Film Clips: On Why the 'Atlas Shrugged' Film Should Be Canned
Filed under: Fandom, Scripts, Movie Marketing, Columns, Film Clips
I've been mulling over the whole issue of the Atlas Shrugged film adaptation, which, at the moment at least, seems to be churning ahead to start filming later this year, and I wanted to talk about something several commenters have mentioned: whether it would be better to film Atlas as a miniseries, as opposed to a two-hour-or-longer movie. Of course, attempts have been made to bring Ayn Rand's most famous book to the screen before, and they've never made it past the script stage.
Why? Well, first of all, there are a lot of politics around this book. The Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Peikoff have been notoriously protective of it for years, and trying to make a film that's going to please both the hardcore Objectivists (those who follow Rand's philosophy) and the average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained is, in my opinion, just an exercise in futility. Then I read this interview over on The Atlasphere with John Aglialoro, producer and CEO of Cybex, International, who paid $1 million for the film rights to Atlas.
This interview, which was conducted in February, had some interesting tidbits in it. Is Angelina Jolie, supposedly playing Dagny Taggart, committed to the project, even if her rumored (but yet unconfirmed) pregnancy turned out to be an issue? She is, according to the interview, and has signed a letter of intent. Okay, fine. Aglialoro also confirms that there have been conversations with Russell Crowe to play Hank Rearden, which would be swell ... I can see Crowe in that role. He also talks about when filming will commence (late 2008 or early 2009) and what the budget is ($70 million), and mentions as an aside that they're trying to get credit for Objectivist David Kelley of The Objectivist Center as a co-producer or writer as well.
While most folks just interested in seeing the film probably couldn't care less about whether Kelley gets credit on the film, I have little doubt that would be a huge issue for those Objectivists who align themselves with Peikoff and the Ayn Rand institute. For reasons that would bore the average person to tears, Kelley fell out of favor with the Peikoff side of the Objectivist Court some years ago, and I can't begin to enumerate the various essays, screeds and forum discussions I've read among various Objectivists endlessly debating Kelley's "evilness" (or lack thereof); I can't imagine the Peikoffians would sit silently on the sidelines with Kelley's name in the film's credits.
More importantly, though, is the issue of whether it's even possible to make a reasonably coherent two-and-a-half-hour film adaptation of this 1,200 page tome. That's, what, roughly 150 pages of script with which to condense a massive work of literature? I just don't see how even the most masterful of screenwriters could possibly accomplish this and make a decent film without losing huge chunks of context in the process. I have to also question how much of what Aglialoro had to say in his interview is based in reality; when I sat down with Atlas director Vadim Perelman at AFI Dallas to talk about his current film, The Life Before Her Eyes, the $70 million Atlas budget was news to him.
Perelman is one of my favorite directors, so I say this as an admirer of both his work and of him as a really nice guy: this is not the movie to tie yourself to. Perelman is at his best taking very poetic works and translating them into lovely films heavy in imagery and metaphor. What I admire about him is his willingness to not sell out, to take on interesting projects that others might cast aside, and bring them to life with his unique vision. And while I think he's certainly very capable of doing an apt job of Atlas Shrugged, and that he could draw out the metaphorical elements of the book very nicely, I hate to see a director of his caliber saddle himself with what is, in my opinion, almost certainly a doomed project
So, as a fan of Rand's work (although I have disagreements with many aspects of her philosophy), and having read everything she's written at least three times, this is what I think: The only reasonable way I see to make a film of Atlas Shrugged is to make it as a mini-series. Do it classy, make it a four (or even five or six) part miniseries, market the hell out of it, and then sell the DVDs as a boxed set. Don't try to take this massive book and shred it into 150 minutes of screen time. Stephen King learned his lesson the hard way from having his lengthy novels compressed into two hours of film. It just doesn't work well, sorry. The miniseries adaptations of The Stand and It were far better for being shot that way, than they would have been as movies.
Admittedly, I say all this having not seen the script, which Perelman is currently working on polishing, so perhaps they've somehow found a way to make it work. But honestly? I doubt it. I'd rather see Atlas canned than done poorly, and there are other projects that Perelman could work on that would make better use of his painterly talents as a director. What say you, fans of Atlas Shrugged? Should the film adaptation of Atlas churn ahead, or should they can it and start from scratch with a miniseries in mind?
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Lots of us liked the idea of a trilogy, but in his article "Major Atlas Shrugged Movie Updates" Robert Bidinotto explains why the trilogy cannot and will not happen, strictly for financial reasons.
We just have to get over it. If the feature film is highly successful, then maybe someone will be willing to invest the major cheddar to create a longer version that includes more of Rand's novel. But they've crunched the numbers and it just ain't gonna happen the other way around. Not anytime soon.
Regarding Peikoff and Kelley ... as long as the producers (with Kelley as a philosophical consultant) stay true to Rand's vision of the book -- which they've made clear is their goal -- then even the most die-hard ARI Objectivists would be positively idiotic to oppose the movie.
Even if the movie is 50% perfect, it will do more to advance Ayn Rand's ideas than anything remotely possible in the next decade. Besides, the kinds of stuff they disagreed about isn't exactly a recipe for thrilling cinema.
So let's all just relax, sit back, and enjoy seeing what Perelman comes up with. Of course, no one will -- we'll be playing monday morning quarterbacks, debating every shred of new information, until long after the movie reaches the theaters. But all the hand-wringing is unlikely to make one bit of difference ... other than to create plenty of advance buzz, which is nice. :-)
I, for one, am glad they've put the movie into the hands of someone with a good sense of subtlety. Can't wait to see what they come up with.
By the way, those who are interested can get pretty regular updates on the movie at the Ayn Rand Meta-Blog's Atlas Shrugged Movie Archive.
Posted at 9:16PM on Apr 16th 2008 by Joshua Zader
3. I totally agree that the film might be condensed for the sake of the plot, but the theme and meaning of the novel will surely be lost. The miniseries idea has some hope, with a minimum of three very long (3 hr) parts!
Perelman has admitted that he does not really appreciate Rand, and that instantly wipes out the values, and thought, Rand has put into her novel. If he does not get it, how can he condense it to the appropriate principles? He simply cannot. Perelman may be able to produce lovely films, but if he does not appreciate the multi-layered nature of Atlas, then there is no way the script could possibly convey anything more than the plot.
The result will be that all arguments of the naysayers will appear to be true. Nothing will be gained, and a truly great work will be undermined. One might hope that the movie's plot interest will drive the audience to read the book, but that is a slim hope.
Posted at 9:28PM on Apr 16th 2008 by RnBram
4. The fact that they're having to mine Ayn Rand's material for cinema truly shows that Hollywood is out of ideas. What's next? R.L. Stine on the big screen?
Posted at 9:54PM on Apr 16th 2008 by cyenu
5. Any adaptation would probably drop the more loathsome aspects of Rand's 'philosophy' - which would cause her followers to boycott it. And it's not like the rest of us are going to rush out and see it at all. So yeah, I'd say this one is pretty much doomed.
Posted at 10:54PM on Apr 16th 2008 by Ray
6. I wasn't aware until now that they were making a cinematical (hey, I just now got that!) version of Rand's book. I find it especially humorous after just yesterday seeing the way she and her philosophical proponents were referenced in this article in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/131655 (on the second page).
7. Even has an Objectivist, I think you are right to be skeptical of any writer's ability to condense the concrete aspects of the Atlas Shrugged story into a single-sitting movie, but I also think that is completely unnecessary. I don't even think that they need attempt to incorporate all of those famous monologues.
What the writers of the script need to do is simply take a few of the particulars and recreate the theme of the book, "the role of the mind in man's existence and, consequently, presentation of the morality of rational self-interest," into an entertaining movie, which is entirely doable. (Whether or not they will is another question entirely.)
But if they did do that, then Objectivists on either side of the Peikoff-Kelly split should be satisfied with the effort.
Posted at 11:36AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Flibbert
8. I don't know much about the director, but I'm happy to see that his strong suit is metaphor and imagery.
I also would prefer the book to be made into a mini-series. The way TV is now, it'd be perfect timing. There are plenty of tv shows that have this sort of "epic" long story feel to them and A.S. would fit right in.
I bet the anonymous actor is someone like Leonardo Di Caprio.
Posted at 11:46AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Corey
9. In the spirit of Randy Quaid's Russell Casse in "Independence Day": "I can direct. I can make Atlas Shrugged."
And for $70M, I could do the complete Atlas Shrugged miniseries as the production quality of something like From the Earth To the Moon, Band of Brothers, Firefly, or John Adams.
Of course no one will ever ask me. I love and completely understand the book and Objectivist philosophy. I've not only read Ayn Rand but also Ludwig von Mises. I listened to Nathaniel and Barbara Brandens's lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism and Principles o Efficient Thinking. One of my novels, Alongside Night, has repeatedly been favorably compared to Atlas Shrugged. And most recently I wrote, produced, cast, wrote original songs for, acted a supporting role in,and directed my own first feature film, Lady Magdalene's -- a full-length feature delivered for under $1M on a 19 day shoot. Seventy million for Atlas Shrugged would be a walk in the park after that.
Lionsgate should hire me. I'm actually qualified.
But they won't.
Posted at 10:15PM on Apr 17th 2008 by J. Neil Schulman
10. Philosophers today are phonies (with a few rare exceptions). Ayn Rand is the one who has redeemed the field. The sooner that people realise this, the sooner we'll pull ourselves out of the mess we've gotten into.
Posted at 6:43AM on Apr 21st 2008 by Forb
11. When I read that the film was in the works, I shuddered to think at what would have to be done to it to make it.
Editing out one word violates the very idea of the book.
"No one exists here by faking reality"
If it is to be done, which it seems is the case, it should be a miniseries, but I won't hold my breath.
My picks:
Ragnar - Russell Crowe
Galt - Brad Pitt
Rearden - Guy Pierce
Francisco - Yancey Arias
Posted at 7:56PM on Jun 30th 2008 by Jeff Allen
1. You have to admit that the marketing possibilities for this film are perfectly in place: "Who is John Galt?" scrawled endlessly across cities. In fact, if they keep this "anonymous" actor playing Galt, who Aglialoro mentions, a secret until the film's release, only to spectacularly reveal his identity at the first screening, it would be a truly beautiful moment. That's all assuming the film works within 2.5 hours. I think it could. But the prospect of modernizing this story to the present day? Blasphemy.
Posted at 7:39PM on Apr 16th 2008 by Ben