Absolutely true: Ref: "The Road to Serfdom", dedicated by its author, F.Hayek :"TO THE SOCIALISTS OF ALL PARTIES". The big problem of the Atlantic Civilization is the creeping control over society exercised by extremely well organized occult racketeers projecting themselves to the unwitting crowds as humanistic warmly loving democrats. This has been going on in the main European countries for 200+ years having filled the empty holes left by vanishing royalty and church like oozing water. Lenin, Hitler were some of the more visible actors. Ayn Rand movies fit rather well in this scene. The last bastion against this may have been America. People seem to loose their political instincts & common sense, brought with them by their parents to the US, at an alarming pace. Sounds incredible? Do you think de Toqueville's musings still hold today?
But getting back to the title of the thread, I've heard rumors of bring AS to the silver screen ever since I first read the book in `92. I don't know how much controversy the book caused when it was released, but there'd be probably exponentially more in reaction to an AS movie than when Gibby cranked out Passion. If such a movie was ever made, they sure wouldn't have to advertise it - the whole country would be very aware of when it came out. There'd be people screaming against the film just as if they were characters from the story.
Ayn Ran is not a Philosopher in the way say Spinoza or Hume or Locke were Philosophers - she is closer to a popularizer in the way the Wachowski Brothers (did I spell that right?) the makers of the movie "Matrix" are "Philosophers." While I do find some value in some of what she proposes, very little if any of it is original. This may be excusable as she was not very well read in Philosophy and may have reinvented the wheel unknowably. But my biggest gripe with her isn't her "Philosophy", but her Ethics, probably best summed up when she makes statements like these: "..grant the unearned or undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit" (VS, 26). Men must deal with each other as traders not as looters and parasites. The Christian, on the other hand, is instructed: "bless those who curse you." (Lk. 6:28). In short, Ayn Rand has no place for mercy (she uses the word "Altruism" alot and claims that it does not exist in pure form.) She espouses extreme individualism as if this is some lofty goal in itself. Anyone who lives day to day in this world doesn't need to read Philosophy to know what a crock of shit this is and that most of civilization as we know it would not function if we all acted like Ayn Rand paper maches. Makes for good fiction though... Finally, I have never met an "Objectivist" I liked, even if every word she said was true. I think that if every person on this planet turned into an Ayn Rand groupie, I would jump from the highest building I could find. nitro
Animals in wild are the perfect examples of applied objectivism, as when there is nothing but survival consciousness there is only self interest. For the life of me, I don't know why anyone who is self actualized would ever present themselves as an "objectivist." Maslow would rate the objectivist having a lot of work ahead of them on the "evolutionary" path toward wholeness of consciousness. <img src=http://staff.gc.maricopa.edu/~jpell/blackboard/MASLOW.JPG> The work of Abraham Maslow offers us a model for wholeness and well being that finally can be realized in the emerging world of work. The list of characteristics that follows might fit every employer's profile of the "ideal candidate" or serve as a working goal for a highly motivated individual. 1. They are realistically oriented. 2. They accept themselves, other people and the natural world. 3. They have a great deal of spontaneity. 4. They are problem-centered rather than self-centered. 5. They have an air of detachment and a need for privacy. 6. They are autonomous and independent. 7. Their appreciation of people and events is fresh rather than stereotyped. 8. Most had profound mystical or spiritual experiences (not necessarily religious) 9. They identify with mankind 10. Intimate relationships with a few specially loved people tend to be profound 11. Their values and attitudes are democratic.112. They do not confuse means with ends. 13. Their sense of humor is philosophical rather than hostile. 14. They have a great fund of creativeness. 15. They resist conformity to the culture, and 16. They transcend the environment rather than just coping with it.
That's what they said about Fox News. The most vital asset a film can have is <b>uniqueness</b>. In a country where over 99% of movies are either non-political, or solidly Liberal- This one would get attention. Not to dash anyone's hopes, but Baldwin purchased the rights to A.S. over two years ago. Not much has developed over the past year. ...but just for the hell of it, let's talk about who you think would make the best casting: Dagny Taggart: Jennifer Connelly? Angelina Jolie? John Galt: Russell Crowe? Francisco d'Anconia: John Leguizamo? Hank Rearden: ? Ragnar Danneskjöld: ?
I've got the Ford Explorer with the Firestone tires all fired up to see this. I got the Vioxx ready just in case I get some pain. Uncle Joe says working at Enron is great and that he's loaded up his 401k with the company's stock because Lay says he sees big things in the fuure. How the hell can ya not buy Worldcom with all the analysts praising the internet as "the future." I'll be back with more. I am having the hardest of times trying to find anything wrong with those damn socialist countries like Germany and France and even Japan. Why don't their companies produce shit?
Huh, ok. I say bring Walden to the screen. That's the kind of philosophy we need to remind Americans of: their original Yankee ingenuity and backbone.
Okay, Rearden, here's my spin on the cast: Young, Hip Version (dance soundtrack and car chases / explosions mandatory) Dagny Taggart: Kate Hudson; Scarlett Johansen; Kate Beckinsale; Gwyneth Paltrow John Galt: Ian Somerhalder; Michael Rosenbaum (preferably with the shaved head); Jonathan Rhys Meyers Francisco d'Anconia: Enrique Iglesias (the only young latino I know) Hank Rearden: Christian Bale Ragnar Danneskjöld: Brad Pitt Older, "Oscar" Version (makes less money, wins more awards, doesn't suck) Dagny Taggart: Sigourney Weaver; Elizabeth Hurley; Milla Jovovich; Julianne Moore; Meryl Streep; Madonna (I hear she wanted the part) John Galt: Mel Gibson (born-again christian who has the business sense of a hard-core objectivist); Pierce Brosnan (currently looking for work); Tom Cruise (if he can keep his insanity under wraps); Richard Gere (if he can keep his liberalness under wraps) Francisco d'Anconia: Antonio Banderas (who's a better "worthless playboy" than a worthless playboy?); Benicio del Toro Hank Rearden: Clive Owen; Gary Oldman Ragnar Danneskjöld: Rutger Hauer; Ian McKellan; Daniel Day-Lewis
There is very little to disagree with in your post, and in fact I agree wholeheartedly. The problems with these tiers and explanations like it are that life seldom has so well defined boundaries. Even so, even as a rough guide, this probably makes good sense, and the meaning of what it tries to convey probably gains as the persons own experience reaches new heights. nitro
If I may quote myself from another thread on the topic of Rand and her book. "Atlas Shrugged is one of the most overrated pieces of..."literature" that I have ever read. It is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual diatribe which was a knee-jerk reaction to the growing fascination of a romanticized version of communism in mainstream society at the time it was written. The novel's characters have all the depth of cartoon characters and the writing is tediously repetitive, as though the author had been lecturing to a dim-witted audience. I even read Rand's The Fountainhead, and found more of the same. Here's a thought. Just because the far left is the wrong direction, let us not immediately assume that salvation can only be found in the extreme right. However, in Rand's novels, people only wear either black hats or white hats. Big ones. And all of her sentiments could have been conveyed in a pamphlet rather than a painful 1,074-page book." I would be surprised if the proposed movie would fly if it remained true to the book. Its entertainment value would be equivalent to that of a root canal procedure. No doubt, however, the cigar-chomping ubercapitalists (and those who fancy themselves as such) have a different view.