The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt'

Box Office Mojo ^ | 9/2/2005 | Scott Holleran

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The New Orleans Disaster and the Line on 'John Galt' September 2, 2005

"...It was supposed to be a light column about this and that, with a brief update on a movie adaptation of my favorite novel, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged..."

[r9etb]

And what do YOU believe, r9?

I believe that if somebody is going to make claims about being rational and objective, then they have a responsibility to make rational and objective statements, and to defend them on an objective and rational basis.

I am playing devil's advocate, with an eye toward assessing the logic of the claims being made. As a result, I have no plans to offer any alternative views on this thread.

[general_re]

I can't help it if you're not aware of the implications of your own posts...

[InterceptPoint]

too cute

Yes, she's certainly cuter than Dagny/Ayn but this is a movie not a documentary. You might convince me if you could cite one or two references that demonstrate that Dagny wasn't cute. Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn't. If we don't know then I pick cute.

Of course if Dagny is really the alter ego of Ayn and we are after strict compliance then it is case closed and you win the argument.

OTOH, I recall that Patricia Neal played opposite Gary Cooper in The Fountainhead. A reasonable person could easily conclude that she was selected by the author because she had a slight resemblance to Ayn Rand but was, of course, quite a bit "cuter". So even the great Ayn Rand fudges in favor of cute. I'm sticking to the cute and talanted even if slightly liberal (I think she is faking it - she's from Kentucky after all) Ashley Judd.

[dimquest]

usnjay wrote:

Objectivism doesn't require atheism any more than conservativism requires religion. There are many Chrisitian objectivists.

---

robertpaulsen wrote:

Oh, I'd say the two go hand in hand. According to Ayn Rand:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Which Christian religion espouses this?

---

Are there Christians that do not see happiness as one of the more moral purposes of life, with productive achievement as a noble activity, and reason as an absolute?

If they do not, - why? Could it be that such people have a skewed view of both Christianity & conservatism?

[Dead Corpse]

Devil's advocate? Kind of un-Christian isn't it?

The logic is there. It hasn't changed.

[Dead Corpse]

If you can't understand self ownership, your other observations are equally suspect.

[Dead Corpse]

Ayn describes Dagny as thin, severe, but beautiful when she chose to play by everyone else's rules. Think along the lines of the descriptions of Dagny's first Ball.

[general_re]

I understand the concept just fine - I want to see its objective basis. Capisce?

[LexBaird]

I refute you with four more: "Lord of the Rings"

So, is Galt's speech going to take one or two parts of the trilogy?

[Netheron]

Well, if you are casting without regard to politics, I've always been partial to Denzel Washington as John Galt myself.

[SlowBoat407]

So, is Galt's speech going to take one or two parts of the trilogy?

If Tom Bombadil can be cut, so can parts of the John Galt speech. /heresy

[SlowBoat407]

Well, if you are casting without regard to politics, I've always been partial to Denzel Washington as John Galt myself.

You've got to be kidding! Galt's description is completely out of synch with Washington's appearance.

Galt is shorter.

[Netheron]

I most certainly disagree, Atlas Shrugged is an action packed roller coaster, but it is a philisophical one. If you are actually interested in the ideas of the speeches, they really feel quite short and pointed. If that type of mental roller coaster can be sustained by a movie director, then we really have something.

On the other hand, this expects the average movie goer to think.

Never mind. {\Emily Latella}

[r9etb]

First, common thread courtesy demands that when you're talking about me, you include me in your response.

Second, I did not "pull a switcheroo." I was consistent in this sense of the dictionary definition of subjective:

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

At issue here is DC's statement that he is justified in initiating force if he perceives himself to be in danger. There is no room in this for the gunman's actual intent, or any actual threat -- DC's justification for shooting is based solely on his perception of the gunman's intentions.

The justification for violating the non-initiation principle is therefore explicitly subjective.

leading to the absurd conclusion that to have a limited or incorrect perception of specific facts is equivalent to being disconnected from reality and guided by arbitrary notions out of one's head.

It's an "absurd conclusion" only because you've added an absurd statement that I did not make. Nobody but you said anything about the threat being arbitrary or disconnected from reality.

OTOH, the threat may seem very real, and yet not be a threat at all. For example, cops sometimes mistake the motion of reaching for (say) a wallet, as a move toward a gun; or the pointing of a plastic toy gun as the pointing of a real gun. In such cases we might excuse a mistaken shooting on the basis of "reasonable cause."

The simple fact is that a subjective assessment ("I believe I am being threatened") is deemed sufficient to overrule the supposedly absolute non-initiation principle. As such, there is indeed something "relative" about it.

[Netheron]

Not at all, it has the proper effect of surprising the hell out of everyone, including those who have read the book.

The book was clear that John Galt 'could' be anyone, its just that Ayn was partial to Nordic features, which isn't philisophically required. The only real requirement is that he has charisma, is well groomed, and is in excellent physical condition (aerobic, not weightlifting). The rest of the portrayal requires considerable skill as an actor, which I think Denzel could pull off if he was motivated to do so.

[T Minus Four]

When I first heard they would make a movie of "Atlas Shrugged", I instantly thought of Sigourney Weaver to play Dagney. Although still gorgeous and sexy, I guess she'd be too old for the part (speaking with authority as a gorgeous, sexy 48-year-old woman).

I disagree that KZJ would be acceptable in the part. I don't know who would be. I'll have to ponder...

[T Minus Four]

Jody Foster might work as Dagney - she's pretty yet tough and serious. But frankly, Dagney was a little slutty, and I don't know if JF could pull that off.

[FreeKeys]

I believe that if somebody is going to make claims about being rational and objective, then they have a responsibility to make rational and objective statements, and to defend them on an objective and rational basis. I am playing devil's advocate, with an eye toward assessing the logic of the claims being made. As a result, I have no plans to offer any alternative views on this thread.

Point us to a thread on which you have offered your views on metaphysics and/or epistemology with an attitude of being helpful, of suggesting to someone different ways of thinking, in order to achieve a more consistent definition of something. Or, at least one in which you have shown some kindness to another poster rather than snide, griping hostitlity. I'd like that.

[rlmorel]

LOL!!!!

How slutty do you NEED her to be...well, I guess in "Taxi Driver" she was an INNOCENT slutty...:)

She does have the angular face, high cheekbones and all. She isn't quite as tall as I imagine Dagny, but heels will do wonders...

[rlmorel]

How about someone like Kevin Spacey as John Gault? Or maybe even Russell Crowe? Both of them have the look of an average guy blending into a crowd...