Letters to the Editor
-
All Hail Pete
This movie illustrates yet again what a towering accomplishment was Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Films like "Compass" and "Lion/Witch/Wardrobe" are testament to the fact that throwing the GDP of a small nation into CGI effects does zero to engage an audience. The genius of Jackson's films was not just that he instructed every person working on them to treat them as long-ago history rather than fantasy. It was that his first priority was to create living, breathing, flawed, fearful, brave, confused, hating, loving beings who cared about each other, lost things, lost their way and dared to hope. To paraphrase the Salon review of "Fellowship," that's the greatest special effect of all. It's a shame that so few filmmakers remember that.
-
Where's Thadeus Crumb's apology?
End of message.
-
Cheers to that Pacificwhim
My friend and I went to see a sneak preview last week. We're fans of the book and were very excited. The movie was a blur. Couldn't get attached to the characters - it seemed almost as if it had been badly edited and all the character development, nuance, and quirks had been lost in the mix.
Later, when we were discussing it, we both agreed that it gave us a newfound appreciation for Peter Jackson's accomplishment with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He managed to capture the feel of Tolkein's world. He got at the raucous, good-hearted humour of the comfort-loving hobbits, the tranquility and simplicity of the Shire, but he also captured the epic scope of the battle between humans and their allies and the evil of Sauron, and the melancholic beauty of the elves, whose departure seems bound to usher in a new era of less magic, more industry. I had a few complaints about The Rings, but seeing this travesty put them into perspective.
-
Maybe I'll just read the book..
We went to see "into the wild". I'm still haunted by it. No cgi though.
-
Please Remember
Pacificwhim that Mr. Jackson had better stuff to work with. Mr. Pullman is a great writer, but he's no J.R.R. Tolkien.
-
The soul of a book
Well said Pacificwhim. And Kamiya's article about Beowulf echoes this sentiment. I enjoyed Pullman's books but I also thought they were a bit crowded. I loved his basic premise but at times it seems he confused complexity and depth with throwing everything into the pot. Many really loved the books, but my own opinion was that this flaw in the material would invite the very thing this reviewer pointed out: a focus on the look of the movie because the underlying philosophy was jumbled.
-
Agreed
I haven't read any of the Golden Compass books, but I went to see the movie anyway. Big mistake. The movie, while beautiful, hardly made sense.
[[SPOILERS!!]] Just one of several questions: Why would Nicole Kidman's character really give a hoot about whether or not the little girl is separated from her companion animal when her own animal is some sort of mentally challenged monkey (and why isn't her monket sentient?)? Is the character good or bad or both.. does she really care, is she really her mother? Why? I also find the idea of a truth compass pretty lame.. truth is murky, at best. Maybe the idea is done better in the books. [[END SPOILERS]]
As my partner said as we exited the movie, GC is all build up and no plot.. she felt like she was being set up for another $10 movie ticket. Yeck.
-
Salon now has two topics to write about
Religion (or anti religion more properly) and George Bush. I can pick out tomorrow's topics today.
-
About the Monkey
Haven't seen the movie yet (plan to this weekend). Have read all 3 of the books & in them the monkey avatar is definitely sentinent.
-
Somewhat Hypocritical
It's somewhat funny how so many reviews from the left are somehwat hypocritical about "Golden Compass" criticism. I don't know if Zacharek wrote a review when "Narnia" came out or not, but I distinctly recall many left-leaning and/or secularist types decrying the "blatant Christian symbolism" in the film, even though it was significantly toned down from the books. Now that many Christians are doing the same with the adaptation of Pullman's book, they're "shocked; shocked!"
Give me a break.
I presume the film is harmless, although it sounds rather sterile from this review. However, Zacharek and others just can't seem to resist getting in potshots at those hated religious bigots that want to keep kids from reading, stunt their intellectual growth, and defeat heresy.
If I'm not mistaken, Pullman has explicitly stated that "destroying Christianity," or something to that effect, is his fondest desire. Is it any surprise that religious parents might be a tad uneasy with a film based on his books? Does that make them the equivelant of Nazis burning books at a bonfire?
If Zacharek has kids, I doubt she'd be standing in line with them for tickets to the latest "Left Behind" film; not quite in line with your values, right?
Are you depriving your kids of a chance at growth? Stunting their intellect? Come on. You're simply teaching them what you believe to be right and wrong, and you don't want to confuse them by seeming to approve of (or be neutral about) something that conflicts with your most deeply held beliefs. When they're adults, they will make up their own minds, and maybe keep or maybe reject your views.
People that are leery about Pullman are just doing the same thing. It's not such a big deal and it shouldn't be so shocking. Reviews that excitedly bash the narrow-minded breeders in fear for their kids' souls are just railing at a strawman.
-
Pot. Kettle (SPOILERS)
I loved Pullman's trilogy, but have low expectations for the movie. At the moment I'm more interested in this supposed religious controversy. What's amusing is here we have a children's story in which the parents are malignant narcissists, god is on his last legs and there's a gay angel. Turn this into a "childrens movie," release at Christmas (notice the makers chose not to release it around, say, ramadan) and then whine about how intolerant christians are. Idiots.
-
A mediocre adaptation of mediocre source material?
The criticisms of the movie in this review remind me of my criticisms of the book:
The whole thing (the book) is an episodic chase that never gives any single locale enough sense of place. The most interesting characters don't get enough screentime. Lyra is largely a bratty, Mary Sue-ish construction of the other characters' regard for her virtues, while rarely exhibiting said virtues in a convincing way. The villains are heavy handed and cartoonish (literal child snatching boogeymen).
As far as the controversy over the anti-religious content...enh. Let's say I'd rather see a movie version of Only Begotten Daughter or Towing Jehovah.
I'm planning to see the movie this weekend, because friends want to see it and I hope to get some flashes of pleasure from the visuals and a few of the supporting characters. But having read the book, I was never expecting much more.