Movie review: The Golden Compass
I’ve already gotten a number of questions about “The Golden Compass”, a new film that opened today in Montreal. A certain amount of controversy surrounds the film, primarily because of the background story from which it was developed, which is known to have an anti-religious slant. I figured that if I was going to be asked about this movie I’d better see it first — so I did, this very evening.
First, my artistic critique. As a piece of storytelling I give it a 5/10. While the story does include interesting scenes and fantastic characters (hey, everybody loves a talking polar bear), there is just way too much Deux ex machina going on to give this story much depth. The main character Lyra has a lot of guts, I’ll give her that, but she regularly finds herself in situations where all hope is lost…until somebody suddenly shows up to rescue her. Caught in a net? Oh goody, here come some gypsy-characters to save her. Land in a port city? Why here’s a cowboy (literally) who suddenly shows her the next step to take. About to be struck down by a guy with a sword? Nice to have a warrior polar bear suddenly come out of nowhere (literally) and strike him down instead. Not sure what to do next? Good thing the master of the school gave you a “golden compass” that can give you the answer to any question you can think of. Don’t know how to use it, despite you being the only person who actually can? Easy, there just happens some mangy character on the same ship who can instruct you. And don’t even get me started on the flying witches, who just seem to show up because… well… errr… we need something to keep the story moving.
Now, on to the more controversial topics. While I refuse to get myself worked up into a frenzy about a film that includes talking animals, I did find a few things objectionable:
- Everybody in this fantasy world has their soul manifest outside of themselves as an animal spirit called a demon. Yes, yes, I know in the book it is called a “daemon”, but in the film it is pronounced DEMON. So loads of kids will see this movie and hear the word “demon” for the first time and associate it with a cute, fuzzy animal friend that talks. The problem here is obvious: as I happen to believe demons actually do exist, but in fact are evil, I personally don’t want kids getting excited about the notion of fraternizing with demons! Only bad things can come from that.
- The villains in this film belong to an organization called “the Magisterium”. This is, quite simply, a slap in the face to the Catholic Church, which uses the word “magisterium” to refer to its own collective teaching function. No other major group in the world uses this word on any sort of regular basis, so at the very least it was lifted from a Catholic context. The films taints the word with a negative connotation, in a way I consider underhanded and sly. I couldn’t help but think to myself, suppose the villainous organization was called “the Synagoge” instead of “the Magisterium” — would that not have been rightly seen as a crass form of anti-semitism?
- And speaking of the Jewish people, there is one aspect of the film that also made me cringe almost on their behalf. The key reason the villains are kidnapping children is to subject them to a process called “intercision”, by which they are separated from their demon and become dazed and compliant. I hadn’t clued into the use of the term until one of the characters tried to rationalize this barbarous process as “just a little cut” — and I saw that it was actually a reference to circumcision. Now I’m not Jewish, but if I were I think I’d be pretty uncomfortable about a film that portrays the sign of my covenant with God as a barbaric procedure that separates me from my humanity and condemns me to become a compliant, frightened person. Yep, I think I might even be a little upset.
Fellow blogger Father Benoit Morrier asked me if I thought this film was going to trick people into abandoning God and/or hating the Catholic Church. Well, I suppose it might, but on the other hand this film has talking bears in it. I mean, freakin’ talking bears! So what can I say? If anybody out there actually does have their religious views radically changed by a film that includes talking bears, well I suspect that says more about that person than about the religious views. So I’m not too worried about the adults…but what, then, of the children? Kids don’t always distinguish reality from fantasy, so they just might have some of their views shaped by this film, coming away thinking that demons are good and the magisterium is bad — perhaps even in the real world. For them, the film could threaten to poison the well of imagination.
In the end, this will be an entirely forgettable film. It will never be a classic like Lord of the Rings or even The Princess Bride. If it has any enduring effect, it will be in the positive drawing together of Catholic and Evangelical Christians. How is this? Well, your average believing Evangelical is going to see a film that promotes “demonology for kids”, and will likely be quite displeased. He will then learn that this film, which approves of demons, also disapproves of this “magisterium”. Learning that this is a direct reference to the Catholic Church, he will then have to ask himself, “can the enemy of my enemy be my friend?” Indeed, I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals can be excellent friends. A film rises up, but a wall of division between believing Christians starts to fall. In the original story, the “Magisterium” is a kind of church that combines elements of both Catholicism and Calvinist Protestantism. Perhaps there is something of a prophecy there after all.
Thanks for the great review Fr. Tom! But I do want to specify that I had been somewhat facetious when I asked you that question. I don’t think people can be *tricked* by the film in hating the Church (or the “Magisterium”), but reading forums of discussion on various film sites, I certainly see that people who already *hate* the Church or the Christian faith are annoyed by the controversy and can be seriously riled with Christians who seek to defend their faith. It’s like the “Da Vinci Code” all over again : a lot of angry hullabaloo.
i think you need to look at the movie as a bait and switch for the THREE books.. and the books are much worse.. as well, the director has said IF they make enough money on TGC they will make the next 2 movies and they will be much closer to the books (and Books 2 and 3 are very nasty).. I think Ignatius Insight has it right..
and re the talking bears.. Pullman says:
“All stories teach, whether the storyteller intends them to or not. They teach the world we create. They teach the morality we live by. They teach it much more effectively than moral precepts and instructions … We don’t need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do’s and don’ts: we need books, time, and silence. ‘Thou shalt not’ is soon forgotten, but ‘Once upon a time’ lasts forever.”
… so I think even books with talking bears can cause kids harm..
let’s look at the bigger context…
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6483849809
For another, and much more nuanced, view:
Sister Rose,director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies in Culver City, California, writes:
“That’s his [Pullman's] image of religion that he’s doing away with and frankly, we can all do away with that image of church and religion because that’s not the church in Christianity that we believe in today. That God that he kills off, he’s doing us a favour.”
To that I say “Amen”.
Er…ah…where to start…?
“Deus ex machina”: The movie is necessarily condensed from the book, which gives much more detailed backgrounds to all the objections you have. If you’ve not read the book, you’re naturally going to miss a great deal. It would have been great if all that could have been included in the movie, but we would have had to sit through two intermissions in order to see it all. I don’t know many people whose attention span is that voluminous.
Daemon” is pronounced “demon.” There’s no other way to pronounce it. But the word has multiple meanings. At the very least, it should encourage the exploration and study of the English language. Settling for one definition only is lazy and (to use a current expression) dangerous.
“Magisterium” is another word with multiple applications. It may be used by the Catholic church, but the church doesn’t own it. The root, “magister,” means “teacher.” Now, if Pullman has used the expression, “Vatican” instead, I might understand your objections.
“Intercision” equals circumcision? Where did you get that? Totally different roots, those two words! Intercision means an interruption — a cessation of continuity. Its use in the books is mean to signify a separation from one’s soul! Circumcision, to a Jew, brings him closer to God, according to the Covenant.
I recommend OneLook as one of the most useful tools a communicator can have.
And as for the overall effect the movie will have, I worry much more about the adults than I do about the children. The kids know it’s a fantasy rather than reality. It’s the adults who are having trouble separating the two.
“Magisterium” is another word with multiple applications. It may be used by the Catholic church, but the church doesn’t own it. The root, “magister,” means “teacher.” Now, if Pullman has used the expression, “Vatican” instead, I might understand your objections.
——–
you are pulling at straws there!!.. combine the use of Magisterium with the icons in the HQ in the film etc etc and you pretty much have the Catholic Church!
———–
As for Sr Rose.. she is not “nuanced”. she is plain wrong!
here is a response to her:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/12/philip-pullmans.html
So I used the wonderful Onelook for Magisterium.. VERy useful!
mag·is·te·ri·um
noun
Definition:
teaching authority of Roman Catholic Church: in the Roman Catholic tradition, the authority of the church to teach religious doctrine
[Late 16th century.
“Magisterium” is another word with multiple applications. It may be used by the Catholic church, but the church doesn’t own it. The root, “magister,” means “teacher.” Now, if Pullman has used the expression, “Vatican” instead, I might understand your objections.
Come on, Chimera. If you could find an instance of Magisterium being used [i]without[/i] a Catholic context…besides, combine the use of the word with Pullman’s own answers in interviews and it seems crystal clear.
Well,congratulations, James, you found one of the definitions for “magisterium! I found the same one, of course. I also found others:
“Latin, the office of a teacher or other person in authority, from magister, master.”
“The authority to teach religious doctrine.”
“The authority and power of the church to teach religious truth.”
“The authority and power of the church to teach religious truth.”
“The authority to teach religious doctrine.”
“The office of a teacher or other person in authority.”
“Magisterium is a school of fencing, founded in 1992 in Czechoslovakia by Peter Koza, with chapters in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and since 2002 also in Germany.”
So. None of these definitions specify “Catholic” (although some of them are taken from Catholic self-definition), and the last one doesn’t link to a religion at all (unless one wants to assume that anyone with a long, pointy object in his hand is able to command a religious obedience from his audience), although it is a teaching authority.
And another source that you won’t yet find in any dictionary (but only because compilers of dictionaries are notoriously slow to notice new meanings until long after public acceptance) is from the Church of Satan, who also uses it to describe its teaching authority.
As I said, the Catholic church doesn’t own it.
Eric: Pullman also uses words like “anbaric” and “gyropter.” They are words used to desribe something, nothing more. Context can mean something, but you’re cherry-picking if you’re seriously trying to suggest that he’s slapping only the Catholic church. If that were the case, then why didn’t he use more words with a Catholic flavor, like “pope” and “sacrament” and “Jesus” and “transubstantiation” and “crucifix” and…well, I think you probably get my drift.
Oh, and Sister Rose is as accurate as the subtle knife! If the “Authority” in Pullman’s books were real, and acted in any way like it does in the books, it would be branded a terrorist organization so fast, not even a memory would be left unburnt!
And Pullman says he’s an atheist. Big deal. Lots of people are atheists. Some of them even write books. Some of your children read some of those books. Can you not separate the person from the FICTION he writes? And can you not separate FICTION from fact?
Pullman: “All stories teach, whether the storyteller intends them to or not. They teach the world we create. They teach the morality we live by. They teach it much more effectively than moral precepts and instructions … We don’t need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do’s and don’ts: we need books, time, and silence. ‘Thou shalt not’ is soon forgotten, but ‘Once upon a time’ lasts forever.”
Can Pullman separate fact from fiction??
=====
re: Magisterium.. I guess this columnist forgot about the Czech fencing school!!
“Lou Lumenick in the New York Post was totally honest when he wrote that ‘Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has been publicizing the movie by claiming it’s an anti-religious tract, as much as it pains me to say so…[he] may actually have something of a point. You don’t need to be a Jesuit scholar to figure out that the film’s bad guys who keep complaining about heretics…are clearly meant to be reps of the Catholic Church.’
CLEARLY meant!!!
Ok, let’s look at this another way:
Chimera, do you feel Pullman is NOT taking shots at the Roman Catholic Church? Do you feel response would be the same or different if, instead of some terms most commonly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, the terms were most commonly associated with Judaism or Islam?
Pullman, in a Washington Post interview : “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”. And in the Sydney Morning Herald : “My books are about killing God”. Also, all secular newspaper reviews that I’ve read has identified Pullman’s Magisterium with the Catholic Church. And in the novels, he does use the word “Church” as well. I don’t know why you go out of your way to excuse this author, Chimera, but he’s clearly taking shots at the Christian faith and he said so himself in interviews. If you can’t acknowledge the author’s anti-christian bias, you’re living in your own dream and fantasy (i.e., chimera).
It’s interesting to listen to what church leaders are saying about The Golden Compass. In its review of the Golden Compass, the USCCB said, “…Despite the professed atheism of its author, and the more overt church connotation of this (sic) Magisterium in the novels, director Chris Weitz’s film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism…”
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary recently said that Calgary’s Catholic School Board shouldn’t be pulling the novel, (which has been available at the school library since 1995) “with Catholics facing more pressing issues than a children’s book”.
I think religion and family life consultant Jonathan Wright has the right idea: “The reality is we can’t ban this book – nobody can, no school board can. The books are widely available; the film is going to go into wide release, so we’re more concerned with giving our students the tools to discern what’s right and what’s wrong, to interpret these books, to use the Catholic faith as a means then to interpret the world around them.”
In a December 2 Writers and Company interview with the CBC’s Eleanor Wachtel, Philip Pullman said, “If you really don’t want people to read this book, say nothing about it.”
Indeed.
Heidi,
you are out of date.. the USCCB has withdrawn its review..
————————
and the info about Bishop Henry seems contradictory to the National Post story:
The district consulted other Catholic school boards across the province and Bishop Henry before making the decision to take a second look at the novel, she said.
“It is certainly very clear from Bishop Henry that this would be a matter of faith. We are very strongly guided by the Bishop when it comes to matters of faith,” said Ms. MacKay.
—
I suggest you read the reviews by Bishops Chaput, Listecki, and Aymond. Every bishop who has made a formal review of the books/movie has come out negative!!!!!!!!!!
“Chimera, do you feel Pullman is NOT taking shots at the Roman Catholic Church? Do you feel response would be the same or different if, instead of some terms most commonly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, the terms were most commonly associated with Judaism or Islam?”
I don’t think Pullman is taking pot shots at any specific branch of the Christian cult, no. I agree with Rowan Williams, when he says that Pullman’s target is the abuse of power by some “religious” personages who claim to have the right to victimize their followers because (they also claim) God gave them the “authority” to do so.
And yes, I would (and do) feel the same if the language seemed to implicate Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Witches, Zoroastrians, Jains, Vodun, Santeria, or any of the other major religions in the world.
It’s not about religion. It’s about the abuse of power and the subjugation of people in the name of religion.
Andrew: Whether or not Pullman has a personal anti-Christian bias is not the issue. I personally don’t care if he does or not. I do not base my enjoyment of a product on the religiosity of its creator. I am also a fan of William Keinzle’s books and Andrew Greeley’s writings (both fiction and non-fiction), who both “take shots” at the abusers of authority, as well. And you can’t exactly accuse them of being anti-Catholic, can you?
And as for Pullman’s saying that his books are about “killing god,” well, stop and think for a minute. He’s an atheist. He does not believe in god any more than he believes in unicorns. Would you give equal credibility to him if he said he was out to kill unicorns?
He’s yankin’ you chain. And you’re letting him.
James,
Interesting the at the USCCB has removed its review…I wonder why.
The comment by Bishop Fred Henry can be found in the Globe and Mail, Dec. 5 report on Calgary Catholic Board Dumping the Golden Compass. He really did say there are more pressing issues facing the Catholic Church than a children’s fantasy novel. I agree.
Why do you have to be so uncharitable towards people of other denominations and faiths?
Sorry, Chimera. I guess I meant the more general “you” as in “Joe Public.” IOW, do you think the public would be as relatively quiet if, as Father Tom put forth, the term synagogue were used instead of magesterium (which, even though it has an existence outside of the RCC, is still undeniably identified with the RCC).
I can see what you mean about backbone, but if Bishops of the RCC won’t warn about possible unintended consequences (what amounts, essentially, to a slanderous portrayal of God) of what is seen as a harmless piece of fantasy, then what should their comments be?
People will make up their own minds anyway, but guidance is not evil; after all, I’d guide someone not to absorb too much from porn or heavily racist material either.
Erik, let me put it this way: The Golden Compass was first published in 1995. For the past twelve years, the term “magisterium” has been in that book, freely available to the public (and apparently enjoying some quiet time on the shelves of libraries in Catholic schools, to boot). In all that time, nobody made a peep about its being anti-anything!
Now, suddenly in the past month or so (or is it longer?…or does it just seem that long?), out of the murk rises a pipsqueak of an alarmist who finds in that book a couple of words that are in common use in the Catholic church. Now he’s making headlines about boycotting a piece of fantasy because he says he’s afraid that children will not only somehow absorb evil through their skin by mere association, but that it will somehow make them turn against their religion because the author is an atheist!
Not incidentally, a bi-product of all this harum-scarum is that the name of the alarmist has itself become a headline. He is now a front-page news item! He’s a leader! He has followers! He’s important! He’s…
…a pain in the tuchus, is what he is. And he has the dubious distinction of fomenting a fear-of-terrorists-under-the-bed-type reaction among ordinary folk, and he’s done it all by himself.
Joseph McCarthy would have given his left *ahem* for this kind of reaction against the dreaded communists, back when they were the ideological enemy!
Guidance is one thing. I’d much prefer if leaders bothered to encourage people to learn and think for themselves, and simply offer to be there if they needed someone with whom to discuss things. But this issue is becoming a full-fledged frenzy of religious suppression masquerading as freedom of religion. Not too far away from the Muslim cartoon thingie which saw blood being spilled all over the world in a glut of religious fervor.
I don’t think it’s possible to slander any diety. I could be wrong, of course. But if I am, I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, not from some self-appointed spokesman like this current twerp with the money-generating headlines in his cv. I’m a grown-up. If god wants to talk to me, he knows where to find me.
“Erik, let me put it this way: The Golden Compass was first published in 1995. For the past twelve years, the term “magisterium” has been in that book, freely available to the public (and apparently enjoying some quiet time on the shelves of libraries in Catholic schools, to boot). In all that time, nobody made a peep about its being anti-anything!”
You know…that’s a pretty good point. I mean, it becomes a little different when there’s all sorts of new publicity because it is now being made into a movie (more people watch more movies than read books), but I still have to concede the point. I hadn’t heard any furor prior to recently.
I do think it’s possible to both slander the deity and certainly possible to slander those who believe in the greater power, though.
Slander is a legal term. It’s also an actionable term in civil court. In order to prove an accusation of slander, the injured party must appear as a witness for himself, the plaintiff.
Can you picture God taking the stand and taking the oath? On what, exactly, would he swear?
I would purely love to be in the courtroom that day!
I guess he’d put his hand over his own heart? Assuming a human form, of course…
I suppose “denigrate” would have been the term to use.
wrong again!! Touchstone magazine wrote a negative review in 2003.. and First Things in 2001… I can find others in the less than 90 seconds this took!
wrong again re only recent criticism!! Touchstone magazine wrote a negative review in 2003.. and First Things in 2001…and Peter Hitchens wrote a scathing review in 2003.. I can find others in the less than 90 seconds that this took!
OK, folks, 20+ comments later this is descending into a flame war.
James, we’ve met in person and I feel we have a connection, so I’m going to ask you nicely to channel your enthusiasm so that you never lose sight of charity. This isn’t a game of gotcha.
Chimera, I have to stand by my review of the film. Remember, it was a review of the film, not the book, so the Deux ex machina comment is still valid.
I think the other commentators have sufficiently demonstrated that the term “magisterium” is a direct allusion to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, so I won’t repeat that.
Regarding the pronunciation of “daemon”, you state that the only way to pronounce it is “DEE-mon”, but in fact it could also be pronounced (properly) “DIE-mon”. In fact, according to the Greek and Old Latin origins of the word, this is the way it would have been pronounced (the “ae” ligature taking the place of the “ai” combination in Greek). Regardless, however, my point was the association kids would make between “demons” and “furry animal friends”, which I think is still valid.
As for intercision, I admit that this allusion is the least obvious, but it did leap out at me spontaneously while watching the film.
I’m going to close comments on this thread as well as edit/delete a couple of comments (again, due to the flame war issue). Chimera, if you’d like to keep the conversation going, may I suggest posting something on your own blog? I’m sure people would be happy to wander over.
Now if only we could get this kind of enthusiasm going about the International Eucharistic Congress…!