The Golden Compass

[cathyr19355]

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."]

Comments

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

The inset story about the girl who uses her truth-seeing to save the rightful king of the armored bears is a good one. It tells well, is very exciting, and is gorgeous to watch.

The rest of the movie feels (to me, and I have not read the books) unmotivated, stale, and boring. It's not quite incomprehensible, but it's certainly a long walk from being satisfying. The ending was so terribly unfinished that I came out of the theater feeling like I'd been ripped off.

I don't really care what the books say or do -- this is a movie that could have stood on its own had the filmmakers bothered to make it do that. Sure, it would have upset fans of the book (I remember being miffed when Jackson left out Tom Bombadil) but it's entirely possible to tell a damn good epic fantasy in 110 minutes without leaving off an actual ending.

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

Case in point -- Stardust. Very different from the book, and yet very satisfying. Thrilling, even.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

Oh, is Stardust very different from the book? Now I'm waffling. I read the book after I heard about the movie, and found it very satisfying. I also thought it told a very filmable story. No harm in renting it anyway, I guess.

[fadethecat.livejournal.com]

It is very different in places, especially the ending, but it's still quite good. It's just a different sort of good; a slightly happier ending, some simplification in exchange for a bit more comedy and action, and so forth. I'd still recommend it, though if you're getting it on DVD anyway, you might wait a little longer so that your memory of the book isn't going to be so fresh as to constantly make you compare the two. (I saw the movie four or five years after reading the book, so I had conveniently forgotten many details and thus got to be surprised all over again by even some of the parts that are identical between the two. And certainly by the changed parts.)

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

Then I may wait to rent it, since I certainly *would* be comparing it to the book, now. Thanks.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is one instance where sticking too closely to the book was, perhaps, Not A Good Thing. Because the book does end in pretty much the same inconclusive way. (Of course, one could say the same about Fellowship of the Ring, but in both the movie and the book there was more buildup that interested us in the characters, by then.)