The Golden Compass
Reading a review in the Guardian of The Golden Compass — the film adaptation of the first part of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials (HDM) trilogy — I was not sure whether to be excited or appalled. I’m a massive fan of Pullman’s work, and HDM is one of my favourite books of all time. Despite ostensibly being books for children, they are as rich, subtle, disturbing, intriguing, exciting, and many-layered as any adult book you are likely to find. Even after reading them twice, there are still aspects I don’t fully understand or that I wonder about, and that’s exactly the way it should be.
ThoughtBadger and I had a brief conversation about this in the comments for my review of the last Harry Potter book, so I know I’m not the only one who feels a certain dread about the films. One of the things which troubled me most about the review by Peter Bradshaw was when he said, “…to this non-Pullman-reader, the claims often made on behalf of his legend about striking a blow for rationalism against religious authoritarianism don’t precisely hold up.” He also describes the film as “deeply conservative”. If they didn’t capture the fierce, rebellious exhortation for everyone to think for themselves, use their own intelligence and live this life, rather than hoping for a life hereafter, then the film will be a terrible failure. It’s true that the books only gradually reveal the full import of what Dust is over the course of the trilogy, rather than at the start, but I hope that they didn’t miss the point completely.
I’m worried about the characterisations, too: according to Peter Bradshaw, Lord Asriel is a “gallant hero”. One of the brilliant things about HDM is that none of the characters are entirely good or evil (or even what they seem at first), but rather real people with complex emotions, personalities and motivations. From the start in the book, Asriel is a very ambiguous character, and far from being a gallant hero. He’s an adventurer, and appears to be on the side of good, but he’s ruthless, arrogant and seemingly out for personal glory. Mrs. Coulter is also not purely evil at all, though she is rather chilling in the first book. From the clips I’ve seen, Lyra (played by Dakota Blue Richards) appears to be rather a delicate, wistful child, which is a million miles away from the way I see Lyra.
At the start of the book, Lyra is a tough, independent tomboy, running over the rooftops of Oxford colleges, and starting fights with local kids. She’s fierce, brave and scruffy, and has a tendency to lie to get her way or to talk up her own achievements. But she is also deeply empathetic to the feelings of those around her, and has a strong sense of natural justice. At one point in the first book, she unselfconsciously puts herself into a situation which horrifies and disgusts the adults around her, purely to provide what comfort she can for a boy in a terrible situation. Iorek Byrnison (the armoured bear) rebukes the adults hanging back where Lyra jumps in, because he shares Lyra’s deep sense of honour and justice, and the importance of keeping one’s word. Throughout the books, the things she has to go through make her more serious, and she loses her innocence. In short she grows up, which is one of the themes of the series — what does it mean to be an adult? Pullman’s thesis (I think) is that the mythical expulsion from the Garden of Eden was the best thing that ever happened to us1 — that losing our innocence and gaining knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is a precious, important thing, and not something to be mourned.
I could ramble on about HDM for ages. Just the other day, I was thinking about how skilfully and subtly he shows us what it might be like to have a part of your spirit2 as a separate, external being. Daemons in HDM are not airy, ghostly things, but warm and solid animal-formed beings. They can speak, and people and their daemons have discussions and even arguments over what is the right thing to do. But a daemon isn’t a kind of magical conscience like Jimminy Cricket; neither a person nor their daemon have all the answers, but they must come to understand the world together through discussion and joint experience. The remarkable thing is that Pullman describes this thing which is very far outside our experience in such a natural and vivid way that you feel rather lonely without a daemon of your own by the end.
The mainstream cinemas around here are pretty dire, so I’d probably wait until this came out on DVD anyway, but if anyone else goes to see the film (particularly anyone who loves the books), I’d be curious to know what you think of it. I might summon up the courage to watch it if it’s not a total travesty.
1 Since I don’t believe in this, I think of it as a metaphor. ↑
2 The closest word I can get to his idea of a daemon, but it’s not quite right. ↑
1
The problem is likely to be a result of the well known truism about making films - Its easier to make a film of a bad book than a good one. A film script has a limit of 120 pages or thereabouts, so long, densely populated & characterised books tend to suffer inordinately during the simplification process. An oversimplification I know, but your average film goer looks for stereotypes, for all heroes to be played by the two Toms, Cruise and Hanks, all baddies by Alan Rickman or Gary Oldham (Or any other British actor who happens to be passing), for lots of crash, bang bloody wallop; it takes some producer to gamble on a new Lord of the Rings style success.
by Jonathan Briggs @ 01/12/2007 9:26 pm • Permalink •
2
I am also a huge HDM fan, and am also concerned about what I am reading in the reviews. There was an interview with Pullman today in the Telegraph where he basically says that he isn't going to say what he thinks about the film because he doesn't want to reduce the chances of the other two books being made into films (the article doesn't seem to be available online, although the Telegraph did a profile yesterday which is. I will go and the see the film, but I am not expecting great things...
On a more positive note, I did manage to see the theatre adaptation at the National which was amazing. If they ever reprise that I would definitely recommend it.
by Steven @ 01/12/2007 9:30 pm • Permalink •
3
Two more reviews here and here that give weight to Briggsy's argument that these books may be unfilmable. I will nonetheless probably be drawn by mysterious interior masochistic forces to see this in the cinema. I'll just have to try to not to sigh too heavily while watching it.
by ThoughtBadger @ 01/12/2007 11:25 pm • Permalink •
4
The mainstream cinemas aren't all that bad
- but much, much better is The Electric (http://www.theelectric.co.uk/), which is showing The Golden Compass.
Great cinema, the UKs oldest working cinema. A bit rough around the edges, but full of character and always a good crowd.
You can even book a leather sofa and text the staff to have snacks and drinks brought to you during the film if you want. Genius - though at a price!
by Soapbox @ 03/12/2007 9:45 am • Permalink •
5
I saw the trailer for it yesterday, and it looked pretty good -- but then, that's trailers. I share your fears. In particular, I read somewhere that they've left out the business of the church trying to separate children from their daemons, which sounds crazy, as that's a major driver of the plot, IIRC.
Pantalaimon looked and sounded great, as did Mrs Coulter's monkey My son says that the daemons don't change form in the film. I don't know how he knows this, and he may only be guessing. I don't suppose that would be a major change, although it does signify something about childhood and becoming an adult.
I'm sure we'll go as a family, and should have an interesting mixture of perspectives, as my partner and our six-year old daughter haven't read it. while I and our ten-year old son are huge fans.
by Martin McCallion @ 03/12/2007 2:35 pm • Permalink •
6
Jonathan Briggs: Sadly, I think you're probably right.
Steven: I was sorry I missed the play, because it sounded wonderful. I think that the restrictions of theatre (in terms of visual effects) probably work in the favour of books like this, because you have to use your imagination more.
Soapbox: I've given up going to the Odeon chain because of the hours of adverts, terrible sound, and constant chatting and texting by other film-goers. I do know about the Electric, but for some reason, I'd assumed that they wouldn't be showing such a mainstream film. Still, I'm wary of this film now in case it pollutes my feeling for the books, so I'm going to wait and see
Martin McCallion: They said similar things about the religious aspects on Front Row this evening on Radio 4. I've seen a few trailers of various lengths, and the children's daemons definitely did change. For example, Pan changed from a mouse to a wild cat to scare a real cat who got a bit to curious about him. So unless they changed their minds after putting the trailer together, the daemon changing is in. If they are using CGI, it would be a bit barmy not to depict the changing daemons, I would have thought.
Again, I'd be interested in potted reviews here from any brave souls who decide to give it a watch.
by bsag @ 03/12/2007 7:49 pm • Permalink •
7
Sunday Times liked it.
All immaterial to me as I've never been one for fantasy stories, much more mundane me. I can't even recall reading Winnie the Wotsit, my Father, an RAF flying instructor sent us to sleep with tales of "Percy the Proctor" and "Maggie", a Miles Magister, which I assume were his own creations. After that it was Arthur Ransome and "Swallows and Amazons" and "We Didn't Mean to go to Sea", an accidental voyage which started off at Pin Mill on the River Orwell, where I was at school and where I now sail and sailed in the 50s and 60s. Sherlock Holmes, "Biggles" of course, and many others; but I never had the slightest desire to read "The Hobbit" or the Tales of Narnia. I like some science fiction, hate Dickens in the written form, love Jane Austen, C.P.Snow, Robert B Parker, Peter O'Donnell and many others.
I've noticed in my life, that if I stop moving I pick up something to read.
by Jonathan Briggs @ 03/12/2007 8:53 pm • Permalink •
8
I'm a big Golden Compass fan and am somewhat nervous about the movie. But it's been a while since I've reread the novels; I think I'll hold off another read-through until AFTER I see the movie.
by Debbie Ohi @ 04/12/2007 9:43 pm • Permalink •
9
You know what? I saw a preview screening in New York this weekend, and I liked it. I actually liked it a lot.
It has been a while since I read HDM, and they're presently in a box in a storage unit, but my companion (who just finished a re-read a couple of weeks ago) expressed surprise and pleasure at how well they kept to the text. The theme of the importance of thinking for oneself, despite pressure from those in authority, is still very much in the mix; and Lyra, as much as she may look like a delicate porcelain junior-Kate-Hudson, is as fiery as she should be. As to the question of Asriel, the gallant hero, well... in the context of this film, he is, and it's okay. I'd explain further but am leery of slipping spoilers into the mix for those here who haven't read the books.
With that in mind, though, on my own blog there are some other random notes on the Golden Compass, and if you've read the books then there's certainly nothing spoilery in them. Even if you haven't they won't really spoil anything beyond some general structural ideas.
by Andrew Willett @ 06/12/2007 11:16 pm • Permalink •
10
Well, we went to see it on Saturday. It's lots of fun, but when I read somewhere that it adapted "80% of the book", I thought they meant that detail had to be left out, as it always does when books are converted into films.
But no, I think they meant that it stops about three chapters before the end. I understand why: the book's ending would be much too sad to leave a mainstream audience with, especially when there is no guarantee that the second film will ever be made. But the omission upset my ten-year-old son terribly.
He liked it otherwise, though, and my partner and six-year-old daughter, who haven't read the books, also enjoyed it. My daughter has decided that her cuddly polar bear is her daemon, which is a good choice, as you get a suggestion of Iorek Byrnison as well.
And me? I enjoyed it, but am very strongly of the opinion that a two-hour film is completely the wrong visual medium into which to convert such a dense book. Instead, they should have made a 22-episode TV series, like Heroes. That way you could allow the characters to develop, let the events unfold, let the whole thing breathe. In short, it was overcompressed.
I'd obviously been misled in my comments above, as the Gobblers stealing the children and the whole daemon-separation thing was, of course, a major driver of the plot. And the daemons do, of course, change shape.
I only noticed one scene where the CGI looked anything less than perfect. Truly, we live in an age of wonders.
The cast were great, and if the amusingly named Dakota Blue Richards isn't a megastar within a decade (her stated desire to be a supply teacher notwithstanding), I'll eat my hat.
by Martin McCallion @ 10/12/2007 1:59 pm • Permalink •
11
Thanks for all the info, everyone! Seems to be a mixture of opinions, but it's not as bad as I'd feared. Perhaps I'll pluck up the courage to see it...
by bsag @ 11/12/2007 8:03 pm • Permalink •
12
I saw it on Monday, with my 10 year old son, to whom I am reading the trilogy as his bedtime story, and because we both went with fairly low expectations, we both enjoyed it. They have filleted a fairly simple adventure story out of the first 2/3rds of the first book, that conforms to the rules of mainstream Hollywood hero's journey films, so nearly all the moral ambiguities are removed. The good are unreservedly good, the bad are irremediably evil, and the anti clerical, anti Catholic themes are bleached out so nobody can be offended, but it is still a good entertainment for all that, and we also enjoyed simply being reminded of the many pleasures that the book affords.
Among the good things the film offers are Miss Richards, and the child actors generally. UK children usually seem stiff and over stagy on film (e.g. the early Harry Potter films), especially when compared to US child actors, but that is not the case here, and Lyra carries the whole film brilliantly, in a performance that appears effortless. Nicole Kidman gives as you would expect a very intelligent and competent reading of Mrs Coulter, though I personally don't admire her acting. The Gyptians are excellent, and Lee Scorseby is spot on.
Unlike Martin McCallion I was not impressed by the CGI, though admittedly from the extremely high standards that we expect these days. I also thought that it was a mistake having Iorek Byrnison voiced by Ian McKellan, who was apparently a last minute replacement. His voice is just too cultured, and elegantly modulated to convey Iorek's primal power.
All in all, it is a good film worth seeing, though it is not really a film of the book. If they do, filming the rest of the trilogy will be much more problematic, as it lends itself much less than the first to simplifying and filleting, as it is a mass of intertwining plot lines without many of the obvious dramatic high points that the first book has. They will also have to confront the moral ambiguities that they have avoided in the first film.
by ThoughtBadger @ 12/12/2007 11:55 pm • Permalink •
13
I went to see it with Jeff and my sister on the weekend. I have to admit I was pretty disappointed...it seemed to me to be more like one long trailer. However, I know some people liked it, so perhaps I went in with my expectations too high.
by Debbie Ohi @ 17/12/2007 1:45 am • Permalink •
14
Based on what I have read about the film, I am determined to avoid seeing it. The books are too good to risk being sullied by a watered down Hollywood version of the story.
by Milan @ 17/12/2007 4:40 pm • Permalink •
15
Great article..Really worth rading
by Poster Lover @ 19/12/2007 1:02 pm • Permalink •
16
Well I am coming from the other angle and have to say that having thoroughly enjoyed the film, I decided to go out and buy the books. I have now read the first two books and love them. I believe the film was a good adaptation of the book and whilst I admit that by watching the film first it becomes more difficult to use your imagination, I thought that the characters were brilliantly portrayed. I heard a lot about the books being a little controversial religious wise and was interested to see that this was not apparent in the film. However, since reading the first two books, this religious controversy becomes more apparent in the second book and so maybe if they do make a second film this will be interesting to how they handle it. I agree with previous reviews about young UK children seem a little "stiff" on screen, this was not the case with Lyra at all - I was very impressed with the way she acted her role and was supported by a great cast. The Gyptians and Lee Scorseby in particular were magnificent.
by Karen @ 06/01/2008 10:20 pm • Permalink •
17
I have never heard of the books before, but seeing the movie I could tell there was something missing. I was clueless most of the time and the character development was weak...Ill still watch the second one when it comes out.
by James Micargi @ 19/06/2008 11:49 pm • Permalink •
Page 1 of 1 pages