ASP3: This is John Galt
Ideally, the actor playing John Galt in Atlas Shrugged Part 3 will appear to have jumped right off of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. However, in our quest to find the perfect John Galt, some tough choices may have to be made. That's where you come in.
If you had to choose, which would you consider the number one priority in casting John Galt?
A. As long as the actor looks and acts like John Galt, I don't care what his personal beliefs are.
B. The actor needs to possess a deep understanding of, and passion for, Ayn Rand's ideas first and foremost.
Leave your answer in the comments below.
If you had to choose, which would you consider the number one priority in casting John Galt?
A. As long as the actor looks and acts like John Galt, I don't care what his personal beliefs are.
B. The actor needs to possess a deep understanding of, and passion for, Ayn Rand's ideas first and foremost.
Leave your answer in the comments below.
Get a great, well-trained, good looking actor. Make him read the book! Any good actor wants to know as much as they can about their character. Well trained actors intersected with Objectivism is a dang small pool from which to draw. The only thing that might be annoying is if the actor is an outspoken liberal. Many have decided to boycott those actors' movies.
The records show, however, that only 2 were shipped within the Hollywood zip code....
Don't get your 'hopes' up....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmIef02A...
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ7r2OVu1...
Selleck would be good too, but REMEMBER
"The face without pain or fear or guilt." No way can I see Selleck doing that one.
What you actually need is someone who can write, someone who can direct, and people who can act. It's not necessary that they actually be Objectivists.
Forget the "acting ability" argument I've seen college productions with actors as good as hollyweird's a-list.
None of the hollyweird elite, irrespective of their theoretical "acting ability" will deliver one ounce of credibility to the part.
Mel Gibson might have worked 20 years ago before he began to show his age and before his private life damaged his brand. I like Gary Sinise, who seems to be someone who might be a Randian plus, although he is in his fifties, looks younger. I just ran into Sinise at a play in Chicago and he looks very youthful. Why not?
Gotta say I do like where [from a fast Wikipedia read] he stands philosophically - he doesn't fling money at a bunch of causes, he picks his area and concentrates.
This role deserves and most importantly needs to have an Objectivist be cast in it. He may be unknown, hell that's probably better. After all, "who is John Galt?" I don't care how good an actor you are, if you don't believe and try to live by that speech it will be ruined, at least on some levels, by an actor who doesn't believe it.
My point is there is alot of ground between hedonistic douche and Objectivist in actors: my daughter, for one. Hundreds who practice the craft, have not read Rand perhaps, yet are passionate deliverers who understand how to engage the camera, and can be counted on to do an exceptional job.
If an Objectivist exists that can deliver the lines,and im sure one does, the work of art demands that it be created without contradictions. Its just that simple.
So a film dealing with Christian themes requires a committed Christian to star in it; a WWII film dealing with Nazis needs to have actual Nazis in it . . . now, what about space alien films, eh? Do they require real space aliens, or do they simply require people who can act with lots of makeup and customes?
This is why the great majority of the world regards Objectivism as a cult: "You gotta be one of us if you're gonna pretend to be one of us in the movies!"
Right.
Wrong. Your comment fails to grasp that ALL films communicate a philosophical theory, not just THIS film. However, it's not the PURPOSE of a fiction film to lecture to the audience explicitly on philosophy (or on anything else). The purpose of a fiction film is to tell a story. PERIOD. The story will communicate the philosphical message.
Oh, and by the way: the more entertainingly the story is told, the more effectively the philosophical theory will be communicated. As filmmakers, you should be concentrating your efforts on TELLING THE STORY.
Therefore, the notion that the actors -- or the director, the cinematographer, the editor, the production coordinator, the honeywagon vendors, or kraft service -- must themselves believe in, or adhere to, the particular philosphy intended by the film's story, is not just silly; not just puerile; not just plain dumb; no, the attitude is far, far worse: it's UNPROFESSIONAL. And that's the worst insult in the entertainment biz.
>>A theory that should be practiced in life.
You clearly have never shot film, directed film, edited film, or written a screenplay. You've never even been on a set. You have precisely ZERO idea of what you're talking about. I would say "how sad", but given the generally declining intellectual abilities of Objectivists today compared to the 1970s, I say instead "how typically Objectivist."
If the closing speech gets it's proper attention, then the 'voice' has to convey everything that we expect from Galt.
D.B. carried this off well in part 2.
for Galt? Oh, please. Read the description and let me know what part of it he fits - determination, possibly, but really......
Given that I think the thing that comes across the most in the film is the gravitas this person had whenever he talked or met anyone. This actor has to have a presence when he enters the room. Aside from that he has to be able to articulate the ideas that are at the core of this book and film.
You're dreaming. No A-list talent will go near Part 3 ESPECIALLY if they loved the book; to do so would be an act of altruistic self-sacrifice on their part. They're not stupid. They're very aware of the failure – commercially and critically – of Parts 1 and 2.
Not everyone can overlook physicality to see a person's true self, certainly not in a 2-3 hour movie. There are many horses that we need to lead to the water. If briefly satisfying their preconceptions will get them to drink, so be it.
I believe that he 'wins' all of his followers no differently than Christ built his following. The parallels are there, and while Rand may not have been religious, I submit that she understood, and admired, this type of magnetism, and borrows freely upon it.
Where is John Galt any different than the 'fisherman of men'...and his disciples any different from those of old?
They listened...and believed...and gave their devotion and love.
his choice), and he can portray "the looks" (huge diversity of roles), calm intensity with a mind working behind those eyes. He is 45 y/o, but can easily look 5 to 8 years younger, and could believably be romantically chosen over Francisco and Rearden.
They took Jason Beghe away, they'll probably take Kim Rhodes and Samantha Mathis away... I want D.B. Sweeney as Galt.
Throughout the story Dagny has been shown to have character, and y'all want to portray her as a faithless whore on the hunt for the most alpha male. Well, what the hell. That's what Rand did in the book, so why not?
Maybe we can add on to the story, so that Galt gets cancer from exposure to radiation or something, and as he's getting sicker and weaker, she runs and finds herself *another* alpha male to give herself to.
He needs to look like a regular guy would look who was totally at peace with himself.
(I gave you a point for this)
This is why I still want D.B. Sweeney for Galt.
I think of him as a good old fashioned somewhat mild-mannered American engineer; the kind that get to work early, keep a neat desk, do what they say they'll do, wear a short-sleeved button down shirt, and so on. He is more of what we would call an 'individual contributor' - albeit of the most brilliant sort. IIRC he comes from a poor family. Those "you do what you say and stick to your principles" remind me of what a properly-raised kid would be ingrained with, and those convictions carry him through his torture even. Remember, he blended in with the working class. Could Hank have done that?
I know some will bristle at this and want someone with enormous presence, but to me that was part of the brilliance - greatness doesn't have to come from the flashy. In a sense Ayn Rand's world enables and the celebrates the achievements of people the world find boring - people Lillian, "Tinky" and Betram would scoff at.
So I'd pick someone more 'understated'. LIke Toby MacQuire - earnest and slight of build - but who can transform into a courageous hero (and someone we could believe Dagny would be attracted to).
Will he play with dinosaurs?
Hm... What about Nicolas Cage? He's great in most everything he's done, but especially National Treasure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcZK2CF3m...
And if they have to replace Dagny, I could live with Diane Kruger in the role.
Hugh Jackman.
Or set the way-back machine to 30 years ago: Clint Eastwood.
Counter-culture choice:
Neal Peart.
But my 'bride' has a crush on him....so he's 'out'!
Nice!
Elijah Wood or Sean Astin as John Galt.
Jon Favreau, maybe...
McCaulay Culkin as Ragnar...
Josh Hutcherson as Galt, with AnnaSophia Robb as Dagny.
Viggo Mortensen as Ragnar? (can't recall.... but "...sen" is Norwegian, and "...son" is Swedish... or vice versa. Anyway, it's a Scandinavian thing.)
If we're going to "go back in time" to get actors when they were appropriate age, there's only one choice.... Mel Gibson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOuNMFXb...
She just turned 43.
Adam Baldwin as Ragnar? I can see it...
I wanted to make that my ringtone...
Reardon's wife was a much better choice in the first - she really came across as a frigid, demeaning woman. In the second, Reardon's wife was very forgettable. Although he has a heavy accent, the Mexican actor Eduardo Verastagui would have made an outstanding Francisco, as he fit the physical part to a "T." I didn't like either Francisco much.
John Galt has to be in his late 30s, early 40s tops. This is a must. Gary Sinise does not fit the picture as he is pushing 60. And yes, I'm a fan. John Galt has be confident, fluent, intelligent, and fit. He must have great hair (I know, I know, wigs, extensions, hair dye, blah blah blah) as that was a focus in the book. Short, squat actors (no matter how good) need not apply.
I could go on...
Damien Lewis or Benedict Cumberbatch
Or a late 60's early 70's Clint Eastwood.
Thus, I think that a philosophically neutral man wouldn't really be all that convincing. Notwithstanding everything else, John Galt was not a foppish Englishman, just the opposite.
Load more comments...