Posted on 07/26/2010 7:06:51 AM PDT by Ed Hudgins
I spoke with Dagny Taggart the other night. “It’s a huge honor to be part of this film,” said Taylor Schilling, who plays the heroine in John Aglialoro’s independent production of Atlas Shrugged. Tuesday evening, July 20, marked the completion of filming. We caught up with Aglialoro and his team in a weary but ebullient mood as shooting wrapped after an intense five-week schedule.
The movie covers Part I of Ayn Rand’s novel, with two more films in the planning stage to tell the rest of the story. With six months of editing still to go on “Atlas Shrugged, Part I,” Aglialoro expects it to be ready for release by next March—unless it is accepted for Cannes or other major festivals, which would probably mean a June release.
In entrepreneurial courage and talent, the film project to date is fully the equal of the story it tells, Dagny’s heroic struggle to build the John Galt rail line.
Having optioned the film rights to Atlas in 1992, Aglialoro (pictured above with producers Harmon Kaslow and John director Paul Johansson) has worked with a number of studios and independent producers, with one project after another coming to grief. In the ten years I have been advising him about scripts, I have read at least six distinct scripts for everything from TV miniseries to feature films. Hopes ran high for a deal with Lionsgate Films and Baldwin Entertainment for a single feature-length film, with a good script by Randall Wallace and Angelina Jolie as the lead. After that effort fizzled, Lionsgate undertook a lower-budget miniseries last fall. But the script…
[For the rest of the story plus a video interview with Aglialoro, visit The Atlas Society website!]
(Excerpt) Read more at atlassociety.org ...
It is common knowledge that he effected his own dispatch with a shotgun. I suppose one should at least try to document upper cranial disturbance resulting from this action before claiming that he did "blow the top of [his] head off"; however, the known result renders such morbid investigation moot, and to deny that Papa sought anything less (say, to reduce a stoppage in his sinuses) would be to impugn his intelligence beyond credulity.
Great news
Also fascinating is how many folks who profess to be Christian think they can sort the wheat from the chaff and embrace her works.
A lot of “conservatives” who want the capitalist cake without the abortion, eugenics and hardcore atheism of the underlying Darwinist philosophy.
I guess in a sense, I'm one of those, because I think Rand gets some things very right. The analogy I like is one CS Lewis made (Mere Christianity, IIRC) when discussing religions outside the Christian tradition. He likens them to an archaelogical excavation of a village which is only partially complete. Some of the reality has been exposed and can be evaluated accurately, however, presuming to comprehend the village's activities, economy, and lifestyle based on the artifacts found in one home and a bakery would inevitably lead to flawed, distorted conclusions.
Eternal truths are all pervasive, and so most belief systems and philosophies have difficulty avoiding them altogether, and those points where they intersect with them can be quite instructive.
Seems you think we seem to already have an unofficial official religion. I respectfully disagree. Previously your criteria seemed to be majority; now precidence is to be given via foundational ideologies and the respective religious influences?
Can you show me where amid the limited and enumerated functions our founders envisioned for the government is the recognition and observance of religious festivals and holidays?
I submit to you that it is not amid the stated functions of a truly limited government with enumerated powers.
I suggest that there is no compelling reason or a ligitimate government function to recognition of the majority religion.
What function does it serve those already amid the religious majority to have the State echo their religious sentiments? Is their faith so weak that it must be propped up by the secular powers that be? What function does it serve religious minorities to have the secular powers that be echo the majority religious sentiment? Do they need government reminding them that they are not among the faithful?
We are not a people lacking in religious sentiment or observances; and on the whole, those out of City Hall are much more likely to be the sort of ‘praying loud in public’ that should be condemned than those whose origins is not from secular, public and political sources.
When Eddie hears John Galt give The Speech on the radio, he recognizes the voice as belonging to his friend, the Anonymous Rail Worker.
happy to be corrected. They are not mentioned in the history of the pledge just eisenhower.
Perhaps the fact that Jefferson and his Congress attended religious services every Sunday in the chamber of the House of Representatives might be some evidence of this. Also the fact that in the Northwest Ordinance it was decided that a portion of the government owned land would be dedicated to supporting religion. The Ordinance was passed under the Articles of Confederation in 1784, and re-passed by the first congress under the Constitution in 1789.
Jefferson did attend, and services were in the House; but there was no argument advanced that a compelling government function was performed in so doing; it was their private conscience that informed them of this necessity - and the dictates of space in the newly forming city. When there were more houses of worship the House resumed its purely secular function.
|
The people who wrote the first amendment thought so, since they wrote such support into the Northwest Ordinance. I am afraid that I believe that the men who wrote the first amendment understand it better than you do.
Spoiler Alert
If you want to read the text of this reply, highlight it
John Galt shows up very early in the story... He's Eddie Willers' dining companion. I wonder if they're going to show them both together, or if they're going to do Eddie's monologues from JG's point of view...
Mark
Indeed. Let us consult Madison again upon the subject.
the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
Droll. Still, I suppose it is too much to expect that steven notely would use his flowery anger to even skim the book. If he had, he might have known that Dagny was a cook and housemaid while living in Galt’s Gulch.
That is what he said. What he meant by it is how he wrote the Northwest Ordinance.
“Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
Hardly an argument for a legitimate and compelling government interest in recognizing particular religious observances and festivals with appropriate accouterments in a public display on public land as part of the governments limited and enumerated powers.
Madison wrote in support of Congress having the power to bar slavery's expansion as established in the Northwest Ordinance, and encouraged Virginia to give up its conflicting territorial claims, however he did not write it.
He was a leader of the House. Everything that passed was with his approval.
Hardly an argument for a compelling government function in recognition of religious occurrences with festival displays and such, but instead one of encouraging education.
And yes, I said he wrote in support of the act and encouraged Virginia to give up its conflicting territorial claims; but he did not write it - you said he wrote it and suggested that more could be learned from that fact than the direct quotes from him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.