"The Golden Compass" as sign of the times

I must be obtuse. I have listened to The Golden Compass on tape, read the other two books in the series, and seen the movie.

The first volume and the film did not seem to me to be particularly anti-religious. The novel is more in the tradition of the picaresque novel, except this pícaro or crafty youth who has unconventional adventures, is a , a girl. The "Magisterium" may have a Latin name redolent of Papism, but as depicted in the book and film really could be any authoritarian, bureaucratic system that seeks to suppress creativity and independence, and to enforce conformity. In fact, the HQ of the Magisterium seems more like Stalin's Palace of Culture than anything else.

The only direct anti-Christian reference is in an Arctic village where the bear smashes into a wooden building decorated with paintings that appear similar to Orthodox icons. I did find this brief scene offensive.

The later books, not as good as the first, tip the author's hand a bit more than the first.

On the whole, it seems to me that Pullman's atheism is like Dumbledore's gayness--a notion in the mind of the author that doesn't emerge that clearly in the text.

I'd rather have a child of mine see the movie, or read the book, than spend the same amount of time watching almost anything on TV.

Pullman has a bit of a bone to pick with C.S.Lewis. When it comes to Narnia, that's fair enough. Evangelicals like Lewis because he was both a don and a Christian apologist, and for this doctrinal reason tend to overrate his rather clumsy attempt at fantasy writing.

Would-be defenders of the faith should spend more time critiquing the horrid mass culture around them (and in their churches often enough), and stop worrying about the remaining coteries of novelists. In this combox, I will say nothing about soft-rock praise music, the prosperity gospel, Hallowe'en and guitar masses.

I agree with GOP. Pullman is one of our greatest living writers--and I detest this genre--and I think the Bishop who wrote the review was probably reacting to idea that our Catholic faith can survive this single movie which supposedly has had its atheism watered down.

I've read the books and plan to see the movie. I am a Christian and felt no offense at the content of the book. I feel his "Killing god" statement is more consistent with a Buddhist concept of "if you meet Buddha on the way, kill hIm" than being a iconoclast to Christianity.

As I read Pullman's trilogy I interpreted Dust to represent the real true God, that we all seek. Particularly as the "God of the magisterium" would not be recognized by any remotely orthodox Christian as "God". Pullmans description is more a reflection of Mormon (TCOJCOLDS) {come on, even the acronym is to long to be worthwhile} theology.

It is ultimately a book. The film adaptation a movie only. Those who oppose it credit God to little. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience being doesn't need a Brute Squad. Or even a rowdy apologetic department.

God is. Get your knickers out of a knot.

Max,

Read the book? What did you think? Familiar with the content of the first two paragraphs?You don't seem to share the sentiment of the last paragraph. Why not?

Come on, you only contributed three words of your own.

Makes reading the comments section a bit dull now, eh.

Unkink the knickers!

I agree with Rod's analysis of the USCCB on this one. All they did was take the movie review from their hired "expert".

What keeps getting the bishops into bad PR and mess ups is that all too often too many of them keep trying to look trendy and "not too conservative". Too much faith and deference to psychiatry in the immediate past decades over the clerical abuse thing; too much deference to the theraputic culture; too much concern about offending someone or some group. They know they are eternally offensive to some people because of what they are, so they try to make it up by trying to look and/or talk trendy.

Peace

Larry Parker writes; "I have no dog in this hunt, but those original ads with the USCCB touting a film based on such an obviously anti-Catholic (or at least anti-religious) book were most bizarre."

The bishops did not view or discuss the film before touting it. All they did was to take and endorse the report of a hired "expert".

My guess is that if a film named "Fanny Hill Romps Jesus" were to be favorably reviewed and reported by their "expert" Forbes they would tout the film sight unseen. That is the situation we find with too many bishops today.

Boycotting this movie because it's based on a book series written by an atheist? Here's a brief list of other things to avoid, since they were created by scary atheists/non-believers:

1. Huckleberry Finn
2. Tom Sawyer
3. The Fountainhead
4. A Farewell To Arms
5. Slaughterhouse Five
6. Star Trek
7. "Common Sense" (Thomas Paine, Atheist!)
8. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (deists! scary deists!)
9. The Emancipation Proclamation (doubter!)
10. Steel. Can't use steel. (Andrew Carnegie: "I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.")
11. Anything Carl Sagan-ish.
12. The double-helix nature of DNA. (Dr. Watson, bad man!)
13. The Beatles (obviously)
14. Any of the awesome buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright
15. Snoopy
16. The light bulb

Enjoy!

Max,

The faith of children is not killed by books, movies or media but it can (and often is killed by parents, priests/ pastors, and friends, most often in that order. Children and teens pick up in often uncanny ways genuiness, soundness, and integrity of individuals and institutions alike. The few children who are churched these days are told that they are in the House of God among Godly people doing Godly work with Godly aims. But when they examine and compare between the behavior and the outcomes of those with church and those without, they find us wanting and with good reason.

And they got piss-poor examples in todays current climate from pederest pastors/ priest, politicians who can't manage diplomacy and collaboration for the greater good, greedy and self-centered parents who put all aside for individual gain. They are inundated with the onslaught of health/ wealth preaching sanctifying greed and graft for every God's child. For every Teresa of Calcutta there are 50 Ted Haggards, and don't you know Ghandi is in hell, but if your baptized you are saved once for always in many denominations.

Many of the characters in books are better in character than the people kids encounter most days. Including the lying Lyra who was faithful and loyal and bold, and brave and always sought the Truth.

Faith is delicate but the monsters are within the walls.

Corey: Snoopy was created by an atheist? Surely Charles Schulz was a Christian?

Anyway, the Catholic bishops were probably wise not to furiously denounce the film, as I suspect such a denunciation is exactly what the filmmakers want. Nothing like a bit of free publicity.

The movie is simply badly made. It's incoherent, tries to jam too much into too little space left for exposition, and changes the ending in a way that will make little sense if they *do* ever get to books 2 and 3.

Well, that's movie-making for you. Happens all the time.

While the film leaves out the part about Pope John Calvin moving the papal seat to Geneva, and then the papacy being abolished after his death (presumably leaving Genevan predestinationists in control of that world's religion), it does include a visual image *not* in the original book. Rod, I'm surprised you're not all over this one like fleas on a dog, because the film directly goes after Eastern Orthodoxy.

The panzer-bear Iorick has had his armor stolen. He discovers it's been hidden "in the magisterium's headquarters" in the little "Scandinavian" town. The Magisterium HQ is in a chapel with Orthodox-style icons painted on the exterior walls. When Iorick recovers his armor, he literally busts through the wall, smashing the icons in the process.

This is rude and tasteless on so many levels. For one thing, it's cowardly - it picks on a minority of a minority slice of Christianity (at least in the UK and USA.) So they probably thought they were picking on a Christian group without a bully pulpit.

For another, it does directly make the film look as if smashing an icon is "liberation" in that world. When you consider what an icon *means* to Eastern Christians, it's a pretty explicit way to say, "This is what we think of your belief in a supernatural world."

Which is really dumb, when you think about it, because the whole *premise* of the His Dark Materials trilogy is ... uh, that there are other worlds.

Corey, I won't attempt to explain it to you, because it seems clear to me that you don't really remember the book you read as a kid.

The movie covered the key plot elements of the book, period. That it did so well or poorly is a matter of individual opinion, and I am content to leave it at that. I enjoyed the movie on several levels, but found it still inferior to the BBC series from the 80s of LWW, Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Prince Caspian (featuring Tom Baker as Puddleglum). The TV production, limited in how it could portray the fantasy elements, was strong on plot and character development. That's what I look for in quality cinema, and didn't see as much of in the movie.

Corey, it's not an explanation, it's a plot device. That it also is an indirect parallel to the death and resurrection of Jesus is noteworthy, but not important to the story as a whole. Lewis did not invoke anything overtly Christian until The Last Battle, which you may not have read, and which gets rather heavy handed at the end. One does not need to be a Christian or familiar with its tenets to understand the plot devices. I intended no insult to your intelligence above; I regret if you may have taken it that way.

Briefly: Edmund betrayed his siblings. The Witch, having been there (as we find out in The Magician's Nephew) from the very creation of Narnia, is entitled to the lives of all betrayers (again, an indirect parallel to Satan). The Stone Table may be seen as a rough equivalent to the Bible (or, perhaps, the short-lived tablets containing the Ten Commandments), and it spells all this right out (in runes, of course) to anyone who cares to read it. Obviously, the Witch only read the parts that pleased her.

There are some, including myself, who see Aslan's "sacrifice" in Edmund's place as somewhat cynical. Aslan knew the Table would break and he would be brought back to life. As I started, if you look at it as a plot device, you find it less important to understand out of context.

If you are saying or implying that the translation from book to cinema was flawed in this movie, I will immediately agree with you.