Atlas Shrugged

Diskusjon om alt innen kunst og kultur, slik som litteratur, teater, film, musikk og dataspill.

Atlas Shrugged

Innlegg Panther 05 Mai 2010, 19:52

Her er ett utdrag ifra boken, for alle som er interessert. For hele utdraget klikk på linken til CapMag.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/literature/5780-Who-Runs-Taggart-Transcontinental.html

Who Runs Taggart Transcontinental?
2 May 2010 Ayn Rand


"The Theme" by Ayn Rand, Author of Atlas Shrugged

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. Copyright © 1957 by Ayn Rand. Copyright renewed © 1985 by Eugene Winick, Paul Gitlin, and Leonard Peikoff. Reprinted by permission.She sat at the window of the train, her head thrown back, one leg stretched across to the empty seat before her. The window frame trembled with the speed of the motion, the pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

The Radicalness of Atlas Shrugged

Innlegg Panther 27 Jul 2010, 16:10

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/arts/literature/6044-The-Radicalness-Atlas-Shrugged.html

26 July 2010 Onkar Ghate

A book which deserves to be read and re-read.

For most people, reading Atlas Shrugged is an unforgettable experience. The story is gripping, involving numerous mysteries and unexpected but logical plot twists. The characters are unique--what other book contains a philosopher turned pirate? And the writing is that rarest of combinations: at once clear and deep. But for many readers, Atlas is even more: it's life-changing.

[Over] Fifty years after its publication, how can a novel still exert this powerful an effect? Because in its pages Ayn Rand forces you to look at the world anew.


No one had ever before thought of men like Aristotle, Newton, Edison and Vanderbilt as moral exemplars. But this--the man alone in his lab or office, who chooses to exert the effort necessary to think and to create his values--is Atlas's image of a moral saint.

What then of an entrenched moral code that demands that, in the name of the "poor in spirit," a man like Rearden selflessly sacrifice his creation, profit and happiness to those who have not earned them?

This whole code, Atlas declares, is immoral. What the story's logic reveals is that the very purpose of the code is to get the good voluntarily to surrender to evil. Atlas is the story of the rebellion of men like Rearden, who are in reality moral, against a moral code that damns selfishness and demands the sacrifice of those rich in spirit to those poor in spirit.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Differing Reactions to Ayn Rand's Novel Atlas Shrugged

Innlegg Panther 10 Feb 2011, 19:35

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/literature/6263-differing-reactions-to-ayn-rand-s-novel-atlas-shrugged.html

10 February 2011 Harry Binswanger

A lot of people are really put off by Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.

Bilde


I think Dominique has the best description of this kind of attitude:

“You've met Mr. Roark, Mrs. Jones? And you didn't like him?... Oh, he's the type of man for whom one can feel no compassion? How true. Compassion is a wonderful thing. It's what one feels when one looks at a squashed caterpillar. An elevating experience. One can let oneself go and spread-you know, like taking a girdle off. You don't have to hold your stomach, your heart or your spirit up-when you feel compassion. All you have to do is look down. It's much easier. When you look up, you get a pain in the neck. Compassion is the greatest virtue. It justifies suffering. There's got to be suffering in the world, else how would we be virtuous and feel compassion?... Oh, it has an antithesis—but such a hard, demanding one.... Admiration, Mrs. Jones, admiration. But that takes more than a girdle.... So I say that anyone for whom we can't feel sorry is a vicious person. Like Howard Roark.” [All ellipses were in the original.]

Substitute “You've read about Dagny, Francisco, and Galt?” for “You've met Mr. Roark?” and Dominique could have been speaking to this blogger.

A given work of literature either confirms or contradicts a reader's metaphysical value-judgments. I don't know this blogger in particular, but his post captures the attitude of a wide class of people who seek in art a confirmation of two things: the malevolence of “the system” (by which they mean some woozy blend of reality and society) and the “injustice” of holding anyone accountable for who he is, what he does, and how he lives.

Feeling fundamentally inadequate and guilty, they seek the security of home and the automatic forgiveness inherent in determinism. And they don't find that in Atlas Shrugged.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Innlegg Panther 17 Apr 2011, 13:55

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/literature/6379-read-atlas-shrugged-by-ayn-rand.html

17 April 2011 Ron Pisaturo

The novel deals with the role of the mind in all aspects of man’s life, including science, business, art, love, and sex. It deals extensively with the role of the mind in one crucial, often misunderstood, aspect of man’s life: the production of material goods. The novel focuses most on one kind of producer, what Ayn Rand called “America’s persecuted minority”: the businessmen.

Bilde
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 18 Apr 2011, 08:05

Filmen gjør det ikke så bra ved the box office;

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3143&p=.htm


'Atlas Shrugged' Derails?

by Brandon Gray



April 17, 2011

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations.

For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.

There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.

What's more, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's box office dropped six percent from Friday to Saturday, further indicating niche appeal. The movie would require exceptional holds moving forward to right its course.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was reportedly produced for $10 million in a rush to retain the movie rights before they reverted back to Ayn Rand's estate, and its producers eschewed Hollywood (only one theater showed it in the Los Angeles area) after decades of failed attempts. Instead, they took a grass roots approach and tried to capitalize on the Tea Party movement, which was credited with the Republicans' landslide win in last November's election.

The conservative media championed Atlas Shrugged Part I, and it received plenty of general coverage as well. It's also a topical movie, given the goings on in Washington (it was defiantly released on April 15, normally tax day), but topicality isn't necessarily a theatrical draw, especially when the core audience is already flush with the topic. For example, Oliver Stone's W. flopped and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps disappointed.

Didactics alone don't carry the day. To the uninitiated (and to many of the initiated), Atlas Shrugged: Part I looked stilted, esoteric and cheap in its marketing. It was awkward to only do Part I without having Part II and III set in stone (The Lord of the Rings had all three movies lined up prior to the first one's release), and people familiar with the book know that the question "Who is John Galt?" will not be answered in this movie, despite the trailer's hype. Atlas Shrugged is known as one book, not three like The Lord of the Rings (even though it's a comparable length to that entire trilogy). Additionally, Atlas Shrugged only shares some superficial political agreement with the mostly religious audience that the producers courted and is otherwise fundamentally different, so there was no passion of the Christ here. Such is the trouble with casting a narrow net when marketing a movie.

Boosters of Atlas Shrugged: Part I might point to the movie's per theater average to spin it as a success (ex. "it did almost as much per theater as Scream 4!"), but spin is all it is. It's a common ploy to cling to per-theater average to rationalize a soft run. Obviously, it's generally easier for a small release to have a higher per-theater average than one at over 3,000 theaters (at any rate, Scream 4 was a disappointment itself).

If the people behind Atlas Shrugged: Part I claim success, they are invited to reveal the capacity the movie played to at each theater. If the movie only had screens with tiny capacites and sold a high percentage of the available seats, then that would be a legitimate positive point to latch onto.

One positive sign, though, would be if there's a significant opportunity to expand. "We are looking to expand to 1,000 screens subject to logistics," said producer Harmon Kaslow in an email. "There's strong interest from the exhibitors and we're getting very positive word of mouth from our core target audience."
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 18 Apr 2011, 08:05

Filmen gjør det ikke så bra ved the box office;

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3143&p=.htm


'Atlas Shrugged' Derails?

by Brandon Gray



April 17, 2011

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations.

For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.

There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.

What's more, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's box office dropped six percent from Friday to Saturday, further indicating niche appeal. The movie would require exceptional holds moving forward to right its course.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was reportedly produced for $10 million in a rush to retain the movie rights before they reverted back to Ayn Rand's estate, and its producers eschewed Hollywood (only one theater showed it in the Los Angeles area) after decades of failed attempts. Instead, they took a grass roots approach and tried to capitalize on the Tea Party movement, which was credited with the Republicans' landslide win in last November's election.

The conservative media championed Atlas Shrugged Part I, and it received plenty of general coverage as well. It's also a topical movie, given the goings on in Washington (it was defiantly released on April 15, normally tax day), but topicality isn't necessarily a theatrical draw, especially when the core audience is already flush with the topic. For example, Oliver Stone's W. flopped and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps disappointed.

Didactics alone don't carry the day. To the uninitiated (and to many of the initiated), Atlas Shrugged: Part I looked stilted, esoteric and cheap in its marketing. It was awkward to only do Part I without having Part II and III set in stone (The Lord of the Rings had all three movies lined up prior to the first one's release), and people familiar with the book know that the question "Who is John Galt?" will not be answered in this movie, despite the trailer's hype. Atlas Shrugged is known as one book, not three like The Lord of the Rings (even though it's a comparable length to that entire trilogy). Additionally, Atlas Shrugged only shares some superficial political agreement with the mostly religious audience that the producers courted and is otherwise fundamentally different, so there was no passion of the Christ here. Such is the trouble with casting a narrow net when marketing a movie.

Boosters of Atlas Shrugged: Part I might point to the movie's per theater average to spin it as a success (ex. "it did almost as much per theater as Scream 4!"), but spin is all it is. It's a common ploy to cling to per-theater average to rationalize a soft run. Obviously, it's generally easier for a small release to have a higher per-theater average than one at over 3,000 theaters (at any rate, Scream 4 was a disappointment itself).

If the people behind Atlas Shrugged: Part I claim success, they are invited to reveal the capacity the movie played to at each theater. If the movie only had screens with tiny capacites and sold a high percentage of the available seats, then that would be a legitimate positive point to latch onto.

One positive sign, though, would be if there's a significant opportunity to expand. "We are looking to expand to 1,000 screens subject to logistics," said producer Harmon Kaslow in an email. "There's strong interest from the exhibitors and we're getting very positive word of mouth from our core target audience."
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07


Gå til Kunst og kultur

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron