Atlas Shrugged Filming Wraps Up

The Atlas Society - The Center for Objectivism ^ | July 26, 2010 | David Kelley

[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!]

[Larry Lucido]

“Who is Annakin Skywalker?”

[Larry Lucido]

Hugh Akston could put together a mean sandwich.

[higgmeister]

At only a half a second of the teaser, I can tell this will be unwatchable. They tried to modernize and update it to our times which is a HUGH mistake (and I don't mean Akston).

The beauty of the story is the foretelling of trends and events that, in our modern times have come to pass. If it is portrayed in our current political climate, there is no life, no chilling revelation. The whole story is a juxtaposition of forces that will have no impact in the flat political climate of today.

[NucSubs]

Uh...she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 74 but it is not what killed her directly anyway). She died of heart failure in 1982 at the age of 78. Not terrible old, but not very young either for someone born in 1905.

[higgmeister]

I personally believe it comes from her childhood where the Church in Russia was a willing co-conspirator along with the Romanovs in the oppression of the people.

What? She was raised Jewish.

[Ed Hudgins]

So put up $50 million of your own money and we’ll make it a period piece!

[higgmeister]

Eddie Willers bump

[krb]

Then my Kids read the

Why did you capitalize "Kids?"

[Hoodat]

Rand was brutally hard on her secondary characters.

Not as a rule. Owen Kellogg, Quentin Daniels, and Hugh Akston come to mind.

[wku man]

It was a good series, even though it left a lot of unanswered questions. That's the problem with gambling on a cliffhanger for a season finale.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[higgmeister]

I take it that you do not agree.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"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 like how you never answer my questions, merely ask more questions. Most religious festivals we observe today were not even around at the time of our founding. Christmas was not as important back then and things like manger scenes and Christmas trees came from Europe long after the founders were dead in the 19th century. What we know as Santa Claus was made by Coca Cola or some company around the turn of the 20th century. However, the founders had no problem with public displays of religion. What they had a problem with was a particular church being forced on the people such as the Church of England's relationship with the British government or the Russian Orthodox's relationship with Tsarist Russia. Now I've answered your question (numerous times BTW), why not try going back to my previous posts and answer my queries.

"I suggest that there is no compelling reason or a ligitimate government function to recognition of the majority religion."

Where in my writings did I say this? Don't put words into my mouth. What I said was that no matter what you or anyone says, we are a nation founded on Christian principles. You can't deny history. I also said that a local community (i.e. not the federal government which you don't seem to understand or just ignore because it does not fit your world view) should be allowed to make it's own decision on whether it wants to have a manger scene or Christmas tree displayed at it's local municipal building. It's called federalism. Read about it in the Federalist papers you talked about earlier.

Again, lets remember how the first amendment starts off, "Congress shall make no laws". The first amendment as written by our founders was meant to restrict the Congress from passing laws, not my local municipality. I'm not even advocating that my local municipality pass a religous law but these were done way back when. For instance we used to have what are called "blue laws" in Pennsylvania. These were a set of restrictions based on religous principles such as no playing of sports games on the Sabbath (in this case Sunday). They were completely constitutional and stood up in court. They were slowly repealed in the 20th century. Because the people of this state no longer wanted these restrictions.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"What? She was raised Jewish."

I'm not talking about her religion but the society in which she grew up. An absolute monarchy that was a church state intertwined with the Russian Orthodox Church. They were like pre-enlightenment western Europe in the 20th century. Even as a Jew, growing up in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, you were influenced by the ruling grip of the Russian Orthodox church.

[Billthedrill]

You are entirely correct. That strip is sometimes cute but this one showed rather embarrassingly that the artist never read the book he was mocking. In Galt’s Gulch, Galt himself is a handyman, Dwight Sanders of Sanders Aircraft is a pig farmer, and Judge Narragansett raises chickens and dairy cows. One young lady - I’ve forgotten, it’s either the actress who married Ragnar or the nameless beauty who loves Galt - is a fishwife. Ellis Wyatt went back to his roots as an oil worker and Francisco as a miner. And Akston, as somebody has already reminded us, could sling a mean burger.

[allmendream]

The rights protected within the Constitution are meaningless if the States can arbitrarily restrict them. No state can pass a law restricting your freedom of speech or worship; so your distinction between the Federal government and the State government and your idea that the State is not obligated to recognize our God given rights is in error.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"No state can pass a law restricting your freedom of speech or worship"

Again, you put words into my mouth that I never said. Where do I say that the state can pass laws restricting freedom of speech or worship? Please show me. Where you are in error is your definition of the first amendment in regards to freedom of worship. The first amendment protects your rights (in regards to worship) in two ways:

1. Congress will not establish a religion
2. You have a right to worship freely (this is the individual right)

How is putting a manger or christmas tree in front of a communities municipal building violating either of these things? You can't answer that because it doesn't violate it.

You probably did not even know that the states of Conneticut and Massachusettes had state mandated religions even after the constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson as governor of Virginia abolished the church of virginia while governor. I agree with his views, I don't want to live in a state that has a state mandated religion. However, he did not find it unconstitutional because that prohibition was on Congress. It's called federalism. When he spoke about the wall of separation between Church and State he was speaking of his own opinions and the position of the Federal government. While he personally felt that the Baptists in Conneticut had religious rights and not just priviledges he would in no way interfere with what the people of Conneticut had determined was best for them. As long as the state of Conneticut did not violate their right to freely worship, their rights were not violated. He was President at the time and did not act to strike down Conneticut's state mandated religion. The same principle applies here.

[allmendream]

“I also said that a local community (i.e. not the federal government which you don't seem to understand or just ignore because it does not fit your world view) should be allowed to make it's own decision on whether it wants to have a manger scene or Christmas tree displayed at it's local municipal building. It's called federalism.”

Your argument seems to make a distinction that doesn't exist between actions of the federal government and the state government that would tend to restrict our God given rights.

If it is an Unconstitutional respecting of the establishment of religion for the Federal government to recognize particular religions and not others, it is equally Unconstitutional for the State governments to do the same.

You can (and seem to be) arguing that putting up a manger is not respecting the establishment of religion. I agree, but respectfully submit that it is not a legitimate function of government under its limited and enumerated powers (and thus should not be done).

But to argue that the State is not equally obligated to recognize those rights as the Federal government is in error.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"If it is an Unconstitutional respecting of the establishment of religion for the Federal government to recognize particular religions and not others, it is equally Unconstitutional for the State governments to do the same."

Again, I refer you to the numerous examples that I have given of our founders in writings and action that say it is Constitutional for a state to establish religion but not the federal government. Those are not my sentiments, but our founders. I would not choose to live in a state that had a state mandated religion. Eventually, the people of the states that did have a state mandated religion (Conneticut and Mass) caved in and repealed this. But the force of the federal government did not cause this, it was their own people coming to that conclusion that caused this.

The individual liberty outlined in the Constitution in regards to worship is the freedom of each individual to worship as they choose, not the establishment part. Now, the court in the last 20 years has said the establishment of religion part applies to all states, but that goes against what our founders said. Personally, I agree with the founders over David Souter. The same guy who voted for New Loundon over Suzette Kelo...

"You can (and seem to be) arguing that putting up a manger is not respecting the establishment of religion. I agree, but respectfully submit that it is not a legitimate function of government under its limited and enumerated powers"

We agree on one thing, lets look at the second part of this. It is your opinion whether a local government should do this, however that community should be left to decide what is or is not a legitimate role for their local government to be a part of. I disagree with a lot of laws and ordinances in places like Berkley California (such as their "Green" ordinances and living wage ordinances), however it does not violate anyone's individual liberties so who am I to tell Berkley what they should do? It should be up to the residences of Berkley. If they restrict peoples personal God given right of self defense with ridiculous firearms laws (as they do in Berkley and the rest of Cali) then it is my business. See the difference here?

[longtermmemmory]

someone from the knights of columbus should go over to wikipedia, as should all the other groups involved, to edit the exclusion.

[longtermmemmory]

“The rights protected within the Constitution are meaningless if the States can arbitrarily restrict them. No state can pass a law restricting your freedom of speech or worship; so your distinction between the Federal government and the State government and your idea that the State is not obligated to recognize our God given rights is in error.
“

________________ ___

States and Municipalities can and do pass laws they KNOW contravene the constitution. They do it with impunity because they just live by the “legal until a judge says otherwise” rule. Top it off with, municipal lawyers that are borderline incompetent and you end up with bad law infestation.