from my usual regimen of politics- and Islam-bashing – and interrupting work on
a column on immigrants and ignorance – I surrendered to the imperative of penning
a note about the proposed new film project of Atlas
Shrugged. The diversion is prompted by the announcement on November 1st
in the New York Times, “Producer
of ‘The Godfather’ Lands Rights to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Novel,” that Albert
Ruddy will try his hand at producing a TV version of the novel.
was not so much the article as it was the ominous statements contained in it by
Ruddy that bothered me to distraction.
credits include “The Godfather,”
plans to make a six- to eight-hour TV version of “Atlas Shrugged…. It took a
while — more than 40 years, actually.
television producer who does not like to quit, has landed rights to make his
passion project: a screen version of “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s Objectivist bible.
to the novel as the “Objectivist bible.”
The New York Times, like other mainstream publications
that purport to be the bellwethers of culture, has never been kind, fair, or
objective about anything Rand has ever written.
The two most notorious reviews of Atlas,
when it debuted in 1957, were by Granville Hicks, a
Marxist, in the New
York Times, and by Whittaker
Chambers, a conservative, in the National Review. That is apropos: a
Communist and a Conservative teamed together to excoriate a true but hated and
photograph and deceived by the straight headline of MIchael Cieply’s article, a
zinger of hope rose up in me. After all, Ruddy, unlike John
Aglialoro, who attempted to film the novel, was a seasoned producer with
about half a century of experience over Agliaboro.
novel from Aglialoro, telling him, “You shot the book, not the movie,” Mr.
Ruddy remembers telling Mr. Aglialoro, in explaining why he should let Mr.
Ruddy try again.
abortions of Atlas bore as little
resemblance to the novel as Russell Crowe’s Noah is a credible representation
of Noah and the Biblical Flood. The Bible, the Torah, and the Koran
are all basically works of fiction, as well, and Hollywood has always played
fast and loose with their highly improbable men and events, their impossible
metaphysics, and their astrological cosmology.
is highly dubious in its connotations and groundless in the assertion:
Godfather” and “The Cannonball Run,” almost had a deal back in the early 1970s,
when he wooed Ms. Rand personally while sitting on a small
couch in New York.
and feared the Russians might acquire Paramount Pictures to subvert the
project, wanted script approval; Mr. Ruddy, as adamant as she was, declined.
“Then I’ll put in my will, the one person who can’t get it is you,” Mr. Ruddy
recalls being told by Ms. Rand, who died in 1982.
has a different account of the meeting.
defective. Ayn Rand told me the gist of it herself, a year or two after it
happened, and others relayed the same account: Ruddy agreed 100% to her terms,
which of course meant total script control, she warned him that Hollywood would
put up a fight, he asserted to her that that would not be a problem for him,
then he went back to Hollywood . . . and no one ever heard from him again.
As to the miniseries he will make, it promises to be worse than Aglialoro’s
movie. It will drastically change the philosophic message, and bids fair to end
up, believe it or not, as being, by implication, anti-businessman. The…
“updating” he seems to have in mind involves the heroes not just
“withdrawing their sanction” and refusing to produce for the looters,
but actively sabotaging things.
York Times article from 2007, “Ayn Rand No Longer
Has Script Approval,” which details Ruddy’s and others’ earlier efforts to
film the novel for the big screen. That article also seemed to celebrate the
chance of disregarding Rand’s concern that both the script and the movie would
be unrecognizable by the time Hollywood put the story through the wringer. Did
Rand actually tell Ruddy that her will would specify that he would not be
allowed to film the over the script approval issue? That’s as much an
unsubstantiated claim as Ruddy and Rand discussing the project in a love seat.
the Soviets might acquire Paramount pictures and squelch any production of
Atlas is likewise apocryphal and unsubstantiated. Like many other things
ascribed to Rand, it was included to make her look silly and paranoid.
writer or writers yet to be named, sees his rendition as a love story, built
squarely around its commanding female protagonist, Dagny Taggart. (Angelina
Jolie was in line for an earlier, never-made version.)
Ms. Rand’s insistence on making a film for the future. That means redrawing its
capitalists and creators, who go on strike against creeping collectivism, as
figures more familiar than the railroad heiress and industrial titans who
figured in a book that was first published in 1957.
characters that he chose to portray. They were unrecognizable. But, what does
Ruddy mean when he states that Rand insisted on “making a film for the future”?
Did he or the article’s author mean “of the future”?
the principal characters, dressed in combat khaki, delivered their lines, their
dialogue, and soliloquies using cell phones. (I walked out after Act One, as
did half the audience.) Now, that was “for
the future,” and the characters were “familiar.” It was a “relevant” production
of an old play, geared to appeal to the young, the feckless, and the ignorant.
wants to colonize Mars,” Mr. Ruddy said. He spoke by telephone last week of his
plan for a mini-series in which an Internet blackout led by Bezos-like figures
might shut down cellphones, banks and almost everything else.
man’s existence, and what happens when men withdraw their minds and the fruits
of their minds from the world. It is not
about the men of the mind committing jihad
against society or a nation by sabotaging the system. In just that one
statement, Ruddy reveals he has less of a grasp of the novel than did
might take with the book, Mr. Ruddy said he had none. “If you can reimagine the
Old Testament and the New Testament,” he said, “why can’t I reimagine Ayn
Old and New Testaments have been “reimagined” countless times in Hollywood, so
that’s nothing new. If he winds up “reimagining” Atlas Shrugged so that it’s “relevant,” he will have lost me. In fact,
he will have made an enemy of me. A “faithful” making of the novel into film
isn’t his concern. He’s got to make a “with it” Atlas Shrugged, just as
Aglialoro’s was “with it,” complete with cell phones.
has succumbed to the myopia of the times. Mr. Ruddy is eighty-five years old, proving
that old age isn’t necessarily a mark of wisdom.