This entry was posted at
01:12 GMT on 21 May 2003
I didn't notice them the past few days I went to Box Office Mojo, but there are two stunningly fair, non-hostile, damn near laudatory articles about Atlas Shrugged and the new attempt to turn it into a film.
The reporter, Scott Holleran, must be a fan. For a writer on an industry site, that strikes me as a downright dangerous thing for his career. Good for him!
"'Atlas Shrugged,' Take Five" is not as cynical as it's title and opening suggest.
"Our goal is to adapt the book without any restrictions," [Howard] Baldwin [president and CEO of Crusader Entertainment] said during an exclusive interview with Box Office Mojo from his office in Beverly Hills. Baldwin said it's too early to peg the project as a three-hour movie, a miniseries or even a trilogy. "It may be two movies, it may be three," he teased. "We want to tell Atlas Shrugged properly."
It's a little scary that he's ponied up cash with so little idea of how he'll recoup it, but I like that they're waiting to see what the best form will be. It gives the impression of give-and-take in the adaptation process (no easy one, even for short novels), and a willingness to find the right answer, rather than the pre-determined one.
And the reason Baldwin picked it up pleases me, as well:
Baldwin said Crusader became interested last year after billionaire businessman and Crusader Entertainment Chairman Philip Anschutz -- himself the recent target of government regulators -- noticed a front page USA Today article about the tremendous influence of Atlas Shrugged among business leaders.
"Phil gave me a call and said, 'Can we get this?'" It didn't hurt that one of Baldwin's friends, businessman Ed Snider, was cited in the article. Snider had previously owned the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged, and put Baldwin on track to buy them.
So, the guy with the power in this setup is at least coming from the right place. That's a very good sign.
Baldwin projected a long development -- funded by Crusader -- though he said he expects a script treatment by the end of this summer.
For those who don't know, a treatment is a prose(-ish) outline of a story, which can run anywhere between five and thirty pages — though I suspect this one's going to be at least a hundred. It's used as an outline for the final script.
If they expect it by the end of the summer, I'm guessing they already have ideas of how to crack the toughest problems (more on this in a moment or three), but are still working on other, more technical ones.
"Atlas Shrugged is not going to be a low budget movie," Baldwin said. "But I think the box office potential is huge, because of the enormous interest. It is one of the best-selling books of all time."
He may or may not be right about the potential — as Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski put it in the early '90s, more people (at that time) saw any given episode of "Roseanne" than have ever read Gone With The Wind — but I love the attitude. This is a guy who respects the source and sees real cinematic potential.
Then there's a second article, "'Atlas Shrugged:' Who is James Hart?," an interview with the screenwriter, and this one really got my hopes fired up, except for one detail.
Here's what I really like:
"I hated [Atlas Shrugged] in college," the 56-year-old New Yorker admitted. "It was the peace and love era and the values of the time weren't consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Years later, I read it again and it blew me away. I've read it four times in the last six months."
(Brackets original.)
None dare call this man a mindless drone!
"We're on the threshold of what Ayn Rand predicted," he noted. "Socialism has crept into everything and we're penalizing the thinkers, the movers and shakers for being successful. In a way, the world that Ayn Rand created in Atlas Shrugged *is* the United States today."
Okay, so he nearly hyperventilates by the end of the article — but what writer would take such a daunting task without being passionate about it?
And perhaps all writers think alike, but this made my day:
"I really don't want to slight anyone so I'm very reluctant to name anyone in particular. If Carole Lombard was around, I'd cast her [as Dagny]."
That's goddamn brilliant casting! If he's writing for a Lombard type, more power to him!
And here's more good, with the one thing that I dislike:
"It will be not be [set in the past]," Hart revealed. "This is 15 years in our future. John Galt, Hank Rearden -- these are the kind of heroes we don't see anymore. All the main characters stay. Jim Taggart and Cherryl are in there. Eddie Willers is in there -- he's the voice."
(Brackets original.)
Were I to foolishly approach this, I would set it in an indefinite past, and aim for a timeless quality. I don't see how they can keep the Railroad central to the story 15 years in the future.
But look at what else he says. Cherryl Taggart is there. That's good. Not only is Eddie Willers there, but "he's the voice." Great scot, I think he gets it!
It's early, and there's at least two million and six things that can go wrong between now and the film's possible release, but for the moment, all signs are very, very good.