Genre: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Adaptation
Running Time: 1 hr. 58 min.
Release Date: December 7th, 2007
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence.
Directed By: Chris Weitz
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Dakota Blue Richards, Sam Elliot
For all of its bells and whistles, of which it has many, The Golden Compass is still unable to surpass the status of a replication of one of the countless existing family-friendly fantasy films out there. Even with the astute devising of daemons and the heart-stirringly massive armored bears, it is essentially another version of “Narnia†or “The Lord of the Ringsâ€. It’s solid entertainment, but of the repetitious kind – much like it’s the sequel to something else, even though it is clearly the first of a series.
Young Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) lives in an alternate world to earth – many of the locations and lands are similar to our planet, but certainly not to be mistaken for the same. The most noticeable difference, aside from the science fiction fantasy blend of technology, is that the souls of humans appear on the outside of their bodies, in the form of animals called Daemons, that faithfully accompany them. Lyra’s ever-changing Daemon is known as Pantalaimon (voiced by Freddie Highmore).
When Lyra hears about a forbidden magical particle called dust, beguiling scientist Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman) asks Lyra to join her on a journey to the north as an assistant. Lyra is eager for a chance to escape her schoolwork and follow after her uncle Lord Asrial (Daniel Craig), who is also journeying to the Arctic Circle to investigate a sighting of large quantities of dust. Shortly after her departure, Lyra discovers that Mrs. Coulter is working for the Magisterium, the strict government that rules over the land. Linking Coulter to the recent disappearance of her best friend, Lyra sets out to locate a villainous facility where kidnapped children are used for cruel experimentation. During her travels she is aided by a band of Gyptians, a Texas airship pilot (Sam Elliott), the mysterious witch Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green) and a giant armored ice bear named Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen) to carve out a path of freedom for the captured children. Along the way she also obtains an Alethiometer, a strange golden compass that tells the truth to those who know how to read (and sure enough she knows how to read it).
There are quite a few innovative ideas at work in The Golden Compass, the first of Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials†trilogy adaptations. Daemons, the souls that take the shape of animals are unique and well-developed and allow for much of the photorealistic computer graphics work. The fact that they speak and serve as a physical conscience is even more fascinating.
Another aspect, which is certainly not as unique, is the Magisterium, the totalitarian government that controls the alternate world. They keep people in line by telling them what to do – something rebellious little Lyra has great difficulty accepting. The Catholic Church has been in an uproar ever since this project was announced, and has banned its viewing by members due to the Magisterium’s loose resemblance to their religious hierarchy. The only way anyone could take offense to possible symbolism in a completely fictitious work is by assuming that such characters resemble them too closely. But the Magisterium is simply an Orwellian dictatorship as witnessed in countless other films. In the movie they are clearly villains – could it be that the church views itself as despotic antagonists?
The armored bear is perhaps the finest accomplishment for the film, although at times he wanders dangerously close to unrealistic. But considering a giant talking bear is already unbelievable, The Golden Compass does a spectacular job of bringing him to life with nearly flawless movement and extraordinary muscle and fur interaction. Several of the daemons are less impressive, including Mrs. Coulter’s golden monkey, which at times barely resembles an animal.
Films like The Golden Compass usually have a difficult time with their introduction due to the difficulty of quickly defining an entirely foreign world. They have to provide enough information to make you believe in the fantasy, without overloading you with complex jargon. Despite the ridiculous names that are impossible to keep track of, The Golden Compass does introduce its wonders quickly and relatively clearly so that most audiences won’t be left with too many questions. Especially considering there are more films on the way, it’s acceptable (although annoying) to keep a few secrets. I would, however, like to know where the ice bear stores his armor.
- Mike Massie
SCORE = 7/10
MoviePulse.net
Nice review, however...
You state that "The Catholic Church has been in an uproar ever since this project was announced, and has banned its viewing by members due to the Magisterium’s loose resemblance to their religious hierarchy."
This is, I hope, a misunderstanding on your part. The Catholic League, which is not an official Church organization, called for a boycott. The League has no authority ban anything.(On the flip side, the glowing review published by the critic hired by the U. S. Bishops is not an official endorsement either.) Just a distinction I find important. Thanks.
OK, first of all the Catholic Church did not ban its members from seeing this its movie. It recommends parents making an educated decision about it. No one need attend confession for seeing the movie. (Several Catholic movie reviewers would be in great trouble).
This first movie, like the first book in the series does provide only a caricature of "The Church" with evil priests and a structure that suppresses free-thought. The movie's use of "Magisterium" instead of "Church" demonstrates even more clearly that all this is thinly-veiled reference to the Catholic Church. It seems only natural that Catholics might find this a tad offensive, not because it "resemble[s] them too closely," but because it trots out every stereotype that the modern world has of the Church. For example, Jews would rightly be offended if the evil power were "The Temple" or "The Synagogue" with money-grubbing rabbis whose only concern was making a quick buck and robbing others through a complicated money-lending system. Jewish groups would not be incensed because such depictions "resemble them too much," but because they are simply the latest of a tired stereotype. The Church has been dismissed unjustly by the modern world because of Galileo, because of the Inquisition, because of the "bad popes" despite the fact that such events and individuals were isolated instances in the life of an institution that has fostered science and learning, created the modern university, served as a public welfare system, established hospitals, advanced philosophy and culture, and given willingly in charity more than any other group or institution in history. Many scoff at such ideas, but hopefully some honest reflection and study would disabuse such prejudices. Unfortunately high school history courses (and this is coming from a former history teacher) which have done so much to expurgate irrational prejudices from its curricula (no one thinks of Native Americans as savages anymore) still paints the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages with a broad brush.
The Inquisition! Galileo! The Crusades! Somehow these three pieces do not adequately tell the story of a two thousand year old Church whose primary mission is to love. Granted, it has failed this mission at times, but within the broader context, these moments have been relatively rare. The US, by allowing slavery to operate for almost a century, failed in its self-proclaimed mission to advance liberty, but this does not negate the mission, but rather calls us more deeply to it.
Anyway, if the perpetuation of such stereotypes was the only problem with this movie, the Church would simply shrug and move on. But this is not so...the movie is connected to a series of books, the second of which (SPOILER ALERT) sees the death of God, who is not really God at all, but a greedy and malevolent life form. Pullman himself has said that his books are about "killing god" and "undermin[ing] the Christian faith." Again, the Church has survived Nietzsche, et al, so this wouldn't matter so much, except that these books and movies are targeted for children. The Church simply wants parents to be aware that the author of these books is avowedly opposed to religion--Christianity in particular--and that children may not be able to approach the stories with the proper maturity and comprehension. In the same way, one would hope that even non-Christians would be wary about exposing their children to movies and literature that unjustly demonize a particular religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
For more information from a Catholic/Christian perspective see Jeffrey Overstreet's discussion of the movie, the review by Stephen Greydanus (a great movie reviewer overall), scifi author John C. Wright's take on it all.
A few points:
god doesn't die in the second book
Indoctrination of children is bad. If christians really believed this film could have that effect on their children then they should stop being hypocrites and not expose children to films like the Narnia adaptions until the children reach an age where they can decide for themselves what to watch.
The film missed off a dramatic scene from the end of the first book, which spoils the film for me. I suspect it will be at the beginning of the second movie.
If by "indoctrination" one means to imbue an idea so deeply that we would not question it, then I dare say much of the modern world is indoctrinated with the idea of human equality, which is taken on a matter of faith (for all quantifiable measures speak only of inequality). Yet, few would call this "indoctrination" bad. Indeed, few would call it "indoctrination" at all. Most would call it "good parenting."
Parents raise children with a certain world view in mind, one which parents believe will bring their children happiness and form them as good people. A number of precepts and values are hammered into their heads from an early age.
Be good to other people.
Share.
Racism is bad.
All human beings are created equal.
Education is good.
Listen to your teachers.
Children cannot examine life from a detached, philosophical perspective. They have no philosophical platform on which to stand, except that which is given by their elders. A parent would never tell a child that a person of another color may or may not be equal, that it's up to the child to decide.
In teaching these precepts, it makes sense for parents to expose their children to media that supports a particular moral vision (Mr. Rogers) and keep them from that which does not (would anyone even think of showing old minstrel cartoons to their children today?) unless and until the child has enough grounding to remove a story from a philosophy. One would not read Huck Finn to a young child without some explanation about racism, about why the "n-word" should not be used today even though it's used by Huck in the story, without an emphasis on the goodness of Huck in acting in a moral manner beyond the restraints of his society.
For a goodly number of parents, first among the ideas that shape their moral understanding of life is the fact of God. Therefore parents provide media that supports this vision (Narnia). If parents are not allowed to "indoctrinate" their children with belief in god, I wonder if atheist parents have the right to "indoctrinate" their children with the idea that God does not exist? If they do, then I suppose they have every right to use Pullman's novels to advance the idea.
Finally, I'm not sure what the previous poster means when he or she says that God does not die in the second book. I suppose, one could say that it was a creature posing as God which dies, not actually God. This is problematic however in that the creature is quite clearly meant to be the Judeo-Christian God who turns out to be a sham. As Pullman describes:
The Authority, god, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father the Almighty – those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself...The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.
For all Pullman's vitriol toward Narnia, at least Lewis was subtle enough to allow Narnia to work as a secular story with Christian themes. Aslan is never explicitly described as the Authority, god, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father the Almighty.
Finally, as several Catholic writers have pointed out, Pullman's image of the Christian God is hideously deformed, and shares little in common with the Almighty Being who is the essence of existence, "in whom we live and move and have our being", and who is actually worshiped and proclaimed by Christians and Jews; Pullman's is a "straw god" made to be knocked down. Again, it would be difficult for children without some greater theological training to discern a distinction without parental guidance.
Any religion that indoctrinates children is morally bankrupt in my view.
If there is anything to your faith then children can discover that for themselves as they grow into adulthood.
You can't have it both ways, if children should be stopped from seeing the Golden Compass, then they should be stopped from seeing adaptions of CS lewis narnia books.
Again, I wonder what you mean by indoctrination. If you mean brainwashing, a mindless following that never opens the possibility of honest doubt or questioning, then I agree wholeheartedly.
If you mean that parents should not work to form their children's consciences, then we must part ways. A parent should tell their child that all human beings are created equal. A parent should not say, "Some people believe that all human beings are created equal; others think some races are better than others: you decide."
In defending the idea of human equality I would give reasons for believing so, though these would depend primarily on religious beliefs: that all are created in the image and likeness of God, etc. Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that all men are created equal; indeed all empirical evidence suggests very much otherwise. Equality is a doctrine of faith if ever there was one. If I exposed them to the racist ideas of nineteenth century pseudoscience about racial hierarchy without proper context, I would be doing a disservice to them and to society. I hope you would agree. I hope you agree that such a decision is not indoctrination.
In the same way, a Christian parent would teach their children that there is a God, and give reasons for believing so according to the child's age and maturity. To give Pullman to them without proper context and discussion would be a disservice to them and to God.
Also, much depends on the age and maturity level of the child in question (and this may be where we are tripping over ourselves). If we are talking about a fifteen year with a philosophical sensibility who is exploring the idea of belief, that is quite different than a ten year old who has no theological notion beyond "God loves me." Surely the former should be encouraged in his or her pursuit for the truth. But Pullman bases his argument on lies and caricatures of religion, and does not help in this. Narnia on the other hand, provides no real theology, but only imbues children with a religious sensibility and an openness to belief. The fifteen year old in question would benefit little from reading that either. If one wants a full discussion of reasons to believe, then read Lewis's other works, especially Miracles and Mere Christianity. If we are talking the type of fifteen year old who is curling up with Nietzsche, then Augustine and Aquinas and John Henry Newman's Grammar of Assent surely would be the best Christian philosophy to weigh against the purveyors of disbelief. For the atheist perspective, I guess Dawkins and Hitchens are the current fads, but from what I've seen of their work, their arguments are so crude and uninformed about what believers actually believe it seems silly putting them up against the Doctors of the Church.
Yet you expose them to ideas from a book that thousands of years old with no explanation of alternative.
Encourage critical thinking and not dogma.
Um, actually, we do this already. Most Catholics do not separate themselves from society but grow up and live within it. Alternatives are offered everyday through exposure to friends, teachers, media, etc. That's one of the reasons we celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation. At a certain age (which varies around the world), we ask our children to make an informed decision to continue following their Catholic faith. It's not a hidden secret ritual either; we throw parties and everything.
Garsh, I sure hope all those free thinking non-religious types are including that kind of well-informed info when they're offering their own children all those alternatives to choose from.
Vanamonde:
First of all, you seem just to be changing the subject.
Second of all, why is a book that is old necessarily untrustworthy? Historians happily continue to promulgate the idea that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC by a conspiracy that included his friend Brutus, and the documents this knowledge is based on are even older than the New Testament. Are we wrong to teach children this information without offering alternatives? "Caesar never existed, but was made up by Augustus later on to support his claim as emperor." There may be no evidence to support this, but it makes a heck of a good conspiracy theory I suppose.
From an objective archaeological standpoint, the New Testament is the most reliable ancient book in existence. We have the letters of the early Christians (Paul, et al.), most of which were written two to four decades after Christ's resurrection (whereas a person speaking today of the assassination of Kennedy is almost forty-five years removed from the event). Plus there are four accounts of the life of Jesus, the earliest account written twenty or thirty years after the events described, the latest written no more than seventy years after (all of this being quite soon when compared to other ancient documents). They were written by eyewitnesses or by people who knew the eyewitnesses and their accounts well. They possess minor diagreements (what was said where) quite common among ancient documents and among eyewitness accounts of any age. Furthermore, almost every eyewitness died (John is said to have died a natural death) rather than suggest what they witnessed was not true--if that is not a testament to their sincerity, I do not know what is. These accounts circulated the Christian communities in ancient Rome, and gained acceptance as more of these communities saw the teaching of the gospels matched the teachings that had been given them by the Apostles themselves. Finally, we possess more fragments of these documents from times nearer to their original composition than any other ancient document in existence. The fragments match each other--and the modern New Testament--remarkably well.
Now to the alternatives. A few apocryphal writings in Apostolic times were rejected by Christian communities since they did not match the teachings told them by the Apostles , but most apocrypha was written much later. The only documents that were ever part of the New Testament canon only to be removed later were the Letter of Clement (the Pope in the late first century) and the Didache (an early Church manual). Both of these were removed because they were known not to be of Apostolic authorship, but both today are studied and revered by Christians. The earliest of the Gnostic Gospels so touted by modern scholars was written sometime in the mid-second century--and these were rejected by the Christian communities already in existence since they did not accord with what they already knew. Elaine Pagels claims the Gospel of Thomas was written in 50, earlier than any other gospel, but this is by far the minority view. There is not a single ancient reference to Thomas before the time of its composition commonly accepted by scholars, whereas the four canonical gospels are quoted copiously all over the Mediterranean world from the late first century onwards. Furthermore, the theology it promotes simply does not match what we know the earliest Christian communities established by the Apostles actually believed.
All this seems reasonable enough to me to teach the events of the New Testament as fact. Of course it would be silly to teach most ten year olds about parsing ancient documents--they aren't quite ready to handle such dry material. When they are ready--and especially if they are questioning how we know what we believe--of course one would present all this to them.
And as EegahInc notes, one would hope non-believing parents do not suggest to their children that believers are entirely blind to historical truth and only listen to some book that a bunch of clerics made up centuries after the events reported purportedly took place simply to consolidate their power--when that very clearly is not true.
If you think the NT is the most reliable ancient book in existence then there is no point in any further discussion. Reality will never sway you away from that viewpoint.
I understand if someone rejects the events of the NT because they do not or cannot believe in miracles...that's a philosophical position.
But if one is open-minded enough to consider the possibility of the miraculous, then the NT cannot simply be dismissed as mere fiction. Indeed, for the reasons I listed above--simply because of its reliability according to the objective, scientific standards of archaeologists and historians--one should at the very least give the NT, miracles and all, a fair hearing. It is not written as a book of myths, but as eyewitness accounts, meeting the standards of history of the age. If they are fiction, then they are the most clever fiction ever devised, with absolutely nothing else like them in the ancient world. Furthermore, the chief witnesses to the events described (again, except for John) willingly submitted to execution rather than recant that they had seen the resurrected Christ. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
If one fails to even consider the possibility that the NT is true then I wonder who here cannot be swayed.
fyi the place the iorik the ice bear stores his armour is on him self as it was taken as payment and hidden forcing him to work as a smith and was paid in alcohol unlil lyrs got his armour back so he answer is he wears it all the time like all armoured bears unless he is cleaning it or reparing it
That's a sword that cuts both ways Bob.
Can you honestly say you are prepared to accept the possibility that the NT is not true?
Just finished the movie....the story alludes to the ancestors (who I took to be Adam and Eve), who disobeyed the authority (who I took to be God) and he introduced them to the dust (which I took to be sin and death) for their transgression. The movie implies that children are sort of immune to the dust until they grow older, then it begins to effect them and their daemon(soul)...
The girl hero intends to have a war with the authority and the stakes are free will...
Oh well that is how I took it.
My daughter attends a catholic school and I have recieved a letter warning against these books and the movie. I had never heard of them before so I went out bought and read them. I loved them. I can see why the catholic church is concerned about young children reading them but it is fiction. Regardless of the authors own personal beliefs. If you have a solid belief in your religion a book like this is not going to change that.