Atlas Shrugged Movie Update #96874

by Liberty and Power

[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

Apparently popular opposition to the bailout may help to kickstart the perpetually-approaching-but-never-arriving Atlas Shrugged movie, which is now being pitched as an anti-bailout movie. (Conical hat tip to Stephan Kinsella.)

That makes a fair bit of sense; for while both its critics (recently, e.g., Stephen Colbert) and its fans (recently, e.g., the loony Objectivist anti-tipping movement) have often read the book as championing the capitalist class against the proletariat, it actually champions the productive (in both classes) against the parasitic (in both classes); several of the book’s chief villains – most notably James Taggart and Orren Boyle – are wealthy industrialists who are eager lobbyists for special government privileges; and one of Dagny’s chief battles is against regulators who are trying to do her company (well, her brother’s company) a favour by putting its rivals out of business. So it’s really an anti-corporatist novel. (That’s not to say that Atlas isn’t still open to criticism from a left-libertarian perspective; sure it is, in various ways. But that’s another story.) So the present political climate would indeed be a great time for the movie.

Another factor moving the project forward is the need to start production before the rights revert to the Rand estate. That’s a major desideratum, since these days the estate probably wouldn’t approve any film version unless Galt’s Gulch was represented as being ringed by thousands of severed Muslim heads on pikes.

Evidently casting ideas for Dagny are now extending beyond Angelina Jolie, which is probably a good thing too. Jolie’s involvement was a plus to the extent that it made the film likelier to get made, but she never struck me as the right type for the role. Others being considered include Charlize Theron (whose name was once assigned to another never-produced Rand film project, The Husband I Bought), Anne Hathaway, and Julia Roberts – none of whom seem quite right either (though I think I could be persuaded re Roberts; I’ll wait until I see Duplicity to decide).

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Roderick T. Long - 4/2/2009

Rand's science fiction is another piece of fantasy for "outraged" Americans who don't want to face the real world, or deal with it.

Are you saying that a work has to be realistic in order to be relevant to the real world? Why? What about metaphor?

In the book, Galt never produces the promised machine to stop the world. He simply convinces a few people to drop out.

Well, crucial people on whom the dying economy has come to depend. And anyway, it's a metaphor for the fact that state power rests on the acquiescence of the ruled and exploited.

Who does all of the scut work in Galt's little Utopian community?

Well, we see writers working as fishwives and scientists working as janitors, so I think she's answered that question.

How would a movie handle Galt's 125 pp. blather about the virtues of Objectivism?

They would shorten it, just as Rand herself shortened Roark's speech for the film version of The Fountainhead -- and just as lots of books with long philosophical speeches in them (e.g. Dostoyevsky, Swift) get the speeches shortened in the movie versions. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this book but I'm not sure why.

As to railroads, these have since the 1820s been a prime source of Gov't largesse.

As is likewise noted in Atlas Shrugged, where Taggart Transcontinental is said to have been unusual in disdaining government help (until Jim Taggart took it over and made it one more lobby yelping for special favours). And the railroad cartelisation legislation described in Atlas is based on Woodrow Wilson’s actual railroad cartelisation policies.

Roderick T. Long - 4/2/2009

They shouldn't rewrite the railroads. Just film the story as she wrote it; it's a kind of alternate reality anyway (Congress is called the "Legislature," the President is called "Head of the State," etc.).

William Marina - 4/2/2009

Rand's science fiction is another piece of fantasy for "outraged" Americans who don't want to face the real world, or deal with it.

In the book, Galt never produces the promised machine to stop the world. He simply convinces a few people to drop out. How long do you imagine a Galt's Gulch would exist undiscovered by today's media? This is suppose to change the world? Who does all of the scut work in Galt's little Utopian community?

How would a movie handle Galt's 125 pp. blather about the virtues of Objectivism?

As to railroads, these have since the 1820s been a prime source of Gov't largesse. They still are today! As Forest McDonald and others showed many years ago, the railroads were actually in the real estate business, trying to keep prices high on the land they had obtained from the Gov't.

This is discussed at length with respect to one State, in Tebeau & Marina, A History of Florida (3rd ed., 1999). Is it an accident the Duponts ended up with much of these vast lands?

As a study by the James Madison Foundation recently showed, 8% of FL's land is still owned by the State, not even counting the vast Fed lands.

Even in an urban county such as Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) over a 1,000 such pieces of land have been identified. At least FL has some new legislation to bring some of that into the market.

That is not true of most other States, where such lands are of even greater magnitude.

While praising Lincoln, Obama might give some credit for the Homestead Act of 1862 which did offer some land to the little guy!

Maybe H/Bollywood is correct to never having really invested in such a film!

Jane S. Shaw - 4/2/2009

Are you telling me that this film hasn't even been started? How many times have I heard that it is going to be on TV (HBO, I think)? What happened? And yes, if this is a de novo project both the railroads and the airlines should be out of it. But that will take a lot of rewriting.

Roderick T. Long - 4/1/2009

You couldn't set a story in which railroads are so important in the present day.

I agree (and the suggestion some have made to switch it to the airline industry just wouldn't work; it would wreak hell on both the plot and the aesthetic of the novel). I think it needs to be set in a kind of alternate universe of indeterminate era (like the animated Batman series, which made some modern references but mostly maintained a 1940s aesthetic).

Julia Roberts is all wrong for the part

That was my initial reaction, too; but then I began to imagine how it might work. As I said, she'll need to convince me when I see Duplicity. (I'm sure she's really nervous about convincing me...)

when is "We the Living" due out on DVD?

It was rumored to be due out in late 2008. But, not so much. The official website still says nothing.

Aeon J. Skoble - 4/1/2009

This will be craptastic if they don't make it as a period piece. You couldn't set a story in which railroads are so important in the present day. Charlize Theron or Anne Hathaway, maybe; Julia Roberts is all wrong for the part.

In related news, when is "We the Living" due out on DVD?