Praise For the Golden Compass
Dec. 10th, 2007 12:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
le_bebna_kamniThis review doesn't post actual spoilers, but does briefly mention meta-themes and questions raised by the film without giving details.
Tonight I went with friends to see The Golden Compass. I was thrilled, I was awed, and I left with so many questions and a strong desire to have long philosophical conversations. The visual effects are of course marvelous. The acting was brilliant -- Nicole Kidman makes a stunning and alluring villain, and Dakota Blue Richards is an amazing young actress. I enjoyed Sam Elliot's part as the customary sharp-shooter, and I look forward to seeing more of Daniel Craig and the scrumptious Eva Green in the next film.
After a stop by the nearest bookstore to pick up a copy of the trilogy, I rushed home to get more information about the film. And I was shocked to find just how poorly the movie is doing. While it's still the weekend's top grossing movie, it's only pulling in slightly over half of what was predicted. At the theater I went to, only five other people (not including the friends I was with) were there, and this was on opening weekend.
So what happened to this fantastic film, and why are so many people not going to see it?
The most obvious explanation is that the books themselves have atheist underpinnings, and there are some active boycotts going on in the U.S. While the filmmakers have toned it down considerably, I've heard allegations that this will be impossible for the sequels. Certain other films (like the Da Vinci Code) have received similar boycotts, but unlike Golden Compass still remained within the Christian mythos. Saying there is a God, but the truth about him is misunderstood, is a lot different than possibly implying there is none at all and pisses off far fewer people.
That being said, The Golden Compass is a fantasy novel, and it's [theoretically] possible to read it without realizing it could be an allegory for the Church. The first movie has yet to reveal its atheist roots explicitly, which is probably why most reviews have complained about it only in passing.
Another explanation posed by USA Today is that it has a female lead character (who isn't a sex object), which does tend to cut viewership in half for a fantasy movie. While this is an interesting point that has some validity (but that's another conversation for another time), that wasn't what I was seeing in the reviews.
No, the reason why most people didn't like it: they just didn't get it.
The Golden Compass is the staging ground for a rich and complex plot that is going to come in movies two and three. The viewer is plunged headlong into the fantasy culture with only a couple of lines of explanation at the beginning, and then the movie barrages the viewer with multiple questions: what is Dust? What exactly is the role of the Magesterium, and why do they want to keep certain things secret? And what exactly is the connection of humans and daemons (other than the obvious explanation at the beginning)?
The biggest complaint I'm seeing is that the movie leaves you with too many questions that aren't conveniently answered, and because of this people can't follow the plot. They haven't read the books, so they're lost, and therefore they're giving it a bad review. As one astute reviewer put it, "Perhaps a new mandatory film criticism law should be in immediate affect: Each critic must acknowledge prior to his review the depth of his familiarity with any supporting materials in question."
Because it seems that this one criteria -- whether or not someone has read the book -- is the dividing line between whether most people liked the movie or they thought it was a bomb. Now, I put this up as a warning to people who want to go see it, but who haven't read the books. Apparently the books are very complex and don't translate as well to film without all the background knowledge.
Now to be fair to the critics of the movie, I agree that it's important that a movie be a separate package from the book -- or the comic, or the video game, or whatever. I don't like getting shafted because I'm not a fan who's been following the series since it was first released.
That being said, I haven't read the books. Well, okay, maybe the first chapter-and-a-half 10 years ago, but I don't even remember what I read. So I can honestly say that just because you haven't read the books doesn't mean you can't enjoy the movie. But you have to be willing to accept two things:
In honesty, I think it saddens me a bit that the movie was poorly received. My biggest fear is that they may choose not to finish the trilogy, but it also saddens me because I suspect that it reflects poorly on American choices for entertainment. Sometimes I think we like our stories handed to us, without much thought or digestion needed, with everything explained away and happy at the end. I know that The Golden Compass did much better in Europe at the box offices, and I think European audiences are more tolerant of unusual premises, incomplete or unhappy endings, and unanswered questions.
Still, I'm crossing my fingers that the next movie will be made on schedule, and I'd love for people to prove me wrong by making the first one a hit.
Tonight I went with friends to see The Golden Compass. I was thrilled, I was awed, and I left with so many questions and a strong desire to have long philosophical conversations. The visual effects are of course marvelous. The acting was brilliant -- Nicole Kidman makes a stunning and alluring villain, and Dakota Blue Richards is an amazing young actress. I enjoyed Sam Elliot's part as the customary sharp-shooter, and I look forward to seeing more of Daniel Craig and the scrumptious Eva Green in the next film.
After a stop by the nearest bookstore to pick up a copy of the trilogy, I rushed home to get more information about the film. And I was shocked to find just how poorly the movie is doing. While it's still the weekend's top grossing movie, it's only pulling in slightly over half of what was predicted. At the theater I went to, only five other people (not including the friends I was with) were there, and this was on opening weekend.
So what happened to this fantastic film, and why are so many people not going to see it?
The most obvious explanation is that the books themselves have atheist underpinnings, and there are some active boycotts going on in the U.S. While the filmmakers have toned it down considerably, I've heard allegations that this will be impossible for the sequels. Certain other films (like the Da Vinci Code) have received similar boycotts, but unlike Golden Compass still remained within the Christian mythos. Saying there is a God, but the truth about him is misunderstood, is a lot different than possibly implying there is none at all and pisses off far fewer people.
That being said, The Golden Compass is a fantasy novel, and it's [theoretically] possible to read it without realizing it could be an allegory for the Church. The first movie has yet to reveal its atheist roots explicitly, which is probably why most reviews have complained about it only in passing.
Another explanation posed by USA Today is that it has a female lead character (who isn't a sex object), which does tend to cut viewership in half for a fantasy movie. While this is an interesting point that has some validity (but that's another conversation for another time), that wasn't what I was seeing in the reviews.
No, the reason why most people didn't like it: they just didn't get it.
The Golden Compass is the staging ground for a rich and complex plot that is going to come in movies two and three. The viewer is plunged headlong into the fantasy culture with only a couple of lines of explanation at the beginning, and then the movie barrages the viewer with multiple questions: what is Dust? What exactly is the role of the Magesterium, and why do they want to keep certain things secret? And what exactly is the connection of humans and daemons (other than the obvious explanation at the beginning)?
The biggest complaint I'm seeing is that the movie leaves you with too many questions that aren't conveniently answered, and because of this people can't follow the plot. They haven't read the books, so they're lost, and therefore they're giving it a bad review. As one astute reviewer put it, "Perhaps a new mandatory film criticism law should be in immediate affect: Each critic must acknowledge prior to his review the depth of his familiarity with any supporting materials in question."
Because it seems that this one criteria -- whether or not someone has read the book -- is the dividing line between whether most people liked the movie or they thought it was a bomb. Now, I put this up as a warning to people who want to go see it, but who haven't read the books. Apparently the books are very complex and don't translate as well to film without all the background knowledge.
Now to be fair to the critics of the movie, I agree that it's important that a movie be a separate package from the book -- or the comic, or the video game, or whatever. I don't like getting shafted because I'm not a fan who's been following the series since it was first released.
That being said, I haven't read the books. Well, okay, maybe the first chapter-and-a-half 10 years ago, but I don't even remember what I read. So I can honestly say that just because you haven't read the books doesn't mean you can't enjoy the movie. But you have to be willing to accept two things:
1) The culture isn't handed to you like it is in Harry Potter, with explanations given to outsiders. You have to be able to pick it up as you go and accept the culture as it is, much like when reading Dune or maybe Stranger in a Strange Land.And, given that many of my friends have read (and enjoyed) sci-fi novels that do just this, I feel confident in recommending it to others who haven't read the books.
2) You're going to be left with a lot of questions at the end. Nothing is tied up in a neat little package (although I heard they cut the movie short from the book to provide a more cut-and-dried happy ending than the book provides, if that says anything. The last half of the first book will be tacked onto the next movie). I personally don't have a problem with this because I expect my questions will be answered in the sequels.
In honesty, I think it saddens me a bit that the movie was poorly received. My biggest fear is that they may choose not to finish the trilogy, but it also saddens me because I suspect that it reflects poorly on American choices for entertainment. Sometimes I think we like our stories handed to us, without much thought or digestion needed, with everything explained away and happy at the end. I know that The Golden Compass did much better in Europe at the box offices, and I think European audiences are more tolerant of unusual premises, incomplete or unhappy endings, and unanswered questions.
Still, I'm crossing my fingers that the next movie will be made on schedule, and I'd love for people to prove me wrong by making the first one a hit.
