Golden Compass

[rthomas]

Anyone know anything about The Golden Compass. I saw the ad a couple nights ago and told my kids it looked pretty good (from the ad). Then, yestereday, my teen daughter came home from school and said that some of her friends were being told at church that they ashould not go see it - that it was an athesist version of Narnia. The kids at school say that they kill God at the end of the movie. She said that, of course, they said the same thing about Harry Potter, too.

Have you heard about this great controversy, heard anything about the movie (thumbs up or down)?

Being told this by kids makes my daughter want to see it more. And its got to be better than Narnia which I personally couldn't get through - although my kids liked it ok.

[cspan37421]

I first heard of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials novels while searching for a good follow-up to the Harry Potter series for my daughter, who devoured Rowling's last installment in about 24 hrs. According to amazon.com reviews - and maybe some other sites, I can't recall - the Pullman series got high praise as the logical next step in fantasy fiction, this time, with a bit more food for thought.

Read the reviews for yourself. I saw nothing objectionable in the message, not to me anyway. If, OTOH, you subscribe to a tradition that thinks questioning authority and thinking critically is sinful, you'd best avoid it.

As for the movie version, I don't know much about it. I have a personal distaste for films that are heavy on special effects. It is usually because they're associated (in my experience) with substandard writing. Hopefully that isn't the case this time, given the reputation of the raw material, but novels aren't the same thing as screenplays, so it may well disappoint as well.

[knights68]

A few sources for your consideration:

About the book:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/hisdar...s/summary.html

About the movie:

Snopes:
http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Article:
http://cbs11tv.com/watercooler/local...310213053.html

Article:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...oint-true.html

Article:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/his_.../news/1664784/



The Official Golden Compass Movie Site:
http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/

[Cavlaw]

"God" is a minor character in the series, and is accidentally killed at the end of the third book. The Catholic church is the evil organization throughout the series, but in the movie does not play a major role. The books are excellent and well worth a read; the movie look promising, but I'm always leary of movies that tinker overmuch with the plot of the books they are based on. In addition to those changes, the movie ends a few chapters earlier than the book, as the book ends on a downer. In the movie those scenes have been moved to the sequel.

[The Gordog]

"God" is a minor character in the series, and is accidentally killed at the end of the third book. The Catholic church is the evil organization throughout the series, but in the movie does not play a major role. The books are excellent and well worth a read; the movie look promising, but I'm always leary of movies that tinker overmuch with the plot of the books they are based on. In addition to those changes, the movie ends a few chapters earlier than the book, as the book ends on a downer. In the movie those scenes have been moved to the sequel.

I don't think it was an accident. (I have not read the books.) I thought that God had to die in order to restore free will or some such.

[Cavlaw]

I don't think it was an accident. (I have not read the books.) I thought that God had to die in order to restore free will or some such.

Spoilerific here, read at your own peril... (didn't see a spoiler tag available, or I would use it)



My recollection is that "The Creator" wasn't really the Creator, he was just the first of the angels to appear and also the most powerful, and convinced everyone who came after him that he created them. (I believe there is some speculation about the creator of The Creator, but not much). The Creator grew aged and senile and bored with managing the affairs of the multiverse and so vested his power in the angel Metatron (who I believe was formerely human). As a result of his frailty, The Creator is stored in a crystal chamber to protect him (where he remains a figurehead of the church), and when Will cuts open the chamber with the Subtle Knife to "release" the creator from his prison, a gust of wind blows him apart.

The thing that had to be corrected to save the multiverse was that the holes between the worlds created by the subtle knife had to be closed to prevent Dust from flowing out of the worlds. Also, Will and Lyra put an end to the underworld so that spirits could find rest (and arguably re-enter the cycle of reincarnation, depending on how you read it).

[bjornolf]

I haven't read the books in quite a while, and have been meaning to go back and read them again. I did enjoy them, but I don't recall thinking that killing God was an accident. Wasn't that sort of the mission of the group from the beginning? Isn't that why they were trying to separate the children from their souls, to get to God?

Maybe I'm simplistic, but I really didn't see the books as completely extolling the virtues of questioning authority and thinking critically. I thought it was more that science can be taken too far, and that questioning authority and thinking critically can be taken to the extreme and lead to unexpected consequences. It seemed more an object lesson in "just because we can do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should." Kind of like the whole cloning debate, like in Jurassic Park. But, as I said, I need to reread them, so maybe I'm remembering wrong.

I'm not sure these are the best books for young teenagers, and I definitely think they are a lot more advanced than the Harry Potter books. I don't think I would have understood them if I'd read them before I was at least 16 or 17. I think they are good books, but some of the themes are a little deeper and more adult than a lot of kids can get a grasp on. If, OTOH, a parent is willing to read them too and help discuss them with the kids, it could be a good learning/bonding experience for both. But, be prepared for some deep discussions. The whole soul separation thing is a little hard to swallow, there are kids dying, we've already discussed the whole "accidental" assassination of God, and the protagonist's most useful skill in the first book is her ability to lie.

Like I said, I'll reread them soon, but that's what I remember about the books.

[Cavlaw]

More spoilers here...



It depends on character viewpoint you look at the story from.

Lord Azriel's rebellion had the objective of creating a kingdom in a world free from the influences of the church (and, more generally to overthrow the church and free all the worlds from its influence).

The Catholic Church wanted to prevent Dust from attaching to children, because they believed Dust to be a manifestation of original sin (when in fact it is something of a "spark of life" instead). They severed children and daemons as part of an experiment to prevent them from attacting dust and becoming "corrupted", when Dust actually represented them blossoming in to a fuller, adult life.

Lyra and Will more basically wanted to stay alive and above the influences of both factions, while righting wrongs as the encountered them. Thus, Lyra worked to end the cruel experiments on children run by the Gobblers, and together they broke open the underworld, ended the war, and sacraficed their love to close the gaps between worlds.

There are a lot of underlying themes in the books. Challenging authority is certainly one of them, as is a harsh condemnation of paternalistic behavior. Pullman also objects to adopting closeminded positions and persecuting something otu of ignorance. Very powerful themes.

The writing is simple enough for young adults, but the themes take some reflection to understand. They are not so deep that a middle schooler couldn't understand them, especially if there is some discussion of the books afterwards. Far better than Harry Potter, but those are admittedly entertaining, as well (or rather, the first three were tremendously so, the later ones, not as much -- that's a discussion for another thread, however).

[blublood]

So my husband and I are planning to go see The Golden Compass this weekend. We are devout believers, but what the hey, it looks cool and we have free tickets. I don't really care about any religious or spiritual comments that the filmmakers might have, but I have also read on various internet sources that there are some scenes which are downright disturbing.

Can anybody verify/dispute this? Obviously, it's hard to get good information when the film is in the crosshairs of a cultural skirmish.

[Deslok]

So my husband and I are planning to go see The Golden Compass this weekend. We are devout believers, but what the hey, it looks cool and we have free tickets. I don't really care about any religious or spiritual comments that the filmmakers might have, but I have also read on various internet sources that there are some scenes which are downright disturbing.

Can anybody verify/dispute this? Obviously, it's hard to get good information when the film is in the crosshairs of a cultural skirmish.

For starters, I'm a pretty devout Catholic(though I do have my significant differences with some current positions, I can always find someone in the 2000+ years of the Church to agree with me so I can't be heretical ). I read the books some years ago, and there is an element of antireligious undertone to the books, but its ones of those things that IMO you will only be offended if you are looking to be offended. I haven't seen the movie(though it should be on DVD here anytime now ) but from what I recall reading about it over the summer the producers tried to limit any perception of antireligiousness in the movie for obvious fear of backlash and loss of ticket sales(controversy might be great for a drama aimed at adults, for a family film opening around Christmas, its not so good). But I haven't heard about it having disturbing scenes, and I'm figuring that I'll see it myself.

And I'll just add while he does toss in some deeper themes, and I'm not even a huge fan of the Potter books, I thought His Dark Materials paled in comparison to the HP books. Diverting, but nothing I'd feel obliged to recommend.

[devildm]

I, too, have heard that the movie tries to downplay some of the anti-Christian/Catholic themes. For what it's worth, here are a couple of quotes I found from interviews with the author (Pullman)

In an interview published in the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’ I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the Devil's work.’”

Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America's Bible Belt—who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.”

[JasonEvans]

I saw a screening of the film last night. There was nothing in it that I could tell that would be objectionable to someone religous. Yes, the "bad guys" are a group that you might be able to interpret as The Catholic Church but it is not at all overt and I would never have made the comparison if I had not been tipped off to look for it. I think, at least in this movie, that the comparison is a huge leap as there is very little resemblance between the Magesterium and the Catholic Church.

I have read about 1/3rd of the book and felt the movie did a fairly good job of translating what I had read to film. The truth is that it is not a book that is easy to adapt to the visual medium. Some books simply are not good screenplays and I think this is one of them. The movie jumped around a bit and was not very satisfying. Those of you who know the story know the movie ends very ambiguously with the story only partially finished. The effects in the film were good, but nothing jaw-dropping. There were moments where it felt a bit over-dramatic and silly.

The best part were the Polar Bears (I think they called them Snow Bears) and the audience had a very nice cheering moment when the bear king and Lyra's bear have a fight, but aside from that the movie was pretty flat emotionally. It was not a bad film, but not a good one either.

As an aside, for star watchers, Daniel Craig is barely in the film and Nicole Kidman is actually not on screen as much as you might expect. The newcomer, Dakota Blue Richards, who plays Lyra is pretty good. She seemed somewhat stilted at first but her acting grew on me toward the middle. She has some fairly silly scenes toward the end but I fault the story for those. She may be an actress to keep an eye on in the future.

--Jason "they are not even working on the sequel yet and I am not sure this one will be enough of a success for them to bother" Evans

[Cavlaw]

As an aside, the movie does not end where the book ends. The last chapters of the book were filmed, I believe, but were set aside for use as the beginning of the secodn movie if they produce it. The ending of the book is definitely a downer.

[Chard]

I think the biggest problem Christians have is with the books themselves and not the film. There are worries that the film will move people to go out and buy the books for their children. That is fine and all but let's have a true picture of what the books represent and the author's intentions before parents go out and buy the books not knowing what they are buying for their children.

“Pullman’s most conspicuous fan base is bridgetothestars.net, and the anger expressed there regarding the watering down of the anti-Catholic bigotry is palpable. The website’s review of the movie says, ‘The removal of the religious motivations makes the institution [Catholic Church] incredibly bland, a mere band of thugs with a domineering power for no apparent reason.’ They’re disappointed that the thugs aren’t priests. In the latest issue of the U.K. magazine The Big Issue (available on the fan website), it complains that the film is guilty of ‘toning down Pullman’s at times brutal attacks on the Catholic church.’

“Best of all is American Atheists and the U.K.’s National Secular Society. They are furious about being undernourished. The leader of the latter was quite revealing when he said, ‘We knew from the beginning that the producers of this film intended to leave out the anti-religious references. We think this is a great shame.’ Exactly our point—it’s Pullman’s trilogy, not the film, that really sells atheism to kids.”

http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1365

Other than that minor point, the film just didn't look all that appealing. I love fantasy, sci-fi and special effects films but I didn't anticipate seeing this film even before I knew more about the books and the author.

[billybreen]

At 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, I don't think I'll bother with the movie. But this thread has definitely made me want to read the books.

[Cavlaw]

Removing the church as the enemy also casts aside their motives in engaging in the experiments (the experiments being Lyra's mcgovern), and those motives, and the church's reaction to them, are a major theme of the works (evils of paternalism). I don't think that can be easily replaced, and certainly not if the experiments purposes has been watered down to "getting power", which is something they were never about.

[dukemomLA]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but the books are wonderful! Sooooo done with the 'Religious Right' spewing their nonsense. Get over it.

[cspan37421]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but the books are wonderful! Sooooo done with the 'Religious Right' spewing their nonsense. Get over it.

Ditto here. I don't recall freethinkers protesting pro-religious movies like Narnia, but the favor is not returned. And I find it offensive that so much of society deems freethinkers to be folks you have to protect your children from. Below is a link to a neat youtube video on just a few of the contributions of atheists and agnostics to society. It is not without flaws (there might be a deist or two in there), but it gets across an important message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

The fellow at 2:10 is an acquaintance of mine. He used to live in Knoxville and teach at Univ of TN, but is now at Stony Brook.

[hamster]

First, I absolutely loved the books.

Second, I also disagree with the removal of any references to the church from the movie.
Not because I think the church is evil and should be represented as such, but because it removes much of the thought-provoking richness of the books. The books are, IMO, heavily salted with some pretty deep theological questions. Most notably gnosticism, free-will v. predestination, and the ideas of Martin Luther (those that were originally nailed to the Schlosskirche door, that is).
The books present some pretty essential questions about what the nature of a supreme being is, and essential questions about what the role of a church should be.

For me, the essential question of the book is the question of all organized religions: how do you prevent people from coming to believe in the structure and hierarchy of the belief system more than in the supreme being itself? And if people do come to believe more in the structure, is the only way to restore belief in the supreme being to knock down the structure? What if the structure believes only in itself, and therefore become rotten? (The structure and rituals of a system of belief are easy to 'believe' in. Coping with an unknowable concept like God is much much more difficult.)

For an interesting, non-intellectual, fun, and quick read on this subject, check out Terry Pratchett's Small Gods.

Also, another great question (very very important in the U.S. today) is how much power we are willing to let any one belief structure have. (There is an excellent synopsis of the problem of paternalism above, so I won't say any more here, other than to mention its importance, and to draw it in to why the role of the church in the books is essential.)

That being said, I probably will see the movie, and have in fact been looking forward to it for several months now. (Especially the bears, those were my favorite part..)

[Chard]

Sooooo done with the 'Religious Right' spewing their nonsense. Get over it.

Ah. Another wonderful, drive-by, Christians blow post by dukemom. What nonsense are you referring to? Please, elaborate on your most thoughtful and insightful post.