« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s important that “Atlas Shrugged” do well this weekend

We all know it’s risky to be a conservative fillmmaker or actor in Hollywood. We all want to see more conservative-friendly (or, at the very least, not-conservative-insulting) movies and TV shows. Well, one way to make that happen is to financially reward those conservative folks in Hollywood in front of the camera, behind it and paying for it.

If “Atlas Shrugged” has a good opening weekend, it will help send the message that it’s worth the risk to act in and finance conservative film and TV.

Up until now, we conservatives haven’t exactly sent that message.

(Apologies in advance—my opportunity to look up references for this diary is limited. I’m on Little Smagar duty this Saturday AM, while CINCHouse sleeps. I’m having to cite my evidence from memory).

David Zucker says he’s done with making conservative comedies. Remember David Zucker? Yes, we all shout in unison, “he did the Airplane movies!” (Phooey on Gone With The Wind—THAT was great cinema!) Zucker also did An American Carol. He also made commercials that mocked Democrats.

Did you know David Zucker actually went to his accountant beforehand, and asked whether he could survive a “shunning” (Zucker’s words, not mine) by the rest of Hollywood?

Imagine that. Here’s someone who’s willing to risk a huge financial beating, in order to make conservative-friendly media.

How did that work out for Zucker? From the Wikipedia entry for An American Carol. (Emphasis added).

As of October 2009, An American Carol has grossed $7 million after having a production budget of $20 million.

Zucker, in an interview with National Review Online, had suggested a sequel as his next possible project, but now says he is done making conservative comedies.[24][25] Zucker laments that the audience for this type of film is the type that waits for it to be available on DVD.[24]

To be fair, An American Carol debuted right in the middle of the 2008 financial meltdown. Of course, no one was in a movie-watching mood then. Neverthless, notice that a year later (October 2009), the movie was a huge money loser. I’ll bet media financiers noticed.

And, how about those commercials? They were funny and very effective—but the RNC and the McCain campaign SNUBBED them, and Zucker. (“Thank you very little, Mr. Zucker. We are trying to set a high tone in this campaign—while Barack Obama modifies his online donation software so he can accept bazillions in illict contributions online! Aren’t we Republicans NOBLE, as we go down to electoral defeat!”)

Remember The Half Hour News Hour? It was doing OK in its time slot, but Roger Ailes cancelled it anyway. There were lots of young, unestablished actors who appeared in that. (I recognized lots of faces I’d seen in commercials and bit parts on TV.) I’ll bet few of those actors had the financial means to withstand a shunning by Hollywood. Come to think of it—I haven’t seen many of those actors recently…

If you were a conservative actor in Hollywood, would YOU stick your neck out for the conservative movement?

Yesterday, Graham Beckel was interviewed at length on Hugh Hewitt’s show. Beckel plays Ellis Wyatt, the oil tycoon in the new Atlas Shrugged movie. Here’s a few things that stick in my mind from that interview:

First, Beckel said that, once he came out in Hollywood as a conservative, his work dropped way off. Also, people who’d been his friends for 20 years stopped talking to him.

Beckel talked about today’s Hollywood conservatives “meeting in the catacombs” of Tinseltown. What really struck me—he said that very few actors came to these meetings. Producers, directors and writers, yes. Actors, though, felt they couldn’t risk being labeled as conservatives in Hollywood.

Lastly, Beckel said that is was important for Atlas Shrugged to do well this weekend. If it does, more theaters might show the film. Beckel especially said that it was important that the movie’s fianciers not take a bath at the box office.

I’ve seen some reviews that say that Atlas Shrugges is dreary, and perhaps it’s not the best-made of movies. Well, OK.

But, if you want to see more conservative-friendly cinema and TV, we have to reward the people who make the stuff we DO have. Especially since Hollywood is so outwardly hostile to conservatives. Even the successful ones—ask Joel Surnow.

If we sit here and wait for the “perfect” conservative movie, we may be waiting for a very, very long time.

To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, help Hollywood conservatives help you. Go see Atlas Shrugged this weekend.

COMMENTS

  • AnnaD

    Saw the film last night and it was definitely worth watching. Pace is brisk (unlike the book), dialogue was crisp (unlike the book, which had some cringe-inducing lines), and the ending was great. If I had to make one criticism, Dagny?s scream at the end reminded me way too much of Anakin Skywalker?s / Darth Vader?s scream at the end of that dreadful Star Wars 3, when he learns he killed Padme. Other than that, I loved Atlas Part 1.

    The film captured the essence of the story and the characters well. To support the making of the second part, I will buy the DVD, when it comes out later this year. We should support this film so the message of Atlas Shrugged can be even more widely distributed. I loved the book and only read it recently, for the first time. I did find the writing to be tedious but it was a matter of principle to read it to completion. I think the film does a better job at conveying the story to those with shorter attention spans than mine.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      I hadn’t thought of that…

      “…Dagny?s scream at the end reminded me way too much of Anakin Skywalker?s / Darth Vader?s scream…”

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • smagar

      I didn’t need to know that Dagny screamed at the end.

      I wanted to believe that the movie ended with Dagnry thrusting her sword into the air yelling “Roma Victor!” with her foot planted atop a prostrate Code Pink protester.

      Of course, I knew that the movie most likely didn’t that way…but there’s no need to spoil our illusions early, is there?

      • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

        but I believe the statute of limitations on spoilers is well expired at 54 years :-D

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          What right does an Objectivist have to ask for altruism from those who have already read the book?

          • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

            We might want to pass a directive ordering a moratorium on spoilers, for the public good. It’s our duty, to protect society from your individualist tendencies.

          • smagar
      • AnnaD

        so no spoiler….

        • rightwingmom52

          she screamed upon hearing Trump was running for President. Or maybe it was after she saw the list of GOP nominees.

          • westbrook348

            my feelings exactly

        • smagar

          …with her foot on Richard Trumka’s prostrate form.

      • Raven

        Dagny draws her spear from the last of the Code Pink Warriors for Peace as he crumbles to the ground. She places her foot on his lifeless back, thrusting her spear into the air and yells, “Roma Victor! YYYEEEAAAAARRRRghhhhhh!!!!!”

        • wrxsti

          Saw it Friday afternoon and really enjoyed it. Crowds were good here in Baton Rouge. Even saw another movie later that evening, but bought the tickets to Atlas Shrugged just to support it financially.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • Flagstaff

      Does it really matter to the content and intent of Smagar’s column whether his ‘plea’ fits the message of Shrugged or not? I think his point is valid.

      As for the movie itself, it seems to be worth promoting. I spoke to a couple Friday night who had driven from Flagstaff to Tempe (the closest theater–one of only two in AZ) to see it that day. That meant they paid over $100 and a days time to see the show–round trip gasoline had to be at least $80.

      They both agreed that it was a good movie and they would see parts 2 and 3. The wife had read the book years ago; he had never read it. She said it was faithful to the story.

      We write here to help spread the word about the evils of liberalism and the Democrat Party. That isn’t really so far from fighting the evils of Big Government, groupthink, and collectivism. It’s good to support others who are using another medium to do the latter.

      If anybody wants to help get the movie into more theaters, the website to help you do this is here:

      http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/demand

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You talk about Atlas Shrugged, then you talk about conservatives.

    What does an Objectivist fable have to do with conservatives?

    • smagar

      so I won’t even try.

      • Doc Holliday

        and the content.

        • smagar

          My opposition? To what? Or, are you referring to Neil’s opposition?

    • ssshannon1026

      It is sad that so many conservatives think Atlas Shrugged is a cosnervative work.

      • Flagstaff

        there are only two political philosophies–conservative and liberal.

        It is apparent, however, that objectivism and individualism tracks much closer to conservatism than to liberalism.

        • ssshannon1026

          Objectivism is much more closely aligned with progressivism than with Conservatism. It is simply a progressive philosophy that sides with capitalism rather than with socialism. The social progressives have precisely the same views on individualism as objectivists do.

          The association between conservatism and libertarianism (or objectivism since it is now begin renamed for political expediency) is entirely phoney and nothing more than a way to inject progressivim into the conservative movement.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            the views of individualism of libertarian/objectivists are 180 degrees opposite of socialism. the only similarity with objectivism is that it is materialistic and rejects a deity.

      • smagar

        the Army I see in Army Wives every Sunday night on Lifetime and the Army in real life. There are many differences.

        Neverthess, I’m glad Army Wives is there, so people who don’t know the Army—or never would have contact with the Army—-can see the many good things about it.

        What filmmaker hasn’t taken at least some artistic license with their material? Or, just been plan careless with it, or uninterested in staying “true” to the real message in the original source work?

        If that’s our standard for acceptability, then let’s open up Redstate Films ASAP.

        If we insist on perfection, then let’s just do the work ourselves.

        • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

          Thank you, sir, for your service to all of us. I am truly appreciative.

          That said, I worked on F-14B Tomcats for the greater part of my career in the Navy, however unlike you, I am not sure that I could recommend “Top Gun”, “JAG”, or “NCIS:Anywhere” to anyone to expose them to life in the Navy. (I tell to my wife that if she ever wants to experience the it, just sleep under the coffee table for 6 months.)

          I believe that all good movies stand on their own as they are stories spoken through a visual medium. But, if the book is good and the acting is horrible – no one will watch it. [THINK: any Steven King book-to-screenplay or "Phantoms" with Ben Affleck - as specific examples.]

          Also, it is just a fact that some books are just not meant to be “seen.” Personally, I would not want to see an adaptation of “Animal Farm” or an updated “1984.” These stories were expertly told through the prose and seeing it on-screen vice through my imagination could only take away from the story, not add to it. [THINK: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Left Behind"]

          I have not read Atlas (I chose “Cat’s Cradle” in High School instead) and I am not sure I want to and I am not certain I want to see it, either. Seems to me that I could watch C-SPAN or C-SPAN 2, coupled with about 20 minutes of Rachel Maddow and it would be the backstory to Atlas, played out in real time with real events.

          …The acting would probably be just as bad, though….

          • westbrook348

            My wife and i both enjoyed it (we’re fans of the book though). Enjoyable, fast paced movie about good vs evil, w/ some fun dialogue. Btw thank you both for your military service.

        • ssshannon1026

          The philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged is not in any shape form or fashion conservative. And promoting it as such does great harm to the conservative movement.

          • smagar

            While I disagree with you, I’ll stipulate that Atlas Shrugged isn’t 100% pure in its conservative message.

            Well…what movie or TV program ever IS 100% pure?

            You seem to be thinking of a Hollywood that’s different than the Hollywood that’s actually on planet Earth. Writers and actors take creative license with their source material all the time.

            You also seem to be ignoring the value Atlas Shrugged can offer by galvenizing public discussion.

            We need to win in 2012. Imagine what America will be like in January 2017, at the end of a SECOND Obama term. Yeah…

            To win in 2012, we need to get millions of people to think about what life in this country would be like if Obama-style crony capitalism was allowed to grow unchecked.

            But, how do we get millions of undecided or independent voters to think about stuff like that.

            We could post about it on conservative websites, and wait for them to come to us.

            Or, we can inject those ideas into popular culture where everyone can see them.

            We don’t have much time in between now and November 2012. We need to ride the imperfect horses we have that are saddled and ready to go now, not the horses we’d like to see born someday.

          • ssshannon1026

            Rand’s objectivism has nothing in common with conservatism. Yes, she arrives at some free market conclusions that might sound superficially comfortable to the conservative ear. But beyond that there is nothing at all conservative, or particularly constitutional, about Rand, objectivism or libertarianism. It is generally a reformulation of social progressivism around free market principles.

          • smagar

            The rest of us will.

          • westbrook348

            the philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged promotes the free market, individual rights, and limited government — sounds like Republicans could learn something from it

          • ssshannon1026

            with any absolutist commitment to individual rights. You cannot simultaneously have limited government and unlimited protection of anything and everything an individual miight want to do as long as he ‘isn’t harming anyone else’. In fact, it would require an all powerful form of government to assure each indiviual was protected from any possibility of being required to conform to any sort of social standard. Thats what Libertarians need to learn.

          • westbrook348

            i don’t know any libertarians who expect complete or “unlimited” protection from all social pressures. But we should all as Americans expect our government to protect us against violence or coercion. The primary purpose of government IS to protect individual rights. Why do you need an “all powerful” government to do that? A limited government can do that just fine; we don’t want NO government. But can we at least all agree that the government should shrink in size & scope: it needs to stop policing the world, destroying business thru regulations, distorting free markets, manipulating our currency, picking winners and losers, centrally planning whole sectors of our economy, and redistributing wealth through innumerable social welfare programs. Stopping those things would be my idea of limiting government.

            I just don’t know.. your views of Libertarians & their goals seem weird to me. In what circumstances do you think government should not protect individual rights? What rights should be sacrificed because protecting them would force government to become too powerful? I haven’t heard your particular complaint about libertarians expressed before; it’s odd to me. You actually have me wondering whether you might just have some old bias against libertarians. It’s like you have something *personal* against the whole political ideology. Quite curious. Hopefully you can explain your views to me better so I can understand where you’re coming from.

          • ssshannon1026

            You know, such as those defined in the Bill of Rights. It does not and cannot without unlilmited authority protect the Libertarian ideal of individual rights limited only by the concept of ‘causing no harm’ to another individual.

          • acat

            and as that’s the case, ssshannon, your entire argument collapses.

            Laws don’t protect men or women. Samuel Colt understood this. The founding fathers understood this. Men and women protect one another. The law is another tool they can use. So is religion.

            Libertarians do not oppose the law, they oppose bad law, and at this point there is much common ground between conservatives, libertarians, and even objectivists as there is just so much bad law that’s been written.

            Whenever you’re done arguing about how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever equally stupid topic you’re stuck on today, we can move on to talking about how to fix government. Being a libertarian, by “fix”, I mean, chop off its’ gonads. You may mean something else, of course.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            Reagan did not say it, I did. But he did say a lot of these like this, then he did most of them.

          • aesthete

            Libertarianism as a philosophy declines to opine on non-violent social pressure. It does posit that a citizen getting strung up, put in jail, fined, or killed by the mob or its proxy, government, when he hasn’t hurt anyone is wrong. This view, while not the orthodox conservative position, certainly is a classically liberal point of view and belongs on the right wing in the US. Far from requiring an all-powerful government, it would require a reduction of current government intrusion.

          • ssshannon1026

            And destroy true ‘small government’ as it has always been understood and practiced in AMerican society. Just as an exmple, do you believe that a small community in Texas should have the power to make sodomy illegal in their commuinity? I do, and so did the founding fathers.

          • acat

            Go look up the Oneida Colony. Their oddball practices were also accepted by the founding fathers. Would you mind if a small community decided to revive the Oneida practices?

            Mew

          • ssshannon1026

            Any such community would be up to the people of what ever state they lived in – as the founders intended. They knew full well that such things would happen and gave the power to deal with it to the states and the people anyway. The founders were not political libertarians. They knew more about ‘classical’ liberalism than anyone alive today and largely rejected those ideas when designing the government they gave us.

          • acat
          • Doc Holliday

            that’s my line :) unfortunately so many need to do just that.

          • ssshannon1026

            Otherwise, you need to explain how every state and burg in the nation for the first century and more imposed morality on thier citizens. The nation was not even remotely libertarian, and would not have recognized libertarian principles until well after the progressive era. ‘Classical’ liberalism was NOT the intent of the founders. They studied it, analyzed it, and knew it simply was not a practical means of forumlating any real world government.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The founding fathers had nearly nothing to say about social issues and morality on a federal level. They assumed that the nation was itself moral and would adhere to accepted standards. Classical liberalism is precisely what they created.

          • acat

            is whether you are interested in reducing the size of the current federal behemoth or not.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            she wants to know what you are doing, she really needs to know. What are you doing in bed? What are you doing on the net? Why would you want to buy THAT much ammo? Bored house fraus want to know.

          • Doc Holliday

            try to find someone who will enforce it. And the SC basically pronounced the laws defunct.

          • ssshannon1026

            after it was made illegal in some states. The founders intended the latter, not the former.

          • Doc Holliday

            where did you get that crapola? limited government means leave us the heck alone, not some psychobabble you are pushing. Sounds like a rejected social studies thesis.

          • ssshannon1026

            You know, the guys who gave states and communites all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution. They were not creating ‘limited government’ they were creating ‘small government’.

          • acat

            That’s so far beyond wrong the light from wrong won’t get there for another couple years…

            Look, the simple fact, as I said above, is that objectivists like Ayn Rand, libertarians (the more sane of them, at least) and conservatives share common ground.

            If you’re that stuck on purity, try a religious order. Insisting on it in political fellow travelers and potential allies is suicide for your goals.

            Mew

          • ssshannon1026

            in order to ensure coercive political authority would remain with the states and the people. The fact that you don’t comprehend the most basic historic lesson of our founding is the best evidence for my point about Libertarians.

          • acat

            You’re going to lecture me about history when, in 1789, those same founding fathers strengthened the federal government after the confederacy was found very wanting….? Seriously?

            Good grief.

            Mew

          • ssshannon1026

            It was the anti-federalists who won the final battle in what the nature of the new constitution would be. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to assure the states that the federal government would honor a set of restrictions upon its authority in order to ensure the states and their communities could continue to govern in autonomy when it came to issues fundamental to human liberty.

          • acat

            First, there is no such thing as a “final battle”. It’s an ongoing battle between those who seek to control, and those who seek to be free.

            Second, you are still describing “limited government”, which is something that the conservatives, libertarians, and even objectivists agree we need more of today.

            Mew

          • Doc Holliday

            you come out of a U.S. history survey class and deign to lecture us? Oh to be so young and stupid. I was that young once, but since I chose history as a vocation in 4th grade, I don’t think I was quite as stupid.

          • Doc Holliday
          • aesthete

            The Founders didn’t “give” the states anything: the states were already extant and politically developed (in colonial form) by the time the Founders came around. What the Founders did was unite these colonies in a broad Federalist framework with protections inspired by classically liberal thought. Every Founder was differently influenced by classical liberalism, but (to my knowledge) none wholly rejected its influence. The Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence are incredibly similar to other documents of the time that were inspired by classical liberalism, and are full of concepts that fellow classical liberals wrote on (consent of the governed, right to free speech, etc).

            But what of the state governments? Many of them adopted extremely classically liberal constitutions. (In particular, note the Virginia and Vermont Constitutions.) Most of the others with less classically liberal constitutions followed suit shortly. The Founders were largely involved in the move towards classical liberalism in these states. None of these states can be said to have been worse than European states on issues of liberty, and most were a good deal better on economic liberty and plenty of other fundamental freedoms.

          • gekster

            Wern’t they for less government and freedom, not government knows best and must control you.

          • ssshannon1026

            And the emphasis was upon simply evolving power away from the center and to the extrimities, so that the people could rule themselves- as communities. There was no effort made to actual create or enforce any standards of ‘classical’ liberalism. If so, please tell me where it ever actually existed in American society. People across the nation were held accountable to whatever moral standards the majority in their communities found most appropriate. Yes, the langauge may sound similar, but, for example as with the Bill of Rights, the intent was to give coercive authority to the states and to the people, not to eliminate it as Libertarians seem to believe.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            but you fail to see the forest for the trees. There was a continuous struggle between those forces of control and those who wanted personal freedom. But it never came to a head because those who, for instance, could not stand the moralistic prudery of Boston or Savannah could jsut move out west where the laws, such as they were were much more forgiving.

            Now, it is important that we fight this out because we no longer live in such a world, Now, personal matters are controlled by the central government to an unhealthy degree.

          • Doc Holliday

            would think nothing about someone smoking the hemp he grew. Yet if someone insulted a lady in his presence, he would have something to say. In neither case would he worry about the government, he had his own set of morals, his own views of right or wrong.

          • Doc Holliday

            the states/colonies came before the federal government. the federal government was used only when needed, such as a time of war. If anything, it was the states that gave up power to the feds, not the other way around. But people still lived in a state of freedom we could only imagine.

            sure people could use anecdotal evidence such as compulsory church going in early colonies, but that ignores almost every other facet of life. To say the Founders wanted coercive government in the localities, and to even imagine they could of thought what we have lost is possible, is to show one knows nothing about the history of this nation.

          • aesthete

            of degree and proportion? Do you really think that the American was just as constrained by his state as the average Russian, Parisian, or Briton? What, exactly, was the point of the American Revolution if not to escape the coercive hand of Great Britain? Do you really think that a state (not the federal government) constructed along socialist, monarchist or theocratic lines would have been acceptable to the average US colonist? No, the US does not adhere perfectly to the ideology of classical liberalism. For that matter, the USSR did not adhere to the theoretical constructs of Marxist-Leninism. Both, however, used those respective ideas to shape their views of government and its proper role in the lives of the citizenry. I don’t know why we’re debating this point.

          • Doc Holliday

            The Bill of Rights says nothing about states, it speaks of unalienable rights given by God to all men. Small government vs. limited government, are these really the issues we should be arguing over? It seems to me you are just trying to stir things up here, kind of like a Moby.

          • acat

            .. and that includes Progressives who think that being religious and voting for the GOP means they’re “conservative”…

            The libertarians understand the meaning of the statement “I carry a gun because when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes” …

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Your gratuitous assumptions are simply silly. If you really beleive that it requires a government to force people to conform to some sort of social standard, outside of criminality, then you are not a conservative at all. You are just a would be tyrant.

        • Common_Cents

          It was pretty good, not riveting but good. Refreshing to see these themes rather than the bleeding heart crap we get thrown at us by hollyweird.

          • smagar

            Refreshing to see these themes

          • Common_Cents

            It isn’t about a total review of Rand’s entire philosophy. It’s a movie. The public responds to simple messages “bush is dumb” ring a bell? “obama is a rock star”. The simple message here is “big corrupt govt is bad” and thats all the movie should be judged on.

            IMHO, It’s a little petty judging a movie and its potential message for the masses based on the entire philosophy of the books author as the movie does not represent in that fashion. You are not going to become a crazy Randian if you see it.

            It was an ok movie and probably won’t do well in comparison to other mindless entertainment movies. I guess it has really revved up sales of the book. It’s simple message of ‘big corrupt government is bad’, may not even resonate with average joes as the protags were riding in limo’s, living in big houses, flying around in jets. It did show much of what is going on today, government corruption is getting nearly required in big business.

            It’s just one movie and the theme was refreshing compared to all the liberal filth that we are exposed to daily. That right there should be all this movie should be judged on.

          • westbrook348

            especially “the public responds to simple messages.” This is Ayn Rand For Dummies, & I think a lot of people will respond to it positively.

            Probably most average Joes will realize the distinction made between the productive rich capitalists and the incompetent corrupt crony capitalists. It’s good for them to see both types of wealthy.

  • aesthete

    but I’m not expecting much. I’d say that, by and large, message films just don’t work — Rand’s stuff was too on-the-nose, and a good adaptation would have needed to have a tight and interesting script for it to work.

    I’ll also note that someone has already made a movie about a rich, successful businessman as a protagonist foiling incompetent big government. It even has a sequel.

    • smagar

      I’m sure Atlas Shrugged won’t be every conservative’s cup of tea. What movie or TV show ever is?

      Tina Fey can mock Sarah Palin all day long, and if her show bombs, no big deal. She can get another. She can make money many, many other places in Hollywood.

      Joel Surnow is going to be OK, assuming he invested his money from 24 wisely.

      What about the lesser-known actors? What about the movie financiers who aren’t loaded with cash they can burn?

      Do we always want to be playing defense against Hollywood? Do we always want to see, in the months before every meaningful election, a slew of anti-conservative movies? Wouldn’t it be nice to go on offense for once?

      Perhaps,The Half Hour News Hour or An American Carol or Atlas Shrugged don’t live up to all of our high standards that we each indvidually set for entertainment. I acknowledge that.

      Neverthless, in some cases we should overlook that. IMO this is one of those cases.

      Actors, producers, directors and financiers of Atlas Shrugged and other conservative-friendly films and TV shows take BIG risks in Hollywood. Hollywood can, and does, retaliate.

      Now, I won’t go as far as to call these people “brave.” They have, however, taken on professional risk. We should recognize that, and reward that in the ways where it really counts—buying tickets and watching their shows on TV.

      Otherwise, we really have no grounds to complain when Hollywood goes to war against conservatives and Republicans, day in and day out.

      IMO, of course…

      • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

        …that this comment completely butts against the message of Our Revered Saga.

        /ducks

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          You think that people giving to Atlas Shrugged as a charity runs directly against Ayn Rand’s admonitions against charity?

          Surely you jest!

          • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

            That’s a very anti-social thing to say.

          • smagar

            I’d really appreciate it.

          • smagar
          • smagar

            Please, why don’t you and Neil stay back and stand on high principle.

            The rest of us will go help some Hollywood conservatives who stuck their necks out.

          • taylerdog23

            it was financed by John Aglialoro (CEO of Cybex) and pre and post production as well as shooting were pretty much independently done did not involve input from a Hollywood studio rep (this is quite a departure from how moves are normally made).

            That being said, the reality is that no one can really blame “Hollywood” for this awful movie. At least it’s better than the book, though. However, I’m not sure that’s saying much.

            Just an opinion, of course :)

          • smagar

            What kind of a message would that send to future financers of conservative film and TV projects? Who would finance the next one? Richard Mellon Scaife?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Are you talking about a conservative project or Atlas Shrugged?

            Anyway yes, I believe every project should fail if it doesn’t stand up on its own merits as entertaining.

            The left manages it. If these guys aren’t competent to do the same, well, they deserve to fail.

          • ssshannon1026

            precisely because it is being foisted off as a “conservative’ movie”. Ayn Rand was no conservative. In reading Rand, I find no hint of the principles of the founders of American civilzation. She arrives at a few similar sounding ideas, but from an entirely different philosphical orientation.

            If it were being promoted as a Libertarian movie, I might go see it. But it isn’t and hence serves only to undermine true conservatism.

          • Common_Cents

            Do you apply this same standard to every movie equally?

            Why don’t you tell us what movies you have ever seen? Have you watched any movies, ever?

            Because if you applied this standard you have fully researched every producer, author, director of every movie you saw and fully agreed with their entire life philosophy or you refused to watch the movie.

            I hope you didn’t see avatar, titanic, wall street, etc….you know, nearly every freakin movie ever made in hollyweird was put out by many raging liberals.

          • smagar

            There’s always plenty of actors, writers, producers and money to make another Fair Game(the Valerie Plame movie) or Fahrenheit 9/11

            Go back to what David Zucker said after An American Carol: he’s done with making conservative comedies.

            So, we have a filmmaker that knowingly stepped out of the closet and opened himself up to all the scorn Hollywood has to offer…and now says he’s done…at least in part because the money wasn’t there.

            Couple that with what Joel Surnow is going through with the Kennedys miniseries.

            It’s awfully naive—and a touch self-absorbed—to expect that Hollwyood talent and money people are going to risk making conservative-friendly fare if there’s no profit in them. A GREAT way to insulate filmm-makers and financiers from the Tinseltown thought police is to put green in their pockets.

            Who knows? It might motivate them to make other conservative-friendly films that are better than the admittedly-flawed Atlas Shrugged.

            Or, we could sit here on our websites and wait for American voters to come to us, so they can get a proper understanding of what conservativism really should be.

          • westbrook348

            between you two (about whether to support the movie even though it sucks), because Atlas Shrugged does not suck. Just my opinion of course, but both my wife and I loved it. It’s not perfect, but definitely better than average. If you don’t want to take the opinion of someone who likes the book, take the opinion of my sister, mom, and grandma, all typical “conservative” Republicans who don’t even know who Ayn Rand is: they all thought it was really good, too. If you go into the movie w/ no expectations, you’ll probably walk away pleasantly surprised. YMMV of course, but most people won’t consider it “charity” to pay to see this movie.

          • smagar
          • westbrook348

            on 2nd glance, it sounded kinda rude. i shouldn’t have said “completely pointless”; it’s actually an interesting debate in theory, whether to support the creators of a crappy movie because you agree w/ their politics, especially given Rand’s Objectivism. I simply meant that the point ends up being moot in this case if the movie is good. And I think it is!

            Anyway thanks for the diary entry. i’ve appreciated the chance to comment & see everyone else’s opinion of Atlas Shrugged.

          • smagar
      • ssshannon1026

        n/a

        • westbrook348
  • quill67

    We do not support films just because they are conservative. This is the opposite of our values. Conservatives believe in rewarding the successful–not the mediocre.

    I will gladly help fund the production of conservative films but I will not ask anyone to go see it just to support our cause. Go to the movie if you think you will enjoy it. I believe we can make great conservative films. I saw Atlas Shrugged and I believe those who love Rand or who are conservative will like certain aspects of the film and should go, but the film fails at a very fundamental level and the most important one is: It will not convince those who do not follow politics about the wisdom of our ideas. However, I believe with proper funding and a better director, the next part of the series could be fantastic.

    • smagar

      Tell ya what–why don’t you consider taking one for the team here?

      Reach into your pocket and pay for some tickets to these conservative-friendly products that fail to meet your exacting standards.

      Think of it as an investment. You might help create the commercial success that could inspire a talented screenwriter or a brilliant actor to do a film that DOES meet your exacting standards.

      • quill67

        Listen. If I thought Atlas would change people’s minds, I’d gladly pay for people to go see it. But I went to see it and it would not convince anyone of the merit of our ideals. I wish it did. In fact, the arguements are so unpersuasive, disjoined and shallow that for those who are not already conservative, it will actually make them less likely to follow our cause.

        And this is the tragedy of the movie.

        • smagar

          If I thought Atlas would change people?s minds, I?d gladly pay for people to go see it.

          How about if itgets people to think, about the future we face and the choices we have to make?

          Many of the independent and unaffiilated voters we need in 2012 seldom think about politics, government spending or government’s influence in our lives. That’s starting to change. More people are starting to listen.

          But, we shouldn’t expect that they’ll all troop to websites like this one to get a “proper” grounding in conservative thought. (Now, I’m not sure what a “proper” view of conservative thought is…but apparently many regulars on Redstate feel that Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 falls way short in this regard.)

          No, those voters will go to the places they normally go—the movies and TV. If we don’t engage them there, then we won’t meaningfully engage them at all.

          If Atlas Shrugged is successful enough…then Part 2 might get made. Graham Beckel, on Hugh Hewitt’s show, said that, if Part 1 opened well enough, the producers might be able to get financing for Part 2.

          Hopefully, Part 2 will get made. And even more hopefully, more and more conservative-friendly movies and TV will follow.

          You did everything the Atlas Shrugged crew hoped you would do—you paid for a ticket to the movie. You bought their product. Thanks.

          • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo
          • nancylee

            It was a good movie. I convinced my husband to go with me to see it, and his first comment at the end was “I guess I’m going to have to get the book, now.”

        • westbrook348

          but it’s nonetheless a fun, fast paced movie w/ some good dialogue scenes & character interactions. The fight between hard working individuals and lazy crony capitalists/politicians is easy to follow and interesting to watch. I know quite a few people who had never heard of the book, saw the movie, and then told me they really wanted to get a copy and read it. I think that’s the main goal of the movie: you’re not supposed to get all the philosophy in the 100 minute running time. It’s just supposed to get you interested in the story and characters, so you seek out the book and delve deeper. That’s where they’ll learn more about Objectivism, and even if they don’t entirely agree w/ the philosophy, Rand still argues for a free market, individual rights, and limited government better than most. Big net positive for our side, IMO.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    An American Carol is one of my very, VERY favorite funny movies. I’ve lost count of how many times my sons and I have watched it. It is excellent in every possible way — script, actors, sound, editing. Top-notch. Yeah, it’s madcap, and in places, vulgar (I always fast-forward through the Detroit morgue scene) — but great balls of fire, is it ever funny. And the satire so intelligently, satisfyingly, perfectly skewers the Left.

  • nepanyrush

    Our family was prepared for American Carol, because of advertising on the O’Reilly Show, and got to see it the only day it was in town (Scranton, PA). We loved the moved, but there were like 10 people in the entire theater with us

    Now, we want to see Atlas. I saw it was in Scranton yesterday, but we couldn’t go, so waited until today. But it is already gone from the area!

    I got my whole family ready to go, built up the excitement, and now cannot find a theate anywhere in northeastern PA. So, how can the film do read, if no one knows about it ahead of time and it lasts one day. They need advertising. Only because of the O’Reilly show did I know about AMerican Carol.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Is there a list of where it’s playing, I wonder?

      • AnnaD

        http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

        This site has all the theaters where it is playing.

      • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

        You found that button and not only are your pressing it, you are jack-hammering it.

        Too funny….

  • smagar

    Folks, I get—and agree–that my suggestion to see Atlas Shrugged as a sign of support for the conservative cause goes against the grain of conservatism’s emphasis on the power of the markets. If Atlas Shrugged is a good movie, then that should be enough for people will go see it. I agree, in an unfettered market that SHOULD be enough.

    IMO the environment for conservative filmmakers and actors in Hollywood is very fettered, by liberal bias.

    Pretend you live in a town with a long history of Mob influence on the economy. (Jersey comes to mind, but many places fit this bill).

    Now, imagine trying to start a business when the local Mob does NOT want you to succeed.

    I doubt they can physically stop you from starting your business in the first place. That would be a blatant act, and the FBI would take notice.

    But, they could make the business environment so inhospitable that your business would have a HARD time taking off.

    Suppliers would be quietly intimidated. Local unions would refuse to work for you, or deliberately sabotage the work they do. That’s just some of the intimidation they’d try.

    Apparently, according to the Big Hollywood website, Hollywood talent agencies actively dissuaded their clients from seeking roles in Atlas Shrugged.

    If conservative filmmakers, actors and financiers in Hollywood had the same level playing field that their liberal colleagues enjoy, I’d say let the free market sort it out.

    Does anyone think the playing field in Hollywood is level?

    Let’s carry this analogy to the recent brouhaha in Wisconsin.

    If we conservatives saw local businesses, like Leon’s Frozen Custard in Oshkosh being harassed by unions, what would we do?

    Would we insist that Leon adjust his product’s butter fat content before we helped him? No.

    I’ll bet we’d shop there on purpose. Often. Brazenly. Defiantly. Even if we hated custard. Even if we were on a diet. Even if the Dairy Queen franchises in town had better custard.

    Because it would be about more than custard.

    I’ll concede that Atlas Shrugged may not be as faithful to Ayn Rand’s vision as it should be. (I don’t know—I’ve never read the book. Once the semester ends, I promise to).

    I’ll also concede that, now that I’ve seen the movie, I’ve seen much better cinema in my life.

    But I will definately buy the DVD. I will try to get my friends to go see it. Because we’re talking about more than custard here.

    Big Hollywood’s John Nolte said it best (emphasis added):

    Regardless of the reviews and even the box office, something remarkable happens tomorrow: The imperfect but important ideas of Ayn Rand, which heretofore have only been available in black and white on Turner Classic Movies and in written form, will now burst into a few hundred movie theatres and eventually make a mark on a lot more people through home video.

    Because of the power of the motion picture and popular culture in general, there?s no downside at this point. And we have a few brave individuals with the kind of moxie it takes to risk their own money and buck Hollywood?s PC-infested political climate to thank for this. They did this all on their own. From the beginning, Hollywood talent agencies refused to let their clients consider a role, and tomorrow they?re self-distributing in as many theatres as they can.

    In 2012 we’ll face a titanic electoral battle. Our liberal opponents will outspend us and have the unflinching support of the media. Plus, the Democrats will promise everyone every kind of goody they can think of.

    We have very little time to convince millions of voters to choose our arguments over the Democrats’. Moreover, we need to convince them to choose a much more painful path than the goody-filled one Obama will promise.

    We need every tool at our disposal. More to the point, we need tools that actually get us the votes we need.

    IMO there aren’t enough voters who regularly read Redstate and other conservative media sources to win the Presidency and the Senate seats we’ll need in 2012.

    So, we can wait for the voters we need to come to us…or we can go to them.

    The voters we need watch movies and TV.

    • smagar

      Yeah, it’s me again. Smagar, the HTML-challenged.

      My dog likes me, though, so that’s something.

      • Bill S
        • streetwise

          the Big Hollywood movie failed to materialize :)

          TMR Films Presents Son of Heaven

          It’s been a rough few months socially- I didn’t get invited to the royal wedding either.

    • panthera

      I have family members in Hollywood. You cannot be conservative – its career suicide.

      It is perceived as a conservative movie whether we think it is or not; so we should see it to send a message that “conservative” movies have a place.

      • smagar
  • Raven

    Nowhere near Altoona or State College, PA.
    I hope it does come to one of these theaters.

    It also wasn’t on in Springfield, VA.

  • westbrook348

    Much better than expected. Full disclosure: we are both fans of the book & of Ayn Rand. The audience was involved throughout & clapped at the credits. I wasn’t ready for the movie to end. It was very fast paced; I could’ve sat through another hour. Wish they had spent a little more time elaborating on the protagonists, & discussing the demise of the 20th Century Motor Company (& surrounding town). Most of the character interactions were fun & interesting to watch: not always perfectly acted, but rarely awkward. I actually got emotional during the climax, when they arrive in CO on the JGL. I’m super excited for part 2.

    I don’t know how the average viewer will like this movie, but I do think they should at least give it a try. Many people who have never read the book will probably walk out wanting to pick up a copy. My sister, mother, and grandmother all saw it on Saturday: they’d never heard of Ayn Rand and aren’t that political, but all 3 really enjoyed the movie. Note that they did get slightly confused by the ending: they didn’t quite understand the significance of what happened when Dagny screams like Vader. But my mother told me afterward that she’s looking for Atlas Shrugged on tape (I told her about the abridged 11.5 hr version).

    I think the underlying premise will resonate with the average person, and I think this movie is a net positive for the conservative/libertarian/Republican/anti-Obama movement. If you give it a chance, you most likely won’t be disappointed. And if you somehow walk away hating it, well it’s barely 100 minutes.

  • smagar

    The power of Ayn Rand devotees has impressed some Hollywood distribution executives, who took note of the hefty $5,640 per-theater average scored by ?Atlas Shrugged: Part 1? during its opening weekend.

    ?Shocking,? one executive said about the healthy business the low-budget film has been doing, considering its ?awful? marketing plan.

    Awful or not, business has been brisk enough for producers Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro to expand from 299 theaters to 425 this weekend and to 1,000 by the end of the month. They don?t have enough film prints to fill all the orders.

    ?Things have turned for us,? Kaslow said. ?When we started, exhibitors were not embracing the film like we thought they would. Now, we can pretty much go into as many theaters as we want. It?s just a matter of logistics.?

    http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/4935704-421/gold-from-ayns-vault.html

    • earlgrey

      this was from a conservative columnist.

      WTF? I don’t mean to be vulgar, but I am genuinely curious as to how the film did?

      • smagar

        The article—or, at least the excerpted part of it—doesn’t mention the quality of the film. Many conservatives have panned the film.

        Neverthless, it’s apparently doing OK at the box office.

        The Sun-Times article I linked is the same as this article from the Hollywood Reporter. I have no clue how reliable a source the HR is…but the Big Hollywood website, which I respect highly, front-paged this story.

        • earlgrey

          I’d like to see it, but no way my husband will go. I have two little kids, and I get so mad about what is going on, that I have to temper my activites anyway.

  • Pingback: Osvaldo Donhoe