About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 3:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
::sigh::

Post 1

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 3:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have to admit some relief. Even if the movie were completely atrocious, it would have created publicity for the book. But Angelina Jolie and her Foreign Aid crusade are already overexposed.

You know how the Three Ghosts of Christmas visited Ebenezer Scrooge? I wish that, by some similar feat, Ragnar Danneskjold could visit Angelina Jolie and tell her how ridiculous it is to demand that U.S. tax dollars be sent to dictators.

But if she liked the book as much as she claims she does, wouldn't she already know that Ragnar would say that?
(Edited by Stuart K. Hayashi
on 6/19, 3:11am)


Post 2

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 3:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I wish that, by some similar feat, Ragnar Danneskjold could visit Angelina Jolie and tell her how ridiculous it is to demand that U.S. tax dollars be sent to dictators.



Stuart, I am very interested in knowing a source for this claim.  I've heard it many times, but a source is never mentioned.  Where can I find a quote of Jolie asking the US government to support dictators?
Thanks.

As far as I know, the exact opposite is what she's after. In her own words, here.

(Edited to provide link to Jolie's article)


(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 6/19, 3:37am)


Post 3

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry to see it. 

I believe that Atlas will be made into a movie by someone at home with VR or at least animation. 
Then, you can have your ideal cast.  Rita, Marilyn, Gary, Randolpht, Clint  Rock,  et al., et al.  And no limitation on special effects.   You'll see it first on YouTube and then there will be remakes and other people will do it better and it will be a cult thing to make it.  We might see a dozen versions with discussions in the objectivist blogscape about which one is best.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would be surprised if I or anyone else found a smoking gun that quoted Angelina Jolie as specifically naming Robert Mugabe as somebody worthy of U.S. funding.

Those who criticize Angelina Jolie as a global socialist do so because it looks like the perpetuation of dictatorship is the practical consequence of the policies that she advocates. Furthermore, she refrains from advocating the policies that would be most instrumental in ending all of the poverty-based problems she wants addressed.

Take, for instance, the situation in Darfur. Fighting against mass murder is definitely a legitimate function of government, and so I would think that it is the right of the U.S. federal government -- but not necessarily the most imperative duty of it -- to stop that genocide.

However, Ms. Jolie is merely advocating a band-aid on the problem. She is advocating that these specific wrongdoers be punished. If one wants to stop these things from happening in Sudan or any other illiberal country, it is not sufficient for that illiberal country to maintain national sovereignty so long as it allows or implements such illiberalism. The only thing that stops such genocides in a country in the long term is that the country's government acquiesce to laissez-faire liberalism. Liberalism was imposed upon Japan and West Germany following World War II, to the benefit of both countries. If Ms. Jolie wants a long-term solution for Sudan and anywhere else, that is what she should be advocating.

To the extent that the most significant long-term solution to these crises -- replacement of illiberal governemt in the Third World with liberal government -- goes unacknowledged, the illiberalism of dictatorship is tacitly tolerated.

And there are smoking guns showing that Angelina Jolie supports U.S. tax financing of welfare spending in the Third World. These are programs that do not deal with stopping the initiation of force -- which is what U.S. military intervention in Darfur would entail -- but programs about spending tax dollars on providing people in the Third World with medicine and economic services.

Angelina Jolie's Jolie/Pott Foundation donated $1 million to Global Action for Children.

Both Ms. Jolie and Global Action for Children successfully lobbied President Bush to sign in November 2005 the "Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005."

The bill's name sounds good, but it provides that U.S. tax dollars be spent on people's healthcare, and Global Action for Children was one of the organizations signing a petition stating:

"This legislation establishes -- for the first time -- a child-centered, holistic framework for the United States to respond comprehensively by expanding and coordinating efforts to provide community-based care and support; expanded educational opportunities; food security and nutrition; shelter; life and job skills; psychosocial support; inheritance and rights protection; social protection systems; and child health services, including treatment with lifesaving antiretroviral drugs for HIV-infected children.

"PL-109-95 requires the U.S. Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for coordinated action to meet the needs of OVC within 180 days of the bill's enactment on November 8, 2005."

Of this particular bill, Ms. Jolie says "We worked so hard" to "pass" it.

You can read that petition by opening up the Public Law 109-95 documents here.

Global Action for Children also houses a link recommending "Resource Packet" which provides a link recommendation to the website Abbott's Greed, which says that the company Abbott Laboraties is killing Africans by charging high prices for pharmaceuticals.

This group that Angeline Jolie gave $1 million to laments this as a huge problem:

"* The International Labor Organization estimates that over 352 million children -- 23 percent of children aged 5 to 17—were 'economically active' in 2000, with half engaged in work that would likely 'harm their health, safety, and moral development.'

" * 73 million working children are less than 10 years old. ...

" * The largest number of working children -- age 14 and under -- is found in the Asia-Pacific region with 127 million children engaged in child labor. However, sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of children, where nearly a third of children under age 14—48 million -- are invulved in child labor."

I don't like child labor either. But this organization provides no constructive solutions at all to child labor-related problems, and we have yet to see it acknowledge that if these countries further liberalized, these nations would have a much easier time getting rich enough to no longer need child labor -- and to do so at a much faster rate than they are at present.


I have yet to see Angelina Jolie get chummy with Fidel Castro, as Oliver Stone and Harry Belafonte have. And I see her advocacy for spending U.S. tax dollars on treating AIDS in the Third World as far less egregious than, say, supporting the Endangered Species Act, which allows the U.S. Department of Interior to seize control of someone's private land.

However, Angelina Jolie's call for this welfare spending is beyond any call for the U.S. military to simply defend people's rights. And, for somebody so well-versed in Ayn Rand, it is very conspicuous that she has heretofore neglected to mention that long-term progress in the Third World -- including the ability to fight the AIDS epidemic -- requires greater political-economic liberalization.

Ragnar Danneskjold would not approve.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This doesn't completely pertain to her foreign-aid support, but I found this interesting:

"When Angelina Jolie, 31, opens up, she really opens up. The Good Shepherd actress, who only recently started talking about her relationship with Brad Pitt, 43, has given another revealing interview.

"In the February issue of Elle U.K., the mag's cover girl claims that she didn’t change Brad, and admits she's more partial towards her adopted children, Maddox and Zahara, than natural-born daughter Shiloh.

"Interview highlights below...

"On the different love she feels for her kids:

" 'I think I feel so much more for Madd and Zee because they're survivors, they came through so much. Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her...I met my other kids when they were 6 months old, they came with a personality. A newborn really is this...Yes, a blob! But now she's starting to have a personality...I'm conscious that I have to make sure I don't ignore her needs, just because I think the others are more vulnerable.'"

That's also here and here.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . she's telling the whole public that she loves her biological child less than her adopted ones because her biological child is more privileged?

One could reply that at least she's being honest, because it's not so great that parents often lie when they deny they "don't have a favorite child."

Even so, though, why did she have to announce in public that she has a "least favorite"? What if Shiloh reads this when she's grown up?

Post 6

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course, none of what I've said before is a discredit to her acting ability (athough I don't think her performances are consistently great, either).

Post 7

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Who exactly owns the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged? Who has owned them for the past 50 years? It seems like they bear most of the responsibility for this. 

Post 8

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ownership rights kept changing hands. Many years ago Dr. Peikoff sold it to some guy who sold it to someone else, etc.

Before the Baldwins had the rights, I think it was either Albert Ruddy or Time Warner.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You know I can't really look into someone's head, but I was hoping that perhaps she had some changes in her earlier thinking as a result of both maturity as well as reading Atlas.  There are many people who start out as liberals and change their minds as they grow older.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't expect much from the effort to make AS into a movie. I don't think a 2.5 to 3 hour movie could do it justice. I'd prefer a television mini-series, perhaps ten 1 hour episodes and maybe a 2 hour finale. I would prefer that format personally. I think it would soak in better and get a wider audience.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Instead of complaining about Hollywood doing nothing, I wish a bunch of dedicated people would just get off their butts and do it. You can get a decent movie camera for $1,000. You would probably want to get a few of them. You would need a good Mac, which would cost about $3,000.

The movie is already written in the form of the book. Now a bunch of people just need to do it.

Amber Benson made Chance for about $75,000. Kevin Smith made Clerks for $25,000. Blair Witch Project also cost about $25,000.

Unfortunately, this can't be done because of copyrights.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 6/19, 9:39am)


Post 12

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guys, go to the source who actually interviewed her - cinematical.com:

Stalled is not the same thing as shelved.

Post 13

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Instead of complaining about Hollywood doing nothing, I wish a bunch of dedicated people would just get off their butts and do it. You can get a decent movie camera for $1,000. You would probably want to get a few of them. You would need a good Mac, which would cost about $3,000.


Exactly my sentiment, every single objectivist out there has their "They ought to do it this way" opinion which come out in droves every time there is any news of a movie. What needs to be done, if you want the movie done a certain way, is to make it yourself, that way.

For that same reason I plan on doing an CG animated version of Anthem. I have done professional 3D modeling for some time, but I am undertaking 3 projects before tackling Anthem, each in increasing complexity until I build the skill set I think necessary to do 'Anthem' justice.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think this recent film fiasco is a major failure on the part of the Objectivist Movement. There should have been five big-budget movies made by now. Also many t'v' mini-series, radio productions, animation versions, and plays. Half a century of nothing is inexcusable. For anyone not utterly blind and deaf, this tells you a great deal about the current version of Objectivism.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't say I'm disappointed. The three-movie treatment of LotR was horrible, omitting far too much, and butchering the spirit of the novels. I'd rather see the AS project never done than done badly. If any format would succeed it would be a three-year-long HBO-type series with hour-long, commercial-free episodes. Consider how popular the Sopranos was and the outrage when the series never tied up any plot-lines and when it ended with an eff-you to the audience. If it started strongly enough, AS could do extremely well in that format.

Ted

Post 16

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Earlier I said that Angelina Jolie expects that U.S. tax dollars go to the Third World because throwing money at the problem will ostensibly fight the AIDS epidemic when the biggest contributor to all of Africa's problems -- statism -- goes completely unaddressed by her.

However, it turns out that Ms. Jolie actually expects U.S. tax dollars to "fight" poverty in general:

The spotlight is nothing new to Angelina Jolie. Now, the tabloid favorite is working to deflect the attention that follows her every move to a part of the world that is often forgotten -- Africa.

"Africa is beautiful, marvelous, smart people, strong people, strong country and has a potential to be so much," Jolie told "Good Morning America" in advance of the release of a new MTV documentary chronicling her trip to a village in Kenya with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N. Millennium Project. ...

Wednesday's MTV premiere of "The Diary of Angelina Jolie & Dr. Jeffrey Sachs in Africa" coincides with the opening of the U.N. Special Summit on Millennium Development Goals. In 2000, almost 200 world leaders vowed to work toward reducing extreme poverty, disease and hunger by 2015.

"This is not emergency relief," said Sachs, director of the U.N. Millennium Project. "This is an opportunity to solve poverty once and for all. It's not charity. It's an investment, an investment that could help make the world a safer place."

In Sauri, a group of small villages in Kenya, support from the U.N. provides bed nets to keep away mosquitoes carrying malaria, fertilizer to grow crops, school lunches so every child is assured one meal a day, school equipment, and anti-retroviral drugs for every person living with AIDS.

Jolie was in Sauri the first day a computer was delivered to the school.

"The first time they saw the computer, they weren't that excited," Jolie said. "Then I realized, of course they're not, because to them it was a weird box. So they've gone to the Internet from zero to 60." [ I hope they have enough electricity to keep that computer running. Otherwise, what's the point? --S.H.] . . .

Jolie has been a U.N. goodwill ambassador since 2001, and has traveled to 15 countries. For Jolie, the pictures of devastation following Hurricane Katrina were all too familiar.

"We should look at what you've been watching on the news last week. This is what's happening around the world," she said. "This is what's happening to the people that are the most vulnerable, are poor. The people that are thought of maybe too late are the poor. Hopefully, it [Katrina] will make people that much more, you know, question what's going on with our government, what we're taking care of, what we're not taking care of in our own country and around the world."



Note that Angelina Jolie wasn't asking people to donate private funds to help Africa or the Hurricane Katrina victims; she was demanding that the U.S. government do it with tax dollars.

Now, when it comes to the U.N., some of the money actually does come out of Angelina Jolie's pocket, as she donated $3 million to it. However, a significant portion of the U.N. is still paying for these handouts -- personal computers and "free" lunches -- with tax money.

This is from an interview that CNN did with her and Dr. Sachs:

JOLIE: Like most people, I was just shocked.

BRYANT (voice-over): Angelina Jolie, like so many others, could not believe what she was seeing as New Orleans seemed like a scene from a third world country after the devastation of Katrina. And as a U.N. ambassador since 2001, Angelina Jolie has seen those third world countries firsthand.

JOLIE: I have friends there. A close friend of mine, her best friend is there. It's very personal for a time.

But really, it's just -- you look at that and you think -- I`ve seen refugees -- refugee camps around the world, and I know what this looks like.

On a global scale, this is what's happening and this is what we`re talking about. That -- that when you see the people that really were hit the worst, that were kind of in many ways abandoned, and they were the poorest of the poor. They didn`t have -- they weren`t thought of ahead of time. You know, this is what happens. And when things explode, these are the people that are the most vulnerable.

BRYANT: The most vulnerable and poorest people in the world of what Jolie and U.N. special advisor Dr. Jeffrey Sachs got to see when they traveled to Western Kenya in Africa. An emotional yet inspirational journey captured on tape for an MTV documentary called "The Diary of Angelina Jolie and Dr. Jeffrey Sachs in Africa."

Back from Africa, Jolie was frustrated by the initial lack of response to Katrina, as so many others were.

JOLIE: I sent a letter to my representative, the president, and asked people to do the same to push for a better federal response. We have to also demand that our government does what it should do so we can get our aid to the people and we can really help. And we can really -- but they`ve got to do their job and do it properly, so that money really gets to the people.

BRYANT: And just like Jolie, Dr. Sachs, arguably the world's leading expert on poverty, was appalled at what he saw.

DR. JEFFREY SACHS, U.N. ADVISOR: Now after this devastation in Katrina, we're going to be spending $100 billion, $200 billion, because we didn't take some precautions. You know, they say in Washington well, they never thought that the levees might break. Come on.

JOLIE: They knew. They very clearly knew.

SACHS: So it's a matter of looking ahead a little bit, because if you want to do something right and do it less expensively, don't wait for the terrorism. Don't wait for the collapse of these countries. Don't wait for mass refugee movements. Think a little bit.

BRYANT: Both Dr. Sachs and Angelina Jolie are in New York this week just as leaders from all over the world gather for the 60th United Nations General Assembly and a special summit on poverty.

(on camera) If you have the floor what would you want to say to all the countries?

JOLIE: Oh, my God. I'd like to go back to what the United Nations was supposed to be, why I love it, why I still believe in it, why I think it`s an extraordinary thing, and what we need more than ever today is really unity and real teamwork.

I traveled to Africa with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the world's leading expert on expert poverty. We went to Africa to see how Jeff`s vision and leadership have produced some incredibly hopeful results.

The new crops have allowed all the farmers to donate a little bit of food to the school.

BRYANT (voice-over): On their journey, the two witnessed how the challenges of hunger and disease in Africa are being overcome. They visit Sorry (ph), a cluster of villages in Western Kenya.

SACHS: This is an opportunity, traveling with Angelina, to see how our generation could really be the ones to conquer extreme poverty.


By now, I hope we've established that Angeilna Jolie's call for the U.S. military to act like the world's policeman is not sufficient to making her Ragnar Danneskjold's friend. Her perpetuation of the global welfare state makes her his enemy.

In this video, John Stossel says what Angelina Jolie needs to hear. Sad Sachs is not amused.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 11:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I second Ted's assessment. A stylish 20 or 30 hour-long episode series would really do well if done right.

And with a devoted fan base, the series could be huge from the start. You might say it would have a cult following.

BWAHAHAH! I am so funny!

Tyson


Post 18

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 11:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been itching to consider at least doing a couple test CGI scenes of AS on my own, because I think the biggest issue I'll have with a live action AS is that the style of the clothes, buildings, and even the trains will not be proper. It's sorta like the issue I had with Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth. He had the proper scale, just the improper style in some of the settings (mainly the dwarves, save for Moria). So, if they do AS as live action, for the love of decent style do not make it modern nor victorian looking!

-- Brede

Post 19

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Okay, while we're at it, I'd love to see a good animated treatment of the Simarilion as well. The possibilities with animation are much greater than with CGI even now, if one compares the costs. A visual style such as one finds in the movie Akira, but set to pastoral and daylight scenes would do Tolkien much greater justice than did the dull dichromatic live-action LotR.

But Atlas should be done as was the recent TV serial Heroes, with its live ensemble cast, complex plot turns, and character development. Remember how much you absolutely hated the cheerleader's dad at the beginning, and came to love him toward the end? Atlas lends itself naturally to such a treatment. And Atlas might actually do well with hypersaturated color which is more easy to accomplish since CGI would not be necessary for Atlas. I'd have Pedro Almodovar direct.

Right is a still from the unexcelled visual experience, the animated movie Akira.

Ted

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.