Golden opportunity to address the controversy
Cross-posted from my work blog:
There has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release this weekend of a movie based on the book The Golden Compass. I thought I'd give my thoughts on the film (haven't seen it yet) as someone who has read the book as well as its two sequels in the His Dark Materials trilogy.
First it should be noted that in Philip Pullman's trilogy, inspired by the epic poem "Paradise Lost," the second and third books are far different from the first, and it is those ("The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass") which deal most directly with controversial themes. The more interesting question (than confronting the movie at hand) is whether you as a parent should encourage a child to read these books and confront these themes, as well as whether the more blatantly heretical second and third novels will be filmed. (EDIT: Looks like they are going to film more, see more recent entry)
Secondly, always remember that the movie based on a book is different from the book itself. Faithful re-creations like the first "Harry Potter" film are rare, and nearly-faithful ones like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy took a number of liberties in translating the text to the screen. This will be no exception, as a viewing of the first five minutes of the film already includes one deviation from the text. It is stated in the film narration that all copies of the Alethiometer, the "compass" of the title, were destroyed but one. In the book, it was known to those who knew of the device's existence that there was more than one, but just a few. Any the ruling Magesterium did not control were of little concern, as using an alethiometer was said to require years of intense study and some large old books that were even harder to find. (The twist in this story is that the central character, Lyra, seems to have a natural knack for figuring the thing out.)
This change in the narrative could be a hint that the other books won't be filmed. (see more recent entry) The second ends incomplete, much like the open plot-threads of "The Empire Strikes Back" in the Star Wars original trilogy, and the third book has a subplot of the Magesterium using an alethiometer of its own to try to track Lyra down. (But on the other hand, a "second" compass would make a good surprise plot twist for the few filmgoers who by that point hadn't read the books.)
The plot of the first book, and what we're likely to see in the movie is that in a world parallel to ours, but with technology closer to 75-100 years ago and something resembling the Medieval Church still in charge of Europe (think of it as what if the British had lost to the Pope's Spanish Armada), a girl, Lyra, finds herself involved in a plot to take children to a place in the far-off frozen north for unspeakable experiments. She has gained clues from research her eccentric uncle, Lord Asreal, has been conducting, and is spurred to action by her best friend Roger being kidnapped by the "Gobblers" who are taking the children. But before she can start her quest, she is put in the care of the elegant Mrs. Coulter, who I can say without spoiling much is the bad guy of this story. As a parting gift, her guardian at Oxford's Jordan College entrusts her with the alethiometer, which she hides from Mrs. Coulter.
The meat of the plot goes from there, with Lyra eventually making her way north to rescue Roger.
Though comparisons to J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories are inevitable, this taking place in Britain and the Potter series fresh on our minds, the book owes more to Mark Twain, as feisty independent tall-tale-telling tomboy Lyra greatly resembles Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as well as to L. Frank Baum, as Lyra embarks on a journey much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz -- instead of a Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion, this hero has the Gyptian leader, Texan aviator Lee Scoresby and Iorek the Armored Bear.
But now to the points of controversy:
Daemons -- No, I didn't misspell that. Though pronounced "demons" they in no way resemble or act as devils or other demonic spirits. The daemon, possessed of all, good or evil, is a physical manifestation of part of one's soul, and usually reflects the owner's personality. Instead of having an argument with your conscience inside your head, you can look your daemon in the eye while you discuss what you want to do. They always manifest as non-human animals, practically any species is possible, and have your human speech and intelligence (but otherwise act as the animals they represent). The form can shift instantly to any other animal when the owner is a child, it freezes in its final form at adolescence; it's not usually known in advance what that will be. It (typically) can't go further than about 10-20 feet from you, and there is a strong taboo against touching someone else's. And they are usually of the opposite gender from the owner (this fact does not seem to be too vital to the books' plots, just a consistent aspect of the characters).
You can find your own daemon at the movie website, mine's a terrier.
Witches -- These women are a race unto themselves. They greatly resemble the Elves in Tolkien books with their longer-than-normal lifespan and their proficiency at archery. There is only a superficial resemblance to either stereotypical folklore witches or real-life Wiccans. Their gods are their own, only known to them (making them indifferent to the Magesterium and its theology). Their flight is dependent on carrying a piece of "cloudpine" (I think they are portrayed as riding the branches in the book, but movie scenes show it carried next to the bow). They have daemons, which are usually birds, and can be separated from them by long distances.
I don't think there will be any controversy concerning the Armored Bears but it should be noted that they do not have daemons (Iorek equates his armor, made by his hands, to his "daemon") and while they otherwise look and act like polar bears, they have human speech, intelligence and -- I think -- opposable thumbs. They are master metalworkers, live strictly by their own code, and are renowned mercenaries.
Are the book and film anti-Christian? In my view, I'd have to give a qualified "no." Qualified in that neither Jesus nor Christianity are directly addressed in this first book (and therefore not likely in the movie). In fact, Jesus is only mentioned once in the trilogy, as part of the background of an ex-nun character from our world. (And during the "war on Heaven" that occupies the second and third books, Jesus himself is MIA, understandable when considering that author Philip Pullman is athiest and John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, didn't believe in the divinity of Christ.)
So are they anti-God? The book makes no real hint toward the heresies of the sequels, and indications are the movie further distances itself from them.
Are the book and film anti-Church? It could appear that way, if you are a Catholic. The Magesterium resembles the Church of Rome at the height of its power, and like that church -- or any large powerful political body -- it has its share of corruption. Especially in the movie, Lyra's activities will likely be more "protestant" than anarchist or athiest.
I'll make any necessary updates to this after I see the movie.
As for the question of whether I would recommend the books, I would advise parents to read through them first -- they are well-written, even if the quality of the sequels is not as good as "Compass" -- and not advise just having kids read just the first book, as they would then hunger to read what happens next and it would be harder to keep them from reading the other books against your wishes. I personally wouldn't mind my own adolescent-or-older child reading them, while making sure to discuss the stories and the themes they address with him.
And lastly, I'll note that "Golden Compass" will not be the only movie with controversial aspects. "I Am Legend" is based on a book with a Christ metaphor as its central character (played in the film by Will Smith). And the new "National Treasure" book has, from what I've read, the hero kidnapping the President.
P.S. to the LJ version: I need to get me an armored bear icon (something like "the right to arm bears")
There has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release this weekend of a movie based on the book The Golden Compass. I thought I'd give my thoughts on the film (haven't seen it yet) as someone who has read the book as well as its two sequels in the His Dark Materials trilogy.
First it should be noted that in Philip Pullman's trilogy, inspired by the epic poem "Paradise Lost," the second and third books are far different from the first, and it is those ("The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass") which deal most directly with controversial themes. The more interesting question (than confronting the movie at hand) is whether you as a parent should encourage a child to read these books and confront these themes, as well as whether the more blatantly heretical second and third novels will be filmed. (EDIT: Looks like they are going to film more, see more recent entry)
Secondly, always remember that the movie based on a book is different from the book itself. Faithful re-creations like the first "Harry Potter" film are rare, and nearly-faithful ones like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy took a number of liberties in translating the text to the screen. This will be no exception, as a viewing of the first five minutes of the film already includes one deviation from the text. It is stated in the film narration that all copies of the Alethiometer, the "compass" of the title, were destroyed but one. In the book, it was known to those who knew of the device's existence that there was more than one, but just a few. Any the ruling Magesterium did not control were of little concern, as using an alethiometer was said to require years of intense study and some large old books that were even harder to find. (The twist in this story is that the central character, Lyra, seems to have a natural knack for figuring the thing out.)
This change in the narrative could be a hint that the other books won't be filmed. (see more recent entry) The second ends incomplete, much like the open plot-threads of "The Empire Strikes Back" in the Star Wars original trilogy, and the third book has a subplot of the Magesterium using an alethiometer of its own to try to track Lyra down. (But on the other hand, a "second" compass would make a good surprise plot twist for the few filmgoers who by that point hadn't read the books.)
The plot of the first book, and what we're likely to see in the movie is that in a world parallel to ours, but with technology closer to 75-100 years ago and something resembling the Medieval Church still in charge of Europe (think of it as what if the British had lost to the Pope's Spanish Armada), a girl, Lyra, finds herself involved in a plot to take children to a place in the far-off frozen north for unspeakable experiments. She has gained clues from research her eccentric uncle, Lord Asreal, has been conducting, and is spurred to action by her best friend Roger being kidnapped by the "Gobblers" who are taking the children. But before she can start her quest, she is put in the care of the elegant Mrs. Coulter, who I can say without spoiling much is the bad guy of this story. As a parting gift, her guardian at Oxford's Jordan College entrusts her with the alethiometer, which she hides from Mrs. Coulter.
The meat of the plot goes from there, with Lyra eventually making her way north to rescue Roger.
Though comparisons to J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories are inevitable, this taking place in Britain and the Potter series fresh on our minds, the book owes more to Mark Twain, as feisty independent tall-tale-telling tomboy Lyra greatly resembles Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as well as to L. Frank Baum, as Lyra embarks on a journey much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz -- instead of a Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion, this hero has the Gyptian leader, Texan aviator Lee Scoresby and Iorek the Armored Bear.
But now to the points of controversy:
Daemons -- No, I didn't misspell that. Though pronounced "demons" they in no way resemble or act as devils or other demonic spirits. The daemon, possessed of all, good or evil, is a physical manifestation of part of one's soul, and usually reflects the owner's personality. Instead of having an argument with your conscience inside your head, you can look your daemon in the eye while you discuss what you want to do. They always manifest as non-human animals, practically any species is possible, and have your human speech and intelligence (but otherwise act as the animals they represent). The form can shift instantly to any other animal when the owner is a child, it freezes in its final form at adolescence; it's not usually known in advance what that will be. It (typically) can't go further than about 10-20 feet from you, and there is a strong taboo against touching someone else's. And they are usually of the opposite gender from the owner (this fact does not seem to be too vital to the books' plots, just a consistent aspect of the characters).
You can find your own daemon at the movie website, mine's a terrier.
Witches -- These women are a race unto themselves. They greatly resemble the Elves in Tolkien books with their longer-than-normal lifespan and their proficiency at archery. There is only a superficial resemblance to either stereotypical folklore witches or real-life Wiccans. Their gods are their own, only known to them (making them indifferent to the Magesterium and its theology). Their flight is dependent on carrying a piece of "cloudpine" (I think they are portrayed as riding the branches in the book, but movie scenes show it carried next to the bow). They have daemons, which are usually birds, and can be separated from them by long distances.
I don't think there will be any controversy concerning the Armored Bears but it should be noted that they do not have daemons (Iorek equates his armor, made by his hands, to his "daemon") and while they otherwise look and act like polar bears, they have human speech, intelligence and -- I think -- opposable thumbs. They are master metalworkers, live strictly by their own code, and are renowned mercenaries.
Are the book and film anti-Christian? In my view, I'd have to give a qualified "no." Qualified in that neither Jesus nor Christianity are directly addressed in this first book (and therefore not likely in the movie). In fact, Jesus is only mentioned once in the trilogy, as part of the background of an ex-nun character from our world. (And during the "war on Heaven" that occupies the second and third books, Jesus himself is MIA, understandable when considering that author Philip Pullman is athiest and John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, didn't believe in the divinity of Christ.)
So are they anti-God? The book makes no real hint toward the heresies of the sequels, and indications are the movie further distances itself from them.
Are the book and film anti-Church? It could appear that way, if you are a Catholic. The Magesterium resembles the Church of Rome at the height of its power, and like that church -- or any large powerful political body -- it has its share of corruption. Especially in the movie, Lyra's activities will likely be more "protestant" than anarchist or athiest.
I'll make any necessary updates to this after I see the movie.
As for the question of whether I would recommend the books, I would advise parents to read through them first -- they are well-written, even if the quality of the sequels is not as good as "Compass" -- and not advise just having kids read just the first book, as they would then hunger to read what happens next and it would be harder to keep them from reading the other books against your wishes. I personally wouldn't mind my own adolescent-or-older child reading them, while making sure to discuss the stories and the themes they address with him.
And lastly, I'll note that "Golden Compass" will not be the only movie with controversial aspects. "I Am Legend" is based on a book with a Christ metaphor as its central character (played in the film by Will Smith). And the new "National Treasure" book has, from what I've read, the hero kidnapping the President.
P.S. to the LJ version: I need to get me an armored bear icon (something like "the right to arm bears")