BREAKING: Vadim Perelman Shrugs off 'Atlas'
Well, here's some news I've been hoping to write up for a long while now ... director Vadim Perelman has officially dropped the adaptation of Atlas Shrugged, which is presumably still set to star Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart. Perelman signed on to the project last September, and as recently as April ComingSoon.net reported that the project was still a go. It may or may not still be moving forward, but I have it from the most reliable source possible -- Perelman himself -- that it will not be going forward with him at the helm.
CHUD wrote up this piece about Angelina Jolie supposedly telling MTV that Perelman was never signed to direct at all -- something Perelman finds interesting, since he had a signed contract that attached him, and Lionsgate (not Perelman, as CHUD asserts, though Perelman has done interviews about his attachment to the project) had put out many press releases announcing him as the director. Perelman was attached, and I can say with as much certainty as one can possibly have about a situation like this that the decision to step down was on Perelman's side.
While this may seem like bad news for all those Objectivists out there who were frothing at the bit to finally see Atlas on the big screen, it's great news for fans of Perelman, who directed one of my favorite films ever, House of Sand and Fog, and more recently The Life Before Her Eyes, which I enjoyed, even if 75% of my fellow critics didn't agree. I never felt Atlas was the right project for Perelman -- he's a very visual, artsy, poetic director, and Atlas Shrugged, for what literary merits it does have, is hardly poetic; it's a rationale for and description of a philosophy within the form of a novel.
So many attempts at adapting Atlas Shrugged have been tried and failed that, if I was a betting chick (which I have been known to be, on occasion) I certainly wouldn't put my hard-earned money on the film ever getting done at this point. As Eugene noted back in April, this is one book that's practically unfilmable; the book weighs in at over 1,000 pages, and John Galt's speech near the end rambles on for what would be probably two hours of film time if it were scripted in its entirety.
They'd have to cut the hell out of the speech to put it in a movie, and then there would ensue much moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth among Objectivist circles over the parts that were left out , no matter how they did it. Personally, I think if you're gonna adapt Atlas Shrugged, suck it up and do it as a week-long HBO miniseries or something, rather than butchering it entirely.
I wouldn't hold your breath for Jolie to stick around on the project either -- it's not like she doesn't have a stack of scripts sitting on her nightstand -- but, who knows? She's said to be a fan of the book, so if she wants to see it on the big screen, perhaps she'll stick around to see who the new director will be.
So, now that Perelman is off Atlas Shrugged, who would you like to see helm the project now, assuming it goes forward at all? I can't imagine that a director who's staunchly opposed to Objectivism as a philosophy would take it on, which pretty much leaves out the hard-core liberals. So who would that leave who might possibly lead the project to completion, without the end result being absolutely wretched?
_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
6-19-2008 @ 11:15AM
Jon said...
I'm so glad this project is in development hell; most objectivists are obnoxious idiots and god knows the world doesn't need any more of them.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 12:22PM
Curtis Plumb said...
Movies don't make Objectivists--books do.
6-21-2008 @ 12:49AM
Richard Doczy said...
Where's the beef, the survey, the proof of this off hand comment? There are simply too many Objectivists around now to make such a generalization credible. So it reflects badly upon its author, that's the gist of it.
6-19-2008 @ 7:25PM
Jerry Nilson said...
It seems unlikely that we will ever see a decent, positive 3 hour film of this great book, even though I would have hoped it would be possible. A mini-series is clearly a more realistic project, but I would still be doubtful of the outcome. /Jerry
Reply
7-05-2008 @ 12:56AM
William H. Stoddard said...
I don't know who I would pick for director of an "Atlas Shrugged" film, but I think it really ought to be three films, given the size of the book. There is, after all, the precedent of the three films of "The Lord of the Rings," another massive epic with an enthusiastic fanbase.
Reply
6-20-2008 @ 1:39AM
Steph said...
@ Jon - spoken like a true looter!
I really hope that the project gains a new director and some forward momentum. Angelina Jolie is one of my favorite actors, so to see her portray Dagny would be a real treat. I like the idea of making the book into several films, but that would require a lot of commitment for a book that promotes a philosophy that, sadly, most of the world does not see the wisdom of upholding. In short, the book just doesn't have a wide enough audience for that kind of studio backing.
Reply
6-20-2008 @ 9:33AM
Edward Cline said...
As an Objectivist, I'm happy that Perelman has "shrugged" off any attempt to translate the novel to the screen. It would take a director and producer with minimal respect for the author and the novel to pull it off, and all I can see, given the esthetic and moral turpitude and hostility of Hollywood today, is a story so botched up that I would watch it only if I were bound and gagged and tied to a movie theater seat. I was never happy with the production of The Fountainhead; there's just too much great writing and storytelling and drama in that novel, and it deserved an extended production and length at least as long as one of the Godfather films.
Reply
6-20-2008 @ 10:24AM
amanda said...
I am really impressed by Perelman, & I do love Ayn, literary flaws & all. (English was her second language, after all, & I often wonder how poetic she might have been if writing in Russian.) I thought Perelman was a *fabulous* choice precisely because he is so poetic -- he would have added so much to the project.
Adaptations *always* face the issue of rabid fans not understanding the world of cinema. Peter Jackson dealt with this amazingly well with LotR, and many fans who initially hated some changes eventually came to understand & respect the choices after listening to Jackson's DVD commentary discussing the choices. Other fans are still upset. I wouldn't expect Objectivist fans to be any different than any other fans of books adapted to film. (I, for one, am adamantly opposed to any more than a 30 seconds of The Speech -- any more just won't work.)
Jon, I forgive your bigotry because you probably haven't ever met some normal Objectivists. It's funny how people get stereotypes, isn't it? My nice, normal, quiet gay friend gets really upset when his flaming friends march in the Boston Pride parade wearing plastic pants & feather boas -- there are lots more nice, normal, quiet gay guys, but somehow the plastic pants & feather boas are the only things that other people notice. They're noticeable! Just like that minority of obnoxious Objectivists.
Reply
6-27-2008 @ 11:46AM
rk said...
well said amanda. completely agree. there is much hostility to the philosophy -- and mostly from the left -- with too little understanding.
7-18-2008 @ 8:45PM
Dante D'Anthony said...
Amanda calling someone who objects to homosexuality a bigot is...bigotry, actually since every world religion has clearly stated admonitions against it as moral turpidtude. Who are you to call the billions of faithfull "bigots" for adhering to the tenets of their cultures that evolved over many generations of human experience and not the single experience of what is proving to be the worst generation in human history as western civilization collapses?
Objecting to homosexuality is not bigotry, it is a choice, and a reasonabhle one considering the many millions who have died as a result of that sub-cultures sexual promiscuity spreading fatal disease as it did across the globe. I losty a brother to Aids, and he was the golden child of our family. The Gay lifestyle, in my opinion, is a lie. A death dealing, life destroying lie-and I make that assesment sadly, as I have known numerous homosexuals who I dearly loved as friends.
I my honest opinion they would have been better off getting therapy, pusruing monogamous relationships with member of the opposite gender, and raising families. In your opinion that makes me a bigot. Well, that's your OPINION.
6-20-2008 @ 11:13AM
Jon said...
I find it funny that you used the example of a gay man since Rand herself said that "there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."
And as for Objectivism itself, I'd prefer real Nietzsche to watered-down wannabe Nietzsche, and, while we're on the topic of watered-down Nietzsche, I think that Dostoyevsky did a pretty good job exposing the dangers inherent in such a self-centered and anti-altruistic way of thinking in a book much better than anything Rand ever wrote, most notably, Crime and Punishment. I think I heard it best stated when my professor said that Rand is something that "people discover in high school, and they like it then because it makes them feel special. The problem with some is that they never get past it."
Reply
6-20-2008 @ 12:55PM
Greg said...
Jon,
Being an authority, you surely understand that Rand had deep disagreements with Nietzsche, and was in important respects the polar opposite of him. So that is a red-herring: whether one prefers "real" over "watered-down" Neitzsche is not at issue here -- an Objectivist would obviously prefer neither.
And the notion that Objectivism is something for people to discover and grow up and out of (and if they don't, they are somehow deficient) is only begging the question. An Objectivist with a short fuse could just as well reply that Rand's philosophy is something for people to discover and grow up and in to -- and if they don't, they are somehow deficient. How helpful is that? The real problem is that arguments-from-intimidation are a terrible substitute for actually engaging the facts.
If you want to check out the facts, here's a place to start: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/10/opposite-of-googling-for-objectivism.html
Greg
6-21-2008 @ 1:32PM
amanda said...
So? I think she was wrong about that. Pointing to her bigotry does not excuse yours.
At least she has the (limited) excuse that she's a product of her times. What's your excuse?
As for the rest... I'm not going farther off-topic. Life is too short, and superficial discussions of philosophy with anonymous people on the internet is too boring. I posted here because it's about cinema.
6-26-2008 @ 11:30PM
rk said...
I think Amanda was being very civl -- you could have at least been that in your response. Whoever you are your response tells a lot. Iif you're listening to your college profs, you're in big trouble. there isn't a constituency more rabidly left, more second-hander and more dogmatic and incapable of independent thought than that (they are amazingly threatened by a philosopher of Rand's stature).
But I give you that you're right about Rand and her view on gays - she was wrong about that and should never have said that. however she was right about much else incl. the morality of rational self-interest. your views on her are misplaced to say the least. but why so much hostility? if you truly believe in altruism and sacrificing your life to others - then do it 100% consistently and see the result....oh and please don't make excuses as to why you cannot. Just do it -- follow your philosophy please.
6-20-2008 @ 9:02PM
David H. said...
Those who believe that "Atlas Shrugged" is not suitable for adaptation into a movie aren't considering that: the novelist (whose works also include screenplays which were produced as movies) began her own adaptation for an eight-hour television miniseries (she had completed a third of it at the time of her death); Ayn Rand intended for the speech to be abridged to fit inside the fifteen minutes between two commercial breaks; after her death, her heir prepared a five-minute version of the speech for use in a three-hour movie. (Within the novel itself, the hero's speech is reported to run three hours. In audio-recording versions, it's just a little over this.) The comparatively brief amounts of time intended by both for the speech is apt, as "Atlas Shrugged" remains a source of an intricate plot well-suited for a movie.
It is just as well that "Atlas Shrugged" has been now disassociated from a director who in interview admitted to reading "Atlas" just once. Given the opportunity to supplement the story with nuances taken from unscripted portions of the novel, this director's approach seems passive.
Reply
6-20-2008 @ 9:10PM
Kim Voynar said...
David,
As it happens, I used to be an Objectivist, have read Atlas nine times, and am very familiar with the history of adaptation attempts for this book. Which is why, as I said, I hold that it's unfilmable as a two-hour Hollywood movie. If it's going to be done, it should be as a miniseries.
The problem would still remain of who could/should direct it. An Objectivist director (assuming there is such a thing) would tend to over-emphasize the philosophical aspects of the novel to the extent that it would bore the mainstream, non-Objectivist audience to tears; a typical director trying to hone it down to two hours would cut-and-slash it to death.
I have no objection to Atlas being made into a film if it was done right; it's an interesting enough story as far as that goes, and I like the book as a book, even if I no longer hold with the philosophy. But a two-hour version would just be a dreadful butchering.
Reply
6-21-2008 @ 12:34AM
John Paquette said...
An important line in Atlas Shrugged is: "We do not tell, we show. We do not claim, we prove." So, a good Objectivist director would focus on making the movie a *good movie* which *shows* the story. And the story itself is an illustration of the truth of Objectivism. In the book, the story and the philosophy are so tightly integrated that any attempt to tell the story in a philosophy-free zone would simply make the story worse, i.e. less powerful and meaningful.
Ayn Rand did not believe philosophy to be an obstacle to entertainment. By infusing the events of her novel with deep significance, she made them more dramatic and exciting.
An unphilosophical "Atlas Shrugged" movie would basically be a still-born corpse. No soul.
I'd like to see the book done as 9 separate movies, the way George Lucas originally intended for Star Wars. That way, each movie can have some probability of being true to a piece of the book.
6-21-2008 @ 1:55PM
amanda said...
I think it could be done well as a two hour feature, if they find a director with the right instincts. You'd have to cut out many (most?) subplots & get to the essentials of the story to push the story forward, but that's what good directors & their editors do.
I agree that it would best be done by a non-Objectivist director, or at least a non-dogmatic Objectivist director who is willing to look with a critical artistic eye.
6-21-2008 @ 7:02AM
presidenthowardtaft said...
I really hope they don't make this movie.
Nothing could be worse than a cluster of Randroids debating the intellectual purity of what is sure to be an awful movie.
Most of these people thankfully grow up and realize that Rand is silly and move on. Let's hope the backers of this movie do the same.
Reply
6-21-2008 @ 10:34AM
Jack Greene said...
I, too, had reservations about the 2 hour version of Atlas. Another successful mini-series that comes to mind is 'Lonesome Dove'. As for director, Clint Eastwood maybe?
What struck me about the comments so far is the intense animosity toward "Objectivists." Reminds me of the 'Life' Magazine article on the phenomenon, "The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand." Didn't like that at the time...
Fact is, there are 4,000 ways to convey a point. The Objectivist folks who have only one bullet----moral outrage---would benefit from recalling their pre-Objectivist days. Would they have paid attention if their persuader opened with a slap in the face? Fact is, they are merely getting back what they project. If "The Fountainhead" opened with "Howard Roark sneered---at your evil stupidity" we may not be having this conversation today!
Reply