So... What Exactly is Happening with the Atlas Shrugged Mini-series?
If you too have been wondering what the status is, and happen to be in Vegas for FreedomFest, be sure to pop into the Libertarian CEO panel featuring Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro at 3:30 (PT) on Saturday (7/22).
Trust us, you won’t want to miss it. ;)
Unfortunately, not all of us can be in Las Vegas for FreedomFest, so here’s a sneak peek for those who still want to be in the know….
Producer John Aglialoro has signed a development deal with John Fogelman and Ken Moelis to move the Atlas Shrugged mini-series forward. And… the mini-series is to shopped around to networks the likes of HBO, Netflix, Amazon, et al.
Stay tuned for more details very soon.
Trust us, you won’t want to miss it. ;)
Unfortunately, not all of us can be in Las Vegas for FreedomFest, so here’s a sneak peek for those who still want to be in the know….
Producer John Aglialoro has signed a development deal with John Fogelman and Ken Moelis to move the Atlas Shrugged mini-series forward. And… the mini-series is to shopped around to networks the likes of HBO, Netflix, Amazon, et al.
Stay tuned for more details very soon.
One episode per chapter would be wonderful.
New York. But with all the government strings he could have pulled (and that Lillian wanted him to
pull for her), perhaps that would have been enough to make Cherryl despair of being able to do it. Of course, there might have to be some sort of fantasy scenes following her, as she was wandering through the streets. (And flashbacks, in previous parts of the movie).
The tragic story of Cheryl, like that of Eddie Willers, was logically necessary in the plot, showing what happens to good people under bad philosophy dominating a culture, artificially fictionally accelerated in this case by the strike. It's important that these themes be understood and Atlas Shrugged not be reduced to a-philosophical conservatives' plot arguing over which regulations they don't like politically, as if the book were only a superficial political prediction.
My juxtaposition was to emphasize that, although an accurate understanding of the reasons for suicidal thoughts would shine a light to the general society, that understanding might actually trigger more suicides. This is not an unreasonable juxtaposition.
Most people without psychological issues do respond angrily to Cheryl's demise, but there are some who will identify with Cheryl and repeat her actions.
You and many others view AS as liberating and inspiring. There are certainly many parts of AR's novels that are liberating and inspiring, and all of us enjoy those. However, my overriding reaction to most of AR's novels is depression that the ideals espoused by AR are not the ones espoused by society. I am far from alone in this reaction. Anthem, in particular, comes to mind as an example, but Rand's novels are often described outside of this forum as dystopic because ... they are. I went from being an example of what epitomizes American entrepreneurial optimism to being a frustrated realist as a result of reading AR's work. I ... shrugged.
Life in this country, whatever else you can say about it, is not a "hopelessly desperate situation", and neither were the lives of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged. Here in the outside world the quality of human life has vastly improved over the last few centuries in spite of the injustices and despite some horrible situations, mostly not in this country. It is better because individuals with exceptional ability and motivation pursued values in spite of damaging politics, not just because relative freedom allowed it. There is much more to life and philosophy than politics.
None of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged considered suicide as a response to a "dose of reality". And none of them withdrew into depression over how much better things could have been. They fought to make it better. "Anyone who fights for the future lives in it today." Cheryl's fate shows what happens to good people of more limited ability without the proper knowledge and understanding when they cannot count on a rational social system.
Atlas Shrugged provides the principles necessary to understand. Of all the actions by the characters in the novel, why focus on Cheryl as an inspiration for what to do? Why would someone ignore the philosophy, the sense of life, and the inspiring actions of the heroes in the novel when all that is staring them in the face and instead choose to identify with Cheryl's suicide?
The plot was an accelerated fictional device to show how humanity depends on reason and exceptional individuals, not a political prescription. As Ayn Rand was writing it, she saw the parallels with contemporary society and vowed to try to stop the collapse described in the novel, not predict it or encourage it with a strike. She did not urge that people drop out or go on strike. On the contrary, she wanted those who agreed with her to become successful in their chosen professions and apply her ideas, stressing that a revolution in philosophy is necessary to change the course of a culture.
The state of the country is noticeably worse today than when Ayn Rand was writing (and she did predict this as a consequence of intellectual trends). Some people are hit harder than others because of their circumstances. Specific injustices can be discouraging and depressing. Yes it is discouraging overall that we continue to sink when so much more is possible for mankind and you can see what it is. But it has always been that way. That shouldn't change one's sense of life. Remember Howard Roark's "only down to a certain point".
There are things that most of us can't do now. Who hasn't dropped something he wanted to do because it is no longer worth it? So did John Galt and the strikers. But they continued to produce with the same sense of life, not sink into depression. So have people throughout history. You aren't in a Soviet gulag. Do you want to look back on the course of your life as a progression of accomplishment, always doing the most you could despite the roadblocks, or as a state of depression over what else could have been, with an affinity to Cheryl's suicide because she didn't know enough even though you do?
We the Living was dystopian because it had to be: it was written to show what life was like under Soviet communism and what that collectivism necessarily does to good people no matter what they know -- where anyone worth anything has to become the equivalent of Cheryl. Kira's fate was meant to be inevitable. That isn't what we have now, and if it comes to that it would not imply you should withdraw into cynical resignation. With the right ideas and the right sense of life you can always live the best you can for whatever is still possible as long as it lasts, always fighting for values.
You wrote, "I seriously wondered whether a system that properly rewards production had been adequately re-established to make it reasonable to go back out into the world as the AS heroes did at the end." Why would anyone expect or even consider that the election of Donald Trump could "re-establish a system reasonable to go back out into the world as the AS heroes did at the end"? There is no connection between Trump, today's national situation, and the context, motives and actions of the strikers in Atlas Shrugged.
The strikers in Atlas Shrugged sought to bring the system down by accelerating the consequences of its own nature without the strikers to depend on. It was Ayn Rand's fictional device to show the dependence of society on reason and exceptional individuals, not a political strategy. She opposed as futile trying to change the system by dropping out and emphasized the need for spreading the right philosophy, not by electing anyone, let alone an anti-intellectual, ignorant wheeler-dealer like Trump. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged weren't sinking in depression or refusing to produce in a system like we have today, and knew better than to take Mr. Thompson's offers of "deals" as a reason to go back in any context.
Government interference in my areas through EPA regulation and through the Medical Device Tax component of Obamacare have made innovation and invention no longer worthwhile. I now have more than enough money to retire at age 50 and can afford to do what i want to do without enabling the government leviathan.
With Trump, there certainly appeared to be the possibility of reducing both corporate and individual taxes, both of which would have enough of an effect that I might return to production.
I most certainly could make a profit despite the governmental roadblocks, but to what end? So that I can my "fair share" of a $20 trillion and growing debt? That equates to over $160 K per taxpayer, and probably $500 K per taxpayer making over $1 million per year.
Trump has nothing to do with Atlas Shrugged other than to illustrate the variations in the decline.
a moving event in the book.--Also, I thought it was a mistake to make Eddie Willers black; given his com-
plete subordination to Dagny, it would have made him an Uncle Tom stereotype, except that they didn't emphasise him that much in the movie.
part movie that came out in 2011? (Which, by the
way, didn't begin to do justice to the book). Or are
they making a TV mini-series (which I probably won't get to see, because their going digital ruined my TV reception? My sister did send me
a converter box, but I haven't managed to find an
antenna for it that isn't a piece of Communist
crap, which I wouldn't buy).
different story. One problem is that it was supposed
to be futuristic, but a lot of the social conditions in
the book are old-fashioned. Divorce is not as controversial as it once was; neither is out-of-wedlock sex.
The time period is not a problem. There have many popular novels and movies set in different time periods across the entire span of civilization. history. Readers of Atlas Shrugged have no difficulty relating to the era in the book and its 'futuristic' setting, and see now more than ever what it predicted, with more to come. Why should a movie with the same time setting be any different?
I don't know about one chapter/one episode though. I think it could move along a bit faster.
I have thought a lot about how to write such a script.
Not making a brag of being a great writer, but it would be a matter of knowing what to discard and what to keep. Some flashbacks of Dagny's childhood; and a few of Rearden's courtship of Lillian, showing her and her family as a bunch of
snobs, but her fooling him into thinking her a woman who appreciated industry; the disappoint-
ing wedding night; one scene of his natural desire driving him to her bed, with her resuming
reading a book before he is out of the room, etc.;
The scene with Jeff Allen telling Dagny about the
Twentieth Century Motor Factory, perhaps with
silent scenes with him narrating in the background (and maybe one or two scenes of
Ivy Starnes uttering her nasty remarks); a few
things like that. It would be much longer than a
movie, but as a mini-series, it might go. The
Winston Tunnel incident could be an excellent
episode in itself.
Also, where Philip tries to threaten Rearden into giving him a job, and Rearden, walking
away, stops and looks at him; showing the dangerous machinery, liquid metal being poured,
etc., and Philip breaking out into a cold sweat.--Sort of straight copy from the book.
I would like for the mini-series to turn into a show with stories about average people living their lives in the universe where AS takes place. They might only have occasional contact/interaction with any big players in the book. When shipments of food spoiled because bureaucrats stole them and used them in their political chess game, these would be the people working out a plan to steal back some of that food under the radar allowing life to go on. It would just be an environment that stresses people, making a good backdrop for stories about people overcoming adversity. I imagine it kind of like how the re-imagined BSG was a mini-series that became a dark several-series show with good stories.
I welcome any new AS films or TV shows because most people, including me, are unlikely to try a 600 page book but will try a new TV show.
The scenarios in the book - from affairs to backroom deals to suicide to all the other stuff - was (and still is) a very real part of the very real world. That Dagny had more than 2 lovers, and was sleeping with a married man before her later involvement with JG... worked around her conniving brother, the dishonest government lackeys, and an evil system? That she would do whatever it took to do what it takes?
I hope the mini-series follows the same flavor and feel of the book, because - and this is important - the book felt real and believable because it drew not from a "Television Code Approved" story line, where everything is sanitized and syrupy sweet and innocent, but from real life. THAT'S why it was a success back then, and remains relevant today.
Dagny's romantic life in particular was based on values, not sleeping around and 'doing what it takes' regardless of the 'it'. It's very important that a miniseries capture the sense of life of the characters, not just borrowed plot lines with or without TV codes (which at least in their written form don't seem to be very restrictive now).
One from a few months ago is at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
An earlier one from a few years ago is https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The rather peculiar affair with Branden was done openly with their spouses' full knowledge but they otherwise kept it private until Branden publicly attacked her much later, exploiting it to misrepresent and undermine her as a diversion from his own actions.
The affair itself was badly rationalized, but not the typical cheating, dishonestly secret affair you would ordinarily think of. She later strongly rejected the practice in a public forum, in answer to a question, as unworkably improper, and she never did advertise or publicly advocate it.
You can get some insights into why at the time she thought they had to try it, and read the account of the rest of the break with Branden and its cause (which was not the earlier affair) in James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, based on her personal journals contrasted with the public accusations from the Brandens.
I don't know why at the time she did not realize the personal harm the affair with Branden was causing because she always loved her husband, but she thought it was justified at the time. She generally lived a principled life, with great integrity, adhering to the principles she publicly espoused. She had no "bent" for "personal immorality".
But she also did not condone conventional views on morality; don't confuse rejecting religious duties with personal morality. The Objectivist ethics is based on individual pursuit of happiness in accordance with rational values and causal principles, not submissive duty in accordance with dogma dictated by others.
You can read more about her personal life in several books based on accounts of people who knew her, including Scott McConnell's 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand, and Mary Ann and Charles Sures' Facets of Ayn Rand, and watch the Paxton film documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. You will not find a "bent" for "personal immorality".
Who said the world was going to end? You said it, not me. And you said it to distract from the real point.
Further, you said "We", but is there someone with you writing your post? Or are you trying to fake false support for your position?
The real point is that the idea nature of the Gulch is not possible when adultery is common.
Learn to argue fair and rationally if you want to live in the Gulch.
You seem to be fixated on adultery as a central issue, without regard for context, and equating it with personal immorality, all to the point of wanting it expelled from the plot of Atlas Shrugged. It would be of more value to you to understand the theme in the Hank Rearden-Lillian-Dagny conflict, including why Hank Rearden but not Lillian was moral and why he didn't realize it.
There ARE an abundance of successful, thriving communities worldwide where some of the residents participate in adultery – in fact, I would gather to say that the majority of large communities have at least one couple practicing what you define as “adultery”. By some community standards, those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery, and yet the communities they live in have yet to dissolve.
I have 3 issues with your current (and apparently false) assertions -
(1) One is a morality argument, where you claim your personal view on morality is the only one possible, and that those who do not subscribe to your personal assignment of what is "moral" must fail.
(2) Two is the false conclusion that community and adultery cannot co-exist, that one MUST preclude another.
And of course, (3) is the absolute deflection and attempt at derailment of this thread (which is about the AS miniseries) to a personal morality crusade, which is, in my OPINION, seems less like a contribution and more like an attempt to stir up emotions by introduction of a subject entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Who said "community and adultery cannot co-exist"? I did not say that. Again you are trying to put words in my mouth.
This is a classic argument tactic used by those with weak arguments. You twist something I said into a clearly false statement thereby trying to prove my real point to be false. That kind of tactic will not work here.
I said you can't have a Gulch were adultery is common.
You are right about one thing, "Adultery is common", you just need to put that together with the fact that Gulch's are not, because,...
No morality, no gulch.
You are free to think anything you like, just don't believe everything you think.
You ignored almost everything Susanne wrote, taking a fragment out of context while claiming to analyze her arguments as faulty -- all while you rely on a false duty premise of your own which does in fact seem to be invoked by what Susanne characterized as a "personal morality crusade". You are objecting to an important part of the plot of Atlas Shrugged whose crucial moral theme rejects your own premises. "No morality, no gulch" is true, but it implies that the 'Valley' could not exist with subservience to a duty of loyalty to Lillian Rearden.
You seem to think that things in the movie somehow represent truth. I disagree, but let's assume they do. Hank developed Rearden metal married to Lillian, and supplied the tracks to Dangy all before the affair.
But the movie is not truth. Truth is that many small businesses fail when the owner goes through a divorce. Adultery is very damaging and Ayn supporters have a blind spot to this, because she did.
Your equating 'adultery' with 'immorality' regardless of context is false. If rational individuals sneak around betraying each other that is wrong could not exist in the Valley. An improper adultery would be one form of that. But there are no duties and no out of context principles. It would have been immoral for Hank Rearden to continue to sacrifice himself to the despicable Lillian. She caused the destruction. The only question was how long it would take him to discover it and stop blaming himself by remaining trapped in a false morality and unearned guilt he had been indoctrinated with and uncritically accepted.
Ayn Rand rejected the entire notion of duty ethics, out of context floating abstractions, and the demands to bind people to sacrifice to destructive dogma in the name of morality. Such rejectiion is not a "blind spot", it is part of the moral revolution in Atlas Shrugged as the proper moral alternative to traditionalism. Freedom requires rationality, not a supposed "responsibility" to destructive dogma as a character trait.
As such, continuing in this portion of this redirected (or misdirected) thread serves no valuable purpose to me. Have a good day.
You're welcome.
That said, Rand (and Branden, too) upheld serial monogamy as the standard. That is, one relationship at a time. And perhaps she did not think through, fully, the lessons that adult behavior teaches to children. But even in the Gulch you did have children. Furthermore, Galt himself says he and his fellow strikers hoped at first to establish a generational community. They could not have predicted--so he said--that the outside society would collapse as quickly as it did, allowing them to make the changes in one generation instead of two or three.
One of the key themes is the internal struggle going on in Rearden's life.
To Rearden, the voluntary contract is sacrosanct, even tho' a mistake, even
tho' it protects the 'despicable' Lilian.
This gains him great sympathy from readers especially as a resolution evolves.
Rearden puts his work above his personal happiness.
Changes in the plot- agreed, not for satisfying traditional mores, but to appeal
to a bigger market, but do not weaken the themes or the philosophy.
Rearden again- one of my favorite characters because of this anguish and suffering
due to mistaken values.
Decisions are thought thru carefully and once a decision is made it is flat out action.
You want to do business with someone sleeping with your husband or wife?