carl skrev:Er det også mulig å se filmen noe sted, eller er den forbeholdt omtale?
Cragfarm skrev:Selv om filmen skulle være dårlig, er det ingen skade gjort.
Heller tvert imot. Filmen har jo bidratt til å skyte salgstallene til boka i været og skapt masse oppmerksomhet rundt Ayn Rands ideer.
Producer John Aglialoro has said he wanted to go ahead and make Atlas Shrugged parts II and III, but without betraying Ayn Rand's "principles." Since that meant "without losing money," chances are there'll be no Atlas Shrugged sequels.
rev skrev:Producer John Aglialoro has said he wanted to go ahead and make Atlas Shrugged parts II and III, but without betraying Ayn Rand's "principles." Since that meant "without losing money," chances are there'll be no Atlas Shrugged sequels.
Ayn Rand hadde vel aldri noe hellig prinsipp om at man ikke skal gjøre noe så lenge man ikke tjener penger på det? Det finnes da mange andre verdier enn kun penger som kan rettferdiggjøre å lage del II og III. Blant annet økt oppslutning rundt individuell frihet og en generell heving av moral i samfunnet. Vi ser jo allerede nå at filmen har ført til langt høyere salgstall for boken. Dette er vel i alle sin rasjonelle egeninteresse?
Atlas Shrugged, Part I: A Cinematic Go-Cart
13 May 2011 Edward Cline
The rebranding of that movie as a defensible work of art by writers who form an ad hoc but wishful consensus to give a disastrous cinematic rendition of Ayn Rand’s monumental novel, Atlas Shrugged, a passing mark has produced some curious reviews.
Atlas Shrugged Movie Photo
You are standing in a gallery with another critic before two paintings hung side by side, one by William-Adolphe Bouguereau and one by Pablo Picasso. Let us say they are Bouguereau’s Idylle (1851), and Picasso’s La Vie (1903). You both agree that the Bouguereau is a fine painting, depicting two lovers in a classical setting, the young man seated on the ground, looking up with adoration at the young woman. His hands clasp her legs possessively; she glances down at him in worship. Their glances are obviously fixed on each other. Everything in the painting works because the colors, the anatomy, the composition, the theme are integrated. You can enjoy the painting, even be inspired by it, and want to own it, without having to analyze it. Your introspection gives it a “10.” You accept it as a completed entity, without the necessity of dissecting its attributes. You explain in detail these virtues to the other critic, but he merely grunts in agreement.
The Picasso painting is a “Blue Period” monochrome that initially is repulsive, and on inspection is depressing. Aside from the annoying blue, the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others, and the malevolence of the picture telegraphs itself from across the gallery. The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance. Its theme is the futility of existence. The figures could just as well be inanimate objects or a menagerie of zoo animals. It doesn’t matter.
[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM&feature=player_embedded[/YouTube]
You state that La Vie is not merely bad, incompetently done art; it was perhaps deliberately intended to be such. The other critic defends the painting with some emotion, claiming that while there are flaws in the anatomy and composition, and other lapses and errors one might object to on mere technical grounds, they aren’t important, and so one really had no justification to judge the painting so negatively. The figures are recognizable, and there seems to be a theme, though he cannot quite put his finger on it, but denies it is the futility of existence. And how would we know that Picasso was an incompetent artist with nothing of value to say? Besides, he says, if this painting were by chance seen by someone uneducated in art, he might move on to appreciate the Bouguereau.
You walk away, shaking your head. You don’t know what else to say to the other critic, but you sense that whatever else you said, would be taken as offensive.
That is the situation I find myself in regarding John Aglialoro’s film, “Atlas Shrugged, Part I.”
lba skrev:Nå hadde den ikke så stort budsjett, og jeg tror den kan selge ganske bra på dvd. Også skal det sies at Ayn Rand-fans ikke er så ivrige på ulovlig nedlastning som andre, noe som kan bidra positivt til dvd-salg.
Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest