Crusader Entertainment has acquired the rights to Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged” and has hired writer James V. Hart to adapt. Rated in a recent Library of Congress survey as the “second most influential book for Americans today” after the Bible, “Atlas” follows one woman’s quest to solve the enigmatic question of “Who is John Galt?” – the man who said he would stop the motor of the world and did. The story is set in a near-future United States whose economy is collapsing because of the inexplicable disappearance of the country’s leading innovators and industrialists and the growth of arbitrary power on the part of its politicians."
So Dopers, what do you think?
Good idea to make it into a film?
Who should be the lead?
Who should direct?
I know the sentiments runs about 20 to 1 against Rand on this board, but I liked all her books. If someone can make a decent movie, I say great. It’s probably better suited for a TV mini-series though. Unless Peter Jackson does it in 3 movies each 3 hrs long…
John Galt: Keifer Sutherland (coming off 24)
Francisco: Antonio Banderas or Andy Gacia
Dagny: Jodie Foster
I’m sure plenty on this board would see the casting to be better off as: Vin Diesel, Cheech Marin, and Anna Nichol Smith.
Let’s see how long before this thread is beset by a swarm of big-government toadies, totalitarian brutes, and I-know-what’s-best-for-you meddlers…by which I mean the people on this board who harbor their vitriolic hatred for Ayn Rand
They’d never let a quality version of Atlas Shrugged be made that kept true to the ideas of the novel, because the Hollywood left is filled to the brim with the sort of people who leech off the productive and talented, and with people who think if just the government ruled every facet of our lives (except for censoring Hollywood movies, of course) then the world would be a better place. For the same reason every sympathetic President in the movies is a Democrat and every evil President in the movies is a Republican, the smelly hippies-turned-yuppies sitting around in California will never put a version of Atlas Shrugged to the reel without dredging it of it’s message.
IIRC, Liberty magazine did a story about this last year, and suggested that they turn it into sort of a romance mystery, and just plug in enough of the basic premise to get people thinking about libertarian ideas.
I loved the book (hell, I’ve greatly enjoyed all of Rand’s books), but I think the movie shalt suck mightily. Either that, or it will resemble the book only in passing.
It’s just too mammoth a story to do in 3 hours or less. John Mace has the right idea with the mini-series approach, but most TV mini-series fail to capture the epic feel that a story like Atlas Shrugged needs. It needs to feel big and important. Look at The Stand - should’ve been epic, but it felt tiny and neutered.
If they cut out most of the fall of society, and cast that as the secondary backstory to the love triangle between Dagny, Galt, and Rearden, they could make a good movie. It wouldn’t be Atlas Shrugged, it would have no message of importance, and it would be painful for me to watch, but it could be a good movie.
Of course, I’d love to be proved wrong. And when (if) it comes out, I’ll watch it. And afterwards, I’ll likely be sorry I did. Kinda like how I felt after watching Les Miserables.
I think Fountainhead would make a much better movie.
Jeff
Did you see the movie The Fountainhead? It was pretty bad. Also, there was a film version of We the Living done, IIRC, in Italy during or just prior to WWII as an anti-communist film. I saw it awhile back and can’t remember much about it.
I really think Peter Jackson (with LoTR) set a new standard for doing justice to a book. Let’s hope Atlas gets a similar treatment. No talking trees, mind you, but just keep the spirit of the book.
Hey, I didn’t even know there was a movie version of The Fountainhead. Shame that it sucks, because it strikes me as a movie that could be done well, given the right people. Contrast with Atlas, which I don’t think could be done, short of a LOTR-style episodal treatment. We The Living I’ve yet to read, though it’s on my to-do list.
And I definitely agree with you about Peter Jackson. There’s a new yardstick in town, and it’s name is LOTR.
Check this out for the movie. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal (big, big stars). Supposedly all the female stars of the time were fighting over who would play Dominique.
Read We the Living. It’s very good and you’ll even learn a bit of history as well.
Nah, Dagny’s a brunette. So I’d vote for Famke Janssen.
And does it have to be that long? I’d say you can do a lot with flashbacks and cutting back on the redundancy in philosophy. That, finding its simmit in Galts lengthy speech, made the book a horrible read for me.
The DVD might solve the Galt speech problem. You could do the whole movie with an edited 5 minute speech, then include 10 additional DVDs for those who wanted to hear the whole thing.
It takes about as long to read Galt’s speech as it did for Galt himself to read it aloud in the book, which is to say approximately 3 hours. So that’s only one extra DVD, and it still wouldn’t be as long as Magnolia. It wouldn’t be as good as Magnolia, in fact it would be just like having some actor read the book to you, but if you like that knock yourself out. Maybe if John Galt was played by James Earl Jones, or at least James Earl Jones’ voice.
