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

[fla-sunshine.livejournal.com]

Aha! I had speculated that the movie must not be comprehensable to those who have not read the book based on the reactions of the people I knew who had already seen it. jcbemis and I haven't seen it yet, but based on your review, she should enjoy it and I won't get it (unless I get motivated to read the book first).

[pmat.livejournal.com]

I'm in the "haven't read it" group. I wouldn't say I found it confusing or cryptic, just kind of formulaic and boring. Now that I think about it some more, rather like the difference between a story and a history. I understand WHAT happened, just not why I should care.

[fadethecat.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.