Say Anything Blog

If Jolie did not just reek of sex somebody would drug her into the woods and killed her a long time ago.

I love the book, but with Jolie and Pitt you know it’s going to suck. They’ll have to give it their own personal spin, and gut the real story to do it.

I’m guessing this is going to be some chick flick that "empowers women."

I’ve seen rumors that, I kid you not, Oliver Stone may be directing this.

This is my "The Last Temptation of Christ," by the way. It’s almost blasphemous to make this type of a movie out of Rand’s work.

This could very well turn into a repeat of Tom Clancy’s "The Sum of All Fears" in which the Islamic terrorists in the book were magically transformed into more politically correct neo-nazis when the movie version hit the screen.

Rand’s work, particularly the seminal "Atlas Shrugged" is way to important to be left to a self-righteous hack like Oliver Stone or a ditzy naif like Angelina Jolie.

"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."

Heh heh heh...whatta you think? 

I find it hard to believe it would be recognizable if twisted into liberal thought, but I think they’ll do it anyway.  A generation of youth will see it and think they understand what Rand wrote about.  Pathetic.

The writer is the bottom of the totem pole in Hollywood hiearchy.

If you want to get money for a film intimate you have giant stars

lining up.

You could make "SayAnything the Movie" starring Tom Cruise and

Eric Cartman. 

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.

What’s far more likely is that they’ll somehow transform it into a conventional, "popcorn" movie--which, in itself, is a liberal act.

Stripping a work of art of its politics is just as bad as injecting new politics into it--they can both be done to fit part of an agenda. For example, when Spielberg turned H.G. Wells’s "The War of the Worlds" into a pointless summer blockbuster--removing Wells’s strong condemnation of imperialism--he made that movie more conservative. If the upcoming "United 93" does the same thing (as appears to the case), it will make it more liberal.

<blockquote>

You could make "SayAnything the Movie" starring Tom Cruise and

Eric Cartman. <blockquote>

Rob, have you been jumping on the couch again?

Dave,

And Randians wonder why people view them as members of a cult. 

_____________________________

Anyway, people get out of Rand what they want to.  One doesn’t have to take everything she writes seriously in order to appreciate her basic defense of capitalism (though there are better defenders than her - Hayek, Smith, Bastiat, Hume, Friedman, Mises, etc.). 

Apparently I can’t type today...  Missing a slash in that last quote.

And Randians wonder why people view them as members of a cult. 

Actually, in my experience, they don’t.

Dave,

Treating Rand’s less than steller literature as a near-sacred text takes one into cult-like attitudes.  Rand was a human being, not a God.

Funny...  I don’t recall hearing about any Objectivists dining on placentas lately.

Bat One,

You do realize that if you don’t accept Objectivism you’re evil right?  Because you are consciously denying the truth.  Or so many adherants of Randianism claim. 

Not sacred, but a good book.  I’d be just as annoyed to see a Dick Francis book made into a bad movie.

Funny...  I don’t recall hearing about any Objectivists dining on placentas lately.

Is there a connection between Rand and Scientology that I’m not aware of?

Of course one of the bizarre things about Randianism is the requirement by many of its followers that Randianism is an either or proposition, which is ludicrous.  If we truly are individuals then taking some and discarding the rest seems far more appropriate a conclusion; indeed, in light of the fact that Rand was a human being claiming an eithier or position seems wholly irrational.

Epicurus,

Well said!

As to your remakr about Objectivists and evil, I wasn’t aware that some of them took that poosition, though again, its difficult to see just where "evil," even in a colloquial sense, could rationally fit into an objectivist view of life. 

Is it just me or does Bat One and Epicurus seem oddly like the same person?

Bat One,

There are various schools of Objectivist thought.  When dealing with an Objectivist its best to ferret out immediately which school a person belongs to.  As far as I can tell there are as many schisms in Objectivism as there is in Marxism or Christianity.

Wanderer,

The "connection" was Epicurus’ jibe about cults.  That’s all.  Nothing sinister. 

High Desert Wanderer,

We’re not. 

If you were, wouldn’t you say the same thing? 

Epicurus,

Not to seem snide, but I really don’t much care.  I’m more inclined to have my ideology/belief system a la Carte  than to simply order someone else’s Blue Plate Special.

High Desert Wanderer,

Be careful, you’ll be quoting Zeno’s paradox soon.

I’m more inclined to have my ideology/belief system a la Carte  than to simply order someone else’s Blue Plate Special.

Don’t think me rude when I say, most ideology/belief systems frown on that.

I’m more inclined to have my ideology/belief system a la Carte  than to simply order someone else’s Blue Plate Special.

Don’t think me rude when I say, most ideology/belief systems frown on that.

I think I’m getting redundant… It’s been fun.

"If you were, wouldn’t you say the same thing?"

Wanderer,

Where would be the fun in that?  Actually, its my turn at being the evil twin.  We switch off every full moon.  Mom would be so proud.

"Don’t think me rude when I say, most ideology/belief systems frown on that."

Wanderer,

Not at all!  In the first place, its my life, my belief system.  I’ll do with it as I see fit.  Second, I can comfortably accomodate both St. Paul and Donald Shimoda.  All it takes is a bit of imagination and a bit of faith.

Until I see that the movie has listed an official production schedule, I will not judge, nor get my hopes up.  This movie has been this close to production before and has been scraped.

In terms of ‘why would liberal hollywood make this movie?’  First off, Lionsgate is behind the film.  They produce a wide range of pictures.

My only issue… the book is incredibly detailed and I don’t know if a 2 or 3 hour film could do Rand’s work justice.