I suggest that "The Fountainhead" could be portrayed on television as a mini-series, or even a long-arc, multi-season series. An example of such is, "The Man in the High Castle," currently in season 2 on Amazon Prime. It is based on the novel of the same name by Phillip K. Dick.

Granted, in the case of "The Man in the High Castle," the TV series only loosely resembles the book. But that need not be the case for "The Fountainhead" (or "Atlas Shrugged, for that matter). There is plenty of material in "The Fountainhead" to make for a compelling series without having to drastically reimagine or augment the story.

The movie was plain awful. Obviously the producers had no clue.

Thanks and fair enough. From Russia With Love was not a long, complicated book. None of Ian Fleming's books was hard to read. That is why they were published by Playboy where John Kennedy found them.

(1) There are many conservative and individualist actors.

(2) Actors act under direction. While some of the actors in Atlas Shrugged 1,2,3 were familiar the works of Ayn Rand, most were not. They just read their lines.

(One who did was Armin Shimerman who played Dr. Ferris. He was Quark and the Ferengi in DS9. At a Trekker con, I asked him about Ayn Rand and he said that he read The Fountainhead in college and was going to read more before shooting the next season in order to get a better understanding. Also from that series was Robert Picardo who played the Medical Hologram. He was Dr. Robert Stadler in 3.

Yes, Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay and chose the director. There's a lot about all of this in the several Rand biographies.

Not crazy, high-strung. Patricia Neal understood Dominique Francon. On the other hand, in The Day the Earth Stood Still she was understated as Helen Benson.

Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay.

Re: “An aesthetic judgment of the statue must be independent of the stories behind it. So, too, with the movie version of The Fountainhead.” I’m not sure where Ayn Rand said that, but she certainly did not shy away from comparing other movies to their literary sources. For example, she criticized the film version of Ian Fleming’s From Russia With Love as not living up to the book: “The skillfully constructed, dramatic suspense of Fleming’s climax was replaced by conventional stuff, such as old-fashioned chases, involving nothing but crude physical danger.” – Ayn Rand, Bootleg Romanticism.

Since Ayn Rand wrote the Fountainhead screenplay, chose the director, and clearly intended the movie to be an adaptation of her novel (the cover of which appeared prominently in the opening credits), it is certainly legitimate to compare the movie to the novel on aesthetic grounds.

Yes. She also wrote Love Letters with Joseph Cotton. The problem was always picking the right events to compress a long book into a short movie.

Maybe that's what truly motivated Cooper to regret that scene. Wonder who wrote the script.

Are you aware that Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay and chose the director? Compressing a book into a movie will always disappoint the fans of the book. We own a copy of every remake of Pride and Prejudice. You will note that absolutely zero Elfish grammar or philology appeared in any of the 6 LOTR/Hobbit movies. And where was all that narrative when Gregory Peck was Captain Ahab? And, tell me true: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

According to Ayn Rand's theory of objective aesthetics, you have to take the movie as it is delivered, as a work of art in its own right, independent of anything else. Consider the statue of Laocoon and His Sons Attacked by Serpents. The statue depicts a scene from a myth with several variations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C...) An aesthetic judgment of the statue must be independent of the stories behind it. So, too, with the movie version of The Fountainhead.

Hi MikeMarotta,
Yes I also liked the surprise Dominique received at that moment. I thought she looked crazy in the scene where she threw the sculpture.
Regards,
DOB

Hi diessos ,
I enjoyed watching it even though it was very condensed. A lot was missing from the book.
A good remake would be great. It won't likely happen as it would bomb at the box office.
Plus most of the popular box office stars would sabotage the message as it is opposed to their collectivist philosophy.
Regards ,
DOB

Are you aware that Ayn Rand wrote the screen play? It was shot as she intended. Any technical details were the domain of the director, King Vidor, who was Ayn Rand's personal choice.

I read that after the movie was declared finished, Ayn Rand insisted that the courtroom scene be re-shot until Gary Cooper could get it right. He apparently did not understand what he was saying.

But Toohey was benign. He was polished, graceful, and cultured. He could be crude for effect, but he was truly and evil genius. The part could have been played many ways. Every actor brings his own interpretation of every role.

I watch it every so often. A lot can be said about it. I noticed that it had the feel of being a stage play that was filmed. But there were many cinematic moments, as when Roark met Dominique at the Enright House: he came to the floor of action from the floor below, as if rising from the quarry.

All in all, it lived up to Ayn Rand's theories on the integration of plot and theme.

Although I enjoy the original I would love to see it remade. I think the Ellsworth Toohey character in the original was too benign.

I thought Cooper was very "wooden" in his portrayal of Roark..... but Patricia Neal was beautiful... I watch it every couple of years and, when possible, show it to some of the younger generation(s)....

Me dino read that Cary Cooper regretted not putting enough passion in Roark's courtroom scene.
I've also read that actors, writers and artists are never truly satisfied with their products.

Too much story too little time. Max Steiner, one of the great Golden Age composers, was over bearing and too dramatic in scenes which spoke for themselves.

Yes and they also made some of the characters who were over acting look like basket cases.

Thanks OA,
I agree and am glad I read the book before seeing it.
Another scene I liked was when Roark told the board no when they tried to add columns and other nonsense.

Hello Dobrien,
It is, as most movies are, a poor substitute for the book. Still, I do own it on DVD and watch it every few years. It is a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours reviewing and refreshing my recollection of the essential elements of the story. It was a movie that Rand had input on and some editorial control of.
Regards,
O.A.

The movie suffers from quite a few problems. Many nuances of the novel were lost by compressing 700+ pages into less than two hours. Peter Keating's role was diminished to nearly nothing. The movie had to conform to strictly enforced Hollywood conventions regarding the portrayal of sex and religion. Gary Cooper was miscast, as he was too old for the role of Howard Roark. I think a much better movie could be made today, particularly if it were long enough to restore some of the missing plot and character developments.