Cinema  

Ayn Rand Goes to West Hollywood

by Paul Rako

blurb

---

At the 40th anniversary party of the publishing of "Atlas Shrugged" I heard John Aglialoro complaining that he'd spent a million bucks for the movie rights and time was running out to get it made. He said the problem wasn't with the script, the problem was getting a major studio to sign up for the project. The next thing I heard about the venture was that the film deal was dead but there was going to be a mini-series on TNT. Now TNT has pulled the plug on that too.

There are a couple of important things to observe about all this. First is that Mr. Aglialoro is switching milieus, to invoke a Randian style of analysis. He starts out complaining about his million bucks. He's a businessman with a problem. When asked what the holdup was he starts talking about needing a major director and a major studio. All of a sudden he's not a businessman with a problem. He's an artiste and he needs a major studio and a major director to help him achieve his artistic goals.

The other interesting thing is his assertion that he doesn't have a script problem. I disagree. He must have a script problem, otherwise he would have a major director and major studio by now (five years later). An interesting tidbit that supports this thesis is the fact the movie turned into a mini-series. This flat-out proves he has a script problem. He is trying to make a video novel, not a movie. That's why he needs ten hours to tell the story instead of two. The script probably has too many characters doing too much stuff in too many places, just like any other Russian novel.

What Aglialoro has is the literary version of a Peter Keating floor plan. What he needs to do is "Roark" it by ripping out all the labyrinthine passages and spiral staircases and twisting hallways. John Aglialoro also has a business problem. He's a million out and the clock is ticking. Let's put our artiste hats in a bucket where they belong and get practical. First off, the million that got dropped five years ago has to return two million in today's dollars to beat even the bond market. The problem is that sinking more money into this project is even riskier then the original investment. So any further investment must be absolutely minimal. In addition the return has to come in months, not years. Major director and major studio? Forget about it. It will take a year of memos and meetings just to get the gaffer on board, much less a director.

What Mr. Aglialoro needs to do is go down to West Hollywood and knock on a few doors. Before long he will find experienced directors and actors that can kick out a feature-length film in a few months for way less than a million bucks. Yup, make "Atlas Shrugged" as a porn film. It shouldn't be too hard since, when you come right down to it, Dagny was something of a slut, right? She did Francisco (at 16!) then Rearden, and then Galt. Those are just the ones we know about. I'm sure Eddie Willers was getting some, and Cheryl Taggart must have been immediately drawn to the gal wearing the pants in her new family.

The million for the script and the million for the filming should return $5–9 million in two years, easy. Voilà, Mr. Aglialoro's business problem is solved. Sure that Peikoff guy might complain, but if he does, Aglialoro can just rename the thing "Atlas Goes Down" and by the time the case works its way through courts you could buy off Peikoff with a couple hundred thousand and still have a new house (or two) on the coast. I leave to your imagination all the really great scenes we can put in the movie. Like when Dagny is trying to get Ken Danagger to stay in business — a few office scenes, a few train scenes, and heck, there'd be a ton of good stuff when she does it in the train tunnel and . . .

Shhhh. Hear that howling sound? That's the Objectivists. They are going completely, absolutely, apoplectically ballistic. Objectivists have the same lack of humor as the guy that stuck an ice pick into Trotsky.

Sorry Leonard. Sorry David. I'm just kidding. I'm just trying to make a point about business problems vs. artistic problems. Perhaps we can rework the script and keep the story a conventional non-porn type of feature.

Okay, the first thing everybody has to realize is that however "Atlas Shrugged" is adapted it will be a bad movie, in the opinion of Objectivists and libertarians. Let's face it, there is no progress that is to the liking of these people. (I know, I'm one of them.) You could have Coppola, Lucas, and Spielberg direct it and resurrect Ayn to do the script and Objectivists would still hate it. They hate everything. It's their way.

So we are going to make a movie that the Objectivists will hate. This won't make it a bad movie. In fact, the more the Objectivists complain the better the box office potential. See, we are not trying to be didactic. That's the kiss of death for any film. Propaganda doesn't sell. We are trying to get one or two key words and key concepts in the public's head. Then they can buy the book and get really blown away or maybe they will get involved in the movement or maybe they will just appreciate John Stossel's documentaries more.

Remember, we are no longer artistes. We are artists. That's an artiste with some business sense.

The first rule of making a successful movie is that it must have a good story. Not a good story to the middle-aged male atheist tax cheats that comprise our movement. No, the story must be a good one to 14-year-old girls, because they drive the entire movie industry. The only good story to a teenage girl is a love story. So that's what we need to write. Duh. Before you start spouting off about intellectual and moral issues and timeless truths, you need to pull your head out of wherever it's at and look around.

Did you see "Titanic"? If you read Stephen Cox's great book about the Titanic you know the amazing moral, social, intellectual, and political issues that were involved in that incident. All great stuff. All really interesting. To us. To a 14-year-old girl? Nope. That's why the "Titanic" movie was a love story. And a pretty good one. Titanic grossed $1,835,400,000. That's 1.8 billion dollars. See what a good love story can do for you? Same thing goes for "Pearl Harbor." Boy, you could really bring out some great intellectual issues about Pearl Harbor. To us. But not to a teenage girl. What did they make? A love story. You can bitch and moan all you want. It's not the studios, it's not the directors, and it's not the writers. It's what works. Period. You can't blame General Motors for building SUVs and you can't blame the liquor stores for alcoholism. The market provides what works. Love stories work. Tortured Russian intellectual exercises don't. At least they don't work at the box office. That's why there is no movie. Yet.

Now that we've got all the conceptual framework built, we're gonna write a nice love story. Everything else pretty much just falls out from that. I'll just touch on some of the major issues so the writers don't go astray again.

1. It must be short. Not paring knife short. Machete short.
2. There is only one acceptable love story in the book. That's between Dagny and Rearden. Galt comes way too late and Francisco banging a 16-year-old just won't get past the censors.
3. Despite what I said about Dagny as a slut, we all know this would be Box Office Death, so Francisco is a childhood friend and she never does Galt. If she did Galt it would not only make her a slut but also have her two-time a primary character. Nope, Dagny and Rearden. Period. Live with it.
4. For the same reason Rearden cannot be married. Maybe divorced, but certainly not cheating on his wife.
5. Francisco's in but as a complementary character and foil. Everybody else gets cut — no Eddie Willers, no James Taggart, no Cheryl, no Ragnar, no Midas, no Halley. Galt may never even make a physical appearance. His speech, condensed to 40 seconds, will be background to Dagny and Francisco so we can have reactions and flashbacks to keep things moving. Even 40 seconds of Galt's speech will be tough on those teenagers.
6. Villains: They're in but with minimal character development. Mouch and Thompson will be combined into one character as will Stadler and Ferris. Same with Boyle and Taggart and ix-nay on the brother connection — way too complex for a nice love story. The labor guy, Gus Webb? Or was he in the other book? Anyway it doesn't matter, he's out. Lillian can be Rearden's sister or maybe (and I mean maybe) his ex-wife. Phillip is out.
7. Developing characters: The wet nurse was always a favorite of mine — after all I did cry when he got popped, but then I was 14 and pretty emotional then. Still, a developing character or two is pretty good.
8. Supporting characters: Well, the bum on the train is a great role. Supporting Oscar for sure. Show him in the new job Dagny gives him. Everybody loves a recovering wino.
9. Plot: Dagny overcomes a bunch of dorks to become a successful railroad tycoon while meeting the man of her dreams.
10. Why railroads still? Because the props will be cheaper than planes to rent. The transpo is the MacGuffin, as Hitchcock used to call it. It really doesn't matter. It also needs to be shot in contemporary times because a '40s costume piece will be too expensive and would add nothing to the romance.
11. Climax: Galt's speech — not. The speech needs to be moved to before the Galt's Gulch episode because that will be the climax. I don't know, let's have Hank keep circling until he finds Dagny and they are united in paradise and then the lights go out all over the country. If we film in California the lights will go out all by themselves so that should save on SFX and production costs.
12. Neither Galt nor Francisco is a love interest but Francisco can serve as the surrogate Galt until he does appear.

I know you're probably getting ready to write the magazine and complain and call me names. I just thought you might want to know what it would take to have a major studio and a major director make this film. It will take a script based on these principles. Your failure to understand that is indicative of the failure of libertarians to succeed in convincing the public at large. You have to take your intellectual victories where you can. The victory of this film is that it will cast businesspeople as heroes and sympathetic characters while the government and incompetents will be villains. That may not be enough for you but it is all you are going to get for the next 50 or 100 years and I want to see the film, not argue about it's purity or fealty to the novel. That we can make it as a feminist piece with Dagny as a successful businessperson is great. (I would have her juggling family and kids while she succeeds but I fear the inevitable death threats I would get from the Objectivists.)

Nope, a nice feminist love story. 85 million domestic gross and the marketing tie-ins boggle the mind. The John Galt action figure alone will probably pull in a million or two. Then we can remake "The Fountainhead" and it won't be long before all the brainiacs and artistes con some poor slob into doing a second "Atlas Shrugged" because all the movement types hated the first one. Now you're getting some coverage baby. Now you're getting some legs.

Send in the writers, we're ready now.

© Copyright 2010, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.