Ayn Rand

“Atlas Shrugged” is about those who would penalize individual achievement and subsidize “the collective.” It is the embodiment of Karl Marx’s philosophy, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” To put it another way, the collective believes that if you earn $2 dollars and I make $1 dollar, you owe me 50 cents to make things “fair.” This is redistributionist or, to paraphrase the president, “spreading the wealth around.”---Cal Thomas

Ayn Rand was from Russia and warned against the excesses of socialism that robbed the individual of achievement and dilluted giftings and talent. Another movie starring Gary Cooper was made years ago based upon her book The Fountainhead.

Her writings warn against the very philosophy our current gov't has been embracing little by little.

Ayn was an atheist. I believe that is also significant as those opposing big gov't socialism are usually labeled as "right wing Christians." To be true, Christianity teaches the value of the individual. Jesus said, "Every hair on your head is numbered" to show how God values each individual. Socialism sacrifices the individual and his rights for the collective good.

I hope it is a good movie and faithful to her ideals.

Saw it, loved it. This film is a must see for anyone who is fed up with big gov

Tom, I don't know but I'll interpet - You and The Lovely Mrs twill59 the "Royals"!!! I'm just saying...... B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

My wife surprisingly wants to see the Royals mate. Myself, I'd rather watch 2 dogs do it :lol:

Saw it with The Lovely Mrs Ciak. I'm seriously in doubt this country is going to make it, The public education system has created a bunch of idiots more concerned with self esteem and Jay LO. The main stream media won't report on important issues. Does any one see the importance of The Royal Wedding???? B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I will have to look for it around here.

"She was a militant atheist who favored abortion rights and thought Ronald Reagan typified "the worst kind of conservatism." Ayn Rand may sound like someone tea partiers and other conservatives would detest. In fact, they have been filling theaters to cheer a movie based on her novel "Atlas Shrugged."

The critics panned it — the Tribune's Michael Phillips called it "crushingly ordinary in every way" — but plenty of fans don't care. They flocked to see the film, Part 1 of a planned trilogy, when it opened April 15. This low-budget, under-advertised movie racked up better box office numbers, on a per-theater basis, than director Robert Redford's "The Conspirator."

Why? Partly because Rand's novel has a lot of ardent fans: Despite its 1,000-page length, it has sold 7 million copies since it was published in 1957. In a Library of Congress survey, the Bible ranked first on a list of most influential books named by readers. "Atlas Shrugged" was second.

Its celebration of unchained capitalism and defiant individualism has struck a chord among many Americans who are dismayed by the expansion of government. They insist on parallels between the chaos depicted in "Atlas Shrugged," the result of destructive federal interference, and the economic troubles of the last four years.

They see new regulations and proposed tax increases as punishing honest, successful business people—the Henry Reardens and Dagny Taggarts of our time. But it's worth noting that when Rand wrote her book, individual income tax rates were as high as 91 percent, more than double the 39.6 percent maximum rate endorsed by President Barack Obama.

Many in the tea party movement feel an affinity for Rand. One of its most-admired politicians, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, has said Rand is "the reason I got involved in public service."

But would Rand feel the same way about the tea party, if she were still around?

It's an open question. She'd like the movement's support for cutting federal spending and its hostility toward income redistribution. But given her reverence for systematic thought and intellectual rigor, she would bridle at the likes of Sarah Palin. The influence of Christian conservatives might send Rand, a sworn enemy of religion, fleeing to Galt's Gulch.

That would please many leftists, liberals, moderates and people of faith who find her ideas appalling. But if anything is obvious, more than half a century after the publication of "Atlas Shrugged," it's that love them or hate them, those ideas are here to stay

EXCLUSIVE: Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.

"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."

"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.

Aglialoro attributed the box office drop-off to "Atlas Shrugged's" poor reviews. Only one major critic -- Kyle Smith of the New York Post -- gave "Atlas" a mixed-to-positive review, calling the film "more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item." The movie has a dismal 7% fresh rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes thanks to critics like the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, who said "Atlas" is "crushingly ordinary in every way." Roger Ebert called the film "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone's vault," while Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie "sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal."

"The New York Times gave us the most hateful review of all," said Aglialoro, who also has a writing credit on the movie. "They didn't cover it."

The novel, a sacred text among many conservatives for Rand's passionate defense of capitalism, takes place at an unspecified future time in which the U.S. is mired in a deep depression and a mysterious phenomenon is causing the nation's leading industrialists to disappear or "strike."

Aglialoro's 97-minute adaptation is directed by first-timer Paul Johansson and stars little-known TV actors Taylor Schilling (as railroad executive Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as steel magnate Hank Rearden).

Though the film has made only $3.1 million so far, Aglialoro said he believes he'll recoup his investment after TV, DVD and other ancillary rights are sold. But he is backing off an earlier strategy to expand "Atlas" to 1,000 screens and reconsidering his plans to start production on a second film this fall.

"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Aglialoro, who is chief executive of the exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex, said he is not completely finished with Hollywood, however. An avid poker player who won the U.S. Poker Championship in 2004, he has a dramatic script called "Poker Room" in development. "Maybe the critics will be kinder to that one," he said

Where is the movie playing?

I did read one short review of the movie lanny. They hammered it....gleefully almost.

You prolly got it right as to why lanny. The best movies really don't tackle this kind of subject well. They are usually on the other end of the socio-economic spectrum.

So was this s'posed to be enteraintment, or more like a right wing version of Michael Moore type of docudrama type of flick?

Re: Jack Hunter on Atlas Shrugged Vs. Avatar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am an Ayn Rand fan (political - economic - individual liberty- views) but the movie fell far short of the book. It is a very large book and I expected the movie to be a fairly brief outline of the book. But, it failed to clearly show the government looting class in the manner Rand was so capable of doing in so few words. The movie is confusing anyone that hasn't read the book. One major character in the book had two extremely short appearances and they were very vague.

I was hoping that if a typical person brainwashed by the collectivist mental disease in America saw the movie they would be confronted with a clear demonstration that the Leftists do not consider individuals as ends unto themselves but rather the means to everyone else's ends. They steal by tears (the moochers) or steal by force (government looters). The movie basically shows a confusing set of every day corrupt politicians cutting deals with unscrupulous business people, crony capitalism. Nothing new, just the routine business in government these days.

Margaret Thatcher was correct no doubt when she said the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Well, look around as we have come to the end of other's money to finance the social engineering of the Left. Ayn Rand was 6 decades ahead of her time if you consider what she wrote then is coming to pass in America, the once unique experiment in individual liberty and self determination. Welcome to the gray world of collectivist misery America. I pray we turn around before the blood begins to spill on the streets.

Lanny

By the way, my own thought as to why the movie missed the point is that the movie makers don't get it. They do not understand the battle between liberty and collectivism.

I need to write a book, It would be a best seller. I've had a good intresting life. PC

When I was in junior high I noticed a paperback copy of this book at my Grandparents house. It looked huge to me, I had never read such a big book and I was intrigued. When I was in H.S. I finally actually picked it up and started on it. I would rank that book as number 1 on my list of best books. It is a "must read". If you haven't read it- go out and get it tommorrow. Every library has it and you can even find it in audio tapes or cds. Seriously, this book is as relevant today as it was in the 50's and 60's.

She was about 50 years old in 1957, so I am sure she is gone by now. quite a book though. I hope the movie is true to the book.

Isn't America great? Write a book, become a celebrity and become rich and popular. None of the drag on the little working people affects you anymore.

Be a citizen, voice your concerns and find out that there is no political party on your side.......and it is just drag, drag, drag

Where oh where are Small Government Anti Regulatory Republicans (In DC pressing for HUGE government and more regulations.....)