Golden Compass, Silver Screen
Jason Kuznicki on Dec 12th 2007
The standard response to the new film adaptation of Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass is that it gutted the skeptical and anti-Church elements in the book. I’m puzzled by this, in part because I saw the movie this weekend and was impressed by how much of this aspect was left in.
First, it’s worth recalling that much of the explicit commentary on religion comes in the third book, not in the first, and that the first has really very little of it. The film of The Golden Compass was only of the first book.
Second, consider the antagonists as presented in the film: They persecute people for heresy. They obey an Authority, who from dialogue is understood to be a moral lawgiver of some kind. (Charitably: An inattentive one, who really watch more closely over those who act in his Name.) They wear clerical dress. They want to undo original sin by destroying human free will. They, uh… work out of churches. The essentials are all there.
This much is all stated very, very clearly. The real test won’t come until the third film — the death of God and all that — but so far I’d say that the first film is true to Pullman’s vision, at least as much as any film can be. And I wonder: Have all the people saying this about the film version of The Golden Compass both read the book and seen the film? This criticism of theirs — not enough skepticism — was advanced well before the film appeared, based on director Chris Weitz’s early statements about the script in draft. Is mental inertia really that strong?
Filed in The Belfry, The Bijou
One thing is missing in the movie. In the book, the General Oblation Board really believes it’s pursuing a holy purpose, and that its experiments on children may rid the world of sin. In the movie it’s just conventionally evil, trying to create docile people. In trying not to offend, the movie actually made the established religion look worse.
I disagree with Gary. Marisa Coulter IS the G.O.B, and what she says in the movie, and in the book, that she believes is that the experiments may separate children from the sin of their ancestors, which she thinks is represented by Dust. One difference between the book and the movie is that the Magisterium works much more directly in the film, by attempting to poison Azrael, for instance. That can be excused for reason of lack of time. I think that this directness is what made the Magisterium appear worse in the film, but we can’t expect a film to be able to deliver all the nuance that a novel can.