-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Variety reports that after decades of build-up, a movie version of Ayn Rand’s pro-capitalist epic Atlas Shrugged is officially shooting — only with a group of unknown actors and a meager budget:
The long-brewing feature version of author Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has begun shooting in Los Angeles as a $5 million indie produced by John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow.
Cameras began rolling over the weekend on a five-week shoot for “Atlas Shrugged Part One” with Paul Johansson directing from Brian Patrick O’Toole’s script. Aglialoro would have lost the feature rights if the film wasn’t in production by Saturday.
A spokesman for Aglialoro — the CEO of exercise equipment producer Cybex — said there will be at least one more “Atlas Shrugged” shot after the current film’s completed….
Johansson (“One Tree Hill”) portrays Galt. The lead role of railroad executive Dagny Taggart has gone to Taylor Schilling (“Mercy) and the part of Henry Reardon is being played by Grant Bowler (“Ugly Betty”).
Michael Lerner (“A Serious Man”) portrays lobbyist Wesley Mouch and director Nick Cassavetes has signed on for the Richard McNamara role. Other key cast include Matthew Marsdan as James Taggart and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt.
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/14/variety-shooting-begins-on-ayn
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Panoply of Beauties
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Lean Feminism
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Taxpayer| 6.14.10 @ 7:33PM
This is great news! I've always wanted to see AS on film. I hope they're able to do it justice.
Nate| 6.14.10 @ 10:10PM
That shouldn't be difficult.
L. Ross| 6.15.10 @ 10:43AM
Don't disagree with the premise, but what a dull book.
Martin| 6.14.10 @ 8:27PM
Tells you a lot about Hollywood's diseased culture that the best selling novel of the 20th century couldn't get a big budget production in over 50 years and now has to be satisfied with this low-rent operation.
I'll still go to see it, though.
I blame Whittaker Chambers. I think he was still on the Soviet payroll when he wrote his notorious 1962 review of it for National Review. By splitting Conservatives and Libertarians that has done untold damage we'd have had solid Reaganite Presidents for the last 30 years but for him.
Ellid| 6.15.10 @ 1:35PM
The bestselling novel of the 20th century was already filmed, and filmed very well. Or were you one of the people who somehow avoided seeing the Lord of the Rings?
Buck Fugly| 6.28.10 @ 2:33PM
I've heard this one before. I still don't get the joke. On one hand you have a political novel where government intimidation and incompetence causes the collapse of entire nations (golly, that's never happened over and over again!). On the other hand, you have a fantasy novel where two gay midgets fight mud-goblins to get their promise rings back.
William R| 6.14.10 @ 9:22PM
Angelina Jolie had expressed interest in the film a couple years ago. Also her husband Brad Pitt. Would have given in instant credibility but I suspect their asking price was too much.
Nate| 6.14.10 @ 10:00PM
Rand was a mediocre novelist and a strange, shallow thinker. Her "rationalism" is adolescent philosophically. I was entranced by her novels as a boy -- in my teens -- sort of when most bookish kids get into her, but I grew weary of them and their preaching author. The really great novels I read during those years -- The Magic Mountain, Moby Dick, Great Expectations, Huck Finn, and many others -- stayed with me long after I'd all but forgotten Rand.
ds80| 6.15.10 @ 10:06AM
Whatever, Balph.
Huck Finn| 6.15.10 @ 11:39AM
Idiot.
Nate| 6.15.10 @ 11:59AM
You must be a follower of Rand, Huck. Clearly you've learned all she had to teach.
Ellid| 6.15.10 @ 1:37PM
Sorry, but I'm with Nate on this one. Rand is a lousy writer no matter what one thinks of her politics.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.15.10 @ 12:19AM
Um, "The Fountainhead" is periodically shown on the Turner Movie Classic channel - no thanks to Turners' ex Hanoi Jane!
Catch it - because it does address the subject of
intellectual property and non-subservience to the
parasite elements in society who ironically wish
to 'capitalize' on the productive 'works' of others.
BTW - I am not related to Yo semite Sam.
Ellid| 6.15.10 @ 1:38PM
Hate to tell you this, but Jane Fonda and Ted Turner got divorced quite some time ago.
As for me, the best part of the Fountainhead is when Patricia Neal goes after Gary Cooper with a riding crop.
Ryan| 6.15.10 @ 8:21AM
As much as I like some of the idealism that Atlas Shrugged has in it, I have one serious objection with objectivism.
It basically states that I ask nobody to live for me, and I will live for nobody else.
It's about 1/3 right. I should never expect that others should provide for my every need and want and whim.
However, as a Christian, I am moved by the Gospel to be charitable and kind and to aid those in true need. I WILL live for others. I will live for my God, my wife and son, my family, my nation, and my world.
I simply don't want the where and how to be determined by the government.
kristalou| 6.18.10 @ 10:31AM
Actually, Ryan you are not necessarily at odds with the Objectivist ethics entirely. "Sacrificing" for your family and people you care about is perfectly acceptable as it is not considered sacrificing - because they are a value to you. Altruism is another story.
Here is something in Ayn Rand's words about Altruism:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
Buck Fugly| 6.28.10 @ 2:38PM
I love that quote. I have a link to it in my browser.
Ryan| 6.15.10 @ 8:24AM
An addendum - as a Christian, I do expect one thing from my brothers and sisters in Christ - when I am in great need, when I am at my lowest, I will seek to get out of it; however, I may not be able to do it on my own. I must have a community of believers to turn to, because the design of the Church is not to leave each other on the side when we need to be lifted up.
Buck Fugly| 6.28.10 @ 2:43PM
No one "must" do anything charitable on your behalf. Instead of preaching what the individuals must do on your behalf, you should just be glad and thankful for whatever kindness your (by your description) servants-in-christ offer you.
Buck Fugly| 6.28.10 @ 2:45PM
Whoops. I already said "on your behalf" after all. I changed the second sentence to try to mix things up, but did the opposite. Prose 101: Don't be redundant.
mike| 6.15.10 @ 10:06AM
This is great, had no idea this was even supposed to happen! Is it Ready yet?:)