Friday, February 15, 2008

An uncharitable movie review

Here is what I wrote to a friend this morning about The Golden Compass movie that another friend and I watched yesterday afternoon:

The movie was somewhat interesting but actually rather disappointing. "Thin" is the term I applied. I think they were trying to cover tons of Pullman's plot in this unusual world in a short period of time and there was thus no allowance for much in the way of developing character or giving either the persons or the world any depth. Lots of scenery and costumes and action. Very "American" as opposed to a "European" film that would move slowly and allow people and circumstances to "ripen." Extremely sketchy and not much opportunity for an actor to do subtlety.

While the issue of a Magisterium that wants to remove free will and inquiry is quite clear, it does not seem in the least religious and we know Pullman parallels it intentionally with religion, even using a term for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. There is no element of ritual and that, for me, totally destroys any sense that the Magisterium should be paralleled with or equated to religion. It is just more like Stalin or Orwellian thought police.

In fact, for all the "magical" elements in the tale it does not seem to have any magic to it. It is short on awe and, though loyalty and bravery are big there is little of what one might consider compassion or larger vision. I would use the term heartless. Even the "good" characters seem to operate with very little or no "heart." Call me a sentimental fool, but it is difficult to imagine the characters in the film as being capable of love. Sympathy, loyalty, finding someone else's lot pitiable, yes... but not love.

There is no unifying vision. "Dust" connects parallel worlds and the Magisterium suppresses knowledge of it, but the sense, critical to mystics and to compassion, that all things and creatures are linked, of a web of life--utterly missing. Or at least it does not come through to me in this film.

It is very dark, literally (cinematography, lighting, costumes).

The characters are intriguing and one wants to know more about them.

Lots of effort, lots of visual texture (though little of any other kind), lots of effects, a crap film.

[All this is through the eye of someone writing fantasy fiction with a great deal of energy spent on character, relationships, motivations, and a coherent world with cultures that seem believable--well, that's my aim, I cannot guarantee results. This is probably why I was so disappointed in not finding much in the way of what I care so much about.]
--the BB

1 comment:

Paul said...

My friend responds:

I think it's rather unusual to find a film made from a book that doesn't disappoint...as you say, there is little heart in American films - no time to develop the characters and therefore draw the viewer in, show the compassion and heart of each character. In America, we substituted good for fast. Fast paced, fast action, fast movement, with little or no explanation as to why character A got to there from here emotionally or intellectually. It's a sad commentary on our (American) society in general, I think. Reflection, thought, kindness and compassion are belittled, scorned and we are the poorer for it. In so many ways Americans seem like adolescent children, flailing away, with no thought or reasoning behind so much of what we do. No wonder so much of the rest of the world shakes their head at our thoughtless actions, heedless of where they will take us or how it will affect anybody else...or even ourselves for that matter.

I agree that the whole plot of the film, minus the religious angle must seem confusing and irritating. But religion in this day and age (or any day and age, as far as that goes) is a hot button issue. Look at Huckabee, still trucking on, despite absolutely no chance of winning, but he's got a following of religious zealots that is frightening to contemplate.

When I saw The Da Vinci Code, I was disappointed as well. I didn't really expect a whole lot, having the suspicion that there was simply no way a two or even three hour movie could possibly cram in all the information, intonations and subtleties of the book. And I was right. Despite Ron Howard's direction, the screen writer's efforts and the not inconsiderable acting of Tom Hanks, the movie fell short...again I think in part because of a hesitation to upset any religious applecarts. The book dealt in a large part with the exclusion of women in most currently popular religions and the power of women in the past even in the most popular religion of the time, Christianity. But God forbid we should rock any boats...