recent posts, I'd say Angie Harmon is perfect for the role. She gets it. As for Galt, D'Anconia and Danneskjold, we'd be hard-pressed to find appropriate stars … any ideas??? Filling the roles of James Taggart, Wesley Mouch, etc should be no problem in Hollywood.
You beat me to it!
I would very much like to see an unknown, perhaps British, actress get the role.
Famous
stars are just a distraction.
And for the finale, Roberts will eat a railroad baron without even having to stretch her mouth.
Lord knows she's better looking by half than most of the other contenders.
I see the ending as 40 minutes of Roberts just smirking or laughing.
Liberals are being exposed as soulless robots by their man Obama. He is proving that liberalism is only good at destroying dreams.
And the mouth that roared will probably, as you said, have no idea what she was actually doing. Sorta like Priscilla Presley being interviewed after "Naked Gun" and reputedly being amazed to find out that it was a comedy.
I would be very surprised if any of those women take the role as it is out of their comfy zone… I would like to see Jolie in the role of Dagny… At least she is considered an Independant/Republican last time I checked… Not that that matters, but I think their political leanings would matter in being true to the story…. And I am glad I am not the only one thinking that Angie Harmon would be a good choice too.
This comment is hilarious. A British actress to play Dagny Taggart. Why not just pick an albino African?
How about Barney Frank for Wesley Mouch? That would save on screenwriting. Just turn the camera on, and let him talk.
Not really a feature lead. I doubt she can "open" a big budget film, and has far less international cred than the others, so producers wouldn't give her the part (Baywatch and Law & Order were both a looong time ago). Although considering Roberts' movie tanked, she may not have much overseas cred left either.
I got 100 pages in, and decided My Struggle was a better read.
Her stuff is tedious, long winded, arrogant, and boring. However, I do expect from her writings that she would be a fiscal conservative – and socially very liberal. But, ugh.. her stuff is work to read, it really is.
Maybe, just maybe, they will fulfil the role of the wet nurse (Tony) who finally came around. Then again, maybe they'll wind up like Cheryl Taggart..
I think it's amusing that the same people who complain that conservatives are "blacklisted" in Hollywood want to blacklist liberals.
She must be thinking of South Africa… :/ She may be pretty to look at but she confuses easily… that's why she is a "female actor"… :/
Most of these actors, actress, whatever you call them compartmentalize their art and their politics. Vanessa Redgrave has done this for years. I respect her for keeping her professional life and her political. separate. In fact, so separate that Pro-Palestinian groups protested outside the theatre during her run of "Orpheus Descending" in 1989 because she would not speak out during the run of the show.
Charlize must be thinking of South Africa… :/ She may be pretty to look at but she confuses easily… that's why she is a "female actor"… :/
Also understand that it is imperative for Barry Obama to play the role of Phillip Rearden. There is not a single better person. Incapable of accomplishing anything, and is forever fed by someone that is his better.
The perfect summary of Ayn Rand:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ayn_Rand
This article killlllllls me. I am of the firm opinion that this book should not be made into a movie. It would be best (and heavens knows I'm working on making it happen) be a series on some cable network (think "Tudors" or "Rome"). Hopefully they don't let some toothy actress butcher Dagny.
Objectivism, like conservatism, is subject to intelligent interpretation. And we've all seen what happens with Hollywood's unintelligent definition of conservatism. Thinking what they could do with objectivism gives me the whim-whams. And as for Hollywood's liberal "philosophy," I think it's mostly "I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. Demille."
hee hee, liberal actresses reading a book….that's a good one! right after they finish the Bible…it's on the bedside table.
Benjamin,
Who was your favorite character in the book, and why?
Ayn
She is also reported to be pro-gun, which is doctrinarely anti-Hollywood. Of course he father is the great John Voight, she has the right blood coursing through her veins.
Ya, he was on T.V. all through the fall proclaiming so, at least someone in Hollywood hasn't totally lost touch with America.
"I got 100 pages in, and decided My Struggle was a better read. "
Getting the summary of it off of the internet was a much better option than wading through a mountain of horrible writing.
Most things that are worth it are. Keep at it, though! The book on CD is about 42 of them, and the first time, Mr. Galt's speach is a bit much, but after a while, I got it.
For anyone who has read the book . . . wouldn't it be poetic to have Jolie as Dagny and Pitt as Rearden? It's life imitating art.
Don't have a problem with your first statement, and the second part is actually true.
Or maybe you lolbertarians, objectivists, and social liberals could leave the conservative movement. Go on ahead, you won't be missed.
Yep.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/v...
I first read it when I was 12 … I had no problem with it. That was 1973. What's wrong with people today, they can't get through something if it isn't immediately gratifying??
Again, not sure who your favorite character was by your response. Perhaps you could point out where you got the summary, and I could learn more about your disdain.
But then again, a wise man once told me, "What comes from your lips says more about you than it does about me."
"The thought of liberals latching on to ANY philosophy is beyond my comprehension. "
I'm guessing you've never heard of the Bolsheviks?
I think that social cons do need to get back to where we play our hand from the home, the local church congregation and local community organizations. But I will apply the same rules to all. Leftist organizations are not permitted to piggyback onto government, receive funding and indoctrinate.
Oh, but the lonely life of a small "L" libertarian who personally lives a boring, conservative life.
Love it!
Which, Atlas Shrugged or Mein Kampf.
They made a movie of Mein Kampf (My Stuggle, for those of you just tuning in…) It was called World War 2. You can see it almost daily on the History Channel. Took about 5 1/2 years to make, but there is a ton of action, gore, and a moral at the end. (The Japanese version has huge explosions too!)
Hah. That reminds me of a cartoon I saw onece.
A woman dressed like a character from "Snuffy Smith" standing at the end of long country path next to her mailbox. Her hands on her hips, bent over scolding her dog who has something in his mouth, tail wagging furiously. The caption reads "You give me my Cosmo or I'll wop ya!".
Mein Kampf. Wasn't as cold or soulless either.
Hah. That reminds me of a cartoon I saw once.
A woman dressed like a character from "Snuffy Smith" standing at the end of long country path next to her mailbox. Her hands on her hips, bent over scolding her dog who has something in his mouth, tail wagging furiously. The caption reads "You give me my Cosmo or I'll wop ya!".
Convince me that Objectivism is great.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=o...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Objectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Ran...
They'll waterboard John Galt, played by Sean Penn.
Exactly!
When everyone on bighollywood started talking about bringing Hollywood to the south/states that are conservative…I couldnt help but thin that this would be the perfect story to do it with.
Jolie is the only one I'd suspect might have the brains and the interest in getting the character right. I don't think she would shame her dad Jon Voight like that.
Easy there… most idiots won't believe you when you reveal it to them, and the rest of us watching him troll already came to that conclusion. He tried to be clever with the "My Struggle" bit. I think he thinks he is much smarter than us.
Truth be told, I would love to have a real discussion with him, but he toys with almost witticisms and cute dodges of direct questions. If it weren't for the anonymity of the Internet, he would most likely fail at any intellectual discussion of reason.
The beauty of Objectivism is that you are free to fail. Unfortunately, in America, that right is being taken away.
Jolie is the only one I'd suspect might have the brains and the interest in getting the character right. I don't think she would shame her dad Jon Voight by being intellectually dishonest with the character. Just a hunch.
How in the hell do "conservatives" get rid of social conservatives? They are one in the same! Makes no sense, Alex…were you perhaps speaking of the Republican party?
This is good news. Thanks for sharing.
Let's see: The Bolsheviks were a bunch of pissed off Russians who latched on to the philosophy of Communism, and wrecked their country to this day.
I agree with you that they should stay true to the message of the book, and if the actress selected wanted substantial changes, that would definitely be a reason not to select her for the role.
But if they're willing to stay true to the source, an actor (actress)'s political views should not affect their ability to get roles no matter how vocal they are, and that applies to conservatives acting in liberal movies as well. I think the original article writer disagrees with that premise.
What's in it for me?
Objectivism comes from the basic premise that all men are equal. The ultimate minority is that of the individual. Hard to argue that point. My success is not tied to your failure in any way. I earn and succeed based solely upon my own actions. You fail based solely upon yours.
OK, but this will not be a diatribe, because I choose for it not to be. What do you do for a living?
Maybe they can make a female version of the Three Stooges. Here are 3 great candidates.
I can live with Angelina Jolie as Dagny, but Angie Harmon would be terrific. However, every time I read Atlas Shrugged, I can't help but envision Eva Green.
That being said, Rose Byrne is a GREAT call DamnCat.
Not many others come to mind, but for some reason I can't help but see Connor Trineer as Hank Reardon. You may've seen him recently in 24 and Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles, as well as a staring roll in Star Trek Enterprise.
She endorsed the Republican Party in a video (not meaning that she's conservative of course). She might have seen them as the safer bet as to who would protect freedom (I know a lot of libs out there are scratching their heads).
Leave it to a leftist to praise Mein Kampf.
With Fred Armisen (SNL's Obama) as "Mr. Thompson, the Head of State." The story needs some comic relief. I see plenty of teleprompter gags.
She gave a message to the Republican Party in a video (not meaning that she's conservative of course). She might have seen them as the safer bet as to who would protect freedom (I know a lot of libs out there are scratching their heads).
Sounds good to me. If you would rather get a $500 cell phone instead of paying your mortgage, why should I care. Oh wait, I should care because I am paying for it.
Oh look, another movie that I won't give my money to go see.
It's possible to compartmentalize but it depends on presentation. I would play Stalin if he were ultimately portrayed as evil (which is a boring idea, though it hasn't been done in American cinema that I can think of), but I would have trouble doing Che Gueverra if he were glorified. Know what I mean?
Good point, Todd.
You shouldn't be paying for it.
I am going on the premise that you are arguing that people got a $500 cell phone instead of paying their mortgage, so now you have to bail them out. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Somewhere I heard a rumor that Brangelina might be leaning libertarian, but I don't know how reliable that was.
I got through it but it was a chore. My Struggle is a better read and actually more relevant to what is going on in this "age of Obama". Talk about arrogance, he makes Hitler look humble.
I'm ambivalent on this because I'm not sure that many actresses could compartmentalize well enough. Roberts and Hathaway especially seem unable to keep their politics separate from their work. I could see them using the movie as a means to give themselves a platform to spout more anti-American rhetoric. Jolie I would trust regardless of her politics. I remember seeing Anderson Cooper trying to get her to say something anti-Bush during an interview and she wouldn't give him the satisfaction of laying out a case either for or against the president. I liked her a lot for that.
Besides being all but unimaginably difficult until recently, a major impediment to any previous production of an Atlas Shrugged movie has been the extreme care the Rand Foundation has taken to protect Ayn Rand's ideas from being misrepresented. If they don't approve the script, the film won't be made. Having said that, it's hard to see how the book could be done in a single feature-length motion picture; at the very least it seems a trilogy, probably based on the book's own divisions, would be necessary.
I love, love, LOVE how many Randophiles are proposing that Angie Harmon, a third-rate actress with a mediocre resume and virtually no star power, should play the role instead of some A-list actress who happens to be liberal.
I love it!
Because if there's one thing Ayn Rand loved, it's choosing mediocrities over talented people on the basis of some sort of secondary agenda.
Shouldn't the proper response be that you want the best possible actress to play the role, all other considerations be damned, so long as she doesn't insist on compromising the subject matter?
Sorry i can't get behind you on that.
I'm sorry but that article from Reason magazine is a hack job. Your article is very good, however.
Yeah, cause a summary really does tell you all need to know just like the movie actually does do a good job of taking the place of the book its based off of. /sarc
There is no substitute for reading the real thing.
I kind of like Angelina Jolie's ambiguity on politics. She might actually be a closet libertarian. Of the four, I hope they give it to her. When a liberal acts like a libertarian or conservative onscreen, it's just not believable.
it's the janeane garofalo effect. i am only hoping that her character gets killed off in a most torturous way while she tries to reason with her captor.
oh, oh, and one more thing- I'm maybe the only person in the world that kinda dug "The Fountainhead" movie with Copper and Neal. Crazy weird flick, but in a good way.
It's going to suck.
Got it. So, get rid of the social conservatives from the Republican party and you have like a few hundred people left. Good luck with that. If you are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, there is a distinct category for you…moderate. You ARE NOT a conservative. As the great one is fond of saying "name for me the 10 great moderates in American history"….good luck with THAT.
Sorry. I'm saying the reason I'm paying for mortgages is because they bought $500 bling phones that resulted in not being able to pay for mortgages. Just generalizing. Not all did, but I'm sure a lot did. Now we're on the hook for it.
Those should be issues of states rights and for the people of the states to vote on; read your Constitution. The idea was supposed to be that people would go where the laws suited them to be best. Some states would be more liberal and others would not. The courts were not supposed to be oligarchies overriding the will of the electorate.
Will BHO and the commie libs permit this movie to be made? Will he fire the producer? The director? Will he audit all involved? Just "axing"……………….[Atlas has Shrugged]
Are you Brad Pitt by any chance?
"It's life imitating art. "
Technically it'd be art imitating life imitating art, but Pitt's a pretty weak imitation.
Wow, congratulations.
Really. It's not a difficult book to read. It's just not very well written.
Actron sound like a Japanese anime thing.
Hey, I have an idea! Instead of arguing over whether to use "actor" or "actress" or "male actor" or "female actress", let's just refer to them all as cymbal-smashing, performing monkeys. It is far more accurate a description for most of the "actors" today and it's gender neutral!
Maybe they did a comic book adaption.
Re: Cooper and Neal: FWIW I purchased the DVD of TF as soon as it was released and consider it one of my treasured possessions. The included extra "The Making of 'The Fountainhead'" is fascinating as history, as a parallel to the story itself, and as a glimpse at what SHOULD be involved in producing a film version of "Atlas Shrugged."
My guess is Hollywood will screw it up! It takes real independence to bring a book of any kind to the screen much less one as controversial as Atlas Shrugged, and potentially important. I haven’t read it in 20yrs I guess it’s time to drag it out
Yeah, I’m hoping Jack before he expires will dangle her off of the FBI building for one last torture, for the gipper and all.
ANGIE HARMON!!!! NO SCREWING AROUND LET'S GET 'ER DONE YOU HOLLYWOOD PANTY WASTES!!!
telling gays they can't blow each other with rings on. I honestly don't care about issues that aren't a threat to my way of life…
This is where you need to learn a little more than what the mainstream media informs you of. The Gay marriage issue has little to do with some 'right' to call yourself married. It has alot to do with an attempt to redefine normative Christian thought into 'Discrimination'. For example, the Catholic adoption service of Massechuesetts had to shut down once marriage was 'redefined". To refuse to give a baby to homosexuals because of your church's religious underpinings had become 'Discriminatory'. Methodists in New Jersey are forced to allow their facilities to be used by homosexuals, despite their church's beliefs regarding Natural Law and Sexuality.
This is very much about radicals coming after someone (Christians) way of life.
Either Jolie or Harmon would be fine. Any of those other 3 would definitely be a distraction. And there are good candidates for Galt: Gary Sinese, Christopher Walken, maybe Mark Harmon if he can look young enough. Atlas doesn't need pretty boys, it will stand on its own – it just needs to be made seriously. And I like Barney Frank for Wesley – like Ayn said, just turn on the mike! Alan Alda plays a great snake, and would make a fine villain (and probably enjoy the irony of vilifying the lib machine).
NO WAY!!!…wouldn't pay a dime to see it,..unless they get axed in the end!!
Prior to her death, Rand was asked about a film version of "Atlas Shrugged." She said that she was working on a 9 hour mini series script, 3 parts at 3 hours each. It would have been very interesting to see what she had in mind.
I think they should just let Barney Fwank play himself in the movie. I swear she came right out of Ayn Rand's imagination.
He's busy selling you down the river at the G-20 summit
http://www.AlistZ.net
Was Obama ever in a marching band?
Just a passing thought, thinking about "acting" as a President, nevermind…
Exactly. An Objectivist would say to someone that bought a house they could not afford, "Sorry, but you failed. You do not 'own' the house, you signed a contract that stated that if you did not pay the mortgage, you must abandon it."
The fact that someone bought a $500 phone, paid for groceries, or just simply refused to pay the mortgage is justification enough to kick them out. Perhaps if someone failed, they would learn from that lesson, and not repeat it.
Also, an Objectivist would not make YOU pay for THEIR failure. To those that say, "I am paying for it through higher interest rates…" Perhaps then, you should save your money (an artificial piece of paper that itself says, "I am worth something") and make yourself a better candidate for a lower cost mortgage.
The bank had a contract with the person paying the mortgage. They should be on the hook for their failure to properly explain what the rules were.
Why not just get Sarah Palin to star? She'd have far more impact as a public figure than a mere politician, and it would set the stage for a serious run at the Presidency.
Yup, that's Brad. I can see his 4" lifts hidden in the post!
Well sounds like you want Ian Richardson.
http://www.AlistZ.net
It's not blacklisting if I refuse to pay tribute to people I despise.
Maybe "actor" just refers to someone that acts? do you want a feminine version of plumber, or how about a perpetratoress – wtf? Some things you should just leave alone. if you would move to a Muslim country you wouldn't need to worry your pretty little head about these things.
When "shoving religious ideals down someone's throat" is interpreted as free expression of religious views and when the "enlightened" want to force those with religious conviction to behave contrary to that religious conviction we're not talking conservative values OR libertarian or objectivist values. Freedom of religion is not just a side issue and not just something the dreaded social cons care about. It's paramount for all of us, right up there with freedom of speech, which together, religion and speech amount to freedom of thought and conscience.
These values are central and if they are suddenly defined as some sort of social-con cooties then conservatism is meaningless.
By all means, let us recover capitalism! Please!
But why is it necessary to dispose of the first two elements of our Constitution? Thought and conscience means having the right to worship, express religious belief, express morality and to argue morality and attempt to convince others in society.
That's speech.
Separating government coercion from the public realm of discourse by no means requires that people not try to convince others, or try change opinions. It just means that such things need to be done between free adults and through persuasion and not through laws, coercion, or compulsory education.
Also… I reserve the right to use government to tell a woman she can't abort her "overrated fetus" in the exact same way I reserve the right to government coercion in the matters of any other action that harms another human being, rape, murder, assault, or slavery. And I reserve the right to use government coercion to protect property rights against theft and vandalism. And I affirm that the maintenance and use of military forces is a legitimate role of government.
Because I'm not an anarchist.
And your favorite character is?
It can be said that love is never defined, but you know it when you feel it. Your postings on here tell me that you are trying to explain why you won't fall in love because you read Romeo and Juliet and came to the conclusion that love causes suicide.
The book on CD is quite listenable. Perhaps your library has it. Audible does.
However, it is common in disbeliever arguments to have the person that is defending their position run around and do research (I fell into that asking you to name your sources), but not answering the questions when posed.
Which of the 4 tenets of Objectivism do you disagee with on the first citation you posted?
I go back to Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, where he said, "You make your choices and you live with 'em." We do have too many these days that are wanting a daddy figure that'll give them a stipend to live on, without having to worry about the responsibility or ramifications of those choices. I've made many mistakes and tried to learn from them. But when you're not having to accept them only ensures failure throughout your life.
When did a) reading Ayn Rand, b) understanding Ayn Rand, and c) liking or disliking Ayn Rand become the barometer of intelligence. This really bugs me: I recently read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged just because I was interested, and I enjoyed them. Sure, I have my nitpicky complaints, but it would never occur to me to think I am so much more brilliant than someone who hasn't read the books. I DO consider my opinion on Rand to be a touch more valid than that of those who have not read the books but are passionately pro or anti-Rand, because Cliff Notes do not equip one for thorough debate. Anyway, I ask this because I've noticed any discussion on Rand turns into a big fest of people just impugning one another's intelligence, and it's obnoxious to read that much condescension. There isn't nearly as much of it in this conversation as in others, but I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this.
Back to the topic of the article….. Of those listed above, my vote's with Jolie, because Dagny Taggart is a woman not to be trifled with, and Angelina's the only one who exudes that level of strength while maintaining femininity. A teensy little part of me wonders if Keira Knightly could pull off the role of Miss Taggart, but I'm not sure if she's mature enough yet. Thoughts?
Yeah, I actually visited that beach where they filmed "the Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan" It was a bit disquieting, especially that part where they left the graveyard and the German bunkers there. You think they would have cleaned it up after "Saving Private Ryan".
I also went to a mock up of that place where they filmed "Schindler's List"… I think it was Dauchau.
Somehow the fun and mirth of Mein Kampf fell apart. Sort of like how Das Kapital was ruined when they started to actually start filming in Russia. Apparently the farmers, shopkeepers, and business owners were upset about some of the aspects of the film. So they killed them and spent 70 years trying to be better than my favorite manuscript, which they did a movie of:
(it's a 2 parter)
Declaration of Independence
The Constitution of the United States of America ( I do have a problem with the 16th addition to it, as well as the 18th one… they took care of the 18th, but kept the 16th… here's hoping…)
Well, let's build on what we have in common, then. Just a quick yes/no on these:
1. Government is a necessary evil (Thomas Paine, Common Sense)
2. Government needs to be restricted (the US Constitution)
3. What is good for you is not necessarliy good for me. (Declaration of Independence)
4. Thers is a separation between state and church, not the other way around. (read the first amendment and get back to me if you have issues with this.)
You do realize that in the original Manchurian Candidate, as well as the book it was based on, the villans were all Republicans running as anti-Communists, don't you?
Animator Girl, I did not read any Ayn Rand until I was well into my thirties. Up until that point I honestly thought that I was a sociopath because I did not feel the same way towards certain things that other supposedly "normal" people did. Just reading her books made me realize that I was the "normal" one and those that did not see the things that she very easily pointed out were the monsters.
No. Everyone used to say "actress" back in the day. Using the non-feminine expression is the politically correct "innovation", not the other way round.
I believe the Rand estate is heavily involved in approval of the script-writing for AS, which is one of the reasons it has never made it to the screen. Social issues are really not relevant in objectivism. Remember, altruism is the root of all evil. You only have control of yourself, no one else. Social issues are simply used as red-meat by the political class to keep things stirred up amongst the citizenry. The media aids them in distorting the views of each side, which becomes self-fulfilling.
The world that Atlas Shrugged portrayed has become a reality. Even the industrialists are gone – or on they way out. The U.S no longer produces anything – except whiners. We've been riding on the coattails of the people who built this country and have become a nation of insatiable consumers. The U.S is only important now because the rest of the world depends on us to buy what they're producing. It may be hard to swallow, but the U.S is nearly at the point where it is no longer relevant. Hell, no one in the U.S even has the balls to protest like they were doing at the G20.
It's sad and depressing. Have fun with the rest of this pointless debate about which a-hole in Hollowood is going to make a gazillion dollars in a pointless movie. Riveting stuff.
Since this is a movie and not a book, most of those who loved the book will hate the movie. No matter what.
It's a movie. And even though it's okay to make long movies these days, even a 180 page script is still not a 1,000 page novel. It can never be. Stuff will be left out entirely. Events will be moved around. Anyone who is familiar enough with the book to notice the changes will go, "OH MY DEAR GOD THEY RUINED IT."
I'd like to offer an preemptive "Get over it."
I hope that this movie is made, and if it is "Atlas Shrugged Lite" well, it's still getting the basic message out there, isn't it, and hopefully in a way that will be accessible to the broadest audience.
The problem with Republicans is they have been adapting to "modern times" I have quite a few discussions with them (I used to be one), and here is where the premise breaks down…
Two bakers are making brownies. One tells the other, "We need to put 2 pieces of cat poop in the batter." The second says, "No; no cat poop in the brownies."
A Republican walks in, and they ask for his advice to settle the matter. He decides on just one piece.
That is why the Republican Party left me.
Thanks. It was a birthday present. I gave a copy to each of my kids, but waited until they were 16, for no particular reason.
Of course an Objectivist would make sure to ignore the fact that all the parties involved in making bad loans were making money from the deal, and it was in their immediate (if corrupt) financial interest to make sure that as many people took loans as possible, whether or not they could pay them back, because they sold off the debt to suckers and pocketed the profits. Because an Objectivist refuses to acknowledge that any businessperson could ever be less than saintly, and that any billionaire could have ever done anything wrong.
Oh, I'm with ya' on that point. I was coming of age when the social cons were becoming a force with the first Reagan Administration. I supported the movement since we were building a line of defense against a never ending assault on traditions that have carried us through thick and thin.
My God, People. Dagney must be played by Patricia Heaton, the only Repub Cons female I know of in Hollywood. One thing to keep in mind: Dagney is not gorgeous, and her age is not specific in the book. Read the book before recommending actresses.
Holy CRAP! Phil had seven viewers?!?!?! That is amazing!
Kind of like sex.
You can read all about it, watch movies, but until you actually do it with the one that you love and the commitment is there, you are just wishing. When it is that way, the descriptions fail to properly describe how life altering it can be.
We know beyond any doubt that Dagney is in her thirties.
The true libertarians or objectivists are good for 5 percent of the vote and they conserve nothing Did you ever wonder why liberals are so eager to tear down social institutions – religion, the nuclear family, the sanctitiy of life, traditional morality – all the stuff that is dear to social cons? Because these safeguard your liberties. Small government and strong social institutions go hand in hand. It´s not the traditionalist who screams for the nanny state, it is the atomized individual who defines himself by race, gender and class and who replaces virtue with victimhood. Self-pity propelled Obama into office.
The Soviet Union never abolished money, but it abolished religion and undermined the family and "bourgeois" values. They had their priorities straight. Yes, like all movements social cons sometimes overreach. But get rid of them and soon enough you have nothing.
Alex,
To properly discuss your comment about the "overrated fetus," one must have some basic premises…
First off, "When does life begin, and when is that life human?"
The reason to ask this question is to determine whether aborting that fetus (no matter how it is rated) then becomes a human rights issue. If it is just akin to cutting off your finger, or removing a tumor, I would ask this question, "Has a tumor or a finger, in the course of a natural process evolved into a thinking, rational human being?"
I know this subject can get quite emotional, so let's keep it rational, ok? Name calling is the first sign that one has run out of rational thought.
to be clear, I do agree with you that Republicans = Democrats. Only Republicans are just really bad at it.
For the record, one can easily be considered a libertarian and have a severe moral obections to abortion. This has nothing to do with telling a woman what she can do with her vagina, but what she CAN"T do with her child to be. Liberatarians are supposed to be the self-responsible folks around here, so we can tell women that there are consequences for being pregnant.
This has nothing to do with religion, simply an issue of morality.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You cannot be serious. OK Roberts and that idiot Theron won't get it? But Hathaway….dear God I see her wierd facial expressions and they make me want to permanently blind myself.
Angelina Jolie is my pick. She has the presence. She has the gusto. Just give it to her and let it be done.
that is the problem with a good rant, people want to interupt them with facts.
what's the fun in that?
Stop argueing all of you. We hang together or we will surely hang seperately.
Hello out there! Ayn Rand was not a conservative. Read her "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" and "The Virtue of Selfishness" as a start. Then try her first novel, "We The Living". Her early career was editing and writing Hollywood screen plays. Do you homework first.
Every "fiscal-only" conservative I know would rather fight social conservatives and compromise with socialists than the other way round. We see this every day in the media and in Congress. I don´t consider myself a social conservative, but people who are scared by pro-lifers are not going to stand up to big spenders. They do not have a conservative temperament in the first place. There are honorable exceptions, but you can´t win elections with them. Like I said above, social cons do overreach sometimes – as when they oppose good men like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney – but we can settle that without giving ammo to the left.
And the Colonists were just a bunch of pissed off British that latched on to their philosphy and wrecked their … wait… came back and became best friends with the country they revolted from.
A free people is a real obstacle to those that want to control.
To borrow from Maggie Thacther…Liberals are destined to fail because they will always run out of other people's money. Who is John Galt!
I WOULD pay to see Sean Penn waterboarded.
My apologies…
Actually, government has a vested interest in what we women do with our vaginas, in promiscuity, and morality. Encouraging marriage as the proper place for sex, and by it's logical (and natural) extension of baby-making, leads to well adjusted children who are more capable of thriving in the great American dream and supporting the nation, be it by taxes, entrepreneurship, charity, or even (God forbid) government jobs. Studies show that children of any ethnicity, in any geographic zone have only a 7% chance of falling below the poverty line as adults if their mother and father are married to each other. Single parents (those who aren't and weren't married when the child was born or soon after), their children have an over 60% chance of falling below the poverty line as adults.
And why is "marry" in quotes? Never mind, Marriage is first and foremost a religious issue. Government offers marriage licenses because, again, they have a vested interest in it. Why do you think married couples and parents get tax cuts? They (at least originally) WANT to encourage stable family environments.
And did you know that every time the government relaxes laws on vices, those vices increase? For example, they made abortion legal and abortion rates rose, teenage promiscuity rose. Somehow people got the idea that they could make really, really bad choices and say to hell with the consequences.
I'd love to go more into detail about this, but I like having exact facts and I left my fountain of university, non-profit, and bipartisan research information, Ann Coulter's "Guilty", back at home. If you'd like to know more about why laws protecting the traditional family should be upheld, I would greatly recommend checking out her book. Every page is filled with direct quotes (full context) and great research, so even if you don't believe her, she tells you exactly where to go to check her info out. Then get back to me about how bad social Conservatives are.
How about we just get them to rescind the laws protecting vices? That be a good step in the right direction, wouldn't it?
It's so sad that you think of a fetus as overrated. All that potential. People complain about how you can't cut down the rainforest because the cure to cancer might be found there. What if the one to find the cure for cancer was aborted as an "overrated fetus." Be glad your mother didn't think you were overrated. (Point of interest, stabbing a pregnant woman is double murder, but aborting a child is "removing unwanted tissue mass)
And how come modern always means shunning values and religion? I thought those were the things that helped to separate us from the animals to begin with? It is in trying to adapt to "Modern" times and "Progressive" thoughts that conservatives lose. We need to stand by our issues, all of our issues, or else we're just selling Liberalism light.
no offense taken
I think you are my first reader. Thanks that means alot (sniff, sniff)
Correction: They were Communists posing as anti-Communist Republicans.
Yes, he's conservative but they are completely estranged and she supported Obama. She's a major loony tune so it's hard to say just what she would do with the role but my feeling is that she would do it far more justice than those lefty tools.
Objectivism comes from the basic premise that all men are equal.
It's hard to believe anyone get this so completely wrong.
Objectivism comes from the basic premise that all men are equal.
It's hard to believe anyone could get this so completely wrong.
Eh, We the Living was her weakest novel the build up was great but the ending really reaked.. and Anthem rocked good quick read.
I wrote exactly what I meant. I did not say that men accomplished congruent things, I said that "all men are equal." Sorry if you cannot understand that premise, Alistz.
The obvious question: Why should any of the aforementioned actresses get the role? I know there are a few conservative actresses in Hollywood. Surely, one of them can do the job. Let's support our own!
So would I, maybe with bleach rather than water !
Can't you just see paris hilton in the lead role, it would become an instant overnight comical trash farce politically uncorrect absence of art B- flick. But the sex scenes would blow rocks.
You're assuming the film ATLAS SHRUGGED will still have its libertarian roots by the time Hollywood is done with it. Look at the hack job they did to BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, for example, and tell me it won't be butchered just to make a political point.
As of the last I read, she and Voight weren't talking. Besides, Voight's playing the crazed head of a Blackwater-like company right now on 24; if he won't stand up for his principles, why would she?
You can have them two hags for Lillian. You need a real woman with a real brain for Taggart.
For such a "terrible" writer of such an "unreadable" book, Rand sure does bring out the defenders and the trolls, doesn't she? In 20 years of being a fan of "Atlas Shrugged," I can't think of one work more demonized by the Left.
I don't think political views are entirely vital to picking actors for the film, but the producers would be remiss is they didn't consider what actors fans of the novel want – and more importantly – don't want to see. If an actor who has been vocal bashing Capitalism, the free markets, or "greedy" anything is cast in one of the key roles – esp Dagny, Hank, Frisco, Wyatt or Galt – the film will be bashed and boycotted by a small percentage of the potential audience.
I'm happy with Jolie as Dagny (f that sticks) – she has at least read the book. Michelle Williams, another fan of Rand's, should be considered for a role (though she's not a Dagny). We don't need Objectivists cast in all the heroic roles, but doom to the production if the long list of A-listers who've bashed so many of the concepts explicitly laid out in the novel populate the film's protagonists.
Exit question: where is everyone getting this sense that Rand was a social Liberal? Except for her atheism, there was very little social Liberalism in Rand's fictional and nonfiction writing, especially if we're talking about what is now the Green/Progressive mark of American Liberals.
Why would the Vice President of the United States choose to go by a pseudonym?
I stand by my statement.
Knightly would be my second- or third choice – after the much-maligned (but loved by me) Domino, she'll always be near the top of my list when it comes to playing strong women.
They don't makem like that anymore, sexy, cool, hot, and able to act out 4 pages of Ayn Rand philosophy in dialog !
I think Knightley is woefully underrated. People forget she's 22 and carries films. Although she does seem to tank some films. I love Domino, too, actually. Totally misunderstood.
This is a perfect example of Veronica DiPippo's article on BH the other day about how the message of the play The Marriage of Figaro was not only lost on the political elites that it roasted, but was ironically promoted by the same clueless elites.
I really try to avoid popular cynicism, but I'm 100% certain that if Hollywood makes this movie, it will only be to adulterate the message of the book and to neutralize its political impact.
A liberal actress reading a book? Somehow the word oxymoron comes to mind.
I posted this once before, and I'll do it again. This version of Atlas Shrugged will be re-writtten to make Republicans (or whatever thinly veiled names they're given) the bad guys, not Socialists/communists. (Look for GWB pictures in the protagonists' homes, etc.).
Think they can't do it to a classic? Ever see what Jonathan Demme did to The Manchurian Candidate (with Halliburton allusions every time the camera panned by a running TV)?
There is NO WAY most liberal actresses will be in this movie if they actually read the book. They know it's a classic, and it's a sought-after gig, that's why there's so much attention. And if they haven't read it, a Lefty version can easily spun for them. Just flip the characters/themes, and there you go.
If you think the adapatation will follow the book, you're higher than Carlos Santana.
I really, really don't trust Hollywood to honor Rand's message. In fact, I think this is a deliberate job to warp the novel's message and themes.
Glad to see you think Sarah Palin is not much more than an actress.
Maybe you're kidding? But think about it. If she tried acting in a movie it would pretty much destroy any chance she has to run for President. The press already hates her. They'd have a field day with her acting – even if she did a decent job – and you would see an endless loop on YouTube of her saying something from the movie out of context.
Come to think of it. Sign her up! This could be fun.
…with the McCarthy figure as a patsy and tool of the Communists, if I remember correctly. It's both anti-McCarthy and anti-Communist.
Someone please correct me if my memory is off on this.
…with the McCarthy figure as a patsy and tool of the Communists, if I remember correctly. It's both anti-McCarthy and anti-Communist.
Someone please correct me if my memory is off on this.
Glad to see you think Sarah Palin is not much more than an actress.
Sigh. I'd just be glad to see you think.
Glad to see you think Sarah Palin is not much more than an actress.
Sigh. I'd just be glad to see you think.
.
The national press has a vested interest in tearing anyone down that has any accomplishments in their background. Why do you think they pushed Barry Obama? Because he is a milquetoast intellectual lightweight and makes the morons in the press look smart by comparison.
For my money, I would like to see Jane Harmon. She appears to be ready to stand up for what she thinks (not feels ) is right.
Just goes to show that libs have no set standards. They'd sell their soul to make a buck. They don't care that the book is based on something that they are fervently against, which is capitalism. Freakin' idiots anyway.
As much as I like looking at Brad I don't think he's the brains of their relationship. My respect for Angelina went way up when she wrote an article for the washinton post that was extremely positive towards the soldiers in Iraq, this was after her visit there in 08 I believe.
I really do think that Jolie has more substance then all three of the ones listed above.
I definitely would not go see it if anyone other then Jolie was playing the lead.
But who will be the stars? Wesley Mouch? I would suggest Barney Frank.____Who will play President Thompson? I sugget BH Obama.____And the rest of the heroes, the statists who destroy the greatest, most free nation ever known? I want to know who will play James Taggert, to sucks up the Government until the Railroad is destroyed. I would suggest Murtha,____The Government researcher who tortures John Galt: Paul Krugman.____And the villians?__ __John Galt: Don Luskin____Francisco D'Anconia____Hank Rearden:____Waggoner, Of course any big name star will insist on creative control…____
Well, people don't see eye to eye on everything, and libertarians will not only grant that but defend the right for people to disagree. More conservative libertarians are for reasonable government, not crushing religious self-expression. Just because modern libs don't know how to respect the Constitution, that's not libertarians' fault. The government should respect individual rights like the Constitution warrants, and then you would't have to worry if libertarians have conflicting views on religion.
i hope they have some control over the stars they let in this. There needs to be some serious actors. And activism does not equal serious. Problem is, i'd bet they think they are serious.
I might be the only one, but if i see a movie, i want the actor to be someone i can see in that role. For example, Courtney Love should not play a nun. Am I alone?
These three actresses are not worthy of this role. Like the Argentines who got outraged that Madonna played Eva Peron. I'm going to get insane with anger.
But then again books often don't translate well on film. and really it's just a movie.
Anger subsiding, breathing returning to normal, blood pressure dropping.
Ok i'm alright.
Barney Frank could just play himself.
Probably from existing footage of things he's really said.
Good question LauraAgain.
Dagny Taggart – Angelina Jolie. Could reconcile the physical beauty, intellectual aloofness, and libertine emancipatory nature of the character.
Hank Reardon – Ed Norton. I think his presence would play off Jolie's overwhelming beauty and also his ability to display the weakness of his infidelity; he should also be slightly less attractive a character than Galt.
Francisco D'Anconia – Al Pacino (Hoo-ah!). Fiery, flamboyant, secretive and crafty. Could be the admired man for Hank and Dagny, though age is a slight problem.
John Galt – Will Smith. Has the clout to pull it off. Did a sympathetic role with Pursuit of Happyness. The Obama allusion is inescapable (he is even doing the Obama homage film), but he would actually draw more people in (boosting box office take and widening the audience) and provides a foil. It would also deflate the idea that Rand's ideology is for teenagers and white people. It is for everyone who aspires to greatness.
Good question LauraAgain.
Dagny Taggart – Angelina Jolie. Could reconcile the physical beauty, intellectual aloofness, and libertine emancipatory nature of the character.
Hank Reardon – Ed Norton. I think his presence would play off Jolie's overwhelming beauty and also his ability to display the weakness of his infidelity; he should also be slightly less attractive a character than Galt.
Francisco D'Anconia – Al Pacino (Hoo-ah!). Fiery, flamboyant, secretive and crafty. Could be the admired man for Hank and Dagny, though age is a slight problem.
John Galt – Will Smith. Has the clout to pull it off. Did a sympathetic role with Pursuit of Happyness. The Obama allusion is inescapable (he is even doing the Obama homage film), but he would actually draw more people in (boosting box office take and widening the audience) and provides a foil. It would also deflate the idea that Rand's ideology is for teenagers and white people. It is for everyone who aspires to greatness.
Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote?? So his 1996 trouncing of Dole didn't count? Also I guess your saying this theory about the press loving 'dumb politicians' only counts when the vote total goes over 50% and applies to a Democrat? Silly. Please rethink your position.
Also when you say there is 'no factual basis' about Obama's intellect I'm wondering what basis or facts you use to say he isn't. I mean, how do you measure intelligence? Have you written two well written books? Have you gotten into Harvard Law school? Have you been a Professor for 12 years? Have you run a successful Senate campaign and a successful Presidential campaign? Don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be on this board wasting time.
It's fine if you don't like Obama and his policies or his politics. But you might want to let go of the he is 'below average intellect' argument. That's the argument the Left made against Bush II and Bush I and Reagan and etc, etc. It's a tired argument and I don't buy it. If you become POTUS you don't have below average intelligence.
"they're meat puppets anyway"
That's an interesting thought. There's been quite a long discussion at BH under the various art and rap music articles about how we "should" be able to separate the art from the artist. Even though I'd prefer it myself, why should I/we care if libs plays the more conservative parts as long as the performance is there and it's mostly true to the story? If we're going to be consistent with our separate the art from the artist argument that is.
Maybe we can look at this as a good thing. It all depends on the director/producer. The actresses will be too stupid to comprehend the meaning beyond the scene. But who am I kidding. Unless Gibson is the director it'll be a Hussein marxist swallow-fest.
My choice is Ann Coulter.
I see Angie Harmon in the role.
Which one? Jolie or Pitt? or both?
They'll have to have approval over every revision of the script as well, just to keep the lefty bulls__t from seeping in.
There's a point at which somebody says to the titular candidate, John Iselin: "You couldn't possibly embarrass this country more if the Russians paid you to."
The ideal actress for Dagny Taggart should be someone like Barbara Stanwyck, attractive, intelligent, and competent. Stanwyck could play Annie Oakley, and the inheritor-manager of a factory town. She was Ayn Rand's friend when Rand was a screenwriter in Los Angeles, and I believe would have been Rand's choice to play Dagny, had the timelines of actress, novel, and film lined up right.
While I think the main point is valid, I don't know anyone who would seriously consider criticism of George Bush to be anti-capitalist. Neither Bush nor the GOP in general support capitalism or any other ideals of Ayn Rand in any meaningful way. Being "less bad" than Democrats does not equal a "Win" for Republicans. A little bit of evil is still evil, and I don't think GWB or other big government socialists get a pass just because of the (R) next to their names.
I can't take anyone seriously who thinks supporting Republicans and putting down Democrats is really doing anything productive as far as supporting capitalist ideals. You are all a bunch of socialists.
I never said you didn't mean what your wrote, only that you are incorrect. I sincerely doubt you've ever constructed a premise in your life that I could not understand.
Let's quote Ayn Rand herself. (Discussing her book Anthem where the main character was sarcastically named "Equality".
Q: How did you decide upon the names for the characters in the book?
A: I patterned the numbering after telephone numbers, with the prefixes consisting of statist slogans, some good, but hypocritical for that society (such as Liberty)-others, ironic on my part (such as “Equality” for the hero, who is obviously a genius, and not the intellectual “equal” of average men).
It's hard to believe that anyone could get this so completely wrong. But, becoming less so.
Wow, you need to do some homework. The only affect Perot had on the 1996 election was preventing Clinton from a bigger sweep. But elections are won by electoral college. Haven't you heard? By your numbers logic I guess you think Gore should have been President in 2000? Should I say that had it not been for Nader he would have been?
Obviously you haven't read Obama's books but you are attempting to cover yourself by claiming I haven't. Nice simplistic tactic. Anyway, there is nothing racist about his books unless maybe you think a black man writing is somehow racist. His second book is so devoid of anything racial it's is very clear you are unaware what he actually writes about in it.
But, anyway, I'm sorry to say your debate tactics are well below most conservatives I know, many of whom I disagree with on some points but who can hold their own in a debate without resorting to name calling and the like.
Well I think some people did identify with Bush and that's okay. But a lot of folks identify with Obama. Obama is an African American, born to modest means and was raised by a single mother. He worked as an organizer and you don't get more down to earth than that. Bush didn't really do that. He was raised in the East Coast to a rich family that set his political path for him [like the Kennedys] and he moved to Texas and pretended to have that Southern thing going. Some bought it.
In Obama you see arrogance. I see confidence and intelligence. We can agree to disagree. But, anyway, I don't think you dislike Obama I think you dislike liberal policies and he is the President now so he's the one you go after. The Left did the same thing for 8 years. They say they hated Bush – but they really just hated his policies.
The thing to keep in mind about why "liberal" entertainment/artist types (half-raises hand, please keep an eye on the quotes) frequently turn out to have or aquire an affection for Rand in general and Atlas in particular is that times and politics have both changed pretty dramatically since the book was new. To a functional majority of both "sides," even some among essentially-intelligent people, "Conservative" no longer means capitalist or individualist, it means "Christian Traditionalist." Rand's early-20th Century version of the philosophy – self-oriented, reason-driven – isn't something you'd associate with most prominent Republicans today. Just how it goes.
(continued)
(continued)
SPOILERS
Honestly, Look at the plot of Atlas in the character strokes: A minority of intelligent, free-minded people are set-upon by a "rabble" majority, so they team up and head for their own science-and-art-based mini-civilization to wait-out "the common man" innevitably wiping himself out, they do this under the leadership of a career-oriented woman who's tougher and smarter than all the boys and a genius who's invented an alternative energy source. And you want to know WHY "liberal" Hollywood is interested? Really?
Incidentally, Jolie is the only actress named for the Dagny who makes any sense. Roberts would be a disaster and can't open a drama. Theron is astonishingly beautiful but is generally too "warm" for a role like this. Hathaway is a knockout but too young. Cate Blanchett would be note-perfect performance-wise but otherwise not quite there. Thinking "colorblind" for a moment Angela Bassett can do about the right additude, Thandie Newton has the perfect "poise" but isn't that much of an actress, Michelle Yeoh would probably be inspired… but they'll probably go for a pseudo-period look for this and those choice might be (unfortunatetly) aesthetically-discordant. My "ideal" choice would be Clarice van Houten – anyone who hasn't seen Black Book aka Zwartboek yet, do so immediately (it's a WWII spy movie about a Jewish woman working as a spy for the Dutch Resistance and it's effing INCREDIBLE) – but she's not well known enough.
[...] Daily Markets added an interesting post today on Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in â [...]
Why not honor the Conservative Actresses of Hollywood? We need Conservative Superstars.
It's their one chance to prove that Conservatism is Pure Intellectualism and Real Liberalism in the sense of True Individual Freedom.
You are right for once. Rand never was conservative. Conservatism is bigger and more coherent than Rand´s me-first libertinism, though it is the only philosophy that will Rand´s heros be successful and left alone in the long term. I wrote a comment to that effect somewhere in the vicinity, but good luck finding it in this bloody system.
Anyway the gist of it was:
Libertarians and objectivists are good for 5 percent of the vote and they conserve nothing. Did you ever wonder why modern liberals are so eager to tear down social institutions – religion, the nuclear family, the sanctitiy of life, traditional morality – all the stuff that is dear to social cons? Because these safeguard your liberties. Small government and strong social institutions go hand in hand. It´s not the traditionalist who screams for the nanny state, it is the atomized individual who defines himself by race, gender and class and who replaces virtue with good feelings and victimhood (self-pity more than anything else propelled Obama into office). It was not the dreaded Chrstian right that pushed perverted pc language on us. The Soviet Union never abolished money, but it abolished religion and "bourgeois" values. They knew why. Yes, like all movements social cons sometimes overreach. But get rid of them and soon enough you have nothing.
Not annoying, dopey. What she thinks Republicans are. In the dictonary between 'reptile' and 'repugnant'. Sometimes they are, but in my case, they try to be too much moderate and not conserative.
I LOL'd for real at that, too.
Hey Ben, If you like Robert's looks, I have a big gray mare at my farm, come take a look, I need to sell her.
That is exactly what I thought. They'll love the scene where Ms. Taggart clearly is smitten by Mr. Reardon's raping her and the Reardon's long speeches about what love is and isn't. While the financial aspects of the book are spot-on the social ones are clueless.
I don't we call them 'actors' or 'actresses' ?
I call them 'movie whores'.
Jeanine Garofolo in 'Atlas Shrugged'? That's about as ridiculous as casting her as an IT specialist in a television series.
You owe me a screen, Mike… :p
*MissQuinn*
You owe me a screen, Mike… :p
*MissQuinn*
Wait in line and pay $10 to see their image on a screen. Hell, I wouldn't see this film w/ anyone but Jolie. MAYBE Rachel Wiesz, but that's as good as it gets.
*MissQuinn*
I'll agree. It's the best intro to Rand to give anyone. I read it at the age of 11 and LOVED IT. It's short, easy to understand and actually has a story to it. I wouldn't recommend Atlas or The Fountainhead unless they were foaming at the gash for Objectivist Thought.
*MissQuinn
Does anyone really feel pressure, at all, to walk on eggshells around the word "actress"? I have heard rumblings of cross-armed snark about the supposed PC lockdown forbidding actors and actresses from being delineated as gender specific, but I honestly don't know of a single legitimate example that suggests the existence of this regulatory postmodern nonsense.
Don't let this reply fool you. I searched for you over at the other post, and with the new design, I couldn't go to your question by clicking on the reply button on my Intense Debate e-mail. So I went back to the original article to search for you. Never succeeded, so I just started going through posts on other blogs and found you here. I not only couldn't find your question, I couldn't even find my post that you were responding to. The threads are all screwed up, and when you try to go to the next page, half of the posts are missing. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason to what they're doing.
The TIPS AND FEEDBACK BUTTON is over on the right, just below "Featured" and "Subscribe via RSS Feed" and above all the other lists of authors, blogsites and commenters.
I stand by my statement
…My success is not tied to your failure in any way. I earn and succeed based solely upon my own actions. You fail based solely upon yours….
This is not Randian Objectivism either, but now you've demonstrated that you're not capable of learning, so I won't bother.
Dude, any of the writers for alias could tell you that you are full of CHIT. Women rock and we all love to write them into precarious positions. I imagine beaches and good weather. I hope the same comes back to me
. There really isn't much more to life than having fun.
Dude, any of the writers for alias could tell you that you are full of CHIT. Women rock and we all love to write them into precarious positions. I imagine beaches and good weather. I hope the same comes back to me
. There really isn't much more to life than having fun. Oh If there was a lady I would most like to meet it would be Hathaway. I like the historical aspect.
I read Atlas Shrugged just out of college circa 1977. It changed my life and cemented my disgust of non-producing, looting bureaucrats.
The movie will rise or fall on Wesley Mouch–the smariest, sleaziest Democrat this side of Barney Frank. Perhaps Henry Waxman can can take a sabbatical from destroying America in Congress, simply play himself in the film and make a few untaxed millions on the side.
Ultimately, though, Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy:
First, only in Rand's verbose dreams do women rise to that level of management expertise.
In the history of America, Hollywood actresses are about the only women that seen as powerful as men, and they don't head massive, productive businesses making billions and employing tens of thousands of people for decades. They sell their bodies a picture at a time, taking as much as they can until gravity takes its toll and they fade away. See Julia Roberts.
Secondly, only in fantasies do secret Colorado gulches exist with impenetrable force fields over them. Rand dreamed of a Nation where gold was money, productivity was rewarded, government served the people and looters were shot.
It's not turning out that way.
America is dying with destructive taxes, a tyranny and barely a whimper.
How right can one person possibly be, while still NOT insulting someone? You are the epitome of all class, intelligence, and wit, AlistZ. I bow to your superiority in every sense. You are certainly my better.
By the way, congruent means two sides the same length or it can mean corresponding, most people could understand that analogy. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.
I am thoroughly distraught from your insults of me. I do not know if I continue to live.
Now, will you finish making that latte, PUH-LEEEZZEEE?
I think there must be a diamond in the rough my friend. Start telling people what you really think and there is definately a breakdown in store for you
I can't realize a woman's dreams…..any more than you can deny what Im here for. Anyone that thinks women can't lead or manage…….see Plame.
The problem with Libertarianism is that to "work" it requires what little government it allows to be made of sterner conviction than most people have in them. Everyone WANTS to be free, but few have the spine to deal with the fact that a free society is a competitive and, yes, largely CHAOTIC society. "Nature, red in tooth and claw" and all that. At the end of the day, MOST people are fundamentally weak and ultimately WILL choose security over freedom; and when they find themselves amid the chaotic-competition of a truly free society they will go sniveling to the leaders wailing "HELP! HELP! LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!!" A functioning Libertarian government would need the clarity and fortitude to respond: "No, it isn't. But a slim chance is still a CHANCE, so get yer arse back in the arena or go elsewhere!" I don't know that we could FIND enough leaders like that, and even if we did how would they ever get elected?
You're right, Jenny — Angie's the one…
Actualy I have changed my mind. Hathoway is great but I think Julia Roberts is perfect for this story. She is strong, beautiful…..extrememly witty and inteligent. Maturity has been good to her and I would like to see more movies with her in them. I really don't care if actresses are liberal or not…..so long as they contribute to a stories original intent…integrity. Would like to have a conversation with her about Ayn Rands interview with Mike Wallace when she said that Men are mostly sacrificial animals and that only a very small percentage should survive. Following that string of thought….wouldn't it make more sense to cast the leading man first? Whoever is considered…..most definately shouldn't be a mainstream figure. Audiences are getting tired of seeing the same people all the time. Should be someone more obscure and rare….as are the characters. The more I read about the propsed plot….the more I feel this film is destined to fail. The irony is that it has already been short circuited by an attempt to make it from any and all political perspective. It should be approached objectively (independantly void of politics…gender or otherwise) or you will lose/polorize the audience and destroy a classic with brinkmanship. Just my two cents.
[...] 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 [...]
I'm not going to pretend to know Angelina Jolie's political peferences. I actually appreciate that I don't outright know since she doesn't broadcast them, like the other actresses on this list. But, I've always had a feeling she leans conservative – not saying she's a Republican. Maybe not socially, but economically, which really was Rand's focus for "Atlas Shrugged." I believe this partially because she has seen the lowest depths of this world, through her charity work. After seeing so much poverty and so much untapped potential in the people living in these nations, you eventually have to connect the dots. We may not be perfect in America, but Capitalism is truly the superior economic force.The notions of innovation and humans being unafraid to reach their full potential, the motivation of wealth are all part of the beauty of Capitalism.
For actresses, Dagny is a potentially career-defining role. I would say it is also Oscar-worthy, but the Academy's increasing leftist favoritism might keep it off the nominee list. Still, Dagny is a highly feministic role, and although what the character stands for several of the actresses imply they vehemently oppose, she is a role that will empower women. Although I think the other actresses mentioned here have their merits – Anne Hathaway would be a great choice as she does physically embody Dagny in my mind and I think she has the chops for it, I would love to see Jolie take this role. She has a strong ability to switch between serious, dramatic actress to sexy, action actress and the role includes a little of both. The book doesn't describe Dagny as being outright beautiful, but I always pictured her as a striking beauty that most never see because she disguises it in order to be a strong business competitor. She makes herself one of the guys. I think her femininity comes out as the book progresses, and Angelina would be fantastic.. I wouldn't be able to sit through Roberts or Theron in this film. It's just not their role.
I've heard that Pitt has expressed interest as well. I wouldn't mind him being in the film, but he is not Reardon or Francisco. That leaves Galt. I would have too much difficulty separating the couple on screen from Brangelina. That might be a shaky choice. I've always pictured Daniel Craig (current James Bond) as Reardon, and an unknown playing d'Anconia.
I love Rand's novel and am excited for this movie. I am glad it is being adapted by a conservative-leaning screenwriter (at least by his track record). Nothing would infuriate me more to see Rand's masterpiece be bastardized by some lib use the novel's title for marketing and recognition, while gutting the actual story. I hope its a success.
[...] 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 [...]
[...] Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Michelle Malkin: $%^&*!!: Civility and tolerance in the Age of Obama and Janeane Garofalo, [...]
[...] MJ’s Blog: David Cook performs at Freedom, Iraq (video included) Michelle Malkin: A tribute to our Navy SEAL snipers and Scarlett Johansson visits the troops Vets on the Watch: I Miss Back When The Loud Talker: Was Obama’s Iraq Visit Staged? Pronk Palisades: Navy Seals Lead The Way–Threes Shots Three Killed Pirate Terrorists Hot Air: Obama vindicates Bush, again Rovingpatrol’s Blog: Cheering Troops in Iraq a Fake ‘Okie’ on the Lam: Obama Engineers Fake Troop Response In Iraq — Who Woulda Guessed That? Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ [...]
[...] If California is so cool, why is there a homeless camp in Sacramento? Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ The Teleprompter Obama: More Freedoms Obama & Minions Seek To Seize The Nobama Blog: The [...]
[...] Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: Gwyneth Paltrow in Another Touching ‘America Sucks’ Moment and Apocalypse Near? Liberal Actresses Line Up to Star in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and Bono’s Classless Act – Endorsed by ‘The Won’ Clinging to G & G: John Nolte on The [...]
Obama should spend less time on basketball and art and more time on the economy and war!
You must be logged in to post a comment.