Say Anything Blog

Hollywood must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as movie ideas go because this is one book I didn't think the leftist entertainment industry would want to touch.

Ayn Rand's most ambitious novel may finally be brought to the bigscreen after years of false starts.

Lionsgate has picked up worldwide distribution rights to "Atlas Shrugged" from Howard and Karen Baldwin ("Ray"), who will produce with John Aglialoro.

As for stars, book provides an ideal role for an actress in lead character Dagny Taggart, so it's not a stretch to assume Rand enthusiast Angelina JolieAngelina Jolie's name has been brought up. Brad PittBrad Pitt, also a fan, is rumored to be among the names suggested for lead male character John Galt.

"Atlas Shrugged," which runs more than 1,100 pages, has faced a lengthy and circuitous journey to a film adaptation.

The Russian-born author's seminal tome, published in 1957, revolves around the economic collapse of the U.S. sometime in the future and espouses her individualistic philosophy of objectivism. The violent, apocalyptic ending has always posed a challenge but could prove especially so in the post-9/11 climate.

Howard BaldwinHoward Baldwin said some people have pigeonholed "Atlas" as better suited for a miniseries. That's why he sometimes pondered turning "Atlas" into two movies. In fact, a two-part script penned by James V. HartJames V. Hart ("Contact""Contact") for the Baldwins envisions "Atlas" as two pics, although it's likely to be reworked.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are fans of Ayn Rand? Jolie recently came out in favor of expanding "No Child Left Behind" (at least the theory of it) to the entire globe, at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

That is hardly in keeping with Rand's theories on individualism and her "Objectivist" school of thought. Rand's philosophy can basically be boiled down (though this is overly simplifying objectivism) to "selfishness is ok."

Here is Ayn in her own words:

America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

More:

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective--society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.--is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it--or its representative, the state--deems this desirable.

One more:

Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence - man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause - life is not one huge hospital.

Does that last one sound like it has anything to do with Jolie and her "America needs to give more to the poor!" dogma?

Didn't think so.

Honestly, I am still in shock that anyone in the Hollywood crowd would be interested in doing this movie. Now the concern will be if they are capable of crafting a true interpretation of Rand's work or if it will be twisted to fit in more neatly with conventional liberal thought.