Northern Lights/Golden Compass/Whatever

[dolorous_ett]

Went to see The Golden Compass last night. What did you think of it?

I thought it was a very good rendition of the spirit of the book - in particular, the casting was superb, especially Lyra and her parents (though I found the Ian McKellan voice as the bear surprisingly intrusive - kept thinking: "You shall not PASS!"). It was visually stunning, and I was suitably humbled and impressed at all the detail that had gone into it. (though I suspect that one of the Massive Cliches of this generation of films will be Great Sweeping shots of Mountains from above - preferably with a running animal in it).

I also thought that all the stuff in the press about being OMGantireligious was a load of old claptrap. You had to strain hard to get even a whiff of anything like that. Which is a relief - I was expecting to get preached at fairly heavily.

But there's something about the film that leaves me cold - and I'm still trying to put my finger on what it was, because my reaction to the book was exactly the same. It's partly that there are all these plotlines of such promise introduced and then just abandoned and not developed - but I also think there's something that makes it hard to really warm to anybody in it - or really hate anybody in it either. 

If anyone can help articulate this a bit better and in more detail, I'd love to hear from them. Or if they can show me what I'm missing. 

On the other hand, we had great fun ascribing daemons to everyone we knew on the way home. What would yours be? I think mine would be a puffin.

Comments

[aella_irene]

I always wanted rather more of Lord Asriel and Mrs Coulter, and rather less of the Costas, etc. The political system seemed thoroughly fascinating, and I wish that we'd learnt a little more about it.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

I would have liked to see more of Asriel and Coulter - and the Gyptians and witches desperately needed more background, as we never really learned who they were or why they were going out of their way to help Lyra when they had no obvious reason to do so!

It would have been interesting to see more about the society - but it would have slowed the plot down considerably, and possibly become rather preachy?

[aella_irene]

e Gyptians and witches desperately needed more background, as we never really learned who they were or why they were going out of their way to help Lyra when they had no obvious reason to do so!

Absolutely- for the Gyptians all we got was 'she's Lord Asriel's daughter, and John Faa says so' and for the Witches all we got was 'Serafina Pekkala is in love with Farder Coram'

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Forgot to ask - who's Claire, and why does she have a scalpel?

[aella_irene]

She's a character from the Outlander books by Diana Gabaldon- I have a Firefox add-on which picks out icons, some of which can be amazingly inappropriate.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

It sounds like a very clever toy - but why use it when picking an icon is so much fun? I confess, I am puzzled!

[tree_and_leaf]

I certainly never felt that the sequels lived up to the promise of the first book, quite apart from my dislike of being preached at (although admittedly I am not exactly prejudiced in favour of his message - but I honestly don't think that's the problem, as I've read and loved books bu people who weren't hiding their militant atheism). Although - maybe the problem is at least partly that the books as stories are so totally subservient to the books-as-message (see for example the ex nun physicist.) A lot of the characters left me quite cold, though I'm not entirely sure why. Hum.

Daemons are rather brilliant. I'd like to have a fulmar, but I think I may be more of a mole. (I suppose a puffin combines the two, whilst being a jollier colour and generally more cheerful to have around...)

TL: DR?

[tree_and_leaf]

Mind you, I think my favourite moment of the film, other than Teh Pretty Oxford, which was excessively pretty, apart from the absurd Hall of 'Jordan' (and how many colleges had they glued together?) was Christopher Lee's screamingly over the top turn as a sinister ecclesiastical funtionary - I don't think he regards the film as a serious political-philosophical-theological statement, at any rate.

And was that really The Master Derek Jacobi in the same scene?

ETA: I though McKellan was far too urbane for Iorek - didn't have the right edge of wildness, otherness.

I think the anti-religious element is probably more obvious if you are religious - or at least of a certian type, and recognise the 'Magisterium' as sharing a name with the RC office in charge of teaching, for instance, or the 'oblates' board - a reference only apparent by people who have done early mediaeval history and know that this is the term given to children who were sent away by their parents to be monks or nuns; more obviously, that they hang out in a church in Tromso (was it?). But it's a very weird religion and doesn't seem to have much in common other than certain externals with Christianity. The dress was obviously pitched to look almost, but not quite, like out clerical dress; the genuflection in front of the important chap from the Magisterium looks Catholic, except it's not a gesture made outside the context of worship, and you don't do it to human beings, only to the Blessed Sacrament (though I've just looked up the "New" Catholic Encyclopaedia, and apparently it used to be correct to genuflect to bishops during services. I find this rather shocking)

Not in the least TL;DR!

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

"Jordan" is a right old hotchpotch - there's at least some Trinity College, Cambridge there as well, or I'm an Oxonian!

An interesting explanation. I have to say that it still seems all a bit circumstantial to me - the trappings are rather similar in a lot of repressive religions/governments in fantasy in general, but I suppose if you know what you're looking for it might come across as slightly different...

Re: Not in the least TL;DR!

[tree_and_leaf]

Certainly circumstantial - although actually the phrase that springs to my mind is 'passive aggressive' (not something Pullman himself could be accused of!) - though I don't think that was how the filmakers intended it.

(On another note, apologies for the apalling incoherence of the previous comment - I was obviously far too tired to be posting!)

Re: Not in the least TL;DR!

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Well, it's plainly touched a nerve in your case, so it looks like I should at least reconsider my stance here - although why any sane person would pick out sane Anglo-Catholics as a target for persecution is beyond me! Perhaps because they're more prone to reasoning with words than weapons, and therefore considered less dangerous?

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

I dunno - I can definitely see you as a fulmar!

(I would have liked to see myself as one of the more majestic owls, but let's face it, I'm more likely to be a small flappy thing with an amusing beak!)

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

Huh. My feeling about the general plotline in the books was: love every minute until it got a little too grandiose in the third. Which, obviously didn't change my love for this one.

I love Asriel and Lyra, and the fact that even the good guys have traits that aren't... perfect.

(And you're so completely right about the snowcapped mountains)

Actually, my only criticism of this movie was that, while Pan and the golden monkey were rendered brilliantly, I thought that some of the servants' dog daemons were... too obviously fake dogs.

i'm very much looking forward to the next, assuming it actually happens.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Hiz dog iz pastede on yay!

Actually, I though the monkey was the most obvious fake - though I can just imagine Mrs Coulter being heartless enough to use straighteners on the fur of an innocent beast...

Nice icon, by the way! What is it?

[tunxeh.livejournal.com]

Ian McKellan voice as the bear surprisingly intrusive - kept thinking: "You shall not PASS!"

It took me until the part where he and Lyra go looking for the ghost in the cabin to even figure out who he was. So, not so intrusive for me.

But there's something about the film that leaves me cold - and I'm still trying to put my finger on what it was, because my reaction to the book was exactly the same.

It took me until the final few pages of this book (the part they left out of the movie) to really warm to this series. But I can't really articulate why any better than you have.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Oh well - the bear thing must just be me, then.

I'm still trying to articulate what's missing from the books - and not getting very far. I wonder if it's a sense of humility?

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

I have not seen it yet, but I've been told that they cut large portions of the script out, such as those that explained motivations and things. That, and they ended it a chapter before the book ended, which baffles me to no end because the book's ending is so good.

And I'm very silly but Lord Asriel/Mrs Coulter OTP.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

I was completely thrown by the oddly placed ending too - it didn't seem a very satisfactory way to make the cut at all, but perhaps they're going to make even bigger cuts to The Subtle Knife, and have room to do that scene in more detail?

On the other hand, it is very close to the book, and the casting is a wondrous thing of beauty.

And I'm very silly but Lord Asriel/Mrs Coulter OTP.

WORD (to the OTP, I mean, not the silly)

[pandorasblog]

I'm not sure what to think about it, or whether to go to see it (for me to go to the cinema, it has to be *really* worth it, given the expense). The first review I read, in The Times, had the reviewer disappointed at the lack of character motivations (and he'd read the book), and feeling that Ian McKellen wasn't a good choice for the bear.

You also make a good point that for a lot of people, his voice is very recognizably that of Gandalf... the trouble with this type of film is that to get it made, they have to drag in all the Well-Known Proper British Actors, both to give it enough gravitas for parents to sit through it if they're not fans of books, and to sell it to American audiences for whom Britishness is one of the hallmarks of olde-worlde fantasy.

Also, I think that the people getting their panties in a bunch about the film being anti-religious are basing that assumption on the fact that for years, Philip Pullman has been portrayed as the Great Beast of children's literature in the likes of the Daily Mail. That he and his series have an atheist philosophy has had more publicity overall than the fact that the anti-religious sentiments were removed from the film in order to avoid controversy... so they got some controversy anyway.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

I can't say I blame you - if film's an expensive luxury for you and you're not a massive Pullman fan you might just want to wait until it comes out on video.

Also, I think that the people getting their panties in a bunch about the film being anti-religious are basing that assumption on the fact that for years, Philip Pullman has been portrayed as the Great Beast of children's literature in the likes of the Daily Mail.

That (and the fact that he's prone to rather humourless moralising and was not involved in the writing of Harry Potter) explains why the Guardian is so worshipful of the man. Speaking as a long-time Guardian reader myself, I find this troubling....

[pandorasblog]

On film: Yeah; Rem and I are much more inclined to hunt for cheap DVDs - we got five for �2 each the other day. The only time we'd go to the cinema would be for something like Pan's Labyrinth that feels like an event (it's on BBC4 next week, actually), or to the film festival, where you get interesting stuff.

And yeah, back when I was a Christian, I have to say that I was very put off by the reputation of the man. He always seemed to be going out of his way to knock C.S. Lewis. Granted, Neil Gaiman also points out the problems of The Chronicles of Narnia (specifically, re: the judgment of Susan), but he does it in his usual cuddly-yet-incisive way, and by writing a short story. And he loved those books growing up just like I did, so it's easier to listen to him on the subject.

In the end, I picked up HDM a few years ago and loved them to death. Having seen so many bad adaptations of great books in the last few years, I'm pretty reconciled to the idea that maybe it's just not possible for the book in my head to be on the screen.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Interesting - thanks!

I have decidedly mixed feelings about Pullman - while I'm naturally on the side of militant atheists, I find his attitude very hard to take in more than miniscule quantities.

I think the book is full of fantastic ideas - it's hard to see how it could be any more full, practically bursting at the seams - but I always wished he would develop them as fully as they deserved. If they were all part of a larger Message, I suppose that's why. Not being in the mood to think about religion when I read the books, I have to admit that that aspect of things completely passed me by.

There's something missing from the books, in spite of all their good points, and I still don't quite know what it is. A heart, possibly, or a sense of humility.

Or it could be something missing in me?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_redux/]

Haven't seen the film, so can't comment. Haven't read the book either, so wtf am I doing here, eh. :p
Dropped by and saw your birthday coming up in a few days, so thought I'd say congrats in advance. :) Have a great day with family and friends!

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Always glad to hear from you - you don't need a reason as far as I'm concerned!

And thanks for the happy birthday - will do my best!

How's things? I hope all's well...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_redux/]

Heh! Love the happy carrots...

Yeah, I'm okay. I think. Wrote a loong entry last night, drunk as a priest...and it was all bull, know what I'm saying? And now I'm so embarrassed I think I'm going to die. Worst is that I sent a copy to my shrink, since it was such a profound and deep post, right?

I'm an idiot, but it's so stupid I can't help but laugh. Gonna go hide in a deep hole now.