1. Eric, please not her!

But she does have her own island now?

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2007 07:25 AM

2. Wanna be sick at 8:30 in the morning?

Rumor is Angelina is going to play Dagny Taggart in the planned Atlas Shrugged movie.

Ick
Blech
Gag

Talk about casting for dollars instead of casting to the character.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2007 08:26 AM

3. Somehow I can't picture Dagny as a tattooed woman.

At least Angelina uses her cause celebrity for good. If the paparazzi are going to follow her around, why shouldn't she use them for some good?

I kind of wonder at what she does do with respect to raising her kids. These celebs have a half dozen nannies raising their own or adopted kids.

Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 08:54 AM

4.
Here's my question for Angelina Jolie. She has what, like 6 adopted kids now? My mother had 4 kids; I am the oldest but were were pretty close in age to being Irish quadruplets, birthdates spread five years apart.

As I remember it, with 4 kids my mom didn't have time to watch 10 minutes of her favorite tv show or to get her hair done (and those were weekly and monthly things).

Yet, Angelina Jolie seems to spend 24 hours a day "saving the world". Lady, how about those kids at home? Or is that too boring for a "beautiful actress who wants to help humanity".

Posted by: John Bailo on November 20, 2007 08:55 AM

5. She'll make a great Monica Lewinsky in a future flick. With Kathy Bates as Hillary.

Posted by: Rey Smith on November 20, 2007 08:56 AM

6. Ragnar,

I don't like Jolie's personal views, her Africa trips, etc. However, it's unfair to say that she will not do a good job of acting as Dagny Taggart just because of her personal views. She is apparently very excited about the role, and will do it the strongest possible justice. Vadim Pearlman will also make a great director. He lived under communism as did Ayn Rand. For more Atlas Shrugged Movie info, check out Bidinotto's blog. Don't be like a Progressive and base your decisions on emotion.

For me, there is one way that Angelina Jolie can truly be an antidote to despair. To do a great job acting as Dagny Taggart.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 20, 2007 09:05 AM

7. When is the American public going to stop endowing movie stars with IQ's which more often than not are just not there? Just because they can act doesn't mean they can or should use their fame or success to influence policy outside of their field of expertise. All of them should stick to what they do best, which is acting and entertaining. I remember reading earlier this year about some actress who was requested to give testimony to some Senate committee about an illness {can't remember the actress or the illness}simply because she portrayed a victim of that illness in a film. I mean, come on! They couldn't find a real expert?

Posted by: katomar on November 20, 2007 09:15 AM

8. That description of her is going a bit far, methinks.

Posted by: Michele on November 20, 2007 09:21 AM

9. The antidote just had the opposite effect regarding the portrayal of Dagny. She is going to have a hard time convincing me that she is Dagny. Seems the Ayn Rand of today is different than three and two decades ago that I read and reread the book. I recall Dagny as being very moral and independent.

Jolie, how are you going to pull it off? You certainly haven't picked the same men that Dagny did. Jolie, you are more like Dagny's brother than you are Dagny.

Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 10:01 AM

10. Swatter,

Again, as I said above. Yeah, it's hard for us to believe that Jolie could be a good actor if we take into account her personal life. And I'm sure there would be a much better no-name or up-and-coming actor to take the role. But that's unfortunately not often the way that Hollywood works. So, if Jolie does indeed do a good job of *acting* the role, then bravo for her. Just because someone has a horrible personal morality, does not mean they can't do a good job. Although, I also would not be surprised if she screwed it up royally.

It would be nice if everyone was at a higher moral level, but the reality is that Progressive hedonism has taken its toll.

If Jolie does do a good job with the roll, then that will be one small step towards convincing those who never would have read Atlas Shrugged, but who see the movie, that there is a better way forward.

A better way than the hedonistic, politically correct, least-common-denominator, jealousy and guilt-ridden malaise that Progressives and their Mainstream Media and Hollywood sycophants foist upon us today.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 20, 2007 11:15 AM

11. jeff B., I never said she wouldn't do a good job playing Dagny.

Not once.

Ever.

She can act. She could probably play a gray goose quite convincingly.

However she is not the right "look" nor does she project the right "attitude" for the role. Dagny is tall, cool and competent, not Angelina sultry. Additionally, I would indeed suspect her world view, which does appear to contrast greatly with Dagny's would probably color her portrayal and betray the character

It probably won't matter though:
1. I can't think of one single director whose world view would do Atlas justice: They will color it with PC bullsh*t; they will make the failing users and takers look sympathetic; they will make those that drop out look maniacal, selfish and extreme.
2. The book, story, the many sub-stories, the huge cast of characters, sub-characters, 81 page Galt soliloquy and most importantly the philoposphy are too immense for a movie;
3. I won't see it.

I NEVER see movies of favorite books. I can think of only one author whose works were accurately and well portrayed in film and that is Larry McMurtry... Lonesome Dove and Terms of Endearment both exceptionally faithful to the book.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2007 11:31 AM

12. I'm just glad Atlas Shrugged is getting made into a movie. Atlas is the second most influential book among readers ever written, just behind the Bible. It is my favorite book, and making it in to a movie will help the cause of liberty and limited governments.

I don't care if true Rand fans never see the movie. That would be preaching to the choir anyway! I want the movie to popularize her ideas among the types who would never read such a long and difficult book. I want to erode the ideas of socialism by promoting the ideas of individualism.

Rand knew that fiction and movies worked better to promote these ideas than academic works and non-fiction. That's why she wrote fiction. If you ever get a chance, rent "The Fountainhead." I own it on VHS. I'm sure Rand always meant for Atlas to be made in to a movie as well. Yay!

Many authors have argued for the practical success of free markets in improving the lot of all, especially of the poor, but no one really defended the MORALITY of free market capitalism the way Rand did.

I don't care if Jolie is an Objectivist, I just care that she is a good actress. That is one of the beauties of capitalism: you don't have to agree with someone in order to do business.

By the way, you probably know the presidential candidate who's views are closest to Rand's, and who is supported by the most Rand enthusiasts?

Who is Ron Paul?

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 20, 2007 02:46 PM

13. I read Fountainhead and I saw Fountainhead, the movie. I'll take the written version and it isn't as long as Atlas Shrugged.

Funny thing, my mom told me I should read the book when I was a rookie in high school. I did and it affected me greatly. I later asked her why that book since she was an avid reader and this was the only book she recommended.

I was always independent, etc., but you know what, I think she recommended it just because it was a good story and didn't have anything to do with me.

And believe me, it was a profound book.

And do you know what current presidential candidate is likened to Ayn Rand, and one in which Ayn Rand would hurl at the minions following said candidate? Where is Ron Paul?

Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 04:20 PM

14. Exactly why she'd ruin Atlas

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 21, 2007 11:17 AM

15. Ragnar, the naked human form is a thing of beauty, especially when fit and young. Rand had no problem with taking pride in a capable body. Her actors and actresses in Fountainhead were physically attractive. That physical attractiveness was a metaphor for the virtue of the underlying character. Objectivists tend to exercise and diet in order to embody self-respect.

Rand has Dagney (or was it Dominique in the Fountainhead, I may be confused) model for a sculpture in a temple to the human spirit. She is naked, and glorious!

I would have no problem with a little "sex sells" being used to promote Atlas Shrugged. Atlas has sex scenes, as does the bible.

A Puritanical attitude, whether towards alcohol, drugs or sex just leads to more misuse of these things. There is a right time for sex and images of naked people and a wrong time. A little tasteful nudity in Atlas would be a good thing, and Jolie is just the person to pull it off! :)

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 05:06 PM

16. God, you are tiresome. You need to get over yourself, Bruce. I could say a bright white moon is beautiful and you would extol the virtues of a black night.

It has nothing to do with a beautiful human form, it has to do with the fact that the Dagny character is not dependant on her sexuality while Angelina almost soley depends on hers to sell.

And it WAS the Fountainhead, which rips the hell out of your Rand bona fides.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 23, 2007 11:29 AM

17. Ragnar, I say I am not sure when I know I am not sure. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. It was one or the other. I guess it was the other. But my point was that Rand does not object to nudity. That point stands.

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood your objection to Jolie @ 14. It seemed to me by your link you were objecting to her willingness to appear in film semi-naked. I knew that you are a Christian, so I jumped to the conclusion that your objection was of the Puritanical kind. My mistake.

By the way, Rand was a proud atheist, as you know. So was her fictional character, and your namesake, Ragnar D. I only agree with Rand about 95% of the time. I guess we just disagree with different aspects of her philosophy. I'll bet we agree most of the time, though.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 23, 2007 04:32 PM

18. Once again you are missing the point. Jolie is not up for the role of Ayn Rand, but for that of Dagny Taggart.

Dagny does not depend upon her sexuality... for most of the book she doesn't never even considers her sexuality. Given that Jolie depends upon hers for her roles and characters, that make her the antithesis of Dagny. Furthermore, as I claimed earlier, Dagny is a thinker, a problem solver, cool and competant. Jolie is sultry and physical.

She is no more Dagny, than Pitt, who has been named for the role, is John Galt.

Just because they are the current golden darlings of Hollywood and tabloid TV doesn't mean they are meant for every role ...and they certainly are not meant to play these particular characters.

This movie will be a sloppy bastardization of the book AND the philosphy... and to really be faithful to the book {snicker, yeah right, like that will happen} would have to run for about 20+ hours.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 24, 2007 11:44 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?