The Golden Compass - a lead ballon?

Henry Gee reviews the Golden Compass, and comes up with largely the same conclusions I would have had I been as insightful as he. A quote:

It’s a long time since I read the book, The Northern Lights, on which the film is based, so perhaps it’s a problem with the script. The bottom line is this – the whole Good vs Evil schtick is unconvincing because the baddies (the Authority and the Magisterium – that’s God and the Church, geddit? No? Oh, go back to sleep) are so unrelentingly monolithic.

And not only that, we learn so little about them. Why are they so hellbent on doing in their opponents, with no sign of remorse or second thoughts? And, anyway, what are the ‘teachings’ that would be threatened by the knowledge of the existence of this ‘schmutz’ or ‘dandruff’ or whatever it was? Precisely why was this so important? What exactly did the alethiometer to do with it all? And how would the Magisterium square all this with using this ‘schmalz’ to conquer other Universes? It made no sense whatsoever except as a very base and crude attack on religion which, as we all know, is a terribly right-on thing to espouse these days. Oh, do change the record, dear.

It is on the one hand good to see children's literature being written from a non-religious perspective, but, as Gee notes, it is so heavyhanded, and the film is an episodic demonstration of the wonders of CGI. This is a time when I really wish that the scriptwriters had completely rewritten the book plot for film, rather than trying to be so faithful to what is, after all, a confused story.

More like this

Too bad Henry Gee didn't read all three of the books, or that his memory of the tale wasn't better. The ideas of what dust is and the beliefs of the Magisterium are outlined throughout. Perhaps not in the vivid detail... or perhaps it was just that at no point in the story did one of the agents of the Authority sit down and say point blank to the reader, "we expect you to believe X,Y and Z and do A, B and C" It would have been a stupid thing to do in the book anyway, since it would have been less inclusive of religion, and the whole framework of the Authority was Judeo-Christian enough as it is.

The problem with the film is that there is too much in the book to pack into 2 hours or less and still be coherent. While the book dragged, the movie raced by. I'm hoping the director's cut will have better balance.

Why are they so hellbent on doing in their opponents, with no sign of remorse or second thoughts? And, anyway, what are the teachings that would be threatened by the knowledge of the existence of this schmutz or dandruff or whatever it was? Precisely why was this so important? What exactly did the alethiometer to do with it all? And how would the Magisterium square all this with using this schmalz to conquer other Universes?

All answered in the next two books.

I wonder if he also asked what the riders are, who is this Strider fellow and why is he held in such esteem, and how do they know it's the One ring? If you have a story that's three (or four) books long, you don't... or shouldn't... expect all the answers in the first book. That would make the rest kind of pointless.

My suggestion: Go back and read all three books, then write the critique. Or wait for the other two movies to come out.

The movie perhaps didn't explain the motives of the villains thoroughly, but that's hardly necessary for what was essentially an adventure movie. Any excuse for an adventure will do.
As to associating the Magisterium with the Catholic church, I think that connection can only be made by a person who happens to think that the business of the church is the same as that of the villains in the movie, namely to control people by dictating what thoughts they are allowed. That some catholics have decided to boycott the movie tells more about the mindset of these catholics than about the movie. Perhaps their only objection to the movie is that the Magisterium is portrayed as the villain, rather than the fatherly and loving authority that it clearly is.

I've read all three books, and the faults of the film are the product of failure to be faithful, not over fidelity. There are shades of light and dark and moral complexity in the book. Most obvious example: is Lyra's father good? In the film, he is an action hero with no flaws; in the book he's not clearly any better than the magesterium. He's driven by pursuit of knowledge, and doesn't care that he has to kill an innocent child to gain it. All that was simply left out, by the expedient of ending the film before that scene.

A film ought to be a standalone product - if you need to read the books to understand the film, then the film fails as a piece of art.

The first book, which I have read, is much more nuanced, and has a different (much more strident) moral tone, but I think Gee is right - it's too damned black and white. The baddies are cardboard cutouts, even if the "hero" father/uncle is ambiguous or an antihero. I think that Tolkien succeeded where Pullman doesn't (and Jackson succeeded where Weitz didn't) because the story has generally believable actors, morally.

I still intend to read the second and third books, because I'm a sucker for a well realised universe (years of SF have left me with almost no disbelief to suspend in fiction), but the film fails despite stunning visuals and a number of good performances (including Kidman, who never fails to do the best with the written role). If you hadn't read the books, the film makes little sense.

I agree that the film is a disappointment, but for different reasons. I think the director made the decision to tell a good story, and never mind the message. Fine, I can live with that. But the story is told so quickly that it all goes by in a rush. We never get the chance to care or catch up. If I hadn't read the book, I wonder if I would have known what was going on.

I think it was always going to be disappointing, once the director made the choice: comparisons with Jackson became inevitable, and no film made by a mere mortal is going to survive that.

By Neil Levy (not verified) on 30 Dec 2007 #permalink

A film ought to be a standalone product - if you need to read the books to understand the film, then the film fails as a piece of art.

Exactly right. But having read the books and enjoyed the movie, I wondered whether my knowledge of the books had redeemed the movie of the flaws that many critics claimed to see. So I went to see the movie again. I concluded that I still liked it and I do, in fact, think that the film does a good job of standing on its own, independent of the source material. Sure, a knowledge of the books adds depth to the experience, but it's not essential. As an adventure of freethinkers versus autocrats, it hangs together and entertains. (And it helps a lot if people actually pay attention to the movie instead of chatting and munching popcorn between the fighting scenes.)

I actually find the question about the Magisterium and its motivations to be a peculiar one. While it probably wouldn't have hurt to explore the Magisterium in greater detail (but not, please, at length), what is so mysterious about its motives? In Lyra's world, the Magisterium is clearly the ultimate arbiter of moral dogma and is jealous of its prerogatives. It would watch and oppose anyone who threatens its place of privilege as an act of instinctive self-preservation. Do we also need a treatise on its history and theology in a movie based on a novel for young adults?

Well, I thoroughly enjoyed the film although, not having read the books, I had nothing to be disappointed about. It wasn't Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter but it carved out enough of its own world to stand on its own, I thought. And maybe the impression of it not being quite as good might just be a case of CGI fantasy fatigue.

Certainly, the whole anti-religion thing was overblown. Yes, you could see parallels between the Magisterium and the Roman Catholic Church but only, I think, if you'd been primed to expect them in advance. We'll have to see if it's made more explicit in the next films.

That said, I've heard comments by believers who genuinely fear it's an attempt to undermine Christianity by an author who is determined to destroy belief in God because he is a practising Wiccan or witch who worships Satan.

By Ian H Spedding FCD (not verified) on 30 Dec 2007 #permalink

i hope they make the sequels..the plot of 2 and 3rd movie is much more exciting

By vijay krishna (not verified) on 31 Dec 2007 #permalink

" wonder if he also asked what the riders are, who is this Strider fellow and why is he held in such esteem, and how do they know it's the One ring?"

Bad examples: These are all answered in _The Fellowship of the Ring_ at the Council of Elrond, or before.

As someone knowing very little about the books I found the movie pretty confusing. Since we could not trust Mrs. Coulter, how could we believe anything she said? The whole "I am your mother" thing reeked too much of Star Wars. I kept trying to figure out who the girls parents *really* were since we could not trust Coulter.

And reading the summaries on Wikipedia, isn't there a bit of an Anti-Science bent to these? Isn't Lord Asriel being punished for "tampering in God's domain?" (heh)

But I have read all three books. I enjoyed the first, the sequelae -- not so much. The problem is that the cinematic adaptation is a poor one. Adapting big, complex books for the screen is always hard. Peter Jackson and colleagues did a far better job with The Lord of the Rings than the scriptwriters did with The Golden Compass, that's all. My other problem is that the baddies in TGC are so one-dimensional. You could say the same about orcs in Tolkien, too -- but one could read Tolkien (as Tom Shippey has) as an extended meditation on the nature of evil, in short, does it come from within as a corruption of good, or is it a discrete external force? Peter Jackson and his team captured that ambiguity very well on screen. Pullman -- or this adaptation -- painted it entirely in terms of black and white, and that's boring.

Black and white is always dramatically less interesting. Even in Nineteen Eighty-Four O'Brien is not a total monster and Winston Smith is not a total hero.