Review: The Golden Compass
BLEAK MAGIC
There’s very little wonder in the first installment of a wannabe fantasy-adventure series.
JAN 25, 2008 – EXITING THE PRESS SCREENING OF THE GOLDEN COMPASS, I was engulfed by waves of empathy for the brave audiences that had not read the Harry Potter books (or the Ring trilogy, for that matter) and had, nonetheless, opted to experience the cinematic adaptations. This, surely, is how they’d have felt, the way I did thanks to my unfamiliarity with Philip Pullman’s literary universe – ears numb from the constantly unravelling yarns of exposition, brain tired from trying to keep pace with the goings on, and eyes glazed over from the ton of visual information destined to make full sense only to long-time readers and fans. Very early in the film, as Daniel Craig exclaimed, “Dust is flowing into this man,” and Derek Jacobi wondered if we can “protect our children from the corrupting influences of dust,” and a few others launched into much eloquent waxing about “dust this” and “dust that,” I was half-tempted to stop the screening and ask for a show of hands to verify that I wasn’t the only one who felt I’d mistakenly wandered into a big-screen commercial for high-end vacuum cleaners.
But this dust, you see, isn’t simply dust. It’s spelt-with-a-capital-letter Dust, and it’s comprised of mysterious elementary particles from other worlds (thank you, almighty Wikipedia) – and this is the sort of thing a book is so much better at elaborating than a film. Reading the source material should never be a prerequisite for understanding a movie, but The Golden Compass may be a rare instance where a familiarity with Pullman’s imagined worlds may actually be necessary if you don’t want the two hours to pass by in a blur of generic epic-adventure tropes and bland special-effects sequences. Even if you hadn’t read Tolkien, the very least you could take away from the movies was: this bad dude from long-long-ago made a powerful ring and he lost it; the ring went into the hands of a runty creature that has to destroy it to save the world. If you’d read the books, you were equipped with the knowledge to fill in the gaps, perhaps, but the films still worked – and magnificently so – as primal adventure, and that’s not the case here.
Then again, maybe this opaqueness isn’t due to the plotting so much as the presentation, with bizarre, one-off scenes that could be summarised as “Nicole Kidman bitch-slaps a golden monkey,” or “Daniel Craig examines a largish orb of glass as if getting ready to launch into a game of grown-up marbles.” During such times, I wished The Golden Compass had been an hour longer and had paused to linger on its half-hidden wonders, such as the fireplaces filled with emerald flames or the witch played by Eva Green. The story has something to do with an orphan (Dakota Blue Richards) who – in a segment that plays as if the opening portions of The Empire Strikes Back were routed through the imagination of John Irving – treks to the icy North and befriends a giant bear, on her way to rescuing children kidnapped by Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman, nicely alternating wheedling charm and velvety menace), who wants to separate these tykes from their daemons (namely, their anthropomorphic-animal soul manifestations). Somewhere fitting into all of this is the titular magical object, which undoubtedly serves a multitude of purposes in the eyes of those who’ve read the books, but for the rest of us, it’s simply another indicator of a movie that rapidly heads south.
Copyright ©2008 The New Indian Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Hi Baradwaj,
Haven’t yet seen the movie but you ought to read The Golden Compass. One of the best, if not the best, fantasy novels I have ever read. Yes, maybe even better than LOTR.
Ebert says “The Golden Compass” is a darker, deeper fantasy epic than the “Rings” trilogy, “The Chronicles of Narnia” or the “Potter” films.
The reviews elsewhere(including yours) are starkly oppposite. Perhaps the man proves his “murky” self yet again!
Dear BRangan:
I respectfully disagree!
Like I mentioned in one of our previous discussions, I really enjoyed the film completely. I was not familiar with the books but that big polar bear inspired my imagination and appealed to the kid in me. (I just started reading the first book!) Also, my friends & colleagues here (who are very familiar with the books from their childhood, told me that the movie is a FAITHFUL adaptation of Philip Pullmans book (Trilogy: His Dark Materials).
The film cuts the final three chapters from the book (perfect for the start of the sequel?)! Although the final scene is so purely expository that it comes across almost like a promo teaser for the sequel.
What I enjoyed in “The Golden Compass,” besides the visual feast, is its story line clarity, its commanding characters both human and not, originality of atmosphere and tensions worthy of good drama.
Well, I think there are enough reasons to rate it a stellar piece of work!!
(On a lighter note: Pullman’s books were seen as “anti-God” and “anti-Christ” (Dust = Free Will. That’s not a good thing either for Churches or for Governments, it seems!!). And that’s the main reason here in US the film failed badly. But in Europe & Asia it’s a BIG hit!! Now you seem to call the film “anti-entertainment”!!!)
I have not read the books, but the film appeared to have the anti-God/anti-religious edge dulled, though the bad guys clearly looked like Catholic cardinals. The Golden Compass felt more like the exposition to the story as opposed to a complete story in itself, so I would see the sequel, if they ever make it. Or maybe I’ll just read the books instead…
I havent seen the movie yet but had to bring this up. I just find it absolutely hilarious that the antagonist is called Mrs.Coulter in a book termed “anti-christian”. (For the unfamiliar, Ann Coulter is a very right wing, christian, conservative commentator.)
Vishal: I know I should. Sigh. So much to read. So little time…
HAL: “Darker”? “Deeper”? Looks like we watched two entirely different films.
APALA: “the final scene is so purely expository” Truth be told, the whole film seemed like that to me. It was just bits and pieces, with no connective tissue to make it an organic whole. Oh, and Dust = Free Will? So that’s what the witch meant when she said at the end that what’s at stake is nothing less than free will? Meaning, nothing less than Dust? Um, whatever
Ravi K: The film had every edge dulled, I thought. Considering that New Line made this, I wonder what prompted them to not go for the three-hour format that worked so well for them in the Ring trilogy…
Deepauk M: We learn something new every day…
Actually even in the books, atleast in the first part of the trilogy, no one really explains what Dust is, everyone keeps mentioning it, but no one actually defines it, but the daemons were dealt well in the book rather than the movie. I had to do a lot of explanations for the movie to make sense to my husband. Still the action scenes were spectacular.
I spent 2 hours trying very hard to get some entertainment out of this apology for a movie. This is worse some of the bollywood trash that we see. There is absolutely no attempt to engage the audience.
They should have put up a warning somewhere indicating that only those who have read the book be allowed inside.
And what was the deal with that monkey and Nicole!!
baradwaj,
don’t tell me you are not catching up with the old green beret from arizona! loved it, bloody, brawny, mindless ride. like the blessed 80s. what joy!
I haven’t watched the movie yet, though I suspect that the original strong anti-oppression themes might have been watered down to pacify the “it’s anti-christian” crowd (who, by the way, only proved Pullman’s point by calling for the banning of the movie). However, Mr Rangan I’m echoing Vishal’s advice. You really should read the books, they’re excellent (if a bit long winded).
As for “dust”, I’ve read the entire trilogy and, unless my memory is failing me, Dust is never really clearly defined. It’s only sort of implied that it has to do with free will (and maybe even sexuality), but it’s left open to interpretation.
I found the first scenes of the book a bit frustrating for the lack of explanation about Dust, but I later grew to appreciate that it wasn’t all layed out perfectly (though I can see how it would be harder to appreciate in a movie).
Keerthi/Elizabeth: So are you guys saying that this is somewhat of an abstract epic series that defies conventional filmmaking? That’s what it looks like from your comments.
Vivek: “There is absolutely no attempt to engage the audience.” I feel your pain brother
Ron: I know, I know. Have to watch it. After all, as one who grew up in the eighties and watched “Over the Top” three times… Oh, those innocent days
I don’t know whether it “defies conventional fimmaking” but I remember when reading it thinking that it would be very difficult to translate onto film successfully. It’s not really “abstract” in a way that you have to struggle to decipher the hidden meaning. In fact, Pullman’s message was blatantly obvious to me. However, unlike Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter which have primarily an adventure-like quality, Pullman’s series is primarily ideological in that it basically is a “wag of the finger” to the religious establishment and/or dictatorships and their rigid ideals (though I don’t believe that automatically translates to “anti-Christian”).
Again, I haven’t seen the film yet, so maybe I’m wrong and it translates well (though your review seems to suggest otherwise).