cathyr19355 | The Golden Compass

esrblog and I just got back from a trip with

pmat and

shakati to see "The Golden Compass," the movie version of the first volume of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. There's no need for a cut here, since it's possible to name what's right and wrong with the movie without referring to any plot points at all.

I enjoyed the movie. Visually, the movie was a powerful and surprisingly accurate rendition of the world Pullman describes in the book. The casting was excellent (Nicole Kidman was particularly good in the role of Mrs. Coulter), and the scriptwriters did a wonderful job of compressing the action into movie-length without compromising its flavor.

There's only one problem with Compass. Most of what makes Pullman's novel compelling, or at least interesting, are the motivations of the characters and why they are fighting on the side on which they're fighting. Those motivations are sufficiently complex that they can't be described very well in a movie, and the movie accordingly abbreviates and glosses over a lot of them. The result is a movie that will be powerfully evocative for anyone who's read and enjoyed the book--and cryptic and frustrating for everybody else.

Well, that explains why it's doing so poorly at the box office, at least in the U.S. Sorry, New Line; not all fantasy trilogies are created equal.

[EDIT: In light of

pmat's comment I should probably amend "cryptic and frustrating" to "cryptic, boring, and/or frustrating."]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hmm. Now I'm waffling. I was planning on going to see it mostly for the pretty visuals, and not carrying too much that the plot might be cryptic; but "boring" is not a good sign, and while I read the book, I didn't like the book, and recall being repeatedly vaguely confused as to why people were doing anything. So. Hrm. Must ponder this.

I amended my post to say "boring," because I felt (and

pmat apparently agrees) that if a reader didn't know what had gone on in the book or why it had happened, the reader would wonder why a lot of the action went on or why he/she should care about any of it. However, if you actually *read* the book and didn't like it, you probably won't like the movie much either, because it's fairly true to the book, but with even fewer explanations. The pretty visuals are worth seeing, but you can do that by just waiting for the DVD instead of paying movie prices.

As a side note, I was of two minds about both the book and the movie. On the one hand, I didn't really care much for any of the characters at all. On the other hand, Pullman's fantasy is not, to my mind (though I know

pmat disagrees) quite like any other fantasy I've ever read, and I'm inclined to give it a bit of slack for that reason alone. As

esrblog would say, I admired the world-building behind the story. But then, I read the books as an adult (last year, to be precise). I can't imagine most children finding much to appeal to them, in the movie or the original books, despite the fact that my 10-year-old nephew wants the trilogy for Christmas.

I quite like the worldbuilding, but I had the same problem of not liking the characters. Enough so that I didn't bother reading the third book. Part of the problem, I think, is that what I was willing to give Lyra a pass on during the first book as childish bad habits she'd outgrow in the course of the story, by the second book were being shown as her most useful and stalwart qualities that she should be proud of. Which may be me reading too much into the author's intent, but it did come across that way.

I think part of what's going on in Pullman's trilogy is that he's more interested in making certain philosophical points about independence of mind and standing up to authority, and less interested in making the characters into people you'd want to actually know in real life. Also, notwithstanding the fact that Pullman has claimed, in at least one interview that I read, to be interested in telling good stories above all else, I don't see the storyline as being the element upon which he concentrates the most in the "Dark Materials" trilogy.

esrblog wanted me to tell you that he had a hard time trying to follow why people were doing things in the books, too.

I'm sort of relieved it's not just me.

Generally I try to stay out of discussions about the books, because nine times out of ten it seems to turn into people who liked the trilogy going on at length about how much more awesome in every possible way they were than (insert any of several different children's fantasy series or books that I deeply love here). So...it's sort of nice to occasionally see that other people read it and did not promptly decide it was the Best Series of All Time. Because when everyone I know disagrees with my assessment of some artwork, I begin to doubt my own opinion.

I understand what you mean. I usually don't have that problem with books, but I sometimes do with movies. Sometimes, I think I'm the only person in my generation with an IQ above 100 who liked the first Porky's movie, or the only person other than myself and

esrblog who enjoyed Howard the Duck.

Never seen either! From what I recall of what each is about, I wouldn't like Porky's anyway, but I oughta give Howard the Duck a try. I very dimly recall watching a few minutes of it when I was a child, but nothing beyond "Huh, there's a giant duck walking around and talking in a live-action movie instead of a cartoon. Weird."

Don't bother with Porky's. Since you didn't go to a US high school, you probably wouldn't find it particularly funny anyway. But do look up Howard the Duck--it's snarky, and funny, and has a wonderful scene that's a lot like the grocery store shoot-em-up in Grosse Pointe Blank.

The Golden Compass

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject