the golden compass is the anti-narnia — Page 2

As a screenwriter, dfw, I can tell you that no one likes "direct and honest". They want to be entertained. They want to suspense, and drama, and a great story. They don't want to be preached at.

That's why movies are wrapped in metaphors and allegories. People accept them easier than hard facts.

Let people interpret the story the way they want, instead of giving them one, clear meaning. It's more fun that way.

PS: I doubt he's ever seen it.

---

Updated On: 12/7/07 at 12:25 PM

Probably published by the 700 Club, or the like.

---

DFW, Pullman's world has a natural moral purpose similiar to the more positive aims of organized religion that has been subverted by a powerful authority (a stand in for the judeo-Christian god). It is not a message of hate but rather a message to live your life meaningfully.

And Pullman's right. As far as we know, it's the only one we're gonna get. Maybe when I die I'll get a mansion and a bunch of whiny virgins but empirically speaking, the odds aren't good. That's the point of having faith, but faith must always be grounded in doubt and practicality. Philip Pullman's message that religion shouldn't be a political force or something to waste your only life on is rather a thoughtful on for kids, I think, a pretty important one for today's world where people wantonly blow themselves (and others) up in the name of the Judeo-Christian God.

---

Actually they definitely had an influence on me when I read them in my teens (they didn't immediately turn me into an atheist but I'm sure they had a hand in leading me there) and I've known other people who reacted similiarly, but then I know people who read and enjoyed them and weren't affected at all. That's the tricky part about provocative books.

I'm surprised you think they get less interesting. The story just gets so operatic and grandiose. Ah well. The huge popularity of the books outside the states means I can't be the only one.

---

You know what really bugs me? The fact that Christian groups praise Lord of the Rings as an allegory, when if they had any brains, and would do research on the author, they would know that Tolkien HATED allegory with a passion, and in his preface to LOTR, he specifically stated that the reader must not interpret his story as such.

But people do it anyway and praise it as a righteous allegory that is wonderful for children and such. I'm not saying it's not great for children, and it's bar-none the greatest fantasy world ever created and written, but it's not an allegory and I wish people would stop referring to it as one.


edit: that was slightly off topic. back to the Golden compass thread.

---

Updated On: 12/7/07 at 01:13 PM

"I feel so irritated that for the rest of time every fantasy story will be compared to LOTR when Tolkien himself certainly liberally borrowed for his own story. "



I understand what you mean, Joey, and agree with Peter Jackson, not to mention Wood getting Frodo's character wrong. But I think the reason is because the enormous scale of the universe Tolkien created. From all the books he's written about middle Earth, and all the characters that he came up with, people feel a familiarity with it, and I think it was the first "breakthrough fantasy trilogy" to be published on that scale.

All Fantasy and Science fiction authors borrow from eachother, and they freely admit to it. They call it "the pot" where all the familiar fastastic things preside, and they can take from it and add to it at will, which I think is great, because in a way, it gives a sort of reality in the sense that everyone uses the same base ingredients, and it forms a coherency that is good for readers of the genre.

---

Well, what can I say? I just didn't like the second two books, especially that third one with the creatures riding around on giant beans. Left me very indifferent, but that first book is really something special.

---

I totally agree with you. There's a sad misconception that gets perpetuated that religious beliefs are the only things that you can derive moral values from. I find in life the opposite is actually true. People with strong religious values seem to feel they have free reign to be as cruel and judgemental to their fellow man as they like, whereas most atheists I know are very respectful.

One of the much touted examples of how atheism leads to dystopia is communist Russia--but that's such an unfair example because atheism can be subverted into a dogma to control people as well. Anything can become a religion. The point of the matter is to remove religioun from political power.

---

"All of that said, Weitz should be commended for keeping Pullman's thematic elements intact. While the Church has become a more generic Magisterium, the ideas of disobedience and questioning authority remain intact. The Golden Compass is the least theological of the books, and Weitz plays down what little religion there was in the first place while keeping the door open for the second and third books, which are far less subtle in their critiques. I hope for this film to be a success only so that I can see how New Line and Weitz deals with blatant gnostic theology and bald faced anti-Church sentiment in the sequels."

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=12797

---

Just saw it--it's charming. The actors are perfectly cast (especially Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby) and the little girl is a real find--she brings levels, subtext, and incredible tension to several long scenes she plays opposite computer effects (a trick the adult actors in the STAR WARS and STAR TREK movies have never quite mastered.) I'm glad I went in knowing the story, however--the movie struggles a bit to fit in all the necessary exposition, a problem that's only going to get worse if they film the rest of the trilogy (I think "Amber Spyglass" is unfilmable, myself.) I don't know if the semi-incoherence will prevent it becoming a hit (although incoherence certainly didn't hurt the LORD OF THE RINGS movies). The only thing I hated

(SPOILER ALERT**************************************************)

is that the film ends several scenes before the book's end. This bummed me out particularly since there are several scenes in the trailer that are undoubtedly from the book's final scene. Apparently they filmed the whole thing and the moneymen panicked and made them end it early in order to be semi-"upbeat"--they should have kept their nerve.

As for the religious argument, the Magisterium has become a generic, monolithic organization that wants to rule all the worlds--the heroes of the movie are those who believe in free will. That's the conflict in almost every big fantasy-adventure movie, and there's no way a moviegoer who hasn't read the books--much less a child--could read an atheist message into it.

---

Shouldn't this thread be called The Golden Compass is the anti-christ?

It's fiction, so, uh, who cares what they author believes?

The bible is fiction, too.

Updated On: 12/8/07 at 01:12 AM

I may go see it tomorrow. After I vandalize a nativity scene.