Michael Medved on 'The Golden Compass'

CBN ^

[Coleus]

Michael Medved says 'The Golden Compass' movie is a very complicated thing. It is based on the novel, Northern Lights (later renamed 'The Golden Compass'), which is the first in the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman.   Michael says this movie is good enough to drive kids to read the books. It is very entertaining and well-done. However, people must really question the message it is sending, which is an attack on the church. Michael says the message will probably go over the heads of the young children that see the movie, but older teens and adults should be concerned about the message. 

In the movie, "the Magisterion" is a group that resembles the Catholic church and it "wants to control you."  One of the characters, the Evil Emperon, even looks like the current pope, Pope Benedict. Other characterizations that are not good are "daemons," which are the human characters' animal companions or spiritual counterparts. They seem cuddly and friendly but they are in fact personal demons which Pullman does not really disguise.      

Overall, Michael says this movie is artistically well done, entertaining, and skillfully crafted. If you just care about being entertained and not the message, this film is for you. However, there are questionable messages in it and you should care about them. On one level the movie is very cautious with kids. With its PG-13 rating, it seems to be sensitive with the more violent scenes. For example, there is a battle with two of the Ice Bears, and there is no bloodshed. However, the movie is not sensitive as far as witches being presented as good and people that represent the church being portrayed as very bad.  The production of the movie was very expensive, and it has come out in a crowded movie market. Michael says the film's makers are worried about that. They want the faith community to publicly boycott the film, because they need the publicity and attention so people will see the movie. Michael's advice for the faith community is not to give them a boycott, but to stay home and wait for the new Narnia movie which will be out in May 2008. 

THE GOLDEN COMPASS, THE STORY           

Philip Pullman started His Dark Materials trilogy in 1993. They are international best sellers in the young adult market with a ready made audience for the movie. Pullman is an avowed atheist who wrote the trilogy because he was upset by the Christian evangelism in C.S. Lewis,’ The Chronicles of Narnia. The plot of 'The Golden Compass' revolves around spiritism, magical thinking, mysterious visions, and parallel worlds. The golden compass of the title is a tool of divination. In the books, Pullman represents God as a decrepit and perverse angel who captures the dead in a “prison camp” afterlife.           

The story centers on Lyra, a young girl living at Jordan College in the Oxford of an alternate world where everyone is accompanied by a daemon, a physical representation of their soul in animal form.  One morning, Lyra's school Master calls her urgently into his office and gives her a strange instrument called an Alethiometer (the “golden compass”). He tells her that it is capable of telling the truth but that it is up to her to read it. He also pleads with her to keep the Alethiometer to herself. Lyra then finds herself in a world where she must fight against evil, and here lies the controversy. Lyra is the "chosen child" who must do battle with evil. But in this story, the things that are good are evil (the church is the Magisterion, the bad group trying to gain control of all) and evil is good (daemons and witches are allies.) 

[icwhatudo]

When money tracking firms greet opening numbers with “it’s not an out-and-out debacle” you know the film isn’t doing as well as expected.

[stevem]

I wouldn't have read this but for the Medved reference. He is a movie critic I ALWAYS read.

This movie never would have made my radar screen except for all the chatter about Pullman. This caused me to think a bit and have concluded that prominant atheists strike me as an unhappy lot. Yet, it's not just that they seem unhappy. It's more that they want for all day to share their unhappiness with as wide an audience as they can.

[DoughtyOne]

Other characterizations that are not good are "daemons," which are the human characters' animal companions or spiritual counterparts. They seem cuddly and friendly but they are in fact personal demons which Pullman does not really disguise.

While I don't think Mevid is mischaracterizing the intent of the author here, I do want to address the issue of these 'daemons'.

It is my opinion that these animal counterparts are more accurately described as the human's soul, in an external manifestation.  If the person has opted to adopt a good nature, the manifestation has a like manor.  If the person has adopted an evil nature, the manifestation reflects that.

I do not think it is accurate to describe these manifestations as a 'demon'.  The common perception of a demon is evil.  We don't all have evil natures.  I therefore object to the characterization of the outward manifestation of these people's souls, to be demons.  No, they are simply the outward manifestation of the individual's soul.

From my observation of the description of the author's intent, it is easy to accept that he may have wanted to depict everyone as having an internal demon.  That's not my perception.  I believe we have good and evil spirits (some would say our good or evil nature) telling us what we should do, but it is our choice what we do in life.  We are not controled by an evil demon, although we may virtually become one by the exercise of our own free will.  We can also become angelic by making choices based on what we believe is the rightous thing to do.

[lilylangtree]

Since I’ve already seen one movie this year, I’ve used up my allotment for 2007. If, and only if, I decide to see the movie, I’ll wait until next year.

[Left2Right]

Actually it seems to me that most atheists are an unhappy lot, not just the prominent ones. If find it fascinating that they are so sure of themselves, yet always want to debate, argue or convince you of their point of view. On the other had, there seems to be a great number of people who are Believers, who although they may have doubts and uncertainty, seem to be a much happier lot overall and are much less argumentative.

[Axlrose]

Excellent advice.

I’d never knowingly watch something with an unbeliever message anway.

[nyyankeefan]

lily....ain’t even gonna watch it when it comes on TV!!!!

[dr_lew]

“demon” is derived from the more general Greek term, “daimon.”

The entry in Liddell and Scott includes:

II. daimones, in Hes. [ Hesiod ], are the souls of men of the Golden age, forming the link between gods and men:- later, of any departed souls, Lat. manes, lemures, Luc. [ Lucretius ]

[tophat9000]

The bizarre thing is this guy Pullman claims he an atheist

But a true atheist would believe there is, no god, no, spiritualism, magical thinking, mysterious visions, no divination, no soul, but Pullman has them all and more

He just has traditional evil as good and good as evil

The guy doesn't sound like a true atheist but a believer on the Satanic side

[BerryDingle]

“Actually it seems to me that most atheists are an unhappy lot, not just the prominent ones. If find it fascinating that they are so sure of themselves, yet always want to debate, argue or convince you of their point of view. On the other had, there seems to be a great number of people who are Believers, who although they may have doubts and uncertainty, seem to be a much happier lot overall and are much less argumentative.”

Actually, I think the exact opposite is true. Atheists are happy people who have no problem at all with others practicing whatever religion they want. The self proclaimed atheists who are upset actually do practice a religion of some sort, the forerunners seem to be either communism (ACLU), environment, or both. A true atheist doesn’t acknowledge religion, so therefore doesn’t get angry about it.

[BenLurkin]

So what you are saying is that while as the author’s underlying premise remains anti-Christian — it is not meant in the way some people are taking it?

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

ping

[BenLurkin]

The take on it at CBS:

Dec 9, 2007 1:00 pm US/Pacific

'Golden Compass' Tops Box Office With Modest $26M

LOS ANGELES (AP) ― "The Golden Compass" proved a mild fantasy at the box office, pulling about $26 million this weekend. That's a modest opening weekend compared to such recent December heavyweights as "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" flicks. New Line Cinema's "The Golden Compass," whose cast includes Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, also took in $55 million overseas since it began opening Wednesday in 25 other countries.

Disney's "Enchanted," the number one movie the previous two weekends, fell to second-place with $10.7 million, raising its total to $83.9 million. New Line, which had enormous success with its three "Lord of the Rings" films, had hoped for more out of "The Golden Compass," expecting it to reach at least $30 million domestically over its first weekend.

The film follows the adventures of an orphan girl hurled into a parallel world of witches, strange flying machines and talking polar bears. It cost $180 million to make.

[sinanju]

Atheists have always seemed such miserable, nasty characters they have never attracted people to jump on their bandwagon.

[sinanju]

Yesterday, I heard one caller-in on a radio show saying he took his young children to see the movie and it bored them silly. Impossible to follow and the CGI was cheesy.

[sinanju]

Though that same reviewer said Sam Elliot did a great job as a fantasy-world cowboy character—it was as if he was acting in a different movie.

[Pikachu_Dad]

While I don't think Mevid is mischaracterizing the intent of the author here, I do want to address the issue of these 'daemons'. It is my opinion that these animal counterparts are more accurately described as the human's soul, in an external manifestation.

Don't be silly. He called them 'daemons' for a reason.

[Pikachu_Dad]

We are not controled by an evil demon, although we may virtually become one by the exercise of our own free will.

Free will? You mean as in young thirteen year olds engaging in sexual relations as in the end of the third book?

[sgtyork]

I think this movie goes for a much more complex and evil depiction than you think.

If you’ve ever read about documented cases of possesion, “familiars” or “demons” are common.

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=paranormal&cdn=newsissues&tm=16&gps=111_3_1020_629&f=10&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.catholicherald.com/saunders/04ws/ws040916.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04713a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04711a.htm

I’m not a flake, but there are documented cases in modern times. This movie, attacking Christianity, would naturally form an alliance with Christianity’s oldest enemy. The movie makers are truly playing with fire.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the background.

[DoughtyOne]

Ben, the first movie isn’t the problem. It’s a problem of kids being enticed to read the books, or view the first and second sequels. The first movie was rather benign. I’ve written about the first on the forum.

I haven’t read the first book, so I don’t know if it was also benign or if it was neutered on the way to a screen play.

I believe Medvid sees the first movie more or less the same way I do.

I do not approve of kids seeing this movie. I for sure don’t want them to read the books. And if sequels come out, which they may not since this is bombing, I for sure wouldn’t advise parents to take their kids to see them.

[DoughtyOne]

Silly? I saw the movie and I’m giving you my analysis. Nobody said you had to agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Did I advise anyone to see the movie? Did I advise anyone to read the books? Did I review books 1 through 3?

I expressed an opinion related to what I have seen.

If you will look at other threads this topic, you’ll see expanded comments that include the admonition for parents not to take their kids to see this movie or let them read the books.

[RightOnline]

Read the multiple threads here that include interviews with this author.......you’ll quickly change your mind.

He’s bad news. There is a special place in Hell for his type.

[DoughtyOne]

I cannot comment on the book, but I have seen the movie. The animal counterparts in the first movie mirrored the disposition of the human.

There was no depiction whatsoever in this movie of the animal counterparts dominating their human partner.

I do believe in possession, but this movie did not depict anything of the sort.

Now, if you wish to state that type of activity might take place in follow-up movies, that may happen. I have no way of knowing.

I do not advise parents to let kids see the first movie or any sequels. I do not advise adults to let kids read the books.

[aruanan]

Other characterizations that are not good are "daemons," which are the human characters' animal companions or spiritual counterparts. They seem cuddly and friendly but they are in fact personal demons which Pullman does not really disguise.   

If he had read the books, he would see clearly that in Lyra's world the demons are a visible manifestation that in this world is the soul.

[aruanan]

But in this story, the things that are good are evil (the church is the Magisterion, the bad group trying to gain control of all) and evil is good (daemons and witches are allies.) 

This is a blatant misrepresentation. Even the church in this world has been quite evil at times. And the witches in this book have nothing to do with witches in the earthly scheme of things. Of course, the daemons have nothing to do with the popular idea of demons. The writer is really reaching on this one in order to try to prove a point.

No one should worry about the effects of these books on a kid's spiritual sensibility because there is nothing spiritually energizing or attractive about them at all, as good as they are as entertaining stories.

[DoughtyOne]

If you’ll read those threads, you’ll note what I have said on them.

The author is despicable. That being said, I have addressed what I have seen. That is all. Once again, did I advocate kids go see this? Did I advocate kids read the books? Did I suggest adults go see this? In all cases no.

Medvid’s concern with the first movie was related to the depiction of one individual who was unquestionably bad. That figure was not the main bad figure, so it’s a tough call to say that person was the focus.

It’s my opinion that the first movies is benign. That being said, it’s certain movies two and three won’t be. It’s a certainty that the books aren’t. I see the first movie as a loss leader. It was out there to entice. I’m glad the American public seems to have seen through that ploy.

[Left2Right]

"Actually, I think the exact opposite is true. Atheists are happy people who have no problem at all with others practicing whatever religion they want. The self proclaimed atheists who are upset actually do practice a religion of some sort, the forerunners seem to be either communism (ACLU), environment, or both. A true atheist doesn’t acknowledge religion, so therefore doesn’t get angry about it."

You make a good point. I recall a professor I had in a genetics class many years ago who was clearly an atheist, but never made a big deal about it. He was a very popular professor, very likable, and was able to make a subject that could be very tedious a lot of fun and very fascinating. What I remember most about him was his passion. He had to be at least in his 60's, but was full of life.

[Left2Right]

Because of all the controversy, I decided to go see the movie for myself. I wasn't originally going to see it because the previews made it look like a very stupid kids' movie. I have to say I actually enjoyed it quite a bit and that it is not really a kid's movie. I thought the animation & special effects were quite well done.

I can understand why some people are going to be very uncomfortable with this movie, but considering some of the real trash that is coming out of Hollywood these days, I don't see this movie in that category. The bad guys are really bad (especially Nicole) and the good guys are really good. And the movie clearly states in the beginning that this is an "Alternative Universe". Being a big Star Trek fan (TOS) I'm OK with things being a little different & turned around in an AU.

I actually liked the idea of being able to see someone's soul or spirit as represented by an animal. It really makes the bad guys even more evil and makes one consider what it would be like if one didn't have a soul or had it taken away from you.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

A true atheist doesn’t acknowledge religion, so therefore doesn’t get angry about it.

But most (all but a very, very few ?) of today’s Western atheists DO viciously hate Christianity.

They do ignore the Eastern religions, Maoism/Communism and Islam - perhaps because instinctively today’s atheist realize that those religions support their fight against (western/Christian) values and capitalism.

But their fight (rebellion ?) against Christianity is their entire life.

Combine that hatred with a hedonist pursuit of pleasure, and you have most of the gay community as well.

[DoughtyOne]

I found the movie interesting also. I do think the second and third movies would turn quite problematic though. That’s why I don’t view this film positively, even though I too enjoyed it.

[flaglady47]

I haven’t seen the movie, however, from all I’ve heard and reviews I’ve read, and arguments I’ve heard on TV about it, I see this movie the same way I see the DaVinci Code movie and book. I read the DaVinci book and enjoyed it as an action murder mystery adventure, and ignored the subliminal message. I would do the same with The Golden Compass movie. Although I would do it in reverse. I’d probably like the movie but not the books, whereas in the DaVinci Code, I liked the book but not the movie (it was Tom Hanks hair, I think, that kept turning me off).

However, in the case of The Golden Compass, which appeals to children, as versus the DaVinci Code that appealed to adults, I would worry much more about the subliminal message in the movie, and the very blatant message in the books. Therein lies the problem. Adults can discern differences in the subliminal and obvious prejudices of the author. Children cannot. That makes it more dangerous as brainwashing comes into the equation. So, I guess parents should be sure not to allow their children to read the books, whereas it’s a toss-up as to whether they should see the movie. I suppose the younger the kid the better, as they would least understand the hidden messages of the movie and concentrate only on the special effects, as most kids do.