The Golden Compass
The folks at New Line are offering free tickets again, this time to California screenings of the ambaric extravaganza, The Golden Compass, adapted from Philip Pullman's novel (titled Northern Lights in the UK), and the first of the "His Dark Materials" series.There are two screenings:
- Los Angeles – 12/4 – The Grove Stadium – 189 The Grove Dr. , Los Angeles , CA 90036 - 7:30 pm (pass)
- Orange County – 12/5 – AMC 30 @ The Block – 20 City Blvd West , Orange , CA 92868 – 7:30 pm (pass)
If you don't know, the movie has aroused some controversy over its—or at least the book's—anti-Christian themes. This is more overt in the later books. Indeed—without giving anything away—in a literal sense, it's utterly overt!
As you might expect, boycotts have been called, angry letters written, etc. And, of course, LibraryThing members are talking about it. Check out the conversations page for The Golden Compass for Talk posts on the book. Some recent highlights:
- The Read YA Lit group is having a group read, already to 42 messages.
- There's a spoiler-free thread and another post-reading spoiler-ific thread in Green Dragon. Opinions are mixed, but polite.
- In Book Talk inkdrinker started a thread about efforts to oppose the movie on religious grounds. Hot and now rather far off-topic.
- There's a shorter thread in the Banned Books group.
- There are threads in both Happy Heathens and Christianity groups.
For whatever my opinion is worth, it's a great book. I started it a few weeks ago, when I had a lot of driving to do, so I got the audio version. I was immensely enjoyable. I find that listening to a book most closely resembles the reading experience of childhood, when you really lived the books you read. For about a week I lived that world. I went on to the second and third, again in the audio, and even avoiding a paper copy someone had because I didn't want to rush. (They're not as good, but I'll leave that topic aside.)
It's certainly anti-Christian in the litteral sense. The Catholic Church—in a parallel universe which also had a Pope John Calvin—and God himself are the villains of the series. Anyone who's looked at my catalog might think this a strike against it. It's not, and many others with the same opinions (and books?) are with me. (See the Wikipedia article or the review in First Things for a taste of that side of the argument.) For my part, I found it pitch-perfect in both language and underlying sentiment.**
*And MY opinion, not anyone who works for LT, so far as I know. Abby said she's going to read it. I await her verdict.
**That's not my opinion of Pullman's criticism of Lewis, for sure.
Labels: movies, philip pullman, the golden compass
posted by Tim at 10:59 AM
22 Comments:
Argh! I'd love to go to one of the screenings, but I won't be back in SoCal until a week after they occur. Grr...
From the Wikipedia article:
Other Christian writers, such as Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware, while finding his anti-Christian position troubling, "also uncover spiritual themes within the books, which, like shafts of light, break through an otherwise gloomy universe—despite Pullman’s best efforts to keep them out. In the end, the authors argue that Pullman offers an unwitting tribute to the God he intended to discredit."[11] in their book Shedding Light on His Dark Materials.
It would be interesting to get Pullman's take on Eastern religion. From what I understand of it (I have not read the books), it seems like a fusion of the materialism of Epicureus / Lucretius and modes of Eastern religion / philosophy / thought.
In a somewhat ironic twist, the film-makers have also come under fire from secularists for removing a lot of the anti-religious sentiment....
That said, it is a fantastic film - I saw it last weekend and, even though I knew quite a bit about it already, loved it. For the adults, the start is a bit slow - there's a lot of exposition, which is understandable, given its intended audience, but once the film really gets going, I was swept away.
Who cares if it is anti-Christian? It is a work of fiction, fantasy even. One has to be a bit of a fanatic to think it should be banned because of this. Also, rather insecure. In any case, it is a great book. Pity that movie adaptions seldom succeed, most especially when the theme is a bit complex.
Other Christian writers, such as Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware, while finding his anti-Christian position troubling, "also uncover spiritual themes within the books, which, like shafts of light, break through an otherwise gloomy universe—despite Pullman’s best efforts to keep them out.
Why on earth do people insist on equating "spiritual" with "Christian"? It is possible to be "spiritual" (or "religious" or both) without being Christian, and it is offensive and insulting to suggest otherwise, as does this Wikipedia quote.
The idea that Pullman is "anti-religion" is a canard, as anyone who has read him, or heard him speak, can attest. Anti-church, anti-organized religion, yes, but that's not at all the same thing.
His Dark Materials is an excellent trilogy. Pullman really creates a world (well, several worlds) that you inhabit as you read. I can't wait for the movie!
However, I have to take exception with your note that God is the villain of the series. Without being too spoilerish, I will say that the Authority is not the creator of the worlds but rather one of the head angels who seized power. And, of course, his Regent. Easy to miss that on a first reading.
I felt Pullman was not so much being anti-Christian as anti-dogma. The Wikipedia article has more on that, as well as a note of support from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Head's up: the Orange County pass link is broken
Lilithcat: I'm not sure you're right on that. I think he's an explicit materialist. While he has particular hostility for organized religion, he's not some sort of mellow Unitarian.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps we both need evidence.
"Easy to miss that on a first reading."
Only if you're skipping words! No, you're right that the—SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT—Authority is said to be an angel and not the creator, if there is one. But he certainly *IS* called God by characters in the series (eg., “God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself"). Pullman's own comments on the intent of that aspet of the novels seem pretty clear.
I should add that I'm still a few hours away from the end of book three—and if you people would stop talking I could get there! :)—but I don't think that changes anything.
Tim did you finish the book yet? I really enjoyed it and have told my hubby I want the other 2 books in the series for Christmas. We plan on being at the first showing here in Tulsa next week when its released.
Kathy
aka Oklahomabooklady
The Atlantic Monthly has an article about it this month (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/religious-movies) saying that most of the overt anti-religious elements have been removed. The piece's title is, "How Hollywood Saved God: It took five years, two screenwriters, and $180 million to turn a best-selling antireligious children’s book into a star-studded epic—just in time for Christmas."
Interesting remarks from Pullman himself.
I'm never quite sure what people mean when they say "spiritual", but I'm pretty sure that the things that are seen as "spirituality" in Pullman aren't intended to be such specifically. Religious people tend to conflate anything they see as integral to their religion with that religion into that religion (witness Lewis's paradise into which virtuous heathens are granted entrance). But that doesn't mean that because someone shares some beliefs with you -- powerful moral views, for example -- that they are "really" spiritual, or religious. As an atheist, I resent the hell out of this idea, personally.
Also, Pullman's beliefs are nuanced and fascinating, and people would do well to look into them themselves before quoting Wikipedia as an expert on not-quite-hard-fact matters.
Undead goat: Certainly "spiritual" is often used in a very vague (and vaguely positive) sense. That can be vacuous. But one thing they CAN mean when they say "spiritual" is literally that—supporting the idea that there is more than the physical world.
The Pullman books have that insofar as you have ideas like the soul which strict materialism denies. Yes, there's a nod to the idea that the spiritual is just physical, but that is not fully pressed and it would be hard to argue the books themselves take place in a materialist universe. So, in that sense, they are spiritual. Of course, the presence of souls in the books does not of course require other spiritual entities, like God, nor does it necessarily speak to whether Pullman believes in them. We are in doubt about how that works just as we are in doubt as to whether Pullman really believes in talking bears. But it's data of some sort, I suppose, and worth talking about.
I'm puzzled when people are offended that other people think they are going to go to heaven. If that has some sort of concrete effect—like if I passed a law against your drinking and gambling so that your entry would be a sure thing—I can't see what's the harm. If I were to learn that as part of your religion you believed that I was going to become a palm tree after I died, I'm not sure why I should find that offensive. Surely tolerance has something to do with not getting upset when someone believes something which has no actual effect on you, right?
Your point about "powerful moral views" is taken. It would be irritating if people were surprised at how nice you were "even though you weren't religious." I think that's both irritating and bad religion. But many theist do believe that good things, or good action, has its ultimate origin in God, so, ultimately, powerful moral action can be God working through people. Is that ipso facto offensive?
I very much agree that Pullman is nuanced and fascinating. I find books 2 and 3 a real let-down, but not for their message. They're just not as good as stories.
I think may Christian families object to exposing the books to their children. Children are much, much more impressionable. And I don't believe anyone has called for the books to be banned. Haven't they been out about five years? A boycott isn't the same as a ban. A boycott is people who don't agree with the movie and books not spending their money on it. No one is trying to stop interested people from seeing the movie or reading the books. Freedom of choice.
The Golden compass has been out for over a decade (published in 1995). The third book, where the anti-Christian agenda is at its clearest, came out in 2000.
The series has been mostly flying under the radar, which is probably why there hasn't been a concerted effort to get it banned. However, I think AllegianceMom is correct that the big problem a lot of Christians have is that the books and films are so clearly marketed towards children. Most of the Christians I have talked to are interested in seeing and discussing the books and films, partly because Pullman riffs off Milton's Paradise Lost which has long been a Christian classic, but most are really hesitant because when you put his statements together, Pullman tacitly acknowledges that his books are anti-Christian propaganda. He says that his books are the anti-Narnia, and that Narnia is Christian propaganda. You can't get more offensive than that to Christians!
I just attended the Orange County screening with my boyfriend and my friend, all three big fans of the series. I didn't happen to see the free passes until this morning... ah darn! We expected huge lines at this theater (we saw 300 there and ended up sitting in the first row), but the theater was hardly full.
The screenwriters have done an amazing job of compressing the complex story without losing any of the major plotlines. The film's major theme (and controversy) has had it's teeth pulled somewhat. Instead, they have emphasized an interpretation of Authority versus Free Will. I doubt that this will placate foes of the book, but the movie is not for that audience obviously. As Pullman fans, the three of us were not offended that they shifted the message either, because, as freethinkers, we know our opinions are not held in general (actually, we're probably quite patronizing, but tolerant lol). Also, as fans, we knew the subtext intimately.
This movie is like a deluxe, wide screen pop-up companion to the novels. Lyra's world is a beautifully-presented interpretation of Pullman's refreshingly original take on "Steampunk" technology.
We all felt the casting was spot on, the CGI blended beautifully with the live action, and all without a cringe-worthy moment so common in family films. So much plot is crammed in that it moves at a swift pace. We were also very pleased that the panserbjorn armor was VERY functional, well designed, and based on historical armor traditions.
The battle scenes, especially Iorek's duel, were incredibly faithful to the novel (minus blood and gore). The audience was moved to applause at the apex of the duel.
I don't expect the general public to "get" this movie at all. I think (and hope) fans like myself will be pleased, and hope it makes enough money; I'm desperate to see the other two movies made.
The novels are challenging, in theme, in originality, in daring. I must have read the trilogy at least six times, with numerous nibbles of select passages. They have afforded me many pleasurable hours of rumination and discovery. Pullman has become one of my treasured writers in company with Patrick O'Brian and John Crowley and Dumas. I left the theater feeling this film was made for me. Though I am personally a believer in science, I was delighted to receive the perfect Christmas present a week early. I wish you all such joy.
After my review of the movie, I also want to comment on what I believe is the message of the novels.
Pullman is saying: every human being must make the effort to be good -- to others and yourself -- here and now in this life, and do the right thing, even if it is hard work. That is his Republic of Heaven.
Did Jesus really want an organized, bureaucratic authority in his name? I have no idea, but I believe if had wanted such a thing he would have done it himself in his (reportedly first) lifetime.
What he did say was remember me and my teachings and what I believed in, everyday, when you eat and drink. Be kind, be honest, be good to your fellow human beings, and forgive them when they are not kind, good and honest.
The funny thing is, that is the core of my personal belief, and I believe in atoms and galaxies formed without an "architect" or "prime mover". It's almost unfortunate for me that I can't cuddle up to a big daddy in the sky when I am in distress. But I'd rather not be brainwashed or lobotomized. Life can be difficult and I'll have to find my own way, by myself. I don't know why we are here. But we are here, now, today. Make the most of it.
Religion is about a spiritual, moral way of life. It is also, unfortunately, about power, money and manipulation. Pullman was outraged by priests sexually abusing children and by the cover-ups by the Catholic Church. Luther was outraged by indulgences and nailed his outrage on the door of a church. I am not elevating Pullman on the shoulders of Luther. I'm saying that good people have challenged the Authority in history, not just in fiction.
Pullman isn't asking people to kill god and burn down your places of worship. He's asking you to do it yourself. Use your brain, your heart, your hands to find out what's true in this world instead of being a parroting automaton. Stand up on your own two feet and help yourself. God is not an excuse for your actions, nor some cosmic cleaner to fix your mistakes. Take responsbility for your life. And be brave enough to question those who abuse their Authority. Is that really anti-Christian? For Christ's sake, I hope not.
You can read the OTHER review from First Things here, for those who are interested.
Ardath's review and philosophical riff were spot-on. I'd like to comment on the earlier discussion (between undeadgoat and tim)of why it is offensive for Christians (or anyone else) to claim other people's similar beliefs as marking those people as "really Christian even if they don't know it." The short/simple answer is that it's patronizing. It implies that others can't think for themselves, if they don't realize how supposedly "Christian" they are.
Before I continue, let me say that I'm aware that obviously not all Christians think this way--it's only this one particular mindset I'm addressing, not the religion as a whole. I think it's fine for someone to believe that I'm going to Heaven despite being non-Christian. In fact, I find it very big of them to acknowledge that goodness is good, wherever it comes from. They just don't need to go around telling people, "It's okay your unenlightened, because Jesus died for your sins, too," like that makes any difference to people who don't believe it. That's patronizing.
That mindset assumes, fallaciously, that morality is handed down from an external source--that we don't and can't arrive at it ourselves. I suppose they're free to believe that, but it's insulting to people from other religious and cultural traditions, including atheism and secular humanism. For a Christian to look at a Buddhist, or Hindu, or Neopagan, and say "you're a good person, despite your religion" is an affront to that person's own beliefs, which they have just as much right to be proud of. For someone to say that the goodness in non-Christians is ultimately Christian in origin is to say that other religions are inherently devoid of their own goodness. Who wouldn't be insulted? To secularists, the idea that morality has to come from some external Authority is absurd--it denies the accomplishment of the individual in making their own positive decisions.
No, I agree with you, saying that someone is "really Christian even if they don't know it" is patronizing. It implies the person's own opinions are somehow worth looking at seriously.
When you cross from thoughts unverifiable, spiritual issues, I'm less sure. To say that someone else is surely saved, or has a beautiful soul, or will become a strong palm tree in the afterworld, or has a very powerful animal spirit-guardian, or must have been a wise man in earlier life* or etc. is different. Depending on circumstance, I think it can be sweet. The opposite—asserting that your animal protector is surely a slug—can be offensive, but there's a limit to how upset I'm going to be about something I don't believe in anyway.
*Unless intended to imply that you ain't one in this life!
No, I agree with you, saying that someone is "really Christian even if they don't know it" is patronizing. It implies the person's own opinions are somehow worth looking at seriously.
When you cross from thoughts unverifiable, spiritual issues, I'm less sure. To say that someone else is surely saved, or has a beautiful soul, or will become a strong palm tree in the afterworld, or has a very powerful animal spirit-guardian, or must have been a wise man in earlier life* or etc. is different. Depending on circumstance, I think it can be sweet. The opposite—asserting that your animal protector is surely a slug—can be offensive, but there's a limit to how upset I'm going to be about something I don't believe in anyway.
*Unless intended to imply that you ain't one in this life!
.. there's a missing not in that first paragraph.
Incidentally, I really DO agree with you on that point. I think it's possible to express opinions on the spiritual state of others without being patronizing, but it's a delicate thing. To be told every day that someday you'll find Jesus is patronizing if "you're not looking for him, dammit!" To be told that you're good and good people go to heaven? Put away the scowl, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home