Golden Compass Rumpus

Of all the sure ways to promote a film, one of the surest is to get it criticized by the religious right.  On that basis Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass,  out in the US (in time for er, um, Christmas), is on a winner. 

Pullman has responded. Newsweek reports on the row; the Catholic League is incandescent.  Parents are being warned not to let their children see the film as it is  "spiritual poison"  Catholic author Pete Vere  (no, I didn't either)  calls Pullman the  "Pied Piper of Atheism" who "corrupts the imagery of Lewis and Tolkien" (christian apologists both)  to "undermine children's faith in God and the Church".

The clue is in that last word.  Pullman's target may overtly be "God", but it is more the power-structures which humans conduct in the name of God.  The Director Chris Weitz says  it " attempts to rescue the religious spirit from its perversion into political power."   And you can't accuse him of not being into spirituality - daemons everywhere, golden monkeys, magical worlds...we're not in Dawkins country here, not by a long chalk.   Pullman himself is robust.  "Why don't we trust readers? Why don't we trust filmgoers?...Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world."
      His difficulties with humility  and taking criticism may, of course, be due to blogs like this one,  by a writer who met him and virtually fell down and worshipped.. .
       At the end of the day, he just writes terrific page-turners.   And anything which pokes a sharp stick into some of the power-crazy religious types who turn up in this blog has to have merit in it. 

Comments

[Carl Waring]

"The Director Chris Weitz says it 'attempts to rescue the religious spirit from its perversion into political power.' "

No wonder the Catholic Church doesn't like it.....

[Carl Waring]

Actually, in all fairness to them: "A spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Britain said it would not make any statement on the film until its representatives had seen it."

Even if they end up taking the same view as the Catholic League, at least they've had the good grace to actually go and see the film before they comment on it. Hurrah to the sane(ish) voices of British Catholicism and yah, boo, sucks to you to the screeching loons of the Catholic League.

[Andrew Clarke]

I suppose atheist writers were getting off rather light. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, and A.A. Milne are all atheists and all have their various tv and film adaptations. Meanwhile the Christian writer J.K. Rowling has been getting most of the flack!

[andrew holden]

Bonkers! Churches have nothing to fear from Pullman. In fact if they approach the whole thing properly the film is a great opportunity to discus the nature of belief and the kind of church we ought to be.

Instead they object because Pullman's main target in the books is a church which seeks to squash debate and control opinion so they try to squash debate and control opinion. Go figure it out guys and relax!

[Julia from Illinois]

While I wish the Catholic League hadn't given the film so much publicity, it's position is not that it hates the movie. The more objectional parts of the book from which the movie was made have been eliminated. The league is concerned that parents taking their kids to the innocuous film will go out and buy the books without understanding that the author is peddling atheism to their children.

The author has admitted it in US interviews.

[Recusant]

"but it is more the power-structures which humans conduct in the name of God. "

By that we could mean The Magisterium and Tradition. A sole source of authoritative answers on questions of dogma and faith. Because the alternative is the Babel of different interpretations to be found in evangelical and pentecostal protestantism, where everyone is there own authority.

No, give me the "power structure"; at least I know with whom I am dealing and who to go to for answers.

[Martin]

"The Magisterium" is precisely what the "sinister" body in this film is called. All Catholics must know that this is the name used for the teaching authority of the Church, and for Pullman to use it is therefore an explicit attack on Catholicism. No Catholic should allow their children to either see this film or read these books.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Phillip Pullman does not need to be condemned or even “Banned In Boston”, the famous epithet that guaranteed a film’s success.

He often condemns himself out of his own mouth in newspaper interviews. Here in the Sydney Morning Herald

"I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."

He is out to destroy in children the option of believing. No liberalism here. One wonders what traumatic experience in his own childhood propelled him in this direction or was it later at Exeter College, which I also attended. Dear old Eric Kemp the chaplain at the time was certainly conservative, but a world away from the authoritarianism that Mr Pullman seeks to impute to organised religion.

[Al]

And then there's that subversive book left in many hotel rooms that promotes a belief in virgin-birth or an "eye-for-an-eye" and other such medieval nonsense. Imagine the sort of world we should end up with if our kids got hold of one of those books, thinking it was full of facts!

[Preachers Daughter]

I think it is profound to actually think your children can choose spirituality for themselves. I believe in God and so do my children. Is the Catholic or Christian God so weak that a book or a movie will crush the very core of what they believe! Mine is definately NOT! My family will see the movie without abandoning our beliefs. Hmmmm....and maybe we will think outside the simple small boxes of any religion.

[JSP]

I grew up in a fire-n-brimstone pentecostal church in the middle of Bible Belt USA, and in spite of that my parents always insisted I make my own conclusions and form my own beliefs. To heavily paraphrase Buddha, Don't accept something just because someone you've trusted before has said it. Experience it, Accept or Deny it, and MOVE ON. I agree with this atheist (while I am NOT one) in the sense that religion is not God. Religion is the frame that supports the weight of whatever tent you house your beliefs in. Ultimately, religion is a man-mad artifice that some worship at the expense of worshipping and praising the God of their beliefs. SO WHAT if this guy's an atheist? What will he get away with that he can take with him? THere are far more insidious threats to moral values and our society than what this row is stirring up...

[Lisa Mladinich]

Pullman himself has stated, in his many interviews, his intention to "kill God in the minds of children." This film has been watered down in order to sell the books, the climax of which is the killing of God himself. Whatever his objections may be to religious institutions, he ought at least to admit that it's disingenuous to object to other people's objections, while wimping out and hiding his agenda under the cover of a film which dare not even present his ideas as written. The filmmakers knew going in that it was offensive to people of faith (their principle market), so they watered that baby right down. Who's not playing fair? Hmmm, let's see... Oh yeah, the greedy anti-Christian contingent!!!! Imagine that.

[Carl Waring]

"No Catholic should allow their children to either see this film or read these books."

Why not? Perhaps because you're well aware that Catholicism (and religious belief in general) doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or critical thinking?

If you're that secure in your faith why get so uppity about someone encouraging critical analysis?

[Coel]

Martin writes: "it is therefore an explicit attack on Catholicism. No Catholic should allow their children to either see this film or read these books."

So you think Catholics should prevent their children encountering anti-Catholic ideas? That's a bit totalitarian isn't it? What happened to the idea of education, that kids should be exposed to different viewpoints and be encouraged to think?

[Ann Margaret Lewis]

If one were to actually read what the Catholic League and what Pullman says, one would realize that what is truly being criticized are the books (which they have read very closely). The film is criticized only for being a vehicle to interest children in the books. I'm of the opinion that if the books are bigoted material (which they are) I'll either not let my child read them in a vacuum (i.e. without guidance). Nor will I pay my hard-earned to purchase them and further this man's hate-filled cause.

[Danielle]

Anyone who thinks Pullman is not out to attack the Church is not terribly familiar with him.

But, then again, anyone who thinks the Bible is from the medieval era is not terribly familiar with history.

Poorly thought out responses based on personal bigotry posted on the internet?! Shocking! I can hardly believe my eyes!

[David B.]

From Jimmyakin.org:

"In an interview published in the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman."

"[I]n an interview published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America's Bible Belt—who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.” "

I wouldn't read this book because the kids in the story sleep in the same bed, make out, and maybe even have sexual intercourse. Not the stuff of children's books, I'm afraid.

[David B.]

"The Director Chris Weitz says it " attempts to rescue the religious spirit from its perversion into political power." "

Philip Pullman is not Spiritual, and I think he wouldn't like being called so.

" And you can't accuse him of not being into spirituality - daemons everywhere, golden monkeys, magical worlds..."

When last I checked, spirits which die, gold monkeys, and magical world's berit of morality (lyra's daemon ate her friend, didn't he?), don't count as spirituality.

[David B.]

andrew holden,

We catholics don't want to squash debate. We want something that is lacking here: respect. Those of us who are Black don't want to see books with 'n' word promoted to films, and no one says that blacks should liken up and accept debate. I won't debate a man whose starting point is that I am a complete idiot. One who believes that the Church is the greatest evil can or should be taken seriously. As a Catholic, I have enagaed in repsectful debate many times. That I don't think my children should see a film which attacks our beliefs is MY choice, and MY private right. I'm sure everyone here would scream bloody murder if soomeone tried to indoctrinate Muslem children against their parent's will. Cries of "racism would no doubt ensue. Only Christians, specifically Cathlics, must surrender their rights as parents, in order to let strangers tell them that God is an idiot.

[Julia from Illinois]

But, then again, anyone who thinks the Bible is from the medieval era is not terribly familiar with history.

I'll say. The Bible and the church are considerably older than the medieval era.

[TMLutas]

If you're fine with God but just want to attack human "power structures" you don't end up killing God. This justification of Pullman is lame.

Why don't we trust readers and filmgoers? We do, if they're past the age of reason and have the basic tools to analyze things critically. But that's not the audience Pullman is going after, no? He's going after the kids who don't know any better and the parents who don't put their responsibilities to monitor their children's lives front and center. Nice.

[andrew holden]

Anyone who has read the books would know that the sort of God described in the book deserves to die and any church remotely like the Magisterium deserves to be overthrown. As a Christian I'd certainly join in the rebellion!

Of course all this begs the question as to whether God really is like the bumbling senile figure in Dark Materials - the Living God certainly is not. Also the Church of Christ of my experience is very different from the Dark Materials' Magisterium.

So I don't particularly find Pullman's boks difficult - in fact I thoroughly enjoyed them.

[Coel]

David B writes: "That I don't think my children should see a film which attacks our beliefs is MY choice, and MY private right. I'm sure everyone here would scream bloody murder if soomeone tried to indoctrinate Muslem children against their parent's will."

I disagree. I think it is good for children to be exposed to ideas that are different from their parents' (and that applies to Christian parents and Muslim parents and atheist parents). Isn't that what education should be about: encouraging children to think and explore, rather than reinforcing the prejudices of their parents? But I can quite understand why those who think their faith won't stand up to scrutiny might object.

[Mohammad]

Christians have every right to protect their children from anti-christians forms of brainwashing. We know tv and cinema are one of the most effective tools to program a young mind. Atheists just do not want to leave christians alone. They want to finish everything to do with God. I as a Muslim stand with my christians brothers and sisters who want to boycott this anti-God film.