? That's what the Hollywood insiders are saying. I guess anything with Angelina Jolie is bound to attract some attention from me--on top of the fact that she is going to star in the screen adaptation of one of the Right's most beloved works of fiction.
Personally, I'm not a big fan. Hang around with enough libertarians (like I do) and you realize that there is a kind of cult of Ayn Rand among certain circles. So what I'm about to say is bound to offend.
In my dealings with Obectivists, I always got the feeling that they were the Right's version of Scientologists. You know, like they couldn't let an hour go by without dropping Ayn Rand's name into a conversation, and that every time they walked into a book store they had to buy a copy of Atlas Shrugged. No wonder Allen Greenspan dropped out of their ranks years ago!
And it's not like I hated the books, I just didn't love them either. No epiphemy for me--but maybe that's because I've always had libertarian leanings? Just a good read. No big deal.
But Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart? I'm so there.
And for my Objectivist friends, on a note of redemption, they will be glad that I passed on this news: Angelina Jolie is said to be a big Ayn Rand fan---and anything Angelina is into can't be all that bad, can it?.
Except Brad Pitt. And it turns out, Brad Pitt is into Ayn Rand, too. Go figure.
1
Brad Pitt as a philosophically influenced physicist... sorry don't see it. He should stick to sitting on a couch smoking pot out of an empty honey container or simply not bathing.
Posted by: PMain at April 28, 2006 04:12 PM (Wi32/)
2
Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt to do Ayn Rand
You said "
do Ayn Rand."
Your readers aren't the same as they used to be. They're like all serious and stuff.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at April 28, 2006 07:25 PM (uvZMh)
3
Who wants to bet they spin this story into "Socialism is the solution" instead of "Socialism is the problem", or otherwise get the message completely spun into something the book did not intend?
This was one of my favourite books, unfortunately I do not think this movie will do it justice. Not just because books that are turned into movies tend to lose things in translation but because the message the book was trying to convey seems to be the antithesis to the ideology that is dominant in Hollywood these days.
Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at April 28, 2006 08:24 PM (3smJS)
4
You are clearly an idiot, but maybe you'll have an EPIPHANY and figure that out.
Posted by: RR at April 28, 2006 08:29 PM (vxjLo)
Posted by: Brad at April 28, 2006 10:08 PM (BJYNn)
6
I'd bet a thousand on this: they're going to make a pass at keeping the plot intact, and they're going to rip the guts out of the philosophy. This movie will have as much of Rand's thought in it as the Starship Troopers movie kept of Heinlein's ideas (which I like better than Rand's.)
Posted by: ShannonKW at April 29, 2006 02:14 AM (dT1MB)
7
seni seviyorum abgelina jolie
Posted by: kadir at April 29, 2006 04:59 AM (9xsGY)
8
I really dread the thought of having the biggest leftist in Hollywood produce a remake of the antithesis of leftism. I mean really, after
Munich what can we possibly expect?
As I've said elsewhere, it's absolutely sacreligious (not to mention the hypocrisy) that someone like Pitt and Jolie would rail against "corporate greed" yet, find comfort in Rand's philosophy to justify their own greed and sense of entitlement. This is just a Hollywood fad.
Most people who follow Rand believe that capitalism is good for everyone, not just themselves.
Posted by: Oyster at April 29, 2006 05:34 AM (YudAC)
9
Only time will reveal these two's real "motive". They are so self-involved it's sickening. To take advice and follow the lead of two such insensitive people would be the equivalent of listening to moral advice from Madonna. To viciously break up relationships and then justify it as it was already in trouble just fits right into their huge sense of entitlement, doesn't it? Anything with these two in it will end up in my rubbish bin where it belongs. I wouldn't let that woman anywhere near my kids.
Posted by: Diane Gillan at April 29, 2006 07:17 AM (/yM4k)
10
I predict Hollywood will massacre this book, not from any particular ideological reason but simply because that´s what they do to books of great length about ideas. There isn´t all that much action in it, and there´s a speech that lasts almost 100 pages out of about 1000. Also, the narcissism of the author is extraordinary: all men desire the lead female, and are willing to sacrifice anything (except capitalism) to have her. She goes from Cisco to Hank to Galt as each proves himself to be a better thinker. Everyone good is smart and beautiful. Everyone bad is dumber and ugly (except Robert Stadler).
Hollywood will be able to handle the narcissism, methinks, but have real trouble with the ideas. Any guesses to how long this movie will be?
Rusty--Are you sure Ayn Rand was bad gay? Nothing about it in the biography of hers I read, which was very critical (written by a former follower, who was married to Rand´s adulterous lover, Nathaniel Branden--great read, incidentally, The Passion of Ayn Rand).
Posted by: jd at April 29, 2006 08:57 AM (e2/tI)
11
No idea what they'll do with the philosophy of the book, but Brad Pitt is more than capable of pulling off a brilliant John Galt. If I had the choice, I'd almost rather see him as Howard Roark in a remake of The Fountainhead. He's already pulled off the "genius vandal" role in 12 Monkeys and Fight Club, and done an exceptional job in both. (Christian Bale is another actor I could definitely see knocking that role out of the park.)
If the standard for Brad Pitt to beat is Gary Cooper's role as Howard Roark, that's pretty much a walk. Cooper put in some great performances in his day, but his role as Howard Roark definitely wasn't one of them. Cooper's passionless closing argument at Roark's trial was nothing short of painful to watch.
I'm not the biggest fan of Angelina Jolie, but she could do a good job as Dagny.
I'm much more concerned with the storyline & philosophy than the actors, but the fact that there is a push to do this story tells me someone who understands the philosophy wants this movie to be made. There's definitely room for playing up an anti-corporate angle to the story, but I'm not sure that would necessarily be objectionable. The story of one group of industrialists teaming up with the government to squeeze out their competitors would play well across the political spectrum. Whatever the particular angle, it would seem to be impossible to tell anything even remotely resembling the story without including the message that the people should be very wary of government power in all its forms. If that message makes it through, I'll probably be pretty happy with the movie.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 29, 2006 02:37 PM (Gj4c3)
12
I'd much rather see the Fountainhead made, although didn't the Italian fascists do that one during the war? In any case, Fountainhead would be a much more compelling story, because it has the Nietzschean newspaper publisher, who is that rare thing in Randian fiction--a mixed type. Usually, people are either all good, or all bad, and the only time a good person is bad is when they are confused or misled. (Dagny when she struggles against Galt's plan until she sees the light, or Dagny's sister in law).
I wonder how they'll handle her strange attitude towards violence and sex? Should hit Hollywood's sweet spot.
Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 03:31 PM (uT71O)
13
JD,
I always thought she was bad gay, but maybe I've just seen too many pics of her (shudder).
Posted by: Rusty at April 30, 2006 05:30 PM (JQjhA)
14
Your Comments Here
Big Secret
yes i know
she be pregnancy in the married
and living in
San Francisco
Fell/clay
she tell after three month
is dont be option for abortion
good friend
Posted by: s at May 10, 2006 01:46 AM (XPFxU)
15
Brad Pitt could do a good Ragnar Danneskjöld, but Galt needs to be a no name actor as not to destroy the mystery of the book.
Posted by: Me at May 22, 2006 12:18 AM (lNikn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
