Skip to content

“Atlas Shrugged” Movie to Remain Faithful to Spirit of “Atlas Shrugged,” Be Terrible

OMG, you guys! Filming on the Atlas Shrugged major motion picture event has begun! Atlas Shrugged, of course, is the massively popular mid-20th century X-Men prequel in which a team of misfit billionaires endowed with mutant powers of Capitalism band together under the leadership of John Galt to defeat Communism by… running away? From it? I guess? I don’t know. For all the answers, you’d have to  read the book. Which is over a thousand pages long, with only roughly nine million of those pages being devoted to extensive and poorly informed speeches about economic policy. OR, you could take a look at my rejected screenplay! Which, fortunately, I am re-printing for you right now:

ATLAS SHRUGGED

A MOVIE

BY SADY DOYLE

WITH AYN RAND

BUT MOSTLY SADY DOYLE

ACT ONE

HANK REARDON, MULTI-MILLIONAIRE INDUSTRIALIST: Who is John Galt?

DAGNY TAGGART, MULTI-MILLIONAIRE INDUSTRIALIST/LADY: I would also like to know the answer to that question!

HANK REARDON: (Slaps DAGNY.)

DAGNY TAGGART: Ohhhh, so sexy!

ACT TWO

HANK REARDON: And yet, I still wonder: Who is John Galt?

FRANCISCO D’ANCONIA, MULTI-MILLIONAIRE INDUSTRIALIST: I know. But I won’t tell you.

DAGNY TAGGART: Damn you! I loved you once!

ACT THREE

(Flashback: A young Francisco D’Anconia and a young Dagny Taggart are in love.)


FRANCISCO D’ANCONIA, NOT YET A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE INDUSTRIALIST: (Slaps DAGNY.)

ACT FOUR

HANK REARDON: Seriously, though. Who is John Galt?

SOME GUY: Surprise, it’s me! And I hate poor people!

DAGNY TAGGART: I am in love with you now. You represent my ideal.

JOHN GALT: (Slaps DAGNY.)

THE END.

Anyway, this movie: It is gonna suuuuuuuuuck. The Atlas Shrugged movie, once attached to Angelina Jolie and/or Charlize Theron and/or several actors you might actually have heard of at one point, has been reduced to a rush project with a $5 million budget (for context: I was watching the Se7en commentary track recently — don’t ask — and David Fincher complained about only having something like fifty thousand dollars for the title sequence), backed primarily by the CEO of an exercise equipment company, with the leads being played by some lady from a show called Mercy and that one Ugly Betty dude, and directed by — and starring! As John Galt! — Paul Johansson.

Who is Paul Johansson, you ask? (Haha. REFERENCES.) Well! He is lots of things! For one, continuing the theme of “every single person in Atlas Shrugged being somebody from a TV show I don’t watch,” he is a dude who was once on One Tree Hill. For another, he is the director of precisely two feature-length projects, apparently, in his entire life, one of those things being so obscure that it is not even on his Wikipedia page, and the other thing being a TV movie. (For which, to be fair, he won a Daytime Emmy for “Outstanding Directing in a Children/Youth/Family Special.” That should really help him with all the rough sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged!) For three, ACK GAH GIANT FACE:

Egyptian Theatre

Whoa! SLOW DOWN THERE, Mega-Face. You know, I’d really think that casting someone with roughly 150% of the normal allotment of face would be a liability for this project. After all, a tremendous amount of the plot hinges on people not recognizing John Galt, or on people (spoiler!) wondering who he is. Casting someone with such a distinctively, um, huge face really changes the central question of the book, from “who is John Galt” to “who is that dude with THE GIGANTIC PORK SHOULDER FOR A HEAD???”

Anyway! Here is a fourth and even more fun thing to know about director/star of Atlas Shrugged Paul Johansson: He has the most ridiculous resume of all time. His IMDB page is a trove of wonders! Goofy, embarrassing, shameful wonders. Especially if you really hate Atlas Shrugged. For example, here’s a game I like to play at home, called, “What Is the Most Embarrassingly Terrible-Sounding Project Paul Johansson Has Ever Been Involved With?” Your options are!

(A) Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies. (Plot: “The evil Djinn is awakened once more, and must collect 1001 souls to begin the Apocalypse.”)

(B) Berserker. (Plot: “A warlord’s son is cursed to be reborn lifetime after lifetime and fated to love and lose until the curse is lifted.”)

(C) Highlander: The Raven. (Plot: “A female Immortal and thief tries to redeem herself with the help of an ex-cop.” And gets cancelled really, really quickly, apparently.)

(D) The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day. (Plot: “The MacManus brothers are living a quiet life in Ireland with their father, but when they learn their beloved…” You know what? It’s a fucking Boondock Saints movie. The SEQUEL.)

(E) Toxic. (Plot: “The lives of a nightclub owner, a crime boss, a stripper, a bartender, two hitmen, a prostitute and a psychic take a turn for the worse when they are trapped in an escaped mental patient’s sinister path of madness and destruction.”)

(F) Martial Law II: Undercover. (Plot: “No summary.”)

What do you think, home viewing audience? Which of these is The Most Embarassingly Terrible-Sounding Project Paul Johansson Has Ever Been Involved With?

Haha, just kidding. The most embarrassingly terrible-sounding project Paul Johansson has ever been involved with is, of course, Atlas Shrugged.

58 Comments

  1. So, in movie terms, a page equals a minute of film. That means that this is going to be…oh, sweet baby Jesus, just shoot me now.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
  2. katiemonstrrr wrote:

    OH MY GOD. I can’t wait to see this so I can mock it viciously and relentlessly. Better yet, I need to tell my friend who had an “Ayn Rand phase” in high school about this, so we can viciously and relentlessly mock it together! Yay!

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
  3. Britte wrote:

    Barf. Everywhere.
    Why oh why are they making a movie?
    All those Ayn Rand Assholes are probs peeing themselves with excitement right now…

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
  4. Miss Minx wrote:

    Thanks so much for the quick synopsis! Mr. Minx was wondering to himself if he should bother reading Atlas Shrugged – this will now save him at least six months struggling to finish it and not throw it out the window instead.

    And I am kind of both appalled and sad that my high school Ayn Rand Phase companion never moved on from it.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
  5. IrishUp wrote:

    HAHAHAHA! Best Synopsis EVAH!

    @ChristianneB – 1 page of *dialogue* is about 1 min of action. So take heart, Rand’s looong derisive descriptions of the great unwashed will be reduced to seconds; the dialogue awkward, but quick.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
  6. Gayle Force wrote:

    Although, if ALL those past projects and plots were combined with Atlas Shrugged, like An Undercover John Galt goes Berserker with the Highlander on All Saints Day because Toxic Evil Never Dies (that’s kinda the plotline anyway to Atlas Shrugged, right? I’ve never gotten past the first 100 pages, I don’t know), that would possibly be a thing of beauty and light, and I would be first in line to buy tickets.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
  7. AnotherJenn wrote:

    In his One Tree Hill role the guy once sat waiting for his heart surgery and then watched, appalled, as the donor team tripped with the cooler, the heart skidded across the floor, and a therapy dog ATE HIS NEW HEART RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. If that’s not his worst role ever that’s just sad.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
  8. abby jean wrote:

    Paul Johansson was, is, and always will be Jon Sears The Skeevy Guy Who Tried To Get With (And Likely Rape) Kelly When She Was Trying To Make Dylan Jealous During The Time on 90210 When All The Girls Joined A Sorority. he was also rather evil and patriarchal on One Tree Hill, so this casting makes total sense to me.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
  9. Scott wrote:

    I’ve never watched an episode of One Tree Hill, but I am absolutely positive that this scene is the greatest scene ever to appear on that program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPDEirVTZk

    CONTAINS: comic pratfall & canine misbehavior played for dramatic effect.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
  10. assassin wrote:

    omg abby jean i knew i recognized him from something not mentioned and you have pegged it. joe sears!

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
  11. EM wrote:

    Gayle Force, that’s sheer brilliance.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
  12. Shena wrote:

    AnotherJenn, I started 2010 by watching that One Tree Hill clip. He doesn’t even look shocked when the dog eats his heart…more disappointed and resigned. I think it’s my New Year’s Eve tradition.

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
  13. Gnatalby wrote:

    Oh Dan Scott, so many amazing moments on OTH. Like when he killed his own brother.

    Or when he blackmailed his son into (potentially) dying of a treatable disease to gain custody.

    Don’t tell anyone I watch! It’s ironic! Whatever that means!

    Monday, June 14, 2010 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
  14. Scott wrote:

    So under an Objectivist moral standard, who is to blame for the dog eating human heart incident?

    -The hospital, for wasting time and money treating poor people, instead of protecting organs from random dogs

    -The potential recipient, for not earning enough money to afford armed guards for his heart

    -The dog, for being a welfare recipient, welfare in this case meaning carelessly transported human hearts

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:01 am | Permalink
  15. Andrew wrote:

    I’ve seen Wishmaster 2! It’s hilariously bad. Really just hilarious. My friends and I watched it something like 3 times in one weekend and laughed our asses off every time.

    I’m pretty sure this guy dies really stupidly at some point in it, but the only guy I really remember from the movie is Andrew Divoff, who played the Wishmaster. He was the funniest part of the movie by far.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:22 am | Permalink
  16. Dawn. wrote:

    OMFG. That sounds so decadently bad. I am so excited to get trashed and watch it and mock it viciously the entire time. I can’t stand Ayn Rand.

    P.S. Sady, I seriously LOLed over Whoa! SLOW DOWN THERE, Mega-Face. He is so scary.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:30 am | Permalink
  17. Niknik wrote:

    I read this and it reminded me of this http://www.spudworks.com/article/66/2/ which is basically what Sady did, only slightly longer. God, I’m so humiliated that I had an “Ayn Rand Phase” in high school.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 1:52 am | Permalink
  18. scrumby wrote:

    There was a book that just came out with people describing the moment they became a feminist: Mine was reading Atlas Shrugged for a guy in high school.After admitting I didn’t like it he patted my hand and said “I guess it was just a little to much for you”… I threw the book at his head.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 2:38 am | Permalink
  19. Eneya wrote:

    I get that it is very popular to dismiss Ayn Rand these days. Huh.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  20. LSG wrote:

    Scrumby – good for you! I read The Fountainhead for the first boy I was madly in infatuation with, and it very much killed my buzz. Sadly, I tried to have earnest conversations about it instead of following your example. (To be fair to the boy in question, I think he was going for “provocative” not “let me inform you, little lady.”)

    Eneya, do you suspect Sady of dismissing Rand because it is fashionable to do so?

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 9:39 am | Permalink
  21. Samantha b. wrote:

    Yep, we’re all dedicated followers of fashion here, Eneya. Rand’s an atrocious writer with incredibly cruel philosophies that are also nonsensical in application. So vive la mode.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 9:52 am | Permalink
  22. Molly Ren wrote:

    Reads:”that dude with THE GIGANTIC PORK SHOULDER FOR A HEAD???”

    *looks at dude’s photo*

    *is confused*

    Is he really that disproportionate?

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  23. @Irishup: there’s a 70 page speech in Atlas Shrugged! For length, we’re talking Berlin Alexanderplatz here.

    Dissing Ayn Rand never goes out of fashion. I never tire of quoting Flannery O’Connor on the matter: “That woman makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoyevsky.”

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
  24. Gnatalby wrote:

    @Molly Ren: I’ve been watching him as Dan Scott on OTH and never thought he had an abnormally large head.

    I also waffled about saying this in my first comment, but I think it’s a little out of bounds to be criticizing the man for the size of his body parts.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
  25. snobographer wrote:

    Christianne and Irishup – They’ll cut down a lot of time by not going into a lot of internal blather about colored lights. Once you boil that book down to things actually happening, I think you’ve only got about 70 minutes of action and dialogue.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
  26. JT wrote:

    Feel sorry for me. No, really, please… My father and brother are both Objectivists! *sob*
    I even tried, as a teenager, to read the philosophy and see what all the fuss is about (never tried the fiction, though). I couldn’t get past what Rand said about how a woman could never be President because women’s role is to “hero-worship” men. WTF???

    And I wasn’t even a feminist yet (in fact, I held many regrettable anti-feminist views as a teen, but I chalk that up to my Objectivist/conservative family), but the “inferior woman” garbage really turned me off. Rand must have had some serious self-hatred issues going on.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
  27. IrishUp wrote:

    @ChristianneB – LOL! Oh yes. That. Yanno, even in my Ayn Rand phase, my approach to “This is John Galt Speaking” was to read 1 paragraph at random intervals till it was over. And that Flannery O’Connor quote is priceless!

    @snobographer – good point. 70min of straight to MST3K film sounds just about right!

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
  28. madaha wrote:

    @Abby Jean:

    wasn’t Kelly reading Atlas Shrugged in that episode?????????

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
  29. madaha wrote:

    “a woman could never be President because women’s role is to “hero-worship” men. ”

    I guess that answers my question about how objectivists are almost all men.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
  30. Erin wrote:

    “a woman could never be President because women’s role is to “hero-worship” men. ”

    Did she really say that? I’ve only read the fiction, and not the ‘philosophy’ so I interpreted a lot of her stuff differently than perhaps it was meant to be interpreted. But if she actually said that, I would be surprised, since Dagny was a captain of industry or something, I don’t see why a woman being president would be that far out of Rand’s comfort zone.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
  31. Erin wrote:

    And it is weird that she thought that way, because she was an incredibly successful writer, and she started an entire philosophical movement. And what did her husband do? I think maybe he was an actor, who didn’t work much?

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
  32. ElectraSteph wrote:

    I read the Fountainhead in high school for a scholarship application in which I was supposed to apply some Objectivist principles to a life story, and related to characters from the novel. But I was so naive that I didn’t believe that the book was actually saying what it seemed to be saying, philosophy-wise, so I’m sure the paper I wrote entirely missed the point. And later, in college, one of my classmates was kind enough to mansplain to the room that it did indeed mean what I thought it could not possibly mean… at which point I decided the world was a stupid place. And also I decided to come out of the closet.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
  33. Erin wrote:

    @ ElectraSteph

    But it is literature. Can’t it be interpreted different ways? Maybe mansplainer just interpreted it the way he wanted to? I’ve never had a Rand conversation with someone who didn’t interpret the book like I did or someone who just dimissed it with snarky remarks. Perhaps I need some mansplaining…

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
  34. SunlessNick wrote:

    “What Is the Most Embarrassingly Terrible-Sounding Project Paul Johansson Has Ever Been Involved With?”

    For embarrassingly terrible, I think I’d have to say Wishmaster 2. For the actual worst, I’d have to say Berserker, but any hilarity is lost under ick.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm | Permalink
  35. Eneya wrote:

    Actually no, I haven’t accused her. I only mentioned it because I find it weird.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
  36. alanna wrote:

    Slightly related: if you would like to read a novel featuring “the ghost of Ayn Rand, resurrected and bottled in a hurricane lamp to serve as an unwilling guide” (slightly paraphrased from the blurb on the back cover), read Matt Ruff’s “Sewer, Gas & Electric: The Public Works Trilogy.” It is exactly as bizarre and fantastic as you think, and Ayn-the-unwilling-spirit-guide does not disappoint.

    I will be sneaking in to this movie to guffaw loudly and throw popcorn (and bricks, maybe) at the screen.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
  37. madaha wrote:

    @Erin
    Is it literature? Or propaganda?

    Because does anyone deny it has a massive ax to grind?

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
  38. KMTBerry wrote:

    WHen we were 15, my best friend and I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD out loud and laughed our asses off throughout it, the whole thing was just so RIDICULOUS and OVERLY DRAMATIC!! It was the 1970′s and the book was no longer popular. The fact that it has BECOME popular again is just mind-boggling to me! Even a fifteen year old would find it’s philosophy laughable!

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm | Permalink
  39. Erin wrote:

    @Madaha

    That’s definitely a good point. I do not know.

    But then are any political novels literature? What about her first novel, We the Living, which was pretty autobiographical, and definitely had an axe to grind, but was pretty much like any other slightly autobiographical novel?

    I feel like I’m the only liberal/feminist in the world who doesn’t hate Ayn Rand, and I don’t get it.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
  40. Erin wrote:

    Ack, I just spelled ax like the gross hair product. Their advertising compaign is leaking its way into my brain!

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
  41. Stacy wrote:

    Has anyone seen this week’s Post Secret? One post card sender confesses that reading “Atlas Shrugged” made him question if he married the right woman (does she not like slapping?!) But then someone else e-mailed that reading the book gave her the strength to pull out of an eating disorder. It boggles my mind, but maybe that book did one good thing! For one person! Once!

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
  42. JT wrote:

    Here is a feminist article on Ayn Rand’s 1968 essay “About a Woman President”.

    I’ve linked page 2 but there’s a multi-page article on it. Also, some feminist insight on Dagny Taggart.

    I do not despise Rand. She is a woman who created a philosophy that still endures to this day. I think she is misguided and wrong, as well as waaay too essentialist in her views of gender.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
  43. JT wrote:

    Ack, I totally borked that link. Here it is:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_4_31/ai_55343570/pg_2/

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
  44. JT wrote:

    Geez, sorry for the triple post, but this article is actually a REVIEW of a feminist take on Ayn Rand’s article. It hits good notes in the beginning, but gets a little surprisingly anti-feminist at the end. Sorry…

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
  45. Erin wrote:

    Thanks, JT! I will read that later, because it looks long! I read to the bottom of the first page where it starts talking about how her gender essentialism conflicts with the other parts of her philosophy. I’m not sure where the review will end up with that, but I definitely think it is true, which is why her views on gender were easy for me to ignore when I read her books in high school (to be honest, I haven’t re-read them so maybe I should stop commenting?). And I’ve become a less hard-core feminist as I’ve gotten older, so it couldn’t have just been that I hadn’t had my feminist ‘awakening’ yet.

    I was the most hard-core feminist amongst my college friends, and so they could never figure out why I liked Ayn Rand… Maybe I am just confused?

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
  46. Abbey wrote:

    Dagny Taggart: I see you have purchased an unwearably large ruby necklace for me.

    Hank Rearden: Now we may engage in sexual intercourse.

    (They bang.)

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
  47. Samantha b. wrote:

    Erin, this is the precise quote from her piece “Answer to Readers About A Woman President:”
    “For woman qua woman, the essence of her femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to a man. . . .”
    So, there you go. She did really did say that. Also, her husband was an artist not an actor.

    JT, your link does not work, but the idea that that particular Rand piece could be interpreted as feminist is really, really a stretch. I don’t know that I despise Ayn Rand (she’s not the first philosopher to be wrong)as much as I despise Alan Greenspan, who actually attempted to apply her philosophies to the world. As he admitted later, they didn’t actually work and- whoopsie!- kind of fucked up our economy in a big, big way. So for anyone to look around at the current state of our country and argue that Ayn Rand should be reconsidered is pretty- well, let’s say- generous.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 6:55 am | Permalink
  48. Samantha b. wrote:

    Okay, now that you’ve given a working link, JT, the actual book you’re describing enters the Googleable realm: http://books.google.com/books?id=bei61AcYlT0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Susan+Love+Brown+ayn+rand&source=bl&ots=qRBhdY0r_h&sig=2P2vxo9Ziz48RPM-uTQTy6yKmI4&hl=en&ei=Ka4YTOeGKcOblgeWnuWoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Susan%20Love%20Brown%20ayn%20rand&f=false
    Yeah, they really *are* stretching like old bubblegum. Brown quotes Rand referring to herself as a “male chauvinist;” Brown emphasizes that in Rand’s “ethical writings” women are barely present, and when they are, it is as wives and lovers. But wait, Brown argue, that’s okay because Rand contradicts herself entirely. Which surely means that we feminists should emulate her! Empowerment: handily achieved through wild inconsistency!
    I would add, too, that the book of which you speak lists Camille Paglia as a contributor. Maybe you might scroll up the page, read C.L.’s post, and see if you sense any relevancy to “feminist” interpretations of Ayn Rand?

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 7:18 am | Permalink
  49. Erin wrote:

    JT wasn’t saying that article was feminist. He was just providing me the link. I’m not arguing that she is feminist either, but just based on her novels (haven’t read her other stuff), her views of gender aren’t as bad as most ‘philosophers’ I’ve read. And I think things can be taken from her novels that aren’t as extreme as what objectives take from them, so I don’t see why everyone either dimisses them completely, or becomes some crazy ass objectivist.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 10:10 am | Permalink
  50. Samantha b. wrote:

    Erin, I would argue that if you’re going to structure a philosophy, internal consistency is a pretty valuable feature. If it isn’t systematic, I don’t how legitimately you can call it a philosophy anymore. And, if you want to defend Objectivism as somewhat useful, it would be helpful to point specifically to what it is that you find valuable. Otherwise it makes your analysis awfully hard to evaluate.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 10:33 am | Permalink
  51. JT wrote:

    No, no, no, I swear, the article is NOT feminist. That becomes apparent toward the end, as I read with dismay. It took me by surprise because there was a lot of feminist insight in the first half. So, sorry about that. My bad, should have read the whole thing first. But, my goal was to highlight Rand’s essentialism and anti-feminism, and I succeeded.

    Oh, and I’m a lady.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 11:24 am | Permalink
  52. JT wrote:

    @Erin, it’s a philosophy that has no place for me. Man, and ONLY man, can ever achieve that “ideal human” status Rand talked about. Woman’s role is to be his helpmate and worshipper. SHE can never be the ideal human.

    It doesn’t really matter what else she says. I will not live my life to “hero-worship” anyone, thanks. It’s the same kind of attitude you see in religion, which also turns me off. For all the good lessons that might be hidden in Objectivism or the Bible, I am still Woman and therefore unable to attain the highest state of being (according to them).

    Feminism (though not a religion OR a philosophy like Objectivism) is the only thing I’ve ever read that tells me I am a human being who is just as worthy as any male. I won’t be defined by my biology.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 11:36 am | Permalink
  53. raddad wrote:

    Just last week some of my FB friends were looking at:Plugging the Gulf oil leak with the works of Ayn Rand.
    http://tinyurl.com/28xgl45
    I like the comment that Ayn Rand is like Nietzsche for stupid people (though I liked the Birth of Tragedy)

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
  54. Amy wrote:

    I’m in the minority here in that I do kinda despise her. And I’ve only read her fiction.

    @Erin
    I think it’s important to remember that her characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are Mary Sues. Like many conservative women, she didn’t think the rules applied to her. “The Passion of Ayn Rand” is a great biographical movie that explores this. Helen Mirren is fantastic.

    My problems with The Fountainhead and what I could stomach of Atlas Shrugged: There is only one woman who is beautiful and intelligent enough to join the boys’ club. Let’s take Dominique: she is really the only woman. She marries someone else just to try to break Roark. She’s wrong to do this, of course. The entire book is about Dominique learning to become the woman that Roar needs her to be. While she has a career at the beginning, her ultimate achievement is in becoming a naked object and marrying Roark. Oh, and there’s that whole part where he rapes her early in the book, but she secretly wants it. Let’s not forget her utter disdain for the unwashed masses in Atlas Shrugged. I get enough bad stuff from her fiction that I never needed to read her non-fiction.

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
  55. Erin wrote:

    @Amy

    Thanks for the movie suggestion. That sounds interesting.

    “There is only one woman who is beautiful and intelligent enough to join the boys’ club.”

    That’s a really good point, I had not noticed that.

    I might re-read Atlas Shrugged to see everything I missed, or everything I’ve forgotten. Or I’ll wait for the movie…

    Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:11 am | Permalink
  56. Erin wrote:

    Oh, and I didn’t miss or forget the rape in The Fountainhead. It was just kinda similar to a sexual fantasy found in like every harlequin romance written before the 90s, so I just thought of it as an unfortunate product of earlier times. Jezebel has a great article about that phenomenon, and if I could find it, I would link it!

    Though I completely understand why people have problems with Rand because of that scene. That is completely legitimate. I’m just explaining why I don’t.

    Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:33 am | Permalink
  57. Genevieve wrote:

    @Christianne: I had a Creative Writing professor once who said that if a writer has a character talking for a significant length of time (and I think his cutoff point was two paragraphs) and the writer agrees with every single bit of what hir character is saying, then there’s something wrong; it has ceased being literature and morphed into propaganda. So when I read your comment about 70-page speeches, the first thing I thought was damn, would my professor ever hate that.

    There are ways of getting one’s message across which do not rely on one character talking at everyone else.

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
  58. ginger wrote:

    i dont know who you are at all – but you REALLY made me laugh

    ahhhahahahah pork shoulder im dying. thank you. thank you for this.

    Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 5:28 am | Permalink

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Garland Grey, Maggie K. Maggie K said: lolllllllll Atlas Shrugged. Oh dear. http://bit.ly/dC8r6F [...]

  2. [...] You think that Atlas Shrugged will make it to Cobble Hill theater?  Or will I just have to pre-order the straight-to-VHS release?  In the meantime, please read Sady Doyle’s rejected screenplay. [...]

  3. [...] It appears lefties already have their panties in a wad. What are they afraid of? An anti-big government message making it to the big screen? That in [...]