RoR: Forum

::plugging my ears::

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!

Post 1

Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 6:44pm

Pardon me for not citing chapter and verse, but we all know the scene moving toward the climax of The Fountainhead, where the good guys are discussing Howard Roark's new popularity. Only a small minority of newspaper readers really understands the issues... but other people hear them and take some position... and others pick up and carry the popular gossip not knowing anything about the issues but feeling that they must say something... And so it goes...

In some ways, a bad movie could be good for the movement. If masses of Rand fans denounce the film. the ensuing fury will only create more publicity than a good film might.

As for that good film....

In 1972, Albert Ruddy got very close to producing a version of Atlas Shrugged, but Rand refused to grant him creative control, inspiring him to reply that he would wait for her to "drop dead," and would then make the film on his own terms.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9JiMBo

With YouTube and other media, with "video toaster" technology being 20 years old already, look at the kids making vignettes of Atlas Shrugged for high school cinema classes. No ARI lawyers will be able to stop three truly good to great productions from being created with virtual actors based on famous people of the past... truly, Albert Einstein as Dr. Robert Stadler... Marilyn Monroe, Dustin Hoffmann, Harrison Ford, even Angelina ... Can't sue a virus...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/18, 6:45pm)

Post 2

Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 7:07pm

Even Yaron Brook said pretty much the same thing recently on a cable news channel. He said he just hopes the movie is good enough that more people will read the book. I was surprised by his cautious optimism and generosity.

Actually, the article makes an error saying they're packing the book in a two hour film. That's not the plan. Filming should be wrapping up very soon.

I hope they take a lot of time with the editing, and make some unexpected magic.

Post 3

Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 7:20pm

There are "great" and even "good" actors and actresses in cinema, but not many. Mostly, they are cast according to who they are. In the old days that was "type cast" -- Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. Robinson, Betty Davis or Marilyn Monroe. They were always the same person on screen. Now we have Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. Can you see them being anyone other than Brad Pitt or Sean Penn?

So-called "unknowns" often have the skill and the need to be someone other than "themselves" on the set. From what little I know, I look at Judd Hirsh and David Krumholtz in NUMB3RS. They worked together before on stage as father and son, so that worked well for them on television.

I would not write off the film on the basis of whether or not its stars grace the front covers of supermarket tabloids.

Post 4

Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 9:01pm

I don't want to get the thread off track but Michael has slurred Sean Penn's acting ability.

Now we have Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. Can you see them being anyone other than Brad Pitt or Sean Penn?

As much as I abhor Penn's politics he can convince you that he's totally someone else. As a case in point, Sweet and Lowdown, a wonderful, under-appreciated little film�one of my favorites.

Sam

WIJG?

(Edited by Sam Erica on 7/19, 5:15am)

Post 5

Monday, July 19, 2010 - 6:03am

My apologies Sam. You are right. I went to IMDB and I have not seen him in a film in over 20 years. However, I was impressed with the trailers for Milk and All the King's Men. In the few shots presented, it was clear that he absorbed the personality of his role. I was startled at how much he looked like Milk for not actually looking like him at all.

Bad example.

My fault.

Post 6

Monday, July 19, 2010 - 6:56am

Michael:

In some ways, a bad movie could be good for the movement. If masses of Rand fans denounce the film. the ensuing fury will only create more publicity than a good film might.

I see the sense in that, that's a possibility. Maybe even, more credible publicity than a good blockbuster star studded film might.

I think block-buster name stars could be a distraction, though that is the business of commercial movie making. Maybe not with independent films. With credible, talented unknowns, the ideas have more of an opportunity to star.

I have no idea, but there is also the possibility that this is a deliberate hatchet job, ala 'The Passion of Ayn Rand' with Helen Mirren. A clumsy, Soviet era attempt to pour a tomb over history, via the last rewrite. I don't believe this is the case, simply based on the following unscientific observation: the obvious loathing of the commentator in the linked article. He's not happy at all that this thing is being made. The snotty, dismissive tone of his article could have come straight from Toohey.

It could actually be a credible independent low budget film project by folks sympathetic to the ideas, which is what has Mr. commentator on economic and political trends so obviously picqued in that article.

It will be interesting to see what results. It will be laudable that they even succeed. It is either a heroic attempt to bring an epic to the screen, or a heroic attempt to bury an epic.

Although it is an independent film, the commercial timing is flawless, one way or the other. But 5 million? If filming just started, they should be wrapped up in 3 days. Still, its not going to be a CG laden SFX extravaganza in 3D, is it, with car chases and stunts? You know, it could be done for five million, with unknowns, even if it is the abridged version...

That's OK. I've condensed Rand to 4 words, with the most important one used twice: "One skin, one driver." (Galt's oath, for example, and less obviously, Galt's long speech.) But "one skin, one driver" does not sell books. It may not be complete, but it is aligned with the essence. Maybe the movie will be.

regards,
Fred

Post 7

Monday, July 19, 2010 - 7:28am

I am hopeful about the movie. Look what Hurt Locker did with a small budget. It was not a big hit in theaters, but imagine the number of DVD viewings after the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director. Moreover, Hurt Locker was not based on a huge selling book.

Post 8

Monday, July 19, 2010 - 8:17pm

As an interesting aside, one of the actors (Angelina Jolie) who had vied for the part of Dagny Taggart is in a movie called "Salt." The catch-phrase for this movie is "Who is Salt?" which plays dangerously close to Rand's big question in Atlas.

Ed

Post 9

Monday, July 19, 2010 - 10:24pm

Ed, Have you read "The Secret of the League"?

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Bramah/Secret-of-the-League.html

The "Galt" character in this book has the name of "Salt".

Post 10

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 3:42pm

Dean, I'll check it out ...

Thanks,

Ed

Post 11

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 11:00pm

I'd feel better about the chances if they had more than a $5 million dollar budget -- too many corners could get cut -- but the big thing is whether the director and actors feel passionate about capturing Rand's story as written, and have a bit of talent. It's a great story with a built-in audience of millions, so unless it's done by a socialist trying to rewrite it as a how-to manual for statists with the people in Galt's Gulch as the heavies, I'm cautiously optimistic about the prospects.

And, this is apparently only part 1 of 3, so if it does well at the box office, the following two parts will attract more money and talent.

If you look at Clint Eastwood's career as a producer and director, you can make great things on a low budget.

Post 12

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 6:32am

I agree with Jim about the role of passion in creating excellence for low budget movies. Additionally, radical advances in digital cinema have brought that aspect of production costs very low. Account for the fact that computer generated imagery (CGI) can create convincing effects for a fraction of the cost of actual large sets and you have a winning combination from the technical side of things. Finally, talented actors have been known to work for smaller than normal compensations because of their strong belief in the material.

Post 13

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 6:34am

Here is an interview with the director. Hat tip to ND.

Post 14

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 6:47am

Ha! I was right about the technology! Thanks, Merlin!

By the way, who is ND?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/23, 6:47am)

Post 15

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 7:09am

Account for the fact that computer generated imagery (CGI) can create convincing effects for a fraction of the cost of actual large sets and you have a winning combination from the technical side of things.

About 3 weeks ago I visited the Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Annex at Washington Dulles Airport, which has the model mothership for the movie Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. You can guess the size of it here pretty accurately by comparing it to the people.

Luke, ND was short for Ninth Doctor, an alias used on Objectivist Living.

Post 16

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 8:41am

Here is part two of that interview. It has a video of interviewing the director.

Post 17

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 3:13pm

PJ, half way down the first interview:

And she was right. And the laissez faire capitalism she was preaching doesn�t really work either, to be honest with you.

??????

Sam

WIJG?

(Edited by Sam Erica on 7/23, 3:14pm)

Post 18

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 3:51pm

And this, too ...

GM: To return to the themes of the novel. Do you think the characters are beyond good and evil, beyond morality in a Nietzschean sense?

PJ: I really believe that. I really believe that.

GM: That they�re these Promethean, Titanic figures who are above such things?

PJ: I really believe that. Rand uses a lot of things like good and evil in her text but I don�t think she really believed those ideas. It�s like what Oscar Wilde said � I don�t know the exact quote � he said that a book can either be poorly written or well written, but it can�t be evil.

GM: But the novel has that Nietzschean overtone to it.

PJ: Absolutely.

I'm thoroughly spooked now. This guy may be a great artist using the right (creative) side of his brain, but his left (logic) side seems busted. I hope I'm wrong.

Ed

Post 19

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 3:54pm