Atlas Shrugged: The Movie?

The challenge of distilling Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"
By Kimberly Brown

Back in the 1970s, Albert S. Ruddy, the producer of "The Godfather," first approached Ayn Rand to make a movie of her novel "Atlas Shrugged." But Rand, who had fled the Soviet Union and gone on to inspire capitalists and egoists everywhere, worried aloud, apparently in all seriousness, that the Soviets might try to take over Paramount to block the project.

"I told her, 'The Russians aren't that desperate to wreck your book,'" Ruddy recalled in a recent interview.

Rand's paranoia, as Ruddy remembers it, seems laughable. But perhaps it was merely misplaced. For so many people have tried and failed to turn the book she considered her masterpiece into a movie that it could easily strike a suspicious person as evidence of a nefarious collectivist conspiracy. Or at least of Hollywood's mediocrity.

Of course Rand herself had a hand in blocking some of those attempts before she died in 1982. Her heirs in the Objectivist school of thought helped sink some others. And plans for at least a couple of television mini-series fell to the vicissitudes of network politics and media mergers.

But Rand's grand polemical novel keeps selling, and her admirers in Hollywood keep trying, and the latest effort involves a lineup of heavy hitters, starting with Angelina Jolie.

Randall Wallace, who wrote "Braveheart" and "We Were Soldiers," is working on compressing the nearly 1,200-page book into a conventional two- hour screenplay. Howard and Karen Baldwin, the husband-and-wife producers of "Ray," are overseeing the project, and Lions Gate Entertainment is footing the bill.

Whether Jolie, who has called herself something of a Rand fan, will bring the novel's heroine, Dagny Taggart, to life on screen, or merely wind up on a list with other actresses who sought or were sought for the role remains to be seen. Until now, at least, no one in Hollywood has figured out a formula that promises both to sell popcorn and to do justice to the original text, let alone to the philosophy that it hammers home endlessly, at times in lengthy speeches. (The final one is 60 pages long.) But Baldwin said he believed that Wallace and the rest of their team were up to the task. "We all believe in the book, and will be true to the book," he said.

Easier said than done. Published in 1957 and set in the near future, "Atlas Shrugged" plots the collapse of American society after thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists and other innovators ?- Rand's kind of people ?- go on strike and disappear, refusing to contribute to a collectivist world. Dagny, a railroad heiress, tries to save the country from starvation and total collapse, while falling in love with the mysterious John Galt, who she later learns was the man who started the strike. The novel ends after an apocalypse.

During Rand's lifetime, her Objectivism, which celebrates rational self- interest and capitalism, was widely dismissed by academia and disparaged by both the political right and left. The reviews for "Atlas Shrugged" were not much kinder.

Yet "Atlas" was a best seller. Six million copies have been sold over the years, and it remains a popular title.

Hollywood took notice of the novel's popularity from the start, but Rand refused to consider movie offers: she had been burned, she felt, by the experience of turning her earlier novel, "The Fountainhead," into the 1949 film starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal.

In 1972, 15 years after the publication of "Atlas," Ruddy, fresh from producing "The Godfather," decided to make a run at Rand, who was already in her late 60s. "'Atlas Shrugged,' let's face it, was probably the most important novel of the 20th century that was never a film," he said.

Rand's agents warned him to expect rejection, he said, but reluctantly set up an appointment. Ruddy said he warned Rand that it was not her ideas that interested him. "Forget philosophy," he said. "The abstract of the story is quite lovely: the power and the sustainability of the great individual, of the creative person, of the entrepreneur." Rand, he said, "thought that was brilliant, because that's how she saw her book," as a story first.

But Ruddy refused to grant Rand final script approval, and their courtship quickly broke off. "It's a fool's game to spend a lot of money and time only to have her say, 'I think you should take this out,'" he said. So, he recalled, he told Rand that he would wait for her to "drop dead" and then make the movie on his own terms.

With Ruddy out of the picture, Rand began fielding new offers from movie and television producers. In 1978 Henry Jaffe and his son Michael negotiated a deal for an eight-hour mini-series on NBC. Michael Jaffe, now a partner at Jaffe/Braunstein Films, obtained script approval for Rand, and they hired Sterling Silliphant, the screenwriter of the Sidney Poitier movie "In the Heat of the Night," to adapt "Atlas Shrugged." But a regime change at NBC ?- specifically Fred Silverman's ascension to the network presidency ?- killed the project in 1979.

At the end of her life Rand tried to write her own script, but she died with only a third of her hoped-for mini- series finished.

Rand left her estate to a longtime student, Leonard Peikoff, who eventually sold an option to Michael Jaffe and Ed Snider, a friend of Rand's who owned the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team. But Peikoff refused to approve the script they developed. "Leonard had huge problems with it," Jaffe said. "He wasn't Ayn. But he wanted to exercise her control."

In 1999 Ruddy resurfaced, cutting a deal with TNT for a four-hour mini- series version. But the project was dropped after AOL and Time Warner merged. Ruddy's exit opened the door to the Baldwins, who optioned the rights to "Atlas Shrugged" while running the billionaire Phil Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment. But they could land neither stars nor financing.

There was also some thought that Anschutz, whose movies are often designed to accommodate a religiously devout audience, may have lost enthusiasm for the project when he learned that Rand was an outspoken atheist, but an Anschutz spokesman called this a misunderstanding. In any case, when the Baldwins left Crusader in 2004 to set up their own production company, they took the rights to "Atlas Shrugged" with them.
Last spring in a twist that might have amused Rand and Anschutz, the latest deal for an "Atlas Shrugged" film project had its inception during Mass at the Church of the Good Shepherd, in Beverly Hills.

Baldwin said that a fellow parishioner, Michael Burns ?- the vice chairman of Lions Gate ?- approached Baldwin and his wife "right under the nose of the priest," whispering to them about the rights to Rand's novel and asking to "meet right away."

The challenge, Wallace said, was immediately tempting. As for how he is distilling Rand's novel to a two-hour screenplay, Wallace insisted he had the material under control and was on course to deliver a draft this month.

"I can pretty much guarantee you that there won't be a 30-page speech at the end of the movie," he said. "I have two hours to try to express what Rand believed to an audience, and my responsibility is not only to Ayn Rand, but to the audience, that this be a compelling movie. More people will see the movie than will read 'Atlas Shrugged.' And the movie has to work."

I don't believe "more people will see the movie" than have read the book, let alone will read the book... and moreover, don't believe it could adequately be condensed for the big screen without obliterating the story. Perhaps a miniseries for TV would work... like Shogun or Roots. Some stories just shouldn't be hacked down that far.

Any book is going to have its untranslatable moments, of course, but the first thing I thought about when I read this article was one of the final scenes in the book where Dagny, encountering John Galt, greets him silently by tracing a dollar sign in the air. It's meant in all seriousness, but I shudder to think what that would look like in live-action.

I agree with Bill (naturally) that Atlas is much too complicated to be shown successfully as a two hour film. It WOULD need to be a mini-series, and then could be very exciting. I don't know how some of the philosophical speeches that Rand's characters tend to get into could be handled, so that it would not seem stilted, and impede the flow of the film.

On the other hand, the speeches are an integral part of what Rand was conveying. It would have to be couched in a manner that would be effective theatrically.

"The Fountainhead", an earlier Rand work that was made into a movie years ago, was a big disappointment for me. The book was magnificent, the film mediocre and artificial sounding.

Consider "The American President" Phoenix. Though obviously much shorter than Atlas would need to be; the characters practically took turns giving speeches or mini-speeches... and since the cast was so good; it was fantastic. I can't count the number of times I've recounted Shepperd's speech about freedom of speech.

Ayn Rand is artificial. All are scenes and scenarios are one-dimensional fit for teenagers. Her philosophy is crap that appealed to me when I was a teenager.

Tough to argue against such a strong argument. Hmmm... what's the antonym of crap... that ought to do it if I can match Talk's empirical conviction.

I think he was voicing his opinion, not making an argument.

Though I have never read Rand's novels myself, I also wholeheartedly disagree with her ideas. If you want a detailed critical argument against Rand's ideas, see: http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#1

If you think like a teenager, then yes, her philosophy would seem one dimensional. If you can get beyond the hype, one realizes that what she is attempting to convey has a lot of merit.

BTW, I learned about Rand when I was no longer a teenager (middle twenties). I do not believe that accepting anyone's ideas "wholesale" shows much thought on a person's part. A person needs to sift through the ideas, accept what he finds reasonable, and discard the rest. If not, you are left with a cult, not a philosophy. But, after many decades, I have realized that Rand professed many important ideas, more often than not.

You did not read her works, yet you know that you don't agree with her ideas. You "back up" your contention by linking to another person's website.

One of Rand's A#1 concepts, is that people are supposed to think for themselves, not parrot another's opinion. I have a very good idea as to why you don't care for Rand, and it is not very flattering to you!

Here is a quote from Rand, from her book "The Fountainhead", which you haven't read:

Nice quote Phoenix. Isn't it funny how Rand always brings out those who opine from ignorance?

I encountered Rand in high school, but I didn't read any thing substantial of hers until afterward--i.e., I didn't give in to the teenage Rand-Has-Shown-Me-That-I-Am-A-Misunderstood-Genius syndrome. Still, I can't say I'm much of a fan. I agree with her most general precepts (it's hard to argue with "Don't let selflessness get too carried away"), but I don't think her novels paint a very convincing picture of reality. She relies quite a lot very rigid polarities. The heart and mind seem always to be in conflict, and in her world there are only two kinds of people: the extremely gifted and the extremely incompetent. There's a whole lot of middle ground she doesn't account for. In Atlas Shrugged there seem to be two exceptions--Eddie Willers and Cheryl--but, well, look what happens to them in the end anyway. And there's that ludicrous scene where she justifies the death of everyone on the train by giving a compartment-by-compartment description of all the passengers and all their deeds of selflessness. Much of what she has to say is built on the premise that the moral worth of people can be assessed as easily as all that, but I think reality is a little more nuanced than that.

I've frequently wondered whether students who swear by Ayn Rand and who also receive financial aid realize the irony of their position.

I can't imagine anyone read that scene on the train without the requisite; " How ridiculous is that?" reaction... nor do I think anyone failed to see the overall absurd polarity of her characters. Those who suffered the "Rand-Has-Shown-Me-That-I-Am-A-Misunderstood-Genius syndrome" have mistaken themselves for us genuine Misunderstood-Genius's. Seriously though, I can't even see where kids would buy that stuff. My pre-teen nephew didn't when he read it. But that doesn't mean it wasn't chuck full of valuable advice and insight that can change a person's views for life. For instance, in business; I exchange value for value to the mutual benefit of us both, or I do not do business at all. In my personal life; I believe the only way two people should walk together is if they're heading in the same direction anyway. Sure, her characters were caricatures of themselves, but they were that by design; to better convey the ideals and evils she wished to demonstrate. And that, they did. In a literary sense, it is a shame that she didn't give the villains more depth, or at least the passersby, but she had so much to say and insisted on drilling in so deep, the book would have made War and Peace look like a short story if she had. I'll take it in its current form, and have, in fact, given away dozens of copies.

It is called a critique. You should read some instead of accepting things at face value. I provided a link to that site so that you can see some of the points that are brought up against her arguments, and if you agree that her arguments are just what the site depicted, then you will see her arguments to be full of contradictions and rhetorics.

I don't claim to be "backing up" any arguments, as I am not providing an argument, just my opinion and a critique from a philosopher who have examined her works. I happened to agree with many of his points. If you call that parroting another person's idea, then by your logic, you are parroting Rand's idea instead of thinking on your own.

If you really want an argument, I can provide you with one if you so wishes.



Do you really think I am just parroting another person's idea? I have been exposed to Rand's idea, and I fundamentally disagree with her. On what basis do you claim your accusation that I am merely parroting another person's idea?



Rhetorics are easy to make. You have not even heard my arguments, how do you know that my objections are false. Don't give me ad hominems.

Gee... let's see here...

How would you know if they were true or false? What purpose would it serve to debate a book with someone who hasn't read the book. Been there, done that, with one of the smartest people I've ever encountered and it was very unsatisfying because, you see, he was opining from ignorance. Having my own opinion, and being perfectly capable of reading other's opinions, I've little use for a discussion with someone who'd choose to parrot the same.

Exactly. And that is, what I believe that many people who criticize Rand don't "get". She is talking about ideal situations, about people to whom one can look up to. On the flip side, her villians are as miserable as can be. Are they real? Of course not, but they symbolize certain concepts that she is trying to illustrate.

This is a forum. Is it not a place to type in one's opinion?

I said I have never read her novels, but I have read "of" her arguments and her reasons for them. From so far as I can gather, isn't her ethics that of the ethical egoists' with the addition of a replica of the Kantian maxim: treat people as an end, and never merely as a means to an end? That addition in itself is a contradiction of the fundamental concept in ethical egoism.

There's the word "parrot" again. On what basis do you claim me to be parroting another person's idea and not actually having an opinion to her ideas myself. Sure, I may have read a summary of her idea (with passages from her book), and from waht she wrote, I disagree. So I agree with the person who is critiquing her, what of that? If I offer an argument, argue against my argument, not against me.

I'll be happy to, as soon as you're qualified to hold up your end... assuming of course you'd still want to once you did your homework for yourself, which is hardly a fore drawn conclusion. Her philosophy is not ethical egoism... the woman invented her own called objectivism... which still has a following to this day. The book you've read slanted excerpts from was deemed to be second only to the bible for impacting Americans, according to a joint study by the library of congress and the book of the month club.

Relying on someone else's opinion; I might argue Rascalnikov was an evil psychopath who convinced himself he had the right to murder other people. While this is certainly true; it would hardly be a fitting description of Dostoevsky's best character. I don't mean to be rude... but you are indeed opining from ignorance and I don't see the point in discussing it further. It's not ad hominem to point out this out... it is a simple fact.

Fair enough, though in my opinion most of the characters are so idealized as to defeat the purpose--i.e. they're based on such extreme abstractions of otherwise legitimate concepts that I have a hard time seeing how one could use them as models for real life. I agree with the general lessons that Occam Bill noted, but those strike me as more palatable precisely because Bill tempered them down a bit from what Rand presents in her books.

I do think Rand makes more sense when one reminds oneself of the political conditions she was fleeing. The extreme idealism is easier to put in more perspective, even if it's not entirely palatable. You can almost see the Cold War closing in over the course of her books.