Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Movie Review: The Golden Compass
Having blogged recently about the screen adaptation of Philip Pullman's first book in his 'His Dark Materials' trilogy, The Golden Compass, and the attendant hysteria surrounding it, I thought I should follow-up with a review of the movie (an AHU first, by the way).
I took my eldest daughter to see it last weekend. It was indeed a ripping fantasy yarn, but being a fan of the book, I left the theater somewhat disappointed by the editorial choices that were made. Then again, I guess that's often the way. Most of these choices seemed an attempt to gloss over the tantalizing ambiguity of some of the main characters, yet in the written series it is this very ambiguity that provides tension and context--not knowing the true motivations of many of the adults that young Lyra encounters; are they protagonists or antagonists? Yet at several key points the director/producer take the easy way out.
In the opening chapter of the book Lyra sees the Headmaster of Oxford's Jordan College (and her stand-in, default father figure) try to poison Lord Asriel, who Lyra knows to be her uncle and her sponsor at the college. It is this very Headmaster who gives Lyra the rare and coveted altheiometer (truth-telling machine) that sets her on her adventures and life calling (along with a stern admonition to not let her new patron Mrs. Coulter know of its existence); thus placing him in a highly ambiguous position in her eyes. Is he good or malicious? Why did he try to kill Lord Asriel? Should she believe in him or the elegant and seemingly benevolent Mrs. Coulter? The film has another, more obviously sinister, character poison the wine, thus ending any confusion or complexity.
In another similar editorial decision, the ending of the film concludes several chapters prior to the book. Although the astute observer may notice the foreshadowing for a potential sequel, it is clear that the film's creator wanted to end on a happy note. Pullman's novel ends with an act of cruelty and betrayal, creating despondent confusion and remorse for Lyra--but that ending has very little truck at the holiday box office.
Other changes seemed more random and less understandable. In the novel her armored bear companion and friend Iorek Byrnisson finds himself exiled from the land of the bears following a duel in which he killed another bear. This exile prevents him from claiming his inheritance as Bear King, a position that is usurped by his scheming cousin Iofur Magnusson. We learn late in the book (via the wondrous altheiometer and some bear boasting) that Iofur rigged the fight by drugging Iorek's opponent. That knowledge is one of the main catalysts that drives the weary Iorek to fight Iofur to claim his throne. In the film, we are told that Iorek lost a fight to Iofur and that this loss precipitated his banishment. Is there really any reason the original storyline couldn't have been used? Its certainly more plausible than the only-marginally dumbed down one in the film and seems entirely graspable by the 13-year old boys that the studio assumed would make up the bulk of the audience.
Oh, them and forty-something fantasy novel dorks, not to mention the anti-Christian contingent. Was it just me, or did other moviegoers witness a pre-film recitation of the 'Pledge of Allegiance' that conspicuously excluded the words 'under God?' OK, that didn't really happen. I tried to get one started but the other folks in the theater were too engrossed by the chanting of the Satanic coven in the back to really participate!
Having blogged recently about the screen adaptation of Philip Pullman's first book in his 'His Dark Materials' trilogy, The Golden Compass, and the attendant hysteria surrounding it, I thought I should follow-up with a review of the movie (an AHU first, by the way).
I took my eldest daughter to see it last weekend. It was indeed a ripping fantasy yarn, but being a fan of the book, I left the theater somewhat disappointed by the editorial choices that were made. Then again, I guess that's often the way. Most of these choices seemed an attempt to gloss over the tantalizing ambiguity of some of the main characters, yet in the written series it is this very ambiguity that provides tension and context--not knowing the true motivations of many of the adults that young Lyra encounters; are they protagonists or antagonists? Yet at several key points the director/producer take the easy way out.
In the opening chapter of the book Lyra sees the Headmaster of Oxford's Jordan College (and her stand-in, default father figure) try to poison Lord Asriel, who Lyra knows to be her uncle and her sponsor at the college. It is this very Headmaster who gives Lyra the rare and coveted altheiometer (truth-telling machine) that sets her on her adventures and life calling (along with a stern admonition to not let her new patron Mrs. Coulter know of its existence); thus placing him in a highly ambiguous position in her eyes. Is he good or malicious? Why did he try to kill Lord Asriel? Should she believe in him or the elegant and seemingly benevolent Mrs. Coulter? The film has another, more obviously sinister, character poison the wine, thus ending any confusion or complexity.
In another similar editorial decision, the ending of the film concludes several chapters prior to the book. Although the astute observer may notice the foreshadowing for a potential sequel, it is clear that the film's creator wanted to end on a happy note. Pullman's novel ends with an act of cruelty and betrayal, creating despondent confusion and remorse for Lyra--but that ending has very little truck at the holiday box office.
Other changes seemed more random and less understandable. In the novel her armored bear companion and friend Iorek Byrnisson finds himself exiled from the land of the bears following a duel in which he killed another bear. This exile prevents him from claiming his inheritance as Bear King, a position that is usurped by his scheming cousin Iofur Magnusson. We learn late in the book (via the wondrous altheiometer and some bear boasting) that Iofur rigged the fight by drugging Iorek's opponent. That knowledge is one of the main catalysts that drives the weary Iorek to fight Iofur to claim his throne. In the film, we are told that Iorek lost a fight to Iofur and that this loss precipitated his banishment. Is there really any reason the original storyline couldn't have been used? Its certainly more plausible than the only-marginally dumbed down one in the film and seems entirely graspable by the 13-year old boys that the studio assumed would make up the bulk of the audience.
Oh, them and forty-something fantasy novel dorks, not to mention the anti-Christian contingent. Was it just me, or did other moviegoers witness a pre-film recitation of the 'Pledge of Allegiance' that conspicuously excluded the words 'under God?' OK, that didn't really happen. I tried to get one started but the other folks in the theater were too engrossed by the chanting of the Satanic coven in the back to really participate!
Comments:
Post a Comment
