Category: The Atlasphere

All things Atlasphere can be found here, columns, podcasts, interesting anecdotes, and more.

WHERE THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE FALLS SHORT

Posted on by TeamAtlas

BY KATHERYN SCHWALB

The new film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged offers first-rate set design, editing, music, wardrobe, and camerawork. Overall it was much stronger than expected. Why, then, are some viewers left unfulfilled?

I had the privilege of watching the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 preview screening on February 24th in Culver City, California. A few minutes into the movie, a moment came when I found myself letting go of the deep breath I had been unknowingly holding in my chest. I eased back in my seat, relieved of my long-held worry that this low budget, quickly produced film might be amateurish or even embarrassing.

On the contrary, by the time the end credits rolled, I was impressed with the consistently high production values achieved on such a low budget. The set design, editing, music, wardrobe, and camerawork were all first rate. Even the special effects scenes revealed no evidence of cutting corners. Make no mistake, it’s one handsome film.

And yet, considered as the screen adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterwork, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 fails in a most critical area. When the house lights came up, following the 7 p.m. screening I attended, the audience was remarkably subdued, especially considering that most were likely Rand supporters.

 

After a brief smattering of restrained applause, I noticed a few people glancing around with bewildered expressions and most saying nothing. We filed out quietly. Once outside, I spoke with a few people who were quite pleased with the film. But as I spoke with others, similar themes emerged: “I don’t know what to think.” “I have mixed feelings.” “I can’t put my finger on it.” “I’m not excited but I can’t explain why.”

Was it the casting? Not really. All the actors looked and sounded appropriate for their roles and gave adequate-to-very-good performances.

For my taste, Taylor Schilling projects a persona that is too soft and vulnerable for the character of Dagny. I found it hard to really believe her character ran a transcontinental railroad. And yes, a couple of A-list actors in key roles might have bumped up the overall experience a notch or two; but the budget didn’t allow for that, and this cast did a very creditable job.

Was it the direction? For the most part, no. The movie did alternate between crisp, fast-moving “action” scenes and talky expositional scenes that sometimes bogged down. I wondered, as Hank and Lillian’s anniversary party dragged on, why a few minutes of that time hadn’t been allocated to other material from the novel.

This cast did a very creditable job.

Was it the direction? For the most part, no. The movie did alternate between crisp, fast-moving “action” scenes and talky expositional scenes that sometimes bogged down. I wondered, as Hank and Lillian’s anniversary party dragged on, why a few minutes of that time hadn’t been allocated to other material from the novel.

In terms of creativity, the overall direction was naturalistic and straightforward, matching the level of a well-made TV movie. Budget constraints probably left little time for inspired or risky stylistic treatment of the material, much less the larger-than-life romantic approach than Ayn Rand would no doubt have preferred.

Was the dialogue the film’s undoing? Not exactly. Although it was naturalistic and was updated to present day phrasing — I don’t remember any character in the novel saying they were “pissed off” — for the most part it was remarkably Randian in tone and style. Even in scenes not found in the novel, the dialogue stayed true to what one would expect in the Rand universe.

 

 

 

 

Reflecting the first third of the novel, the film understandably devoted considerable screen time to exposition and to faithfully introducing major and minor characters — perhaps too much exposition and too many characters. There was little time left for even truncated versions of Rand’s hallmark speeches.

We are left with protagonists who seem to hold Randian views but we never hear why! Particularly galling for me was that Francisco’s speech on money is virtually non-existent. Purists might howl at the notion, but streamlining story elements and combining a few of the minor characters would have left more time for Rand’s voice.

So where then does the movie really fall short? Fundamentally, the problem is that a major strength of the novel did not survive the translation to the medium of film.

We are given so few opportunities to get inside the heads of the characters and empathize with what they are feeling.

The movie version of Atlas Shrugged feels flat because we are given so few opportunities to get inside the heads of the characters and empathize with what they are feeling.

Rand’s novel — as with most well-written novels — takes the reader inside the mind of each character. We can read how Dagny agonizes over the disappearance of the productive people of the world. We can revel in the pride Hank feels about his new metal.

We can see the envy and denial at work inside the minds of looters and bureaucrats. Through the thoughts of Hank and Dagny, we get a visceral sense of their growing attraction to one other.

Rand’s novel — as with most well-written novels — takes the reader inside the mind of each character. We can read how Dagny agonizes over the disappearance of the productive people of the world. We can revel in the pride Hank feels about his new metal.

We can see the envy and denial at work inside the minds of looters and bureaucrats. Through the thoughts of Hank and Dagny, we get a visceral sense of their growing attraction to one other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is far more difficult to convey a character’s thoughts in a movie. It requires an incredibly specialized skillset. Ideally, the screenwriter (and director) create cinematic “cues” that allow the audience to share the feelings of the characters. This is often newly invented dialogue that didn’t exist in the novel or new character “business” that gives the viewer a hint of the character’s emotional state.

In Atlas Shrugged Part 1 the script succeeds at faithfully adapting the plot of the novel but we have little opportunity for true empathy with the characters and so our emotional responses stay muted. We, the audience, remain remote observers as the story unfolds.

 

We see this clearly in the absence of any “sizzle” to Dagny and Hank’s romantic relationship. And when Dagny rides the John Galt Line for the first time, we see that she looks triumphant; but we, the audience, don’t share that feeling with her.

The final scene of the film centered on Dagny’s horrified reaction to a shocking and devastating event. The sudden intensity of her emotions seemed unexpected from our detached perspective. As the final shot fades out, we don’t really care.

While Atlas Shrugged Part 1 successfully adapts the storyline of Ayn Rand’s novel, it fails to capture the inner motivation of her characters and therefore the passion of Rand’s ideas. Ironically, some devotees of the novel may still thoroughly enjoy the film, already being intimately familiar with the state of mind of the characters. The uninitiated moviegoer, though, may very well wonder what the Rand hoopla is all about.

Katheryn Schwalb is a filmmaker, television producer, and line producer. She has extensive mainstream, studio, and agency production credits in commercials, indie film, and low budget films, as well as music videos. She has been a film festival programmer and festival director for over 8 years.

 

A ROMAN COPY OF A GREEK ORIGINAL

Posted on by TeamAtlas

BY SHRIKANT RANGNEKAR

For successful transmission into the broader culture, great artwork must be copied into different mediums, by different artists with different visions and different capabilities. In the new Atlas Shrugged movie, this process is well at work.

I watched the preview screening of Atlas Shrugged Part 1 in New York City last week, and here is my take on it.

This is a sincere attempt to portray Atlas Shrugged. The production team genuinely liked and respected Atlas Shrugged and it appears they tried to portray it to the best of their ability within the constraints they had.

Making a movie is a large-scale endeavor, and working for nearly two decades to bring the movie to fruition required considerable tenacity, resourcefulness, and purposefulness. I must thank especially John Aglialoro, the producer who spearheaded the project, for making that happen.

My overall impression of the movie can best be described by an analogy. A few years ago, I began studying the cuture of Ancient Greece. I did so by immersion into Greek literature, visual arts, history, philosophy, science, descriptions of daily life and customs, learning rudiments of Ancient Greek language, and visiting Greece.

I found the Ancient Greek culture to be so dramatically and radically different from the culture around us that most modern attempts to portray the culture captured only the outward trappings while missing the core view of man that animates the culture.

Similarly, this movie does a good job of capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of Atlas Shrugged while missing the deeper moral, psychological, epistemological, and metaphysical aspects of the novel.

Capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of Atlas Shrugged is an achievement itself.

As someone who deeply loves Atlas Shrugged, and knows that the heart of Ayn Rand’s achievement is metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and moral, I was left with a sense of emptiness — of seeing a work of art that looks like Atlas Shrugged on the surface, but with something critical missing.

Capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of the novel is an achievement itself, and I certainly enjoyed seeing that brought to life on the screen. That said, the movie versions of Ayn Rand’s characters were oddly similar to people I see in New York every day. They talked, looked, moved, and related to each other somewhat like most people do today, not in the highly stylized manner of the novel’s characters. I had the odd sensation that I was watching a world halfway between Ayn Rand’s world and my New York today — a hybrid of naturalism and romanticism.

The production quality is high and the movie is well-executed visually.

The clearest and most damaging way in which this was executed was by unnecessary replacement of Ayn Rand’s dialog by those of the movie’s writers. My guess is that having the characters talk more like most people today was an attempt to make the characters more “believable.”

Though I know next to nothing about movie making, I have one sure-fire piece of advice that could make Atlas Shrugged Part 2 significantly better while reducing production costs: Please, please use more of Ayn Rand’s lines.

The good portrayal of Hank Rearden and a dramatic and innovative use of “Who is John Galt?” lines were the highlights of the movie for me. The production quality is high and the movie is well-executed visually. I again thank the production team for making this movie and I encourage my friends to see it. It is not an experience you want to miss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me expand on the analogy to modern portrayals of Ancient Greek culture. The central difficulty in modern portrayals of Ancient Greece lies in what I will call the “cultural distance” between the modern view of man and the Ancient Greek view of man.

The cultural distance between Ayn Rand’s view of man and the modern view of man is equally large. Some of us who have spent years internalizing and making operational in ourselves Ayn Rand’s metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and moral principles, are aware of this distance, through the sheer effort it has cost us to traverse it.

Making a great movie based on a great book is not the mere translation, but the creation, of an entirely new artistic integration.

The cultural distance between Ayn Rand’s view of man and the modern view of man is equally large. Some of us who have spent years internalizing and making operational in ourselves Ayn Rand’s metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and moral principles, are aware of this distance, through the sheer effort it has cost us to traverse it.

Traversing that cultural distance in one’s own person, however, is easier than making a piece of art that objectively enables others see the new vision of man in a concretized form across that massive cultural chasm. That is precisely Ayn Rand’s achievement in creating Atlas Shrugged. Even with her phenomenal artistic skill, it took her over 1000 pages and over a decade of unremitting labor to make her vision real.

Because a movie is a distinct art medium with its own unique constraints, strengths, and weaknesses, making a great movie based on a great book is not the mere translation, but the creation, of an entirely new artistic integration that matches the original in meaning. It would take an artistic achievement on the order of Ayn Rand’s to make a movie that fully lives up to the novel. All this needs to be kept in mind while judging the movie.

Romans revered Greek sculpture and made a massive number of copies of it, but they never could capture the deeper meaning — the dynamic, living soul of the Greek sculpture.

We need both the Greek ideal and the Roman transmission network.

 

In focusing on the political, economic, and social aspects of the novel as opposed to its deeper spiritual aspects; in using a more colloquial dialog and characterizations to replace Ayn Rand’s highly stylized one; and by using the extremely efficient mechanism of the movie medium itself — the Atlas Shrugged movie does to the novel what Romans did to Greek art. The movie is a Roman copy of a Greek original.

While the Greek sculpture is far superior in esthetic value, Roman sculpture through its sheer quantity and superlative transmission ability has served a critical cultural value as the transmission mechanism for the Greek ideal. Just as the Renaissance sculptors discovered Greek art largely through their Roman copies, this movie trilogy will help a wider audience discover Atlas Shrugged.

 

Both Greece and Rome are the foundations of our civilization. We need both the Greek ideal and the Roman transmission network. While it would be wrong to blame the Roman transmission network for not having the Greek delicacy, it would also be wrong to let ourselves forget the full grandeur of the Greek ideal, due to the ubiquity of Roman copies.

With this in mind, I raise a toast to both — to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and to Atlas Shrugged the movie — each for what they are.

Shrikant Rangnekar lives in New York City. This article originally appeared on his blog, where he is still updating the original post in response to reader feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE: FAITHFUL, OUTSTANDING

Posted on by TeamAtlas

BY HANS GREGORY SCHANTZ

This week the Atlasphere will publish a series of reviews exploring the new Atlas Shrugged movie. In this, our first review, physicist Hans Schantz looks closely at what changed from the novel and what remains intact.

The new film adaptation of the first part of Atlas Shrugged stays remarkably close to the source material and, by virtue of this fact, yields an outstanding movie. Despite a modest budget and a rushed production timeline, the movie works, racing with breathtaking speed through the first third of Ayn Rand’s classic novel.

The movie’s most significant deviation from the novel occurs in the opening scenes. A montage of cable news shots describe the Dow falling to 4000, the Mideast having “imploded,” gasoline at $37.50/gallon, air and automotive travel having collapsed, and railroads having re-emerged as the most important form of long distance transportation — not only for cargo but also for passengers.

This clever plot device enabled the filmmakers to preserve Rand’s 1950s-era economy of rail and steel, for a faithful adherence to the plot of the original novel, while also allowing the story to be set in the near future, complete with plasma screens, computers, and cell phones.

The opening scenes make clear that the continued survival of the nation’s economy hinges upon Taggart Transcontinental’s successful operation. A cable TV feed presents a three-way interview with oil entrepreneur Ellis Wyatt, James Taggart, and Wesley Mouch. In the midst of an economic apocalypse, oil magnate Wyatt has birthed an industrial renaissance in Colorado and is furious with Taggart’s negligent service. The replies from Taggart and Mouch establish their characters, as well as their conflict with Wyatt.

As each striker vanishes, the color fades to black and white, and titles indicate their name, position, and the date they vanished. Subtle, it isn’t.

Another significant deviation arises in the treatment of the strike, as key leaders in industry, finance, and the arts are mysteriously vanishing. A major hook in the early part of the novel is the developing realization that a “destroyer” of some sort is at loose, somehow removing these elite figures from society. There’s no such mystery in the movie: We see a shadowy John Galt recruiting strikers with a line or two of persuasion.

The trailer presents Galt’s encounter with Midas Mulligan from the opening minutes of the movie, and there are similar encounters throughout the film. As each striker vanishes, the color fades to black and white, and titles indicate their name, position, and the date they vanished. Subtle, it isn’t.

 

 

 

 

Also in the opening moments, a locomotive races through the night toward disaster, behind a title slide informing us that the year is 2016. My initial reaction was negative: How dare the producers set a specific date on Rand’s timeless story? Upon further reflection, however — given the use of dates in newspapers and particularly in the dramatic washes to black and white of each striker as they vanish — I do believe this was justified.

To understand the movie, one must first acknowledge that a movie is not a novel. Rand might present pages of elegant, intricate verbal ripostes and parries between her characters, gradually building up dramatic tensions to a stunning climax. Instead, the movie has a couple of punches followed by a knockout blow. Exchanges between characters are dramatically simplified, streamlined, and essentialized.

The complexity of the plot remains almost overwhelming, by virtue of its close adherence to the novel.

This comic-book-level dialogue may disappoint some fans, but may have been inescapable, in order to compress the source material and meet the time constraints of the movie format. Paradoxically, despite the tremendous simplifications to the narrative, the complexity of the plot remains almost overwhelming, by virtue of its close adherence to the novel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The relentless compression of a third of Rand’s novel into a 106-minute production meant ruthless omission of minor subplots. Richard Halley and his music are gone. The mystery of the dollar-sign cigarettes reduces to a passing shot of Hugh Akston lighting one. The rich background of Dagny, James, and Francisco, and their childhoods together, is entirely absent. A flashback scene of Dagny and Francisco was cut from the final production.

The dialogue and acting were remarkably solid, even brilliant.

Many characters — Dan Conway, Ragnar Danneskjold, Balph Eubank, Bertram Scudder, Lawrence Hammond, and Ted Nielsen — are only mentioned in passing.

The character of Cherryl Brooks was cast, but is missing from this part of the movie; screenwriter Brian O’Toole says he “has great plans” to introduce her in part two. Owen Kellog and Herbert Mowen have brief appearances, but the scene in which Kellog appears as a laborer and discusses the exodus to Colorado with Mowen was cut.

The movie’s most serious flaw is that it feels too rushed. An additional ten or fifteen minutes would have helped make clear the nature of the villainy, and driven home the way in which Dagny’s heroic achievement — bringing the John Galt Line to life — only enabled the looters to complete their destruction of Ellis Wyatt and his Colorado industrial renaissance.

 

This flaw could be remedied in the second part of the trilogy, however, and meantime we can hope for an extended “director’s cut” version on the DVD.

Despite the film’s rushed feel, the dialogue and acting were remarkably solid, even brilliant, at times. Taylor Schilling’s cold and unemotional Dagny Taggart stares down her arrogant brother James (ably played by Matthew Marsden) to save their family’s railroad, yet relaxes with, warms to, and ultimately allows herself to be seduced by, Grant Bowler’s Hank Rearden.

The heart of the movie for me was Grant Bowler’s flinty portrayal of steel tycoon Hank Rearden. I’ve never understood the criticism of Ayn Rand’s characters as two-dimensional. Rearden is a brilliant and dedicated industrialist who fails to apply the same standards to his personal life. He enables his family’s misbehavior, allowing them to shamelessly mock and undercut him. See, for instance, the released clip above.

Bowler’s Rearden is as eminently heroic as he is tragically flawed. The power of Bowler’s acting is enhanced further by Rebecca Wisocky’s amazing performance as his wife, Lillian. Wisocky’s Lillian is as beautifully elegant as she is viciously vile. Wow!

 

 

 

 

Many challenging aspects of the plot — including Dagny’s trade of a diamond necklace for Lillian’s Rearden Metal bracelet and Dagny’s growing romance with Rearden — were carried off flawlessly due to the excellent script and strong acting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another pillar of the film is Graham Beckel’s Ellis Wyatt. He is an elemental force of nature barreling into Dagny’s office, yet becomes warmly gregarious as he recognizes kindred spirits in Dagny and Hank. Despite having tragically little screen time, Jsu Garcia makes mysterious playboy Francisco D’Anconia come to life. I can’t wait to see more of him in part two. Edi Gathegi’s Eddie Willers and Nikki Klecha’s Gwen Ives also delivered solid support.

While the settings and scenes were visually lush, the rushed production and limited budget did leave a few rough edges. For instance, the Taggart Transcontinental System map was geographically confused, the “Taggart” train was really Union Pacific — though you’d have to be a train buff to spot it — and the Reardens’ and Taggarts’ limos were the same vehicle.

The film’s flaws are due much more to the rushed production than the modest budget.

Similarly, the strong script was marred by poorly vetted, last-minute changes in dialog. Did the audience really need to know that Galt’s motor “employs the Casimir effect to accelerate Helium3 nuclei, creating a magnetic field that couples to atmospheric vacuum, thus extracting static electricity”? Only a John Galt could make sense of that technobabble. On the other hand, creative little flourishes — like Gwen Ives’s innovative filing system, though not in Rand’s novel — helped further character development with economy and skill.

 

 

 

 

A viewer determined to nitpick the film will find no shortage of material. In fact, I was so concerned with picking out the minor flaws that it seriously detracted from my appreciation the first time around. When I relaxed and watched the movie the second time, I found it much more enjoyable.

The film’s flaws are due much more to the rushed production than the modest budget. I can’t wait to see what the producers will be able to do in part two, with a more relaxed schedule and, hopefully, more generous financing.

Despite the occasional rough edge, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is a great movie, true to Ayn Rand’s classic novel. This exciting, fast paced, and breathtaking romp provides an easy introduction to Ayn Rand’s ideas. Inspired viewers will then be motivated to read the novel, to satisfy their burning desire to learn more.

Hans Schantz is CTO of the Q-Track Corporation, the leader in low-frequency, long-wavelength real-time location systems. Author of The Art and Science of Ultrawideband Antennas (Artech House, 2005), he is also an inventor on over 30 patents. Dr. Schantz blogs at www.aetherczar.com and is @AetherCzar on Twitter. All images are courtesy of The Strike Productions ©2011.

Earlybird reviews of the full Atlas Shrugged movie: "Spectacular," "Solid," "Faithful"

Posted on by s1e2t3u4p5

Detractors of Atlas Shrugged would never be pleased with any faithful adaptation of the novel, and so this movie’s primary audience is those who enjoyed the novel, are generally sympathetic to Ayn Rand’s ideas, or both. (If their response is positive, then the word-of-mouth buzz should attract the curiosity of many people who aren’t yet familiar with the novel.)
On this front, it looks like Aglialoro & Co. have scored a direct hit. The early reviews are quite positive.
Read the details on the Atlas Shrugged movie blog.

Hans Schantz: I’ve seen it. It’s awesome.

Posted on by s1e2t3u4p5

Atlas Shrugged movie co-blogger Hans Schantz and I were offered tickets to the pre-release screening in Los Angeles yesterday. I was unable to attend, but Hans was there and he has posted his initial reactions over at AetherCzar.
He begins:

I just attended the pre-release screening of Atlas Shrugged Part One, and I’d like to share my first impressions. Take this as an initial installment toward the much more thoughtful (but equally enthusiastic) review I’ll compose at leisure over the next few days and publish at the (fan-run, unofficial) Atlas Shrugged Movie Blog.
When I heard my favorite novel was being made into a movie, all the available omens boded ill: a low-budget production, with no-name stars, made independently without the adult supervision of a real Hollywood studio, and rushed into production at the last minute to avoid loss of rights. It sounded like a recipe for disaster. Scratch that. It WAS a recipe for disaster. I mourned the might-have-been movie Iâ??d been waiting my entire adult life to see. I regretted the lost opportunity. I averted my eyes to avoid the painfully unfolding train wreck.
Slowly the evidence began chipping away at my erroneous conclusions.

See his full post for much more.
Also, don’t miss first full review of the movie, by Atlas Society founder David Kelley.

Hedge-fund manager Barry Colvin raises funds for ARI outpost in NYC

Posted on by s1e2t3u4p5

A new article in the Wall Street Journal begins:

Forget tea leaves: Wall Street is turning to Ayn Rand for guidance.
Hedge-fund manager Barry Colvin has raised $60,000 to start a Greater New York outpost of the Ayn Rand Institute, the first chapter in the country for the Irvine, Calif.-based nonprofit dedicated to the late free-market philosopher and novelist.
“The idea is on-the-ground reconnaissance,” said Mr. Colvin, vice chairman of Chicago-based Balyasny Asset Management. Mr. Colvin contributed the bulk of the funds but rallied donors for the rest.
“It’s our civic duty to pound the table about making people challenge their own ideas behind what they think the role of government should be,” he said.
As a kick-off, Mr. Colvin will co-host a series of debates next month on freedom, government and capitalism with Demos, a public-policy research and advocacy group based in New York.

BELARUSIAN DISSIDENT JAROSLAV ROMANCHUK

Posted on by TeamAtlas

BY STEPHEN BROWNE

In the former Soviet republic of Belarus rules Europe’s last authoritarian dictator. His brutal crackdown on dissidents in December generated controversy, around which many questions remain. Jaroslav Romanchuk has answers.

n official at the Minsk office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe once explained the country in one sentence.

“Belarus is the Soviet Union,” he said. “It’s the rest of the country that disappeared.”

There is a huge bronze statue of Lenin in front of parliament, red stars and the hammer-and-sickle festooning public buildings, and they still call the secret police the “KGB.”

Belarus is a little smaller than Kansas, with a population of about 9.6 million. Once one of the constituent republics of the USSR, Belarus declared “sovereignty” in 1990, and independence in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since 1994 Alexander Lukashenko has been president. During his term he has continued the policy of state ownership of the means of production, suppressed opposition — often brutally — and manipulated media and election results to keep himself in power.

 

Jaroslav Romanchuk is vice-president of the opposition United Civil Party, their 2010 presidential candidate, and a leading intellectual of the nascent Belarussian libertarian movement. He is also a popular figure at Objectivist and libertarian events in the United States.

 

After hearing reports Romanchuk was arrested, or forced to make public statements under duress, and accused of cooperating with the regime, several members of The Atlasphere donated funds to help send reporter Stephen Browne to Belarus to investigate.

Subsequently other dissidents in the opposition condemned Romanchuk for allegedly making libelous statements about presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov and his wife Iryna Khali, who at the time of this writing remain incarcerated in the KGB prison. On February 7 the leaders of the UCP voted a motion of no confidence, though Romanchuk retains his position as vice-president at the time of writing.

The interviews took place in Romanchuk’s apartment in Minsk over three days during the week of January 8 to 15, 2011. He agreed to the interviews, though suffering from a touch of the flu and three previous interviews with the KGB.

The Atlasphere: Tell us about yourself — where you come from, your background, and how you became a libertarian economist.

Jaroslav Romanchuk: I was born in a small town in the Grodno region, of 2,000 people, so I’m a rural guy. Graduated from university with flying colors. Then I was into business, I was in the parliament, I did a lot of research, I ran a newspaper, I was involved in many, many, activities.

In 1993 I met Charles and Susannah Tomlinson in Minsk, in the People to People exchange, and they gave me Atlas Shrugged as a gift. The book turned my life upside down and I became so involved with it that I quit business and decided to pursue an intellectual career.

In 2010 I was chosen by my party, the United Civil Party, to run for president.

They gave me Atlas Shrugged as a gift. The book turned my life upside down and I became so involved with it that I quit business and decided to pursue an intellectual career.

My program was quite constructive, based on the ways to apply theory of liberty to practical problems in my country, and I’ve succeeded much because of polls, one week before the election, showing my popularity rating was at about 10 percent.

I have also written eight books of my own and more than fifteen hundred articles. I run my website, I have video and audio blogs on a regular basis. I am proud to be one of the multipliers of knowledge in my country.

I think we’ve expanded the foundation of liberty in Belarus, though the country is far from free. It’s an authoritarian country that is run by a ruthless dictator, but the people are there, the ideas are there, and it’s just a matter of time before these ideas become much stronger.

TA: What are some of your other libertarian influences? You’ve mentioned Ayn Rand, who else do you think is an important thinker?

Romanchuk: Well Ayn Rand definitely. Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard, Kirzner, Reisman, just to name a few. Of course Friedrich von Hayek and, in the methodology of science, Carl Menger. The people who created the foundations of an absolutely new science of human action.

TA: Libertarianism has been accused of being “theory heavy” and “experience light” — of being able to envision what a free society would look like, but being a little weak on telling you how to get there. In Belarus obviously you have to concentrate on how to get there. Could you tell us something of how you envision making the change from a command economy in an authoritarian state to a free society with a free market economy?

Romanchuk: It’s a long-term effort. That’s why you have to be very patient about how to structure your work, and how you advocate for change.

We have a flat-rate 12 percent personal income tax, which is the envy of many western countries. We are one of the easiest countries to register a business in.

We began to produce different programs and concepts, and draft laws to address the most topical issues of the day. We’ve been quite successful at working with the entrepreneurs of the country.

Jointly we produced the national business platform, which is a set of recommendations on how to improve the business climate, how to improve property rights, taxation, licensing, the information environment, and how to improve governance. And we have concrete proposals about how to do that.

That is why we have achieved some very good success, even here in Belarus, which is far from being a free market country. We have a flat-rate 12 percent personal income tax, which is the envy of many western countries. We are one of the easiest countries to register a business in. We have also urged the government to abolish the licensing of retail trade.

So when you have been campaigning on the issues for a long, long time, when you provide good arguments, it works even in Belarus. It’s a long-term process. But in order to spread libertarianism, spread the ideas of liberty, you must be very concrete.

Switching from a centralized planned economy with 100 percent state assets to a full-fledged private economy doesn’t happen overnight. You have to know how to sell assets, how to enforce the rules of the game, and how to prevent oligarchs from capturing the state.

Our opinions are getting more and more popular, and the presidential election campaign proved that people listen to what we have to say and, more and more, accept our agenda for Belarus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TA: Speaking of oligarchs, this is such a pleasant country with such potential. The superiority of free markets has been demonstrated again and again around the world, wherever it’s been tried. So why doesn’t the Lukashenko regime try becoming something like an authoritarian capitalism on the Singapore model? Why doesn’t he just say, “Have fun, make money, just don’t ever forget who’s in charge”?

Romanchuk: He may move in that direction. Before now there was no need for that because those in power got everything they wanted. They got cash, they got power, they got immunity from the law — so they could do anything. And the reason they enjoyed this kind of welfare and power was Russia supported Belarus at 15 to 20 percent of GDP a year.

Plus we had very easy access to the Russian market. We have two oil refineries, and Russian oligarchs and Belarusian oligarchs turned Belarus into a kind of offshore refining territory. We are also one of the biggest exporters of potash fertilizer in the world. And the Belarusian people are very hardworking.

However 2010 was the last year the situation was stable. The IMF made loans, and the national bank printed money to loan to enterprises, and so at the end of the day we’ll have high inflation. In 2011 we’ll have a very bad situation in the banking sector; the system is doomed.

Lukashenko will have to sell assets, and right now it’s unclear how he will react. He will either move to a North Korea type of model or to a Singaporean model. I don’t think there is any other alternative right now.

We have the opportunity in Belarus to avoid the kind of mistakes that were made by transitional countries in Eastern and Central Europe in their move to capitalism. But in order to do that, we have to present this alternative and persuade the authorities to accept it.

But from what I see right now there is no political will to move in this direction. The authorities don’t know which way to move. And in this situation of course the best strategy is to be patient, be present in intellectual debate, and be able to present the alternative.

Not a single country in the post-socialist era decided to destroy the monopoly of a central bank over money.

TA: What are some of those mistakes you are referring to, in the transition to free market economies in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere?

Romanchuk: Well first, copying the tax system of the United States and the European Union was the biggest, the gravest mistake. If you want to have a good tax system, you must not copy that of the European Union.

In many countries now the state distributes around 45 percent of GDP, and of course that’s just a different form of socialism rather than anything to do with capitalism.

Not a single country in the post-socialist era decided to destroy the monopoly of a central bank over money. We still have money that is nationalized by the government. That is why the government and central banks create bubbles, destroy wealth, redistribute wealth, and create a lot of distortions in the market.

You must avoid protectionism, and again I cannot name a single European or Central Asian country which stands up for free trade and abolishes all trade barriers.

TA: Would you tell us something about the current situation in Belarus? Not a great many people in the west know anything about this country.

Romanchuk: Belarus is located between Russia and Poland (to the east and west) Lithuania and Ukraine (to the north and south), so it’s the heart of Europe. It’s an authoritarian country with no political and civic liberties. Belarus is the last centrally planned economy in the region, with predominant state ownership of the economy. So the government is the biggest owner, the biggest job creator, the biggest manager, and we are the only country where the KGB kept its name.

Many of us in Belarus are trying not just to survive, but to promote liberty. We’re fighting against great odds but we’re providing a good alternative to the people. That is why we take part in civic society activities, in political activities, in order to reach out to as many people as possible.

Belarus was one of the most developed Soviet republics. Its infrastructure is quite well developed, compared to Russia or Ukraine. The reason the regime is moderately popular is that it delivers on some social security issues. It’s quite safe to be in Minsk or any town in Belarus. Roads are OK, health care institutions operate well enough.

It’s worth studying why Belarus delivers something that other centrally planned economies don’t, but this is only comparatively speaking: When the government controls the media, when just a tenth of the citizens have travelled abroad, then media becomes a source of manipulation and propaganda that Belarusian authorities use.

Belarus is a nice country, with wonderful nature, but we are unfortunate to have an authoritarian regime we’ve been fighting for 16 years.

TA: But unlike the darkest days of the Soviet Union, you obviously are able to form opposition parties. You are able to engage in activity, even though there is a KGB headquarters not far from here?

Romanchuk: (laughs) Not far from here.

TA: And the streets are full of uniformed men at all hours — militsia, OMON, and such.

Romanchuk: We have a situation different from a Soviet-style totalitarian regime where anybody with a different mindset could be arrested or put into a psychiatric clinic. Ours is an authoritarian regime where the government allows some kind of activities. We can publish articles on our websites, we can publish books, we can hold different events — provided they have an innocent “politically correct” agenda like management, PR campaign, etc.

Continued on January 12, when Romanchuk had just returned from a trip to Lithuania.

TA: What were you doing in Lithuania? What are your priorities there?

Romanchuk: Now the most important thing is to explain to people what happened in Belarus. To meet experts, diplomats, journalists — to collaborate on what to do next and to consolidate our actions to free our imprisoned political dissidents.

That was a very, very tough night. We expected even murders because of the very emotional response of the authorities.

TA: So what did happen in Belarus? What happened in the election and the aftermath?

Romanchuk: The election campaign was more-or-less liberal — by Belarusian standards. We could campaign, we could collect signatures, we could go around the country to meet people, and this time we didn’t have to ask permission to have meetings. With of course some obstacles, we could print materials, papers, and leaflets.

That was relatively free, and everybody expected the final day would be like this too.

On December 19th I voted and we had another press conference. We waited until 8 p.m. because that’s when we asked our voters to meet on the main square of the town.

During the press conference I said the campaign was OK, but the fundamental point was whether we had a fair vote count. We had numerous cases of violation of the process, falsification of vote counts. Many people were forced to come and vote early, and of course there were reasons to believe this time the election would also be falsified.

We got the first exit polls, which said the incumbent president wouldn’t be able to win in the first round — since more than 50 percent is required for a first-round win — while I got about 10 percent of the vote. My team and I got together and marched to Oktyabrskaya Square. There were 20 to 25 thousand people in the square.

We had a small rally and, from what I saw, there were some candidates who took responsibility for the arrangement of the square. They were not quite ready, the response was quite weak, and they decided to march to a different square in town, in front of the house of the government.

 

 

 

 

 

As it turned out, there was a trap there, a provocation. I don’t know whether they knew about it or not, but the fact was that people went there and somebody began to attack the house of the government.

That was the very brutal part of the evening. The police stepped in, dispersed the crowd, and more than 600 people were imprisoned, including seven presidential candidates.

That was a very, very tough night. We expected even murders because of the very emotional response of the authorities to the situation.

TA: Were you warned in advance about agent provocateurs?

Romanchuk: From what I learned later, there were many facts proving it was either KGB or Russian FSB, or somebody else involved in staging provocations. But the fundamental blunder was to lead people from one square where there was an official meeting of a peaceful demonstration, to where the trap was staged. I don’t know who staged that.

And then I was told by my Russian friends that they knew two weeks in advance that provocations were being prepared right in front of the house of the government.

Of course the authorities were afraid the campaign would be peaceful and constructive and many more people would vote for us. So they believe the best way to get rid of the opposition was to portray us as losers, as rebels, as revolutionaries without any constructive program.

I think there must be some provocateurs among some candidates on the ballot. Then all alternative candidates were described as people who are worthless, as people who are for a coup d’etat.

There were nine candidates in the primary. It is my understanding that the authorities rigged the process by putting candidates on the ballott who did not collect the 100 thousand signatures necessary for registration. And then when they saw that some people like myself managed to attract voters who weren’t already pro-democracy, pro-free market reforms, then they decided to put that hooligan label on everybody.

My campaign was based on free market ideas, on openness, on privatization, and job creation by entrepreneurs.

And now members of my team are put in jail, to eliminate democratic political parties and to put dirt on everybody.

TA: And you got about 10 percent of the vote?

Romanchuk: I got about 10 percent of the vote, according to independent opinion polls and exit polls the day of the election.

But if you combine the votes that my colleagues got, it is obvious that — as suggested by the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radek Sikorski —Lukashenko did not win in the first round, by getting the 50 percent required to avoid a runoff.

I think that was one of the reasons why the reaction to the square was so emotional. Another thing was that there were obvious provocations. The interesting question was whether these were only from Belarusian authorities, or whether there was some involvement from Russia, or whether some presidential candidates were involved in discrediting all the democratic forces. Because there are people who have nothing to say but, “Lukashenko is bad, choose me.”

My campaign was different. My campaign was based on free market ideas, on openness, on privatization, and job creation by entrepreneurs. That was different from the previous agenda of Belarusian opposition, and that is why the authorities didn’t know what to do about me. So they decided to put me in the rank of those people who had nothing to say, but maybe it was part of the provocation.

TA: What happened in the aftermath? Who among the opposition is in jail? And what happened to you? Did you see Lukashenko?

Romanchuk: That night when everybody was being arrested and harassed, I had a very long and very tense three-hour meeting with representatives of the authorities, and they told me if I didn’t make a statement people might be murdered or put in jail for life. The pressure on the system was so tense, and Lukashenko was so nervous that things could have gotten out of control and much bloodier.

So I faced a choice, whether I could save people, release the pressure, and reason with the authorities so they would stop this chaotic assault.

That was definitely one of the most difficult times of my life. But I had to do that to save lives and keep people out of prison. The next day I got a call from the presidential administration about the leader of my party, Anatoly Lebedko. He was detained when the door to his apartment was kicked in and he was dragged out by the hair. It was very brutal.

So I was very much afraid for his life and I thought if I could help him out of prison and at least keep him alive, that should be my top priority.

He is in KGB prison right now, and my number one goal is to release him from prison, because he’s a member of my team and he has never taken part in any bloody provocation. He was part of my constructive campaign. I think he was taken by police as part of this wide-scale campaign to destroy the opposition.

TA: Has anybody seen him in prison?

Romanchuk: Yeah. He saw an attorney and hopefully he’s well. He was on a hunger strike for about five days but then he stopped because he realized it wasn’t going to be a one-week detainment. His situation is much more difficult.

I don’t know, but I hope he will be released in the near future. But that night, my biggest concern was to have everybody alive, before even free. Because the situation was really, really very tense. When everybody is out of prison, when everybody is free, then we can have a more reasonable discussion.

 

TA: To those of us who were watching from outside the country, it looked like you were making statements under duress, and according to a Google translation of an interview with your mother, your mother said you were making statements under duress.

Romanchuk: Well that would be an understatement! If you are beaten, that’s one thing. But there are many other forms to urge you to say something. But again, fundamentally the issue was the lives of the people. And in this situation I made the choice I made because I wanted to save people.

At that time I didn’t think about my political career, about anything else, about what people would say, because at that time the situation was out of control. The person who made decisions was definitely off-balance and he could have given orders that would have lead to a much worse situation for everybody.

TA: Is there anything you said that you’d retract now?

Romanchuk: Anatoly Lebedko and the people in detention must be free. Then we can have a thorough investigation of what happened. When you want to save your friends in the first place, you think about the political consequences later.

If you’re in front of a firing squad, it doesn’t matter if you wear a suit and tie, or sporting boots and trainers. We can talk about statements and word choice later. Right now I want to have my friends out of prison, out of danger, and that night the danger was absolutely imminent and real.

For me the fundamental choice is the lives of the people.

TA: Did you come under criticism from some other members of the opposition about this?

Romanchuk: Oh yeah, absolutely. I’m still getting a lot of criticism.

It’s important to remember that the nine candidates were not part of one team. We tried to make attempts to come up with a single candidate, but failed. We tried to cooperate with some alternative candidates — for example, Mr. Nekliayev, until August — then he withdrew from the cooperative effort. Then some presidential candidates wanted me to give up and join their teams. And that is why we ran our own campaign.

I ran a very open, very low budget campaign. I spent all my personal savings on it. That is why the criticism of the campaign is not about myself, it’s about the choice. For me the fundamental choice is the lives of the people. If there is any danger to the lives and health of the people, you must take care of these things first, before considering anything else.

If other people believe I should have taken responsibility for deaths of the people, I wasn’t ready for that, and that is why I made this choice. I still believe that people must be free. I still believe in having free and fair trial for everybody who is under arrest right now. And of course I do not recognize the elections as free and fair; the results have been falsified.

So people didn’t know the circumstances, they didn’t know the motives, and I tried to explain as much as I could, because, at that time — and even now — I can’t talk and elaborate more because during the investigation I signed a KGB paper agreeing not to talk about the case. If I violate that I can go to prison.

TA: Did somebody actually say, “Well Stalin sacrificed his own son”?

Romanchuk: Well for me the situation is not all black and white, like Lukashenko is black and the opposition is white. The opposition has different elements — and of course some people made the decisions to lead people into the trap. So the question is whether they did that consciously as part of somebody else’s plan, or if they were fooled into acting like that. And of course they should take responsibility.

All western European countries and America insisted on peaceful demonstrations after the election — and that’s what we wanted. Other people didn’t like that.

But other people like Anatoly Lebedko, I’m 100 percent sure he hasn’t been involved in any plots. Other people from my party who were there, they weren’t involved in any plots. They were there for a peaceful demonstration, because we’re planing a long-term strategy of the country’s democratization.

All western European countries and America insisted on peaceful demonstrations after the election — and that’s what we wanted. Other people didn’t like that.

And now as the smoke clears we see that Lukashenko is one-and-one against the Kremlin, and has very bad relations with the West. It’s almost complete self-isolation.

So who has won? Some forces who were instrumental in having that provocation staged. Belarus as a sovereign state is facing very difficult challenges, and some candidates I believe played a part in this.

The brutality of the police must be investigated, that is obvious. People must be freed. At the same time, when such things happen, and if some presidential candidates participated in the provocation, there should be a fair trial and punishment. But now the KGB says up to 15 years in prison, and that is definitely out of the question.

TA: What are the charges?

Romanchuk: Of inciting a coup d’etat.

TA: So this is much more than merely inciting to riot?

Romanchuk: Of course. Incitement and mass protest or mass disorder is one thing. But coup d’etat is a very, very grave accusation. We should have evidence, if that crime ever happened.

So from what I know, that kind of campaign is meant to block activities of all democratic forces, leading to arrests and assaults on independent media, on human rights organizations. Now the arrest and search campaign is everywhere. Anybody can be searched, arrested, summoned to KGB anytime, any day. We are like on a volcano.

TA: How many times have you been to the KGB headquarters?

Romanchuk: I was there three times for interrogation in this case.

The authorities say, “If you have any ideas….” And I share ideas.

TA: And do you expect to be hauled in again? Do they arrest you or do they just tell you to show up?

Romanchuk: They told me to show up, and if I didn’t show up they would come and arrest me. If I had wanted to hide, I would have hidden on December 19th. But I’m innocent and my friends are innocent and that’s why I want to protect them by being free and using this opportunity.

TA: You said they’ve threatened you. Have they tried to offer you anything? There was a story in one publication that you might be offered a position in the government.

Romanchuk: Bullshit! Complete bullshit! Nobody offered me any position at any time.

Of course the authorities use my ideas, use the programs that I’ve presented to the government. We’ve been quite constructive for many years and many proposals that we’ve made have become part of legislation. For example, the personal flat income tax at 12 percent.

TA: Russia did that too, didn’t they?

Romanchuk: Yeah, personal income tax at 13 percent, but Belarus did it two years ago.

The other thing is Belarus is in the top ten countries in the world in terms of the ease of entering business, which is again part of our activities. Another of our suggestions is abolishing licenses for retail trade.

So these kind of activities have been going on for many years. Nobody offered me any position, but they say, “If you have any ideas….” And I share ideas. I send books, articles to the government all the time and I give them feedback and ideas about what should be done if they care about having free market reforms.

TA: As far as the opposition goes, I would say you are on the extreme classical liberal/libertarian wing. Obviously the opposition is not all like that.

Romanchuk: Most of the opposition is more like social democratic/socialist, unfortunately, but there is a huge deficit of people with a constructive mindset.

That is why my party is the only serious political structure with a serious program that Lukashenko considers as an alternative to his own. That is probably one of the reasons I was not arrested — because they wanted somebody to generate ideas.

And when I generate ideas, one thing I say is, “OK you have my books and concepts, but another thing is how to understand them.”

One thing we’ve been working on is ways to improve the business climate further, through tax reform, licensing reform, property rights, and privatization. It’s like pieces of the puzzle. You know all the pieces but you don’t know how to get all the pieces together. That is why I think if they are serious about reforms they will definitely address these issues.

Of course the KGB followed every step of every candidate, all the time. And during the 28 days of the campaign I visited 35 towns. I made official presentations and they were on media, on audio, so they saw that I’m a constructive person.

For me fighting for the liberty of my country is not saying, “Lukashenko is bad. I’m good. Vote for me.” That was a very simplified version of some of the candidates’ programs.

That is why my program, philosophically, was to turn people’s attention in Belarus to libertarian ideas in various forms, in the areas they care about. They care about jobs. They care about savings. They care about open trade. They care about production, and I told them the best way to do that is just to have a free market, to have liberty, to have freedom of exchange, to have private property.

The system, just like in Atlas Shrugged, is falling apart. We have to give people an alternative which is based not on exploitation, but rather on individual liberty and the basic foundations of capitalism.

That is why I think I’m opposed from inside the opposition too. Ideologically they’re much closer to Lukashenko in terms of economic policy, in terms of running the country, than myself.

TA: On the philosophical side, what would you say to people who say bourgeois liberty is a Western, or even specifically Anglo-Saxon, concept that doesn’t transfer to other cultures?

Romanchuk: That’s like talking about anatomy or physics that doesn’t apply to Slavs. I don’t believe in this geographically based explanation of culture.

The philosophy of liberty originated in Britain, but at the same time we know many outstanding French philosophers who contributed to the development of the philosophy of liberty. We have Austrians — we have people all over the world. I’m in Belarus, but I also contribute to the development of the ideas of liberty. I’m a Slav but does that mean I can’t appreciate Anglo-Saxon culture?

My premise is there is no Anglo-Saxon, French, or Continental division in the ideas of liberty.

The size of the government in Great Britain is more than 50 percent of GDP, similar to France. In the United States the size of the government is over 43 percent of GDP. Whatever you call it — Anglo-Saxon, Continental, whatever — you have the situation where interventionists own half of our economies and countries.

That’s not the culture that goes back to the roots of Adam Smith, or John Locke, or Menger — that’s the culture of socialism, of interventionism, of statism, where people must toil for somebody else. And that was a trap built by Western philosophers and supported by Soviet-style interventionism all over the world.

I believe we must challenge this mainstream world culture of grayness, moral ineptitude, and interventionism and build on the system of capitalism.

Because the system, just like in Atlas Shrugged, is falling apart. Financial and world trade crises will definitely follow in the next five years, and we have to give people an alternative which is based not on exploitation, but rather on individual liberty and the basic foundations of capitalism.

Q&A: THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE TRAILER

Posted on by TeamAtlas

BY HANS GREGORY SCHANTZ

Curious about the details of the new Atlas Shrugged movie trailer? Screenwriter Brian Patrick O’Toole joined us for a quick round of questions about the writing, CGI, and other details behind the recently released trailer.

The Strike Productions released the trailer for Atlas Shrugged Part I on February 11th, and already the trailer has been viewed well over 700,000 times.

A quick check of the YouTube Trailers page — from which the Atlas Shrugged Part I trailer is conspicuously absent — shows only a few trailers with more views.

For this interview, screenwriter Brian Patrick O’Toole was kind enough to answer several questions about the trailer from scientist and Atlasphere member Hans Schantz, for the enjoyment of Atlasphere readers.

If you haven’t seen the trailer yet, you can do so here:

The Atlasphere: I like the liberty you’ve taken with the Midas Mulligan and John Galt scene. I think it’s a great way to introduce the viewer to the central premise in a brief scene. But do you still intend to replace Paul Johansson as John Galt? Are you really going to find another actor of the exact same build with the same voice?

Brian Patrick O’Toole: John Galt was always meant to be a shadow figure in Part One. Anyone could have stood in for the character because we were going to see so little of him in this first film.

The producers asked the director, who is an experienced actor, to play the role. Another actor will be brought in to portray Galt when it is necessary — which is really in Part Three.

 

 

 

 

TA: The jumps between the Wyatt’s Torch scenes and the early train wreck threw me momentarily, but I doubt any but the most fanatic fans would have picked up on that. The trailer was remarkably well-integrated and did an outstanding job of introducing the story to an audience unfamiliar with the novel. At the same time, you revealed a number of spoilers — like the John Galt Line. What’s the balance your team aimed to strike between drawing in viewers and not ruining the surprise?

O’Toole: In the trailer, you never see the train make it over the bridge at any point. Only you, who know the book, would recognize that as a spoiler. More often than not these days, trailers give away whatever they need to in order to entice audiences to see the movie.

I think it was Roger Corman who said that a good trailer should show action, something sexy, and an explosion. We have all three.

Giveaways are tough when doing an adaptation because there will be people who know the parent material and scenes in a trailer will be spoilers. Unfortunately, when promoting a film, that is a risk one has to take.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TA: Your post-production team did a great job excising the palm trees from Piru Mansion in the Wyatt’s Torch scene. One thing did immediately catch my eye — weren’t a couple of those locomotives in the train action shots BNSF, Norfolk Southern, and then later Union Pacific? Are you going to add a distinctive “Taggart Transcontinental” livery for them in further post-processing?

O’Toole: Actually, outside of the John Galt Line train, all the other trains were live-action. No CGI at all.

As for the names on the trains, it was a cost issue to change them to Taggart Transcontinental. We’re hoping that it is a small detail people are willing to overlook. Besides, I would imagine that other trains would run on the Taggart railways.

 

 

 

 

TA: I love Hank’s smile when Paul tells Hank, “Yes, but you shouldn’t say it.” So is that your handiwork in the script, good direction, good acting, or all of the above?

O’Toole: Anything you see up on the screen is a collective effort from writing to art direction to lighting to acting to editing to music and sound. Many forces come together to make a scene happen.

For that particular scene, I can tell you that it was all Grant Bowler’s performance. I had the privilege of watching all the dailies many, many times and I can tell you that line is all in Grant’s performance.

TA: Kudos to your prop master, I presume, for his rendition of the Galt’s motor fragment. That prop has just the right mix of being vaguely electromechanical in an unconventional yet totally believable way. Who should I credit?

I had the privilege of watching all the dailies many, many times and I can tell you that line is all in Grant’s performance.

O’Toole: Credit goes to our amazing art department headed by John Mott. They had very little time to work their magic but it was indeed magic that John and his team performed.

TA: Whoever called the production lush has it exactly right. Anyone who’s been following the Facebook page knew that already, but the trailer really does a good job showing additional details from the moving blinds in Dagny’s apartment to the funky railway ties. Are they made out of Rearden metal, too?

O’Toole: I’m so glad people are seeing the trailer and commenting on how lush the film looks. Nope, only the new rails are made of the blue-green Rearden Metal in the film.

TA: The biggest flaw: “US who move the world?” I know that wasn’t what you had in the script, but wasn’t that supposed to be fixed with a voice over?

O’Toole: That line was actually written into the script during production. I checked the production script and it clearly says “we” so it was something that the actor slipped up on and the script supervisor didn’t catch.

I believe, for the film, we caught the mistake in the ADR session and it has been corrected. Unfortunately, the trailer was made before then and contains the flub. There goes my Writer’s Guild award, I guess (laughs).

 

 

 

 

TA: I was absolutely blown away by the power of the very last scene in which Hank and Dagny toast their business relationship and Lillian immediately slinks in with a predatory look on her face to break it up. That works on so many levels – the obvious level of keeping an eye on her husband when he’s close to Dagny to the more subtle meaning of her conspiring to break up the business partnership as well. That’s such a stunningly brilliant way to capture the conflict in both respects with remarkable economy. Is that your handiwork, or was that more of a directorial decision?

There has been a lot of the left side versus the right side back and forth on the comments. I just want everyone to know that we made a film that celebrates the individual — and both sides should be celebrating the release of the film.

O’Toole: Again, whatever you see on screen was a collective effort from all the team players. A screenwriter’s job is merely to set the stage; provide the blueprint for the film.

I do have to say that any scene that includes Rebecca Wisocky, who plays Lillian Rearden, are some of my favorites in the movie. I can’t wait to work more with that character in Part Two.

TA: Are you sensing any momentum toward a more widespread initial release? Might the private showing drum up enough industry buzz to get the film in more theaters?

O’Toole: In less than four days, the trailer hit over 500,000 views on YouTube. The responses have been overwhelmingly positive.

There has been a lot of the left side versus the right side back and forth on the comments. I just want everyone to know that we made a film that celebrates the individual — and both sides should be celebrating the release of the film.

We just released a full clip from the film — my favorite clip, to be honest — and we’ll have some of the music available for fans to download soon as well. We just need everyone to help spread the message and go see Atlas Shrugged Part I on April 15, 2011.

Below is the full clip to which O’Toole refers in his final answer, above.

 

 

Pay with Paypal
Sub Total:
Total:

Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Loading