Why I Walked Out Of The Golden Compass
Because my boyfriend was asleep on my shoulder, and I have plans to see it a second time anyhow.
But more to the point, why was I fine with leaving the movie 3/4 of the way through? All I really wanted was to see the revelation of the "Gobblers" and the horrific truth of their work that I remember so vividly from the novels.
But that was just it - Phillip Pullman's book, The Golden Compass, was the anti-Potter: written with all the intelligence of an agnostic academic and rife with philosophy, theology, and conflicted characters who were never entirely good or entirely wicked. The novel had depth, difficult truths, and a complicated emotional life - although its protagonists were young adults, it was specifically not young adult fiction. There's a dull-minded perception in publishing and film-making today, probably a post-Potter buzz, that assumes that all works of fantastic fiction with young protagonists are children's books.
That's bunk. Just ask Romeo, Juliet, Lolita, or Ofelia from Pan's Labyrinth.
In fact, the long tradition of the Bildungsroman works in precisely the opposite way: stories for adults about children who grow and change as they mature. David Copperfield, Great Expectations, To Kill A Mockingbrid, Empire of the Sun, to name a few.
Make the jump for more, watch out for minor spoilers.
Certainly, The Golden Compass - as a book - is accessible to bright children, but it would be unfortunate to leave it in the children's library when it's such a remarkable work of actual adult fiction.
For good or ill, the film version came across as a plasticky pantomime of the book. So when I saw Sam Elliott's Lee Scoresby drop out of nowhere with a cowboy twang and an armful of exposition, it felt cheesy rather than surreal. And when Iorek Byrnison raged about his impotence and roared "I am an armored bear!" I giggled - when I should have felt pity. Iorek was a favorite character from the book, but seeing the bear whose story made me cry when I read it... again, it came off as... almost lame.
Which was odd, because the artistic direction of the film was absolutely as mature and intricate as the books let on - making me think that the only reason the story seemed so goofy was the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of The Golden Compass as a work of children's fiction rather than the work of steampunk fantasy that it is. Children are incidental.
Thank the goddess for Nicole Kidman, who I felt really did capture the conflict and cruelty of Mrs. Coulter in a way that was more than two-dimensional. It was for her that I looked back half-reluctantly as we left the theater, and it will be Mrs. Coulter's final revelations that bring me back to see the film again.
I know I'm being harsh here - but as a reader and writer of fantastic fiction I feel a certain responsibility to say thank you to Mr. Potter for popularizing the genre again, but no, all books involving both children and the supernatural are not necessarily Young Adult Fiction.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find Daniel Craig and ask him to sign my wand.
tiny dancer
Posted to Hot Stuff, Movies on 17 December 2007
· Comments (7)
Other stuff like this: phillip pullman, the golden compass
my biggest problem was with the whole "let's spoil the central metaphor of the book in the first twelve seconds with a voiceover" thing. and a weird shelob-moment, but i won't spoil that for those who haven't seen it.
but about the daemon metaphor - it's elegant; sublime, even, and part of the glory of the novel is the process of discovering just what those daemons are. it's not terribly difficult to figure out, but the discovery process is much better than the beating over the head.
Ah Arkadin! Thank you for pointing out an equally frustrating blunder...maybe having the ephemera of the book spelled out as hard, expository fact in the opening sequence went a long way to cheapening the experience... right you are.
I thought this essay in the Onion AV Club was really insightful and worthwhile. And buried in the comments section, someone claims that the scenes corresponding to the final chapters of the book were actually filmed, before being tossed aside in favor of the intelligence-insulting conclusion the movie ended up with.
As much as I enjoyed discovering what was up with the daemons as I read, I don't really think that would have translated as well on film. I think the voiceover was meant to let you focus on the plot more than "WTF TALKING ANIMALS?!"
Also, I think the ending scenes were left out so that the movie would wrap up nicely without needing a sequel. Most first movies in a franchise do that so that the movie stands on its own even if nothing comes after it.
And Nicole Kidman was perfect. Just...perfect.
i thought that this was supposed to be the anti-narnia cause narnia is horrendously religious. Praise be to Aslan.
It's not fair to adolescents to say that this is mostly for adults. These kinds of books are really important to bridge the gap from children's literature to "adult / canonical" literature. But it seems I'm missing the point of your review, hahah.
Actually, the books are considered and sold as children's book, especially the third, which is constantly bragged about as being the first "children's book" to win the Whitbread Award for best book in all genres.
I sort of agree with your movie review, but then why do people ALWAYS expect the same level of detail as a novel can afford? Movies (especially American ones) are loud and obnoxious and the appeal is visual splendor. Frankly I was surprised at how much exposition they left in, especially Mrs. Coulter's thinly veiled Adam and Eve speach.
I really liked the movie, but from what I keep reading other people were hard on it because of their expectations going in.