This is John Galt?: An editorial

The headline came up in my Google Reader a couple days ago: “Paul Johansson is John Galt.” What could this mean? Certainly they aren’t trying to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie. That would be stupid and ridiculous.

But of course, one should never underestimate the stupidity of their fellow countrymen. Because yes. They’re actually doing this. It’s not even “being optioned” or “in pre-production”; they’re currently filming the 1000+ page, ranting, philosophical magnum opus of a novel by probably the most controversial figure in literary history.

You know the one? It’s that one. The one with the 50-page speech that took me, in its denseness, about three days for me to read. The one whose overt ideology clashes head-on with that of almost every major Hollywood star. The one atop Modern Library’s “Readers List” of the 100 greatest novels of all time but nowhere to be found on the Board’s List. The one the Tea Partiers quote and misquote endlessly. The one hipsters fillet at every opportunity without having read it. The one whose main character was the inspiration for my best friend’s parents’ dog’s name. The most polarizing non-religious text in modern history.

But hey man, free speech, right?

I really hope I eat these words, but I think this thing is Doomed. Yeah, that’s right. I used a capital D there. Hope you like that. Why? Here’s the list:

A. It’s way too long. Supposedly, they’re cutting the book into parts, but, even in installments, it’s still going to require some major abridgment. No one has the attention span for 6 hours of movie anymore. Especially if the source material is a thinly veiled infomercial.

B. There are two giant speeches. Rand’s purpose in writing the book was to get the whole of her Objectivist philosophy across—something she didn’t quite do in The Fountainhead (which I personally think is better). There are two major speeches, one 20 pages long, and one 50 pages long (which I mentioned up top), that lay out that philosophy for the readers. If you take out those speeches, you miss the point of the whole thing. If you don’t take out those speeches…well, I’m sure as hell not watching that. To put it another way, leaving it in would be like making a Moby Dick movie and including all that shit about whales. Not putting it in would be like adapting Tropic of Cancer and leaving out all the sex.

C. There is a scary cult of Objectivists that will be scrutinizing every detail of this film. As was the case with “Watchmen” and “Harry Potter” and a few others, there are some rabid fans of this book. Insane, shortsighted fans. This is epic material that they’re working with. Whether you buy into Ayn Rand or not, the woman changed the world. Bio after bio has been written on her, study after study done on her work, and if you oversimplify or fuck up her philosophy, you’re going to be in serious shit with your core audience. Oversimplification is also dangerous in that it’s an extremist philosophy and if misunderstood, it could make people who buy into it do crazy things (but the movie will probably tank anyway, so we don’t have to worry too much).

D. The director is the One Tree Hill guy. No offense, but, as great as One Tree Hill is, it sucks. (And don’t call me a snob. I’m Supernatural’s #1 fan.) If the guy directing it is famous for acting in—not even directing—One Tree Hill, there’s no way he should be in charge of this epic-ass material. Especially if

E. There are no actors I’ve heard of in it. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but chances are better that they’re not very good actors. The woman playing the main character of the book, Dagny, has only a steady role in TV Drama Mercy under her belt. The other major roles are to be played by Johansson, the director himself; Grant Bowler, who was in several episodes of Ugly Betty; and Nick Cassavetes, whose credits include bit roles in the modern classics “Face/Off” and “Farticus.”

F. The movie is being rushed. I read a report that the anonymous CEO who bought the rights to it several years ago realized that the rights were about to run out, so he’s forced it into production and put it in the hands of someone who has no experience making truly ambitious films. If this little back story leaks, it’s going to spark off a super-annoying debate on whether or not it’s ironic.

If Ol’ One Tree can produce something fro this source material that’s non-idiotic and mildly entertaining, I will eat my CD case. This project would be too ambitious for Spielberg or Cameron or Nolan, let alone someone with 16 episodes of a CW program under his directorial belt.

I realize that I sound like a nasally antagonist in an underdog biopic right now, and I really hope I end up like one. Really, please, Johansson, prove me wrong. Clean the Augean Stables. Leave me speechless. Maybe I’ll start watching your show more often.