New Golden Compass film- Nobody is happy

Beruthiel

Long may the complaints about this film continue.
The more publicity the more chance of it doing well in the box office, hopefully resulting in number two and three being made.
I loved those books and read each one in a couple of days.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Sounds like it's amazingly lousy atheist propaganda then

Thanks Robin.

My son wants to go see it. I watched the trailer, didn't appeal to me at all. I might go with the boy when it hits the cheap theatre.

(Cheap theatre - $5 admission, appears at this theatre after it leaves the main theatre, which costs $12)

Dades

I'd say, Brian, the movie will be fairly harmless now that Hollywood has processed it.
Not that the books aren't, or course. Just two different mediums. One fodder for the eyes, the other for the mind.

Orion

Wicknight wrote: »

The books, and to a less extend the film, aren't atheist, they are anti-religion

I prefer to call them anti-theistic. He doesn't criticise religion per se just the beliefs behind them. It's an excellent series of books - read them in a couple of weeks a couple of years ago. Looking forward to the movies and the arguments with some religious friends

PDN

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has praised the books. He reckons they should be included in Religious Education classes in schools.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Doesn't that mean you can't honestly defend them from a zealous Christian who has read them?!

robincdh wrote:

I don't think there is such a person!

Here's a zealous Christian blogger who has read them (several times) and thinks they're great: http://gotthammer.blogspot.com/2007/11/golden-compass-reflections-on-danger-of.html

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Here's a zealous Christian blogger who has read them (several times) and thinks they're great: http://gotthammer.blogspot.com/2007/11/golden-compass-reflections-on-danger-of.html

Yeah but he thinks Lyra is supposed to be Jesus, which is kinda missing the point.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but he thinks Lyra is supposed to be Jesus, which is kinda missing the point.

No, he says that Lyra ends up being portrayed as a Christ-like figure - not that he is supposed to be Jesus.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, he says that Lyra ends up being portrayed as a Christ-like figure - not that he is supposed to be Jesus.

Which, as I said, misses the point.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Which, as I said, misses the point.

Or sees what the point was supposed to be but judges that it has not been made very well.

Think about it. If you want to produce an allegory against the Christian Church then the allegory needs to be recognisable as the Christian Church. If your view of the Christian Church is distorted, then your allegory will be overblown, thus rendering your point ineffective.

Both the blogger in question, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, see the books as railing against a version of religion which they themselves find objectionable, but which in no way resembles their experience of the Church. Therefore they like the books and see them as a helpful tool to combat repressive forms of religion.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

No, he says that Lyra ends up being portrayed as a Christ-like figure - not that he is supposed to be Jesus.

Lyra is a he?? .....dear oh dear this is worse than the whole Dumbledore is gay thing...

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Lyra is a he?? .....dear oh dear this is worse than the whole Dumbledore is gay thing...

Ah, my mistake. Proof that this theist has not read the books in question.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Or sees what the point was supposed to be but judges that it has not been made very well.

Now that reminds me of the whole Dumbledore thing where it was suggested Rowling was wrong about a character she invented!

To be fair Lyra (a young girl) could certainly be seen as a messiah-like figure. But that's the only thing in common with Jesus. Lyra existed to deliver people from the clutches of dogma and the church, not to them.

The ultimate aim was

a world free from religious authority where people would realise there was one life only, and that the only 'heaven' would be the life humanity could make for themselves on earth.

Hardly an allegory for Christ I would have thought.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Now that reminds me of the whole Dumbledore thing where it was suggested Rowling was wrong about a character she invented!

I don't think it was a case of Rowling being wrong so much as the whole sexuality thing being in Rowling's head rather than in the book.

It's a bit like posting here on boards.ie. You may think something when you are tapping on your keyboard, but the message others receive when they read your post may not be what you were thinking of.

For example, during a sermon I recently used clips from the film The Truman Show to illustrate how embracing Christianity can mean leaving the safe world you've known behind and embarking on a more adventurous life. Afterwards a lot of people told me they had seen the same message in the movie when they first watched it. Now, it matters not a jot whether the scriptwriter or the director actually intended to convey that message or not. The director may have thought the movie was making a statement about the mating habits of jellyfish for all I care. What mattered was what the viewers themselves took from the movie.

So, if the readers of Rowling's novels saw no reference to sexuality in a character one way or another, then it matters not whether the author secretly decided he was gay, straight, or a necrophiliac. Similarly, if the Golden Compass portrays a battle against an evil, repressive institution then those whose experience of church is liberating and positive are unlikely to 'get the point'. As Augustine said, "Let the reader decide". That is the beauty of literature and art.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Both the blogger in question, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, see the books as railing against a version of religion which they themselves find objectionable, but which in no way resembles their experience of the Church.

Agreed, but that in itself is missing the point. The books do rally against the version of religion that the blogger and the AoC experience, but I would imagine they don't realize this because it is hard to criticize ones own beliefs.

Its easy to see when problems with external versions of religion are pointed out. It is harder to turn the spot light eternally to ones own religion.

As Dades points out the ultimate point of the books is a rejection of the religious idea of wicked sin and the need for a person to redeem themselves to a god like authority to gain access to the promised afterlife. This is a way (the main way) that religions control and manipulate people. That includes God (the real world God, not the God in the books) assuming he exists.

Many theists will understand that human organizations of religion are bad when used to manipulate people (eg the RCC), but fail to realize that the underlying concept itself, the idea of you need salvation because you are wicked is itself the biggest problem/issue.

Of course people who believe in this concept have trouble with criticism of it because they are already in the mind set that they are wicked and do need to be saved. They don't see it as manipulation, they see it as simply a fact of life.

Zombrex

Philip Pullman wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1
Well, this, this brings up the Fall of course, or the notions of sin that are bound up with our physicality supposedly, which is one thing I was trying to get away from in my story. I try to present the idea that the Fall, like any myth, is not something that has happened once in a historical sense but happens again and again in all our lives. The Fall is something that happens to all of us when we move from childhood through adolescence to adulthood and I wanted to find a way of presenting it as something natural and good, and to be welcomed, and, you know - celebrated, rather than deplored.
...
One of the most interesting things for me about this notion of the Fall, is that the first thing that happened to Adam and Eve is that they were embarrassed, with consciousness. For me it's all bound up with consciousness, and the coming of understanding of things - and making the beginning of intellectual inquiry. Which happens typically in one's adolescence, when one begins to be interested in poetry and art and science and all these other things. With consciousness comes self-consciousness, comes shame, comes embarrassment, comes all these things, which are very difficult to deal with.

One of the things that Pullman explores is the idea that the things the Judeo/Christian church re-enforce as wicked through concepts like the Fall, aren't actually wicked, while they may be difficult.

Back in the real world, it is this difficultly that leads religions to classify them as "sin", but that does a disservice to the actual issue.

Its like being embarrassed about something like getting an erection while young and then saying to yourself that because you were embarrassed that what happened was some how "wrong". Its saying to yourself that you were right to be embarrassed because what happened was "evil". It is a very good point by Pullman about the first thing that happened to Adam and Eve as that they felt shame. Shame is a strong underlying concept in Judeo-Christianity.

Its not hard to see how Judeo/Christian concepts around issues like say sexuality could have evolved like this, an attempt simply not deal with the difficulties of simply grow as humans.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed, but that in itself is missing the point. The books do rally against the version of religion that the blogger and the AoC experience, but I would imagine they don't realize this because it is hard to criticize ones own beliefs.

Its easy to see when problems with external versions of religion are pointed out. It is harder to turn the spot light eternally to ones own religion.

So, if you really want to make that point, then wouldn't it make sense to portray the evil institution as one that is run by bumbling well-meaning old men who need to wake up and smell the coffee? By portraying the institution as repressive and malevolent then the author pretty well ensures that they won't get the point.

Let's face it, the Narnia film hardly produced a rush of converts through the doors of churches, and the Golden Compass is hardly going to send a flood in the opposite direction.

robindch

PDN wrote:

By portraying the institution as repressive and malevolent then the author pretty well ensures that they won't get the point.

From which it looks like you think the message is aimed at those within the church. Perhaps Pullman might be preaching to everybody else?

Converting the few with most to lose is certainly going to be much more difficult than converting the far greater number with little or nothing to lose, and a lot to gain.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, if you really want to make that point, then wouldn't it make sense to portray the evil institution as one that is run by bumbling well-meaning old men who need to wake up and smell the coffee? By portraying the institution as repressive and malevolent then the author pretty well ensures that they won't get the point.

Well a lot of people did get the point.

The fact that these people didn't get the point shows more about how institutionalized they are into their own religious beliefs, than a failing on Pullman's part to explain the point properly.

People believe what they want to believe and people will interpret things differently if the central message conflicts with some belief they hold dear.

For example I knew Communists in college who would seriously argue that Animal Farm wasn't actually about Communism because Orwell was a socialist and therefore it is really about Fascism, or some such nonsense.

PDN wrote: »

Let's face it, the Narnia film hardly produced a rush of converts through the doors of churches, and the Golden Compass is hardly going to send a flood in the opposite direction.

I don't think that was the point of either books.

Mur-cadh

I'm just after seeing the Golden compass film , having not read the books I was curious as to what all the fuss in the media was about and my suspicions were confirmed. The reason certain factions of the Church are attacking this film is because it has managed to reveal their inner workings and true nature in a concise , clear fashion. This film has struck a nerve , they feel intimidated by it and they're squirming. While it doesn't directly reference the Catholic church they've obviously had a mirror put up to their collective face and they don't like what they're seeing. I agree with the original gnostic Christian teachings it's the church I have a problem with , they are TERRIFIED of losing control that's why they're on the offensive. The film draws on elements of shamanism , the western magick tradition and the spiritualism. The church exists as an authority , it is the suggestion that we do not need a middle man to commune with god that pisses the establishment off. If this film plants a seed of questioning and dissent in children then that can only be a good thing , there are powerful tensions and changes in the world at the moment and in a way the Golden compass mirrors this.

Zombrex

Mur-cadh wrote: »

it is the suggestion that we do not need a middle man to commune with god that pisses the establishment off.

That isn't the message (at least its not supposed to be, I have not seen the movie)

The message is that you don't need a god, as Christians understand him, full stop

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the message (at least its not supposed to be, I have not seen the movie)

The message is that you don't need a god, as Christians understand him, full stop

Maybe Lyra is fighting for the freedom to go to a movie and draw your own conclusions, while the Magisterium represents the thought police who want to tell you how you must interpret it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Maybe Lyra is fighting for the freedom to go to a movie and draw your own conclusions, while the Magisterium represents the thought police who want to tell you how you must interpret it?

I think Lyra is fighting for people who are so institutionalized by a belief system that even when they see something good and clever that is criticizing said beliefs system they still have to find some way of mis-interpreting this criticism so they can desperately hang on to the idea that their belief system is in fact still all puppy dogs and fairy cakes (obviously not fairy cakes in active sexual relationships with other fairy cakes, because that makes baby Jesus cry. Hate the sin not the fairy cake after all)

But who knows, maybe "Animal Farm" was actually about fascists rather than communists. Or talking animals. Maybe it was just about a bunch of talking animals.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

But who knows, maybe "Animal Farm" was actually about fascists rather than communists.

Jeez and I thought it was about a bunch of guys getting drunk at toga parties!

Ciaran500

And i thought it was about a woman who thought it would be a good idea to suck off horses...

Zombrex

Ciaran500 wrote: »

And i thought it was about a woman who thought it would be a good idea to suck off horses...

I think you are thinking of the import only "film version" ...

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Jeez and I thought it was about a bunch of guys getting drunk at toga parties!

TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i saw the golden compass.. I was pretty happy