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!]

[allmendream]

Well I don't think that public land should be used for religious displays, I think the government has far too many actual Constitutional duties they are ignoring to engage in any sort of religious commemoration or celebration.

It is not the proper role or function of government in view of their limited and enumerated powers to commemorate or celebrate religious beliefs, even if it is the majority religious sensibility of the local community.

[longtermmemmory]

I believe it was Eisenhower in 1954 that added the “under God” language in direct response to the communist threat.

No Knights of columbus involvment.

[WhirlwindAttack]

bump

[Misterioso]

You love the book but couldn’t finish it? Give me a break.

[Misterioso]

My mistake. I misread the sentence. Point taken.

[Misterioso]

My mistake, again. Your point is well-taken.

[allmendream]

The Knights of Columbus would sure be surprised to hear that they were not involved.

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/news/legislative/detail/549399.html

From the official “Knights of Columbus” website....

The Knights of Columbus led the campaign to add the words “under God” to the Pledge in the early 1950s, and the trial court agreed to allow the Knights of Columbus to join the present case as defendants when it was originally filed in 2005.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Well I don't think that public land should be used for religious displays, I think the government has far too many actual Constitutional duties they are ignoring to engage in any sort of religious commemoration or celebration."

When we talk about communities and religious displays, we are not talking about the Federal government. We are talking about local townships, borroughs, cities etc.. They have a lot more and different duties than the federal government. Whereas the Federal government should have nothing to do with public education, the local and state communities should. In my state constitution (Pennsylvania), it says that the state legislature is tasked with providing for a public education. That was ratified in 1776 during the time of our founders.

Local governments should be given great leeway in the handling of local problems. Each community should be empowered to make these decisions as long as it does not interfere with our natural God given rights. If the people of that community are in agreement, that should not bother the rest of us. If people don't like it, they can easily move to another community, not sue the community to impose theirs and not the community standards.

[Misterioso]

Russians are traditionally heavy smokers. It’s amazing how so many Christians think they can obliterate Rand’s message by resorting to colossally ignorant ad hominem attacks.

[GOPJ]

That’s my fear too - I’ll let some people see it before I go - don’t want to be pulled into some Hollywood style liberal lecture...

[Misterioso]

Ed just expects you not to lie.

[allmendream]

I agree, but the meat of your argument is here....”Each community should be empowered to make these decisions as long as it does not interfere with our natural God given rights”.

The States and local communities are obligated, just as much as the Federal Government, to recognize those rights given to us by our Creator. Freedom of conscience is foremost among those rights.

Among the limited and enumerated powers given to the government I do not see the commemoration or celebration of religion to be among the proper role and power of the government. But I believe in a limited government of enumerated powers that recognizes the freedom of conscience of its citizens, not in a government whose obligation is to recognize the majority religious sensibilities of the local population.

[DrC]

“Ayn was an alcoholic.”

Huh?
“She didn’t drink; she didn’t like the effects of alcohol. But she didn’t frown on others drinking socially. Whenever there was a New Year’s celebration at her home, Frank put out bottles of liquor—whisky, vodka, etc.—for those who wanted it. And there was always champagne at midnight. She took a sip for the occasion, that’s all.”
http://facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap7.html

Are you sure you’re not thinking of her husband Frank O’Connor?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The States and local communities are obligated, just as much as the Federal Government, to recognize those rights given to us by our Creator. Freedom of conscience is foremost among those rights."

I don't know of any God given rights that are interfered with by having a display of the manger scene on the grounds of the local municipal building (as an example). If you can provide the rights that are interfered with, I'd love to hear it. I cannot find "Freedom of Conscience" in my U.S. Constitution. Many times these manger scenes were donated a long time ago by some religious group. I'm sure that if there was a problem with local government workers putting it up, you could get many volunteers to do it. If the community standards are such that they approve of this, why should the rest of us complain? Even if the community standards were that they were willing (as a community) to pay their tax dollars to maintain this display, why should the rest of us care?

This is why the federal government should be limited in scope because we are all paying for it. Quite frankly, I really don't care that Massachuesettes (sp?) has socialized health care. If that's what their state wants, I'm okay with it. If it is a failure (as I think it will be), people will leave the state and it will collapse upon itself. This is the essence of federalism.

I'll give you another example from our founders. Many states, had active militias. Some states, like Pennsylvania did not. Pa did not because of their strong anti war Quaker sensibilities. Because of that, they had problems in defending themselves and their communities from Indian attacks. That's the decision that the residents of Pennsylvania made.

[allmendream]

No, you will not find the phrase “freedom of conscience” in the U.S. Constitution; you will perhaps become familiar with the phrase if you read the Federalist Papers or the writings of our founders. Please avail yourself of the opportunity to learn what our founders meant by the phrase.

Should a non Muslim in Deerborne Michigan be made to feel as if the government is a Muslim institution that recognizes Muslim holidays, but not their religion?

If you were going to court as a non-Muslim, testifying against a Muslim, and the Court had a display of the Quran on the front of it; would you think that the court was perhaps stacked against you?

Do you really think that among the limited and enumerated powers of the government, that putting up sectarian religious displays is among them? Do you feel that recognition of the majority religion of the local community is the proper role of government?

[Cyber Liberty]

I don’t think there is three movies worth of content in Atlas Shrugged. Rand, while a good writer of prose, was also a self indulgent writer and “over wrote” Atlas.

She does tend to drone on. I swear, Ayn Rand can drag the act of picking up a pencil out to about three long paragraphs.

James Flibberdegook examined the desktop as he prepared to write the letter. Should he use the top-notch mechanical pencil? Too formal. The cedar number two pencil, which had been sharpened dozens of times by his assistant? James pondered the many times he had demanded the excess graphite and sawdust be blown from the tip, and mo matter how many times he explained the importance of this task, Goober, the assistant, could not seem to muster the intelligence to accept its necessity.

No, the cedar number two will never do. Goober had forgotten to sharpen it before he left for his dental appointment, which, in James' opinion, had been scheduled way too early in the day. James always thought Goober's general oral hygiene was done too hastily on most days, but he noticed his assistant's dental care was much more thorough today than most. James had always suspected Goober of chewing on his pencils, perhaps in a devious plot. "Why, oh why," muttered James to himself as he returned to the proper consideration of choosing the correct pencil for his letter.

Rummaging through the top drawer, he found an old inexpensive mechanical pencil he had once received as a gift from his daughter when she was three. "What was she thinking?" James absent-mindedly asked himself as he drew the pencil from the drawer. To his dismay, he found it necessary to refill it with leads Goober had purchased recently from the stationary store at the corner of 2nd and 21st (the one with the new display of 3x5 notecards next to the front cash register). Being faced with the imponderable choices, James sputtered, "Aw, screw it!" as he turned from the desk to ponder the meaning of the exchange between his two business partners at the party the previous evening.

Maybe it's just me....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"you will perhaps become familiar with the phrase if you read the Federalist Papers or the writings of our founders. Please avail yourself of the opportunity to learn what our founders meant by the phrase."

What most of them consistently said is encapsulated in the first Amendment. Notice how the first starts off with "Congress shall make no law". Now the three things it forbids Congress from doing is:

1. Establishing an official religion
2. Prohibiting free exercise of your religion
3. Taking away your right to speak freely of your religion

Please show me where a community deciding to have a manger at the municipal building violates any of the above three principles? Show me a writing in the Federalist papers or the founders that expands upon the above three principles that would prohibit a public display of religious symbols? I don't know of any. You refer me to the Federalist papers, I refer you back to them and show me where they speak against a community allowing a public display of religious symbols.

"If you were going to court as a non-Muslim, testifying against a Muslim, and the Court had a display of the Quran on the front of it"

You do realize that since the founding of this country, courts have had the ten commandments displayed in the courtroom? We already bend over backwards for other cultures and societies. But you have to face one simple fact, this country was founded upon the religious principles of Christianity. From John Winthrop forward. The majority of our founders were religious and mostly Christian. They did not want to get "the religious" out of our daily lives. They just did not want to force everyone to have to worship the same way (as in England). You are falling into the same trap as those of the left and the ACLU by getting "freedom of religion" mixed up. The goal was not to take religion out of our public lives, it was to take the force of government out of religion.

[Ed Hudgins]

In her book The Fountainhead one of the secondary characters, Mike, was a construction worker who was a friend of Howard Roark and portrayed as a top quality guy, better than most of the compromising architects. In Atlas Shrugged in the valley, there are some non-elites as well.

[ExGeeEye]

Ditto. The “artist must have got a second-or-third hand account, or really bad crib notes, about the book.

(Each resident of Galt’s Gulch, whatever his high-powered professions in the outside world had been, provided his own labor, for pay to their fellows; this, out of his store of experience in doing the hard work on the way to success. And Rearden invented his own darned alloy, thanks you very muches.)

[Ed Hudgins]

I suspect 240B heard third-hand distorted stories that had Rand as a drinker rather than possibly Frank. He did say he wouldn't dispute the alcoholism point but, on the other hand, he did jump out with an imperative remark and tone of authority with the charge. Better to have said “I heard that... Can anyone confirm?”