Thanks for this fascinating article. Given that Rand was not pleased with the changes to the play's title, why is it that "Night of January 16th" is still used today?
Thank you, Bennett! This is a good question, and one that Rand addressed in the introduction to the play's 1968 edition. She writes that "I could not change [the title] later: the play had become too famous."
Because many in Rand's audience might have mistakenly believed that she had approved all of the modified professional and theatrical productions of NJ16, re-using that title in the 1968 edition was a way for her to "plant her flag," so to speak -- to republish a version that reclaimed the play so that it aligned with her original artistic vision -- to reclaim it from these other versions bearing the title "Night of January 16th."
I recently saw a video by Jason Pargin, who has had one of his books turned into a movie. He makes the point that directors and actors are artists, too. To deny them the opportunity to interpret a work of art in their personal way is to turn them into marionettes, who can only execute what their master dictates. That's why I think that Ayn Rand's books should not be turned into movies. As a jazz musician, I'm quite comfortable with multiple interpretations of a piece of music, but I'm usually disappointed to see someone else's interpretation of a book that I enjoyed.
I think Rand understood that in a collaborative creative enterprise, like a theatrical or motion picture production, you can't direct your collaborators like marionettes. Consider what Roark says to Steven Mallory in "The Fountainhead," when he commissions the statue for the Stoddard Temple: "You’ll work as I work for my clients. You know what I want—the rest is up to you. Do it any way you wish. I’d like to suggest the model, but if she doesn’t fit your purpose, choose anyone you prefer."
The key line here, though, is "You know what I want." Meaning, a collaborative creative endeavor requires a mutual understanding (between the collaborators) of the work's purpose. It's very difficult to achieve that kind of synergy, but I don't think it's impossible.
Thanks for this fascinating article. Given that Rand was not pleased with the changes to the play's title, why is it that "Night of January 16th" is still used today?
Thank you, Bennett! This is a good question, and one that Rand addressed in the introduction to the play's 1968 edition. She writes that "I could not change [the title] later: the play had become too famous."
Because many in Rand's audience might have mistakenly believed that she had approved all of the modified professional and theatrical productions of NJ16, re-using that title in the 1968 edition was a way for her to "plant her flag," so to speak -- to republish a version that reclaimed the play so that it aligned with her original artistic vision -- to reclaim it from these other versions bearing the title "Night of January 16th."
I recently saw a video by Jason Pargin, who has had one of his books turned into a movie. He makes the point that directors and actors are artists, too. To deny them the opportunity to interpret a work of art in their personal way is to turn them into marionettes, who can only execute what their master dictates. That's why I think that Ayn Rand's books should not be turned into movies. As a jazz musician, I'm quite comfortable with multiple interpretations of a piece of music, but I'm usually disappointed to see someone else's interpretation of a book that I enjoyed.
I think Rand understood that in a collaborative creative enterprise, like a theatrical or motion picture production, you can't direct your collaborators like marionettes. Consider what Roark says to Steven Mallory in "The Fountainhead," when he commissions the statue for the Stoddard Temple: "You’ll work as I work for my clients. You know what I want—the rest is up to you. Do it any way you wish. I’d like to suggest the model, but if she doesn’t fit your purpose, choose anyone you prefer."
The key line here, though, is "You know what I want." Meaning, a collaborative creative endeavor requires a mutual understanding (between the collaborators) of the work's purpose. It's very difficult to achieve that kind of synergy, but I don't think it's impossible.