Theatrical Review of The Golden Compass

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

Note: In the following joint theatrical review, both John and Jason provide their reactions to the movie.

The Movie According to John:
New Line Cinema based their 2007 release "The Golden Compass" on the initial book in Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy "His Dark Materials," first published in 1995. From the outset, Pullman's books met with immense popularity and just as huge controversy. As the first movie version seems headed in the same direction, I thought I would start with a couple of prefatory observations.

To begin with, critics of the books accused Pullman of promoting atheism, and many church groups, including the Catholic League, condemned the books and the first movie for a supposed antireligious bent. Having read the books some years ago and enjoyed them and now having seen the first of the movies and enjoyed it, I think it's clear that Pullman does, indeed, call into question the role of organized religion in the world. However, his stories of multiple dimensions, angels, wars among other dimensional beings, and even the presence of God would appear to belie the fact that it is promoting atheism. It seems to me that any criticism on Pullman's part he directs not at the existence or nonexistence of God but, as I say, at formal religion, which he sees as having become too powerful and too worldly since the beginnings of civilization. Yes, the Magisterium in his stories may be a thinly disguised symbol for the Catholic Church, but he uses the organization as a symbol for the power and authority that many religions have exercised over the centuries to bind people to their own will rather to God's.

As I see it, Pullman is promoting peace and love and brotherhood in his stories rather than what he views as some of the world's religions promoting bigotry, hatred, and corruption. In this regard, he is taking a tack similar to that of C.S. Lewis years before. As a Christian, I loved C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books, with their pro-Christian stance, and I love equally Pullman's "His Dark Materials," with their pro-Christian morals. But if parents are worried about what Pullman's books will do to children's minds by the books' arguing against some systematized faiths, I would hope these parents look foremost to their own kids and let other parents take care of themselves. The last thing we need in America is literary censorship.

Besides, "The Golden Compass" is a work of fantasy, and as such it should not be taken entirely literally. For example, the phrase "God is dead" is one that has been around for decades, and we don't take it at its word. We take it symbolically to mean that people are forgetting about everything that God stands for, like compassion and charity for all. To me, Pullman's books reinforce the notion that too often organized religions have tried to kill God and God's Word by being intolerant and hate-filled. And by organized religion, Pullman himself says he is not just talking about the evils perpetrated by the Catholic Church in things like the Crusades and the Inquisition; he's talking about the radical elements in any creed--the ultraconservative far-right, the violent Muslim factions, the Taliban, even the blood rituals of the ancient Incas and Aztecs. As I see it, if God ever does die in our society, it will be because Man and a few small-minded religions kill Him, not Pullman.

I recognize that books and movies can be powerful forces for good or evil in the world, but I also recognize that people have to be able to discern for themselves the differences between good and evil and that universal censorship is not an option for open-minded adults. Neither the book nor the movie version of "The Golden Compass" contains anything that should shake the foundations of one's faith. If it does, I would question the solidity of that faith to begin with. In any event, the point would seem to be moot in the first movie installment, since director Chris Weitz ("American Pie," "About a Boy") says that the screenplay he adapted from the book removes any mention of God or religion, replacing them only with vague inferences.

Now, to a second point: I mentioned that Pullman wrote "His Dark Materials" as fantasy. Correct. It is fantasy in the best traditions of "The Lord of the Rings" or the aforementioned "Chronicles of Narnia." Yet, it is possible that present-day science may be stranger than any fiction ever written. Pullman's book posits the notion that multiple dimensions exist within the same time and space and that under the right conditions it might be possible to move among them. Fantasy? Well, hang on. In the past thirty years or so, a majority of scientists have come to accept string theory as a so-called "Theory of Everything," one that helps to explain how everything in the universe works. The idea of string theory is that all matter from atoms to galaxies is made up of infinitesimally small loops or tubes of vibrating energy, and that the frequency with which these "strings" vibrate determines their physical properties. The thing is, and I don't even pretend to understand it, scientists also believe that in order for string theory to work, it must contain more than the four dimensions of space and time we now understand. In fact, string theory suggests there may be as many as eleven or more separate dimensions curled up within these strings. What those dimensions might contain is open to speculation. Moreover, I would also remind the reader that a majority of scientists in the last thirty years or so have also come to accept the idea that they can only measure about ten or fifteen percent of the universe, that there is over eighty-five percent that they cannot see or touch but know exists. They have come to call this unknown part of the cosmos "dark matter" and "dark energy."

If you don't believe me, Google "string theory," "dark matter," or "dark energy," or read any of a number of popular science books on the subject like Timothy Ferris's "The Whole Shebang" or Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos." Science in the latter part of the twentieth century and the early part of the twenty-first has made yesterday's science fiction and fantasy into something closer resembling intimations of truth.

Anyway, after that long-winded intro, let me comment briefly on the film version of "The Golden Compass" and then turn you over to Jason. Frankly, I was a little underwhelmed by it all. Given that I liked the books so much and that New Line Cinema had lavished a ton of money on the movie gave me every reason to hope for the best. I dunno. Maybe it was director Chris Weitz who wasn't up to the job. The first book in the "Dark Materials" series is a lengthy affair, and Weitz's cutting it down to a mere 113 minutes seems to have sucked some of the life out of it. Usually, I'm against unnecessarily long movies, but when necessity dictates it, length can be a filmmaker's ally. Here, it's more like the enemy. Extreme length in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" worked for him; extreme length in the same director's "King Kong" worked against him. Now, in Weitz's "Compass," it's extreme brevity that works against him. There simply isn't enough room for the script to open up the characters or their actions to any significant degree. Instead, it's all about getting from one place to another, with minimal attention to characterizations and interpersonal relationships. For this reason alone, the movie diminishes some of the story's warmth.

Fans of the novels will also probably object to the liberties the screenplay takes, leaving out details, rearranging major sequences, and ending the movie at a different point than the first book did. However, my major objections are, as I said, the condensing of so much material into so little space. Weitz retains the story's substance, true, but he decreases its spirit; and his rather pedestrian direction doesn't help, either. (The pacing just doesn't feel smooth or comfortable.) What's more, I missed this epic movie having epic music. Composer Alexandre Desplat has given us some fine film scores recently--"Girl With a Pearl Earring," "Casanova," "Syriana," "The Queen," "The Painted Veil"--but this is not one of them. I expected thrilling, inspirational music swelling up in the background of some scenes and lightly tinting the drama of others. Instead, I don't think I was even aware of the music until the very end of the movie when the lyrics of some insipid song floated over the closing credits. A more elevated musical score would have lifted my film rating a full notch.

All that said, "The Golden Compass" is not a bad movie, just a slightly disappointing one, and I still enjoyed much of it. This was despite the Wife-O-Meter's disdain for the many changes she saw. "Why couldn't they have just followed the book!" she exclaimed when it was over. Perhaps I sympathize more than she does with the problems inherent in adapting a popular book for the screen, so I didn't mind the alterations she saw. I was more caught up in the vision, the acting, the scenery, and the general magic of the production, which surely save it from mediocrity.

Thank Philip Pullman for creating such fanciful worlds. His setting for this first installment is another dimension from our own, a dimension in which humans have souls outside their bodies, souls that take the shape of various animal daemons, and it's these daemons that the Magisterium, the all-mighty power and authority in this world, wants to control. As Pullman's books go on, they deal more and more with the subject of the Magisterium's attempts to govern free will, although here in the first episode it's only touched upon. Then, there are the Gobblers, who are kidnapping children, and the armored bears and the Gyptians and the witches and the mysterious substance called "Dust" and the Alethiometer, the Golden Compass itself, which reveals the truth about anything to the person who can read it.

This movie lives or dies on the strength of its main character, and fortunately young Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra Belacqua is outstanding. She projects spunk, courage, affection, and resourcefulness in equal measure, and one comes away believing in her. Likewise effective is Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter, the cold, calculating woman who befriends Lyra early on; Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel, the bold adventurer and explorer of other worlds; Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison, the great bear king, whose appearance puts new life into the whole movie; and Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby, the folksy American aerialist. Also of interest are Ben Walker as Roger, Lyra's young friend; Eva Green as Serafina Pekkala, a beautiful and beneficent witch; and Freddie Highmore as the voice of Lyra's daemon, Pan. And the movie gets further help from Kathy Bates, Ian McShane, Derek Jacobi, Tom Courtenay, Kristin Scott Thomas, and the merest glimpse of the master, Christopher Lee.

The film's set design and CGI special effects are eye-catching, yet they never overpower the senses as they did in George Lucas's most-recent "Star Wars" flicks. Lyra's world has the simultaneous appearance of nineteenth-century England and some future-century England at the same time, a nifty trick. The computer-generated daemons and bears look convincingly real; and the integration of blue-screen material, location shooting, and live action seems fairly seamless.

Note, though, that "The Golden Compass" will leave you hanging. It is only the first of three parts. I mention this because at the showing I attended, I heard several people in the audience mutter their discontent that it concluded so abruptly, without any formal resolution. Then I heard another fellow behind me yell down, "It's a trilogy, lady!"

Let me close with a final observance. The first book of "His Dark Materials" is more or less a prologue to the phantasmagorical worlds Pullman imagines, so maybe it's appropriate, after all, that it be compressed into a relatively brief and traditional fantasy adventure. It may even be appropriate that the movie only hints at the power of the Magisterium and the influence the Magisterium seeks to obtain over all the many dimensions in the universe. The next two episodes, "The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass," open up the story to far broader, more mystical, more spiritual, more metaphysical implications. We'll have to wait and see what Weitz (or whomever adapts and directs the next parts) does with that.

John's film rating: 6/10.

The Movie According to Jason:
"The Golden Compass" is New Line Cinema's bid to create a new fantasy trilogy based on a series of books, a la "The Lord of the Rings" or corporate sibling Warner Brothers' "Harry Potter" franchise. While technically brilliant and a wonder to behold, the film version of the Philip Pullman novel is as cold emotionally as its snow-covered locations are environmentally.

A particle--known simply as dust--has the power to unite entire worlds and, indeed, the universe. When a young girl, Lyra Belacqua (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards), overhears talks about dust from inside a closet, her inquisitiveness is piqued. Lucky for her, an apparent benefactor in the form of Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) wants Lyra to accompany her to the great North, the only known source of dust. But before they leave, she finds other children are turning up missing. In a bid to find out where they are, Lyra enlists a cadre of allies--Gyptians, an ice bear and other rogues--to free her friends.

The titular "The Golden Compass" is a MacGuffin in this story, an object which has real no purpose other than to propel the events on screen. It doesn't matter--in this film, anyway--that the compass can answer any question posed to it by turning a set of hands. Nor does it matter that the symbols on the compass could refer to any number of questions, let alone the specific one being asked of it. And never mind that the ending of the story never comes. The film, quite simply, stops.

In essence, what has been committed to film at an estimated cost of $180 million is the setup for further adventures. Much like "The Fellowship of the Ring," "The Golden Compass" assembles the pieces, gives the audience a few action set pieces, but never commits to any emotional arc. The characters have their own introduction scene, there are giant armies and computer-generated battles, ominous foreshadowing for the follow-up films, but nothing that brings the story to a close. I was half expecting to see "To Be Continued" pop on the screen as a flying vehicle fades into the distance.

And that's the greatest curse of the film: It doesn't amount to anything on its own. There is no sense of loss, no emotion similar to other successful fantasy epics. "Star Wars" kept Darth Vader alive to menace Luke Skywalker in potential sequels, yet the self-contained story was resolved. The main story about rescuing Princess Leia and destroying the Death Star was complete. Here, the main villain (Coulter) is simply whisked away offscreen while another (Lord Asriel, portrayed by Daniel Craig) is left dangling in supposed danger.

All of which takes the proverbial air out of the finale. There has to be closure for the audience on both an emotional and storytelling level. It not only garners goodwill toward the film as a whole, it also allows us to feel as though the last two hours were not wasted. What is the payoff? Why did we just watch seemingly pointless diversions to the ice-bear kingdom and a scuffle between the animals? I understand this is an epic and the entire narrative couldn't be told in one film; without that ending to rope the audience into the next chapter, the adventure feels all for naught. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book that is missing the final page. Give us a good reason to want to see more of this universe.

There's a moment of supposed revelation at the end of the film, one that tries to rope in our emotions and create a bigger conflict than there already is. It's a hopelessly manipulative ploy, one that doesn't deserve to be there. A cynic would think there was an ulterior motive; but since the film is based on a novel, the script has to be cut some slack in this regard.

The rest of the film? Decent enough escapist fare, which doesn't justify the bile lobbed at it by certain religious groups. The complaint, as I understand it, is the story teaches children to rebel against authority, to question the world around them, and to fight a group called "Gobblers" (or Gobs for short). Really, the accusations against "The Golden Compass" are pathetic, much like the controversy over "Harry Potter" introducing children to witchcraft. Sometimes, a movie is just a movie.

Enough cannot be said about the special effects in "The Golden Compass." As with all its cinematic siblings, computers created this world in a way unheard of even ten years ago. It's a rich and detailed world combining the best elements of Middle Earth, Coruscant (from the "Star Wars" saga), and Victorian England. With blimps running on some unknown power source and carriages on the street without the aid of horses or fossil fuels, everything we're exposed to on screen has been painstakingly designed and rendered. From the exquisite vehicles and technology to the snow-covered finale, there's nary a hair out of place. While the ice bears don't look entirely real--there is still a disconnect between reality and what a computer can create--they are the only "average" aspect of the visuals.

I've spent a lot of time talking about the ending of the film and very little about the rest of the film. That's because it is merely a prologue to the story proper. Some conspiracy with a government scared its citizens will begin to think for themselves is the general outline for the rest of the plot; it's rather by the numbers and obvious, asking the audience to project our own feelings onto the common people when, in reality, the script doesn't take us there.

I fear we won't see the next chapter of the series on the big screen anytime soon. "The Golden Compass" never imparts the sense of epic storytelling it needs to for us to care or come back for further adventures. The story itself is content to meander along and end on a cliffhanger, hoping the big names (Kidman, Craig, Eva Green, Ian McShane, Ian McKellan, Sam Elliott, Christopher Lee, Kristin Scott Thomas, Kathy Bates) and the special effects bring us back. There's simply no way New Line can justify the price tag, given the quality of the product on screen. Is "The Golden Compass" family friendly? Absolutely. But with religious groups attacking it, how many families are going to find their way to the theater?

"The Golden Compass" is an oddly cold, emotionless film. Even when the ice bear Iroek is tied up in the final battle, seemingly at the end of his journey, we're struck with the feeling of "who cares' as opposed to real dread. Remember how we all felt when Obi-Wan Kenobi and Gandalf were fighting for life? That's how we should have felt here. But we don't. The film itself is too busy introducing characters, wowing the audience with special effects, and setting up the universe. It should have concerned itself more with emotion and better storytelling. This film, on its own, is disappointing but not a "bad" film.

Jason's film rating: 5/10.

---

---

---