1. Yeah, raging freedom, sounds awful. Somebody's got to tell us all what to do.

I don't really think a movie can do the book justice, but what the heck, I guess I'd see it.

Posted at 6:18PM on Apr 28th 2006 by Morgan

2. My problem with Ayn Rand is much less her message -- an ignorant and self-centered philosophy that a generation of frat boys have misinterpreted -- than her complete inability to write in the English language.

But anywho...

The substance of the Variety story was just comical rumor-mongering. The writer obviously talked to the producers on the project who, trying to stir up interest, mentioned that they heard that Angelina Jolie was a big fan of Rand's book. It's sad that UN Ambassador and serial Third World adopter Angelina Jolie wouldn't see the irony of endorsing a philosophy in which her interventionist humanitarian efforts would be seen as futile. But that's almost secondary to the fact that the story gave no indication that a script was so much as finished, much less that a script had been sent to Jolie, much less that she had expressed an iota of interest in this specific project.

It's stories like this that lead my head to spin with Variety or the Reporter write their periodic articles on how the Internet is a petri dish for false rumors and planted stories.

PATHETIC!

Posted at 7:19PM on Apr 28th 2006 by Dan

3. Rationalizations is the wrong word.

And why should you fear rationality, freedom and a reality based ethics?

Anyway; I’m looking forward to the movie (if they ever really make one). Even if it doesn’t turn out to be very good at least it will draw more attention to the book and the philosophy.

Posted at 9:48PM on Apr 28th 2006 by Me

4. Two comments in favor of Rand's philosophy, and both contain errors. Nice.

First, the test said "capitalist freedom," not just plain "freedom," and there's a difference. Misconstruing others' words to promote your cause is lame.

Second, "rationalization" is exactly the right word, and it does not mean "to be rational." Get a dictionary.

If you're going to support Miss Rand's philosophy, please bring some basic sense and literacy to the conversation.

Posted at 12:51AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Not15Anymore

5. Whoops, and I made an error as well. I meant to write "text," not "test." Apologies.

Posted at 12:54AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Not15Anymore

6. I know exactly what rationalization means. The above post points out that rationality and rationalization differ. Ayn Rand doesn’t rationalize, she is rational. Way to misunderstand the perfectly obvious.

Posted at 1:06AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Me

7. Being to the point in the book of the anniversary party at the Reardans, it's very obvious that Miss Rand had some serious leanings toward the socialist/communist philosophy.

Posted at 4:12AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Rudi

8. Pitt and Jolie come with far too much baggage and publicity to do a decent job in Atlas Shrugged. Who would Pitt be? Hank Reardon? No way. And I can't imagine Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart -- she is totally wrong for the role. The best cast for a movie based on Atlas Shrugged would be unknowns.

I also think it will be difficult for Hollywood to create a true representation of this novel -- i.e., for the director and producers to be faithful to the story and its meaning. The message in Atlas Shrugged is completely opposed to the prevailing politics of the movie industry. I think it unlikely that anyone associated with the film establishment will be able to resist the urge to twist the story, tone it down, and make it politically palatable and PC. Or make it ridiculous. Look what happened to the military philosophy and code of honor in Heinlein's Starship Troopers when the novel was turned into a movie -- the philosophy was turned into a worship of violence for the sake of violence. As much as I'd like to see Atlas Shrugged on the big screen, if it's going to be a PC disaster or a farce, I'd rather it never happen.

Posted at 4:15AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Bridget

9. Responding to Rudi's comments regarding Ayn Rand's "serious leanings towards the socialist/communist philosophy," Rand despised Socialism and Communism. She grew up in the Soviet Union, got out, and spent the rest of her life telling the world how horrible Communism was.

Atlas Shrugged and all of her other books are passionate arguments for capitalism (after all, she did write "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). The Reardon party is intended to demonstrate that if it weren't for capitalist industrialist Hank Reardon, the rest of the people at the party (except for Dagny) -- humanitarians all -- would be lost and starving in a howling wilderness.

Posted at 4:26AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Bridget

10. Dear Me--OK, so I guess when you said that "rationalization" was the wrong word, you meant that the author of that text was wrong to claim that Rand's philosophy incorporated rationalization--that it is actually based on rational thought/behavior. Right? Well, OK, that's your opinion...and I guess that, if you're a fan of Rand, it should come as no surprise (although I'd love to hear your definition of "rational thought/behavior").
I guess whatever any of us chooses to believe seems rational to us. Heck, I remember a homeless guy in Chicago who "rationalized" holding up traffic (and engaging in very dangerous behavior) because he was convinced he was flying his own plane down Michigan Avenue. Or how about the guy I dated (very briefly) who believed that it was anyone's right to treat other people with zero respect, honesty, or decency, as long as such actions served to help him? Their thoughts/behavior certainly seemed/seem rational to them. Of course, homeless guy is dead now (somebody on Michigan Avenue forgot to read The Fountainhead), and guy in LA is still alone, broke, with no friends.

Of course, Rand claims that one must have "absolute moral integrity" before going about condemning/using others, but in my experience, Rand fans conveniently forget that part--or maybe they just rationalize/"have rational thoughts" that they do, in fact, possess that quality. Just like Rand thought, apparently.

Posted at 6:18AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Not15Anymore

11. Dan's point about this book being incompatable with Jolie's humanitarianism is well taken.
As my friend Gary says, "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ayn Rand." Life is too short to read Atlas Shrugged. Being a Russian, Rand worked in the tradition of the Russian novel that's supposed to last you all winter long. Not being Tolstoy, she created a brick-like bolus of words that impresses the mass audience just because it is so unbearably long.
Who is the King Vidor of today that could turn this tome into a watchable movie? Wait--didn't Michael Cimino say that it was his life's dream to turn this into a movie?

Posted at 8:31AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Richard von Busack

12. I'd just like to recognize Richard for being the first person to ever use the word "bolus" on Cinematical. Well done, Sir!

Posted at 9:00AM on Apr 29th 2006 by Martha Fischer

13. Rationality is adherence to reason. Reason is the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by fallowing the principles of logic. Which are as absolute as the principles mathematics (which happen to rests on logic). There’s no subjective “opinion” about what it means to adhere to the principles of logic.

Though there are a few “Objectivists” that don’t actually understand or apply Objectivism; you can’t judge a very large group of people by what a few nuts pretending to be part of it do.

Posted at 2:05PM on Apr 29th 2006 by Me

14. Branelina does Taggart Trans?? What a horrible idea. You're kidding right? There IS such a thing as bad publicity. Though I guess not for the photo-op-duo, for them it's all good.
Yeah no script yet, it does sound like studio trumpeting -- though I can't imagine anyone who want's to see this done would want it casted this way. Sorry Ang a lot of people can play "tough while resisting torture admirably" scenes, there's more to it. Now back to your knife collection. . .off you go!

Posted at 7:17PM on Apr 29th 2006 by Kit

15. Not15Anymore

'First, the text said "capitalist freedom," not just plain "freedom," and there's a difference.'

Freedom is freedom. My freedom to exchange something voluntarily with someone else when it affects no one else is about as basic as freedom gets. As soon as someone or a group of someones decides they know better than you do what you can and can't do with your own self, your own work, or your own goods, you are simply not free.

That is why I left it out, I did not misconstrue anything. I am all for rampant freedom to interact and exchange my time and my efforts voluntarily with other free people.

Beside the point is that there is no such thing as "rampant socialist freedom." Capitalism is the only form of economic freedom there is. And there's no reason to have "rampant" attached to it to imply some kind of anarchy.

Posted at 5:52AM on Apr 30th 2006 by Morgan

16. "Two comments in favor of Rand's philosophy, and both contain errors. Nice.

First, the test said "capitalist freedom," not just plain "freedom," and there's a difference. Misconstruing others' words to promote your cause is lame...

If you're going to support Miss Rand's philosophy, please bring some basic sense and literacy to the conversation."

Good Lord, you are pretentious as all get out. You sound like that type of person that reads Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman and actually believe your smarter for having done so.

Capitalistic freedom as opposed to freedom? Really, what's the real difference there? Talk about nitpicking. Somehow the fact that it talks about capitalistic freedom rather than the type of freedom you'd prefer talking about makes it a less valid form of freedom? Get over yourself.

http://johnnytriangles.blogspot.com

Posted at 11:40AM on Apr 30th 2006 by T.

17. The fact that anyone would discount the importance of this book, because it is "too long" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Talk about ignorance for the sake of it.

Also, Pitt and Jolie would be completely wrong for the roles, rumours though they may be.

Posted at 2:49PM on May 5th 2006 by s

18. I wanna see this movie made! I personally like the novel The Fountainhead better than Atlas Shrugged.

But if they could get Martin Scorsese to direct? No one is going to tell me a master like Scorsese is going to water down a classic novel like Atlas Shrugged!

Or maybe Peter Jackson? We all know this guy make an epic 3 or 4 hour film!

Or how about Clint Eastwood? Or Mel Gibson? They are both talented directors who would be perfect for this film!

Or even James Cameron?

Posted at 1:16AM on May 6th 2006 by JR

19. You will notice that those critical of Ayn Rand's philosophy will never attempt to build a well-reasoned argument that refutes her conclusions logically - because they can't. Rather, they parrot phrases like "megalomaniacal rationalizations and raging capitalist freedom" that they heard from their former-hippie college professors who ended up teaching because "they can't do." Personally, I am waiting for someone to go point by point with Rand or John Locke (Second Treatise of Government) and justify the liberal position without condoning slavery (the act of taking the fruits of someone's labor from them without their consent).

By the way, I can't wait to hear what Angelina has to say about this. Don't expect more than some nonsense about the strong, heroic women in Rand's novels, delivered with that patronizing earnestness that only a Hollywood actor can accomplish.

Posted at 12:02AM on Jul 24th 2006 by Tom Mullen