The Golden Compass Controversy

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Quite easily actually....

When The Life of Brian was first released in 1979, it caused an immediate uproar - much to the delight of Pythons Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. The Catholic Church wasted no time condemning it as blasphemous (even though almost none of those at the forefront of the boycotts had watched the movie). Countries banned it, often resulting in its becoming an underground cult classic. The movie was almost universally seen as an attack on Jesus and Christianity.

I agree with "The Life of Brian" being very easy to dislike. This is a mild word for what I really think of that movie! (But then comedy is my thing, and especially satirical comedy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth!)

But this does not really compare to "The Golden Compass." The life of Brian was a "send-up" of Christianity -- "His Dark Materials" can easily be seen as an attack on the Christian world view. If Philip Pullman is to be held to his public pronouncements this is exactly his goal. As he told Hanna Rosin of the The Atlantic, How Hollywood Saved God, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery. I want to confront that, I suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but. It's the thing that makes us fully human."

I knew little about this (generally disliking Fantasy as a genre) before, now I might have to see it out of self defense.

 

[Aleksei]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

All of these strong christian views seem rather foreign to me, I have no personal experience with strongly religious people, as I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularised countries in the world, so I honestly have a hard time understanding religious people that defend their views so rabidly.

I don't understand how they think this movie can change a child's perception of their parents religion or 'convert' them to atheism. I mean sure the books have somewhat of an anti-religious-ish theme, but it is not like it is full of anti-religious propaganda nor does it say that god does not exist.

 

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

All of these strong christian views seem rather foreign to me, I have no personal experience with strongly religious people, as I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularised countries in the world, so I honestly have a hard time understanding religious people that defend their views so rabidly.

Are you saying that you feel that my response was "rabid?" If so, what did I say moved you toward that conclusion?

I don't understand how they think this movie can change a child's perception of their parents religion or 'convert' them to atheism. I mean sure the books have somewhat of an anti-religious-ish theme, but it is not like it is full of anti-religious propaganda nor does it say that god does not exist.

Certainly the vast, vast majority of children will not change their perception of things because of this movie. I doubt you could claim that there would be none.

I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme. Read the link above. The third of the trilogy "The Subtle Knife" shows what is clearly supposed to be the Christian God as old, weak, and feeble (Pullman's view of the church, I'm sure.) and killed rather easily. [So not dead per se, but can easily be ignored and killed.] And although it is not a reverse of the Genesis story of the first sin (but I think Pullman thinks it is) the 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act. Which is a very questionable theme to put in a movie (if the third gets filmed and released) intended tol be seen by older children 10+.

[The original sin has nothing to do with sex. It is about people disobeying their loving parent in a futile attempt to become the equal of his/her Creator.]

 

[Aleksei]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Are you saying that you feel that my response was "rabid?" If so, what did I say moved you toward that conclusion?

No was to refering to you, but to other comments I have read on the interwebs. Sorry if it seemed like that.

I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme. Read the link above. The third of the trilogy "The Subtle Knife" shows what is clearly supposed to be the Christian God as old, weak, and feeble (Pullman's view of the church, I'm sure.) and killed rather easily. [So not dead per se, but can easily be ignored and killed.] And although it is not a reverse of the Genesis story of the first sin (but I think Pullman thinks it is) the 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act. Which is a very questionable theme to put in a movie (if the third gets filmed and released) intended tol be seen by older children 10+.

[The original sin has nothing to do with sex. It is about people disobeying their loving parent in a futile attempt to become the equal of his/her Creator.]

Ah, I have only read the beginning of the third book, which is probably why I did not know that.

 

[Briareus Delta]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I have not read the book or all the way through this thread, but if someone is interested in a Christian view of this debate (my apologies if someone else has posted this) here is a site which will spell out the truth of the controversy without going primeval or soft on the issue.

Culture Watch - Exploring the message behind the media

This is a site with an English author who watches the culture from a reasoned Christian view point.

Thanks for posting this. As an atheist, I thought this article provided a very well-reasoned argument, in contrast to the more 'fundamentalist christian' hysteria that has surrounded the release of the film. In particular, it urges people not to condemn the film until they have seen it. But then you went and posted this.....

"His Dark Materials" can easily be seen as an attack on the Christian world view. If Philip Pullman is to be held to his public pronouncements this is exactly his goal. As he told Hanna Rosin of the The Atlantic, How Hollywood Saved God, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery. I want to confront that, I suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but. It's the thing that makes us fully human."

I knew little about this (generally disliking Fantasy as a genre) before, now I might have to see it out of self defense.

Agh!!! Please allow me the luxury of the following rant:-

1. Phillip Pullman is an atheist. In a free society, he is perfectly entitled to express his views through literature, film, art, interpretative dance, mime, or any other medium he chooses. Just as you are free to express your Christian views.

2. It may be semantics but I don't see that by merely presenting an opposing viewpoint that he is presenting an 'attack on the Christian world view'. He is doing nothing more than expressing his own, equally valid, view of the world. I have never read that Pullman advocates banning the Bible or burning down churches - that would be an attack. See the film by all means but to state that you need to see it out of 'self-defence' is ridiculously wide of the mark.

Certainly the vast, vast majority of children will not change their perception of things because of this movie. I doubt you could claim that there would be none.

I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme.

3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.

But if the charge against Pullman is indoctrination, then I really have to say that the people making that charge are living in very fragile glass houses. Babies and children are 'Christened' before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. Then there are faith schools, Sunday School and, here in the UK, every school has to include a daily act of worship. Children are brought up to be religious and to follow the beliefs of their parents. It's not usually a free choice and, although some do go on to make their own choices in adulthood, it has to be said that children are the Church's main target when it comes to recruitment.

I'm against all forms of organised religion and I'm free to express that view. By expressing that view, I'm not attacking your beliefs, Parson, merely expressing my own. And now I seem to be repeating myself, so end of rant.

 

[Mad Tam McC]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

The third of the trilogy "The Subtle Knife"
The 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act.

The 'subtle knife' is the second book, the third is the 'amber spyglass'.

I think they kiss and that's all!

 

[Dave]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I don't remember anymore than a kiss either Parson, and I think I would have.

Parson, both you and Aleksei joined this discussion rather late. If you read the comments at the end of the hyperlink in the very, very first post then some of them could quite easily be described as "rabid". I was trying to defend the indefensible up until the last page of this thread, but I give up now that the American Catholic Church has apparently decided to condem the film.

As for Original Sin, your interpretation of Genesis is surely only your own interpretation.

 

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Agh!!! Please allow me the luxury of the following rant:-

1. Phillip Pullman is an atheist. In a free society, he is perfectly entitled to express his views through literature, film, art, interpretative dance, mime, or any other medium he chooses. Just as you are free to express your Christian views.

2. It may be semantics but I don't see that by merely presenting an opposing viewpoint that he is presenting an 'attack on the Christian world view'. He is doing nothing more than expressing his own, equally valid, view of the world. I have never read that Pullman advocates banning the Bible or burning down churches - that would be an attack. See the film by all means but to state that you need to see it out of 'self-defence' is ridiculously wide of the mark.

Agree totally with what is said under #1. As to #2 it seems to me from what Pullman is quoted as saying that his agenda is not so much to present a competing World View, that view is already out there and well stated in the world of ideas. But rather to tear down the Christian world view. This would have to be seen as an attack by a Christian.

3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.

I agree that Pullman expresses his views quite openly -- all to the good. But I am convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate (not subvert) children to agree with his viewpoint. He wants to "set people free" of the chains of the church. As to sheltering them, it depends on their age, but on the whole no. But, everyone should be aware as they see them what they are about to see. For me, and I believe for all thinking Christians, the real worry here is not in the exchange of ideas, but in the possibility that people will uncritically buy his message, and that parents won't be concerned enough with their children to know what they have been exposed to.

But if the charge against Pullman is indoctrination, then I really have to say that the people making that charge are living in very fragile glass houses. Babies and children are 'Christened' before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. Then there are faith schools, Sunday School and, here in the UK, every school has to include a daily act of worship. Children are brought up to be religious and to follow the beliefs of their parents. It's not usually a free choice and, although some do go on to make their own choices in adulthood, it has to be said that children are the Church's main target when it comes to recruitment.

I'm against all forms of organised religion and I'm free to express that view. By expressing that view, I'm not attacking your beliefs, Parson, merely expressing my own. And now I seem to be repeating myself, so end of rant.

Strange that the UK a much more secular society than the US has a daily act of worship, an act which in the US would send the local law enforcement to the door of the school. It might also point to the fact that a "cultural religion" is no religion at all. I have said in other posts that "an unexamined faith is no faith at all." I fully believe that. I am utterly convinced that the Christian world view more than holds it's own in the world of ideas. What I am opposing here is an uncritical look at "His Dark Materials."

I seem to be repeating myself too, so end of response. Thanks for the interesting correspondence.

The "Parson"

 

[jackokent]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Wow. What a lot of posts about a film no one's seen.

What's it going to be like when we've seen it... choas? mayhem? Pullman may be guilty of unravelling the very structure of Chronicles. I say burn his books, boycote his film and go one living in our happy world of certainties

 

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

As for Original Sin, your interpretation of Genesis is surely only your own interpretation.

The wording indeed is mine, but the interpretation is a very "Reformed" view. There are some other Christian understanding of the original sin, which (if I may be pardoned for a personal opinion) don't measure up to the Biblical text. Perhaps reading -- rereading? -- would help. Sex is never condemned in the Genesis account. The closest that we come to that is when Eve's punishment is that "she will have desire for her husband... she will have pain in childbirth." (free translation from memory.)

I am disheartened that the American Catholic Church has condemned the picture. I believe that it is an opportunity for the free exchange of important ideas.

 

[Lucien21]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Well I saw the movie today and OMG did that suck.

and I've never read the books. I imagine an explosion of some sort for fans of the novel.

The SFX was very good, Nicole Kidman and Sam Neill (best voice in Holywood) were very good , but the main lead (Lyra) was Harry Potter 1 bad. The rest of the cast hardly had any screentime esp Daniel Craig.

Most of the movie was esposition trying to explain things to young lyra, but apart from Dust being inbetween parrallel worlds and somehow connected in kids between them and the Daemons i'm not sure what that was about.

The Magesterium and "Authority" are mentioned but never explained and god/religion isn't overtly mentioned that I remember.

There is about 1 decent action sequence in the polar bear fight, but the ending is just realllly reallly bad. Nice little battle a load of exposition about what to do next then the film just stops................. WTF

Avoid

4/10

 

[Pyan]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Well, I've just got back from seeing it, but I've read the books....

9/10 - go see it.

Oh, and it would take a microscope to find any trace of an anti-god message in the film.....

 

[Lucien21]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Wow, really 9/10.

Ah well, different horses for different courses I guess.

 

[Lith]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

*Jumping in rather belatedly and out of breath after nine pages...*

Is anyone surprised about any controversy regarding this movie? I mean, given the uproar over Potter, which is essentially non-religious...

I can say though, that if I had children, they would not be seeing this movie or reading the books until they were teens. They're too much of a religious quagmire for the unsuspecting. They're not, IMO, merely denouncing "organized religion", although I don't think they're the absolute satan-spawn that some people think.

A lot of Christians are simply not equipped to answer their children's questions that would arise out of reading/watching HDM, so they find it easier to warn each other off it than to put in the work to learn what the author is actually saying. I don't think it's quite right, but then if someone's not of an intellectual bent, it's sometimes better (or easier, take your pick) to just warn them off than engage them in a conversation that would take a LOT of explanation to get even to the beginning of the argument.

From the article quoted, it sounds as though they are simply warning each other off it, which shouldn't surprise or upset anyone, as would a demonstration in front of a theater. Frankly I'm amazed there hasn't been more upset over this.

Now, a question for the non-religious: if you saw someone walking toward a cliff, would you not try and warn them? Maybe the person walking toward the cliff knows exactly what they are walking toward, or has in mind to only stop at the edge and look over, or float over on a flying carpet. But you can't fault someone for thinking you need to be warned, right? You may disagree with Christians or other religious folk, but most of them are trying to do what they feel is right.

Religion and human ills- religion has been used as a pretext for war, but it's also given us education, so I don't know that you can single it out as a social ill. Besides which, all the worst killers in this century were atheists. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.)

And strictly speaking, the books aren't a war against God, nor are they atheistic, since the "God" of the books is not the Creator, and Pullman's concept of Dust pushes him more into pantheism than atheism. I find it more than a little ironic that he replaces one sort of dogma with another.

I'm not sure about atheism being a belief system. I prefer to think of it as a no-belief system.

It's a belief system, whether you say you do know, don't know, or don't think it's important.

I make no apology therefore for being one of those atheists that 'makes a noise' and I will continue to do so until there's a level playing field.

What good is a level playing field without a game to play? (I hope that's not too facetious.)

For the record, the Bible and science aren't at odds. Only certain interpretations of the Bible are at odds with science. There can't be a difference, since Truth is Truth, and science is merely study of what happens around us.

Whether a thing's fictional or not has no bearing on whether it's compatible or contradictory to your beliefs. Fiction has always included within it moral lessons and the author's convictions. A person can't help but push their beliefs, directly or indirectly, on others, since they are beliefs, and not mere ideas.

Parson, you might as well read them. It gives you much more solid ground to stand on, since context can change meanings a lot. (Which I ran into with HP- a lot of anti-Potter websites had things totally pulled out of context, changing their meaning 180 degrees.)

3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.

Except for the possibility of being not converted so much as deceived, by one's own lack of knowledge. That's what the concern is. That through thinking something through half-way, or nine-tenths of the way, one jumps ahead and thinks they've got a hundred percent of it, when they don't.

As for the possibility of sex in the third book- it's phrased rather ambiguously, and at first I thought they had (in addition to thinking Lyra was awfully underage!), but I guess that's not so.

Re: original sin- original sin isn't sexual in nature. It's a common misconception, even by Pullman. It simply means that because your parents were sinful, you will be sinful (since perfection doesn't come out of corruption).

 

[Majimaune]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

urgh Nicole Kidman. There's an affront to humanity.

ANd she calls herself Aussie

Well I saw the movie today and OMG did that suck.

and I've never read the books. I imagine an explosion of some sort for fans of the novel.

The SFX was very good, Nicole Kidman and Sam Neill (best voice in Holywood) were very good , but the main lead (Lyra) was Harry Potter 1 bad. The rest of the cast hardly had any screentime esp Daniel Craig.

Most of the movie was esposition trying to explain things to young lyra, but apart from Dust being inbetween parrallel worlds and somehow connected in kids between them and the Daemons i'm not sure what that was about.

The Magesterium and "Authority" are mentioned but never explained and god/religion isn't overtly mentioned that I remember.

There is about 1 decent action sequence in the polar bear fight, but the ending is just realllly reallly bad. Nice little battle a load of exposition about what to do next then the film just stops................. WTF

Avoid

4/10

That doesn't sound good and from what I have seen (the first five minutes) I didn't like it too much. Didn't like the whole voice-over thing at the start telling you all the stuff you don't find out til the end of the book or the next one.

Well, I've just got back from seeing it, but I've read the books....

9/10 - go see it.

Oh, and it would take a microscope to find any trace of an anti-god message in the film.....

Py, you make me a little hopeful.

 

[roddglenn]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

Strange that the UK a much more secular society than the US has a daily act of worship, an act which in the US would send the local law enforcement to the door of the school.

This has been quite a discussion! Can I just pick up on one small thing that Parson mentioned. What act of worship in the UK would have local law enforcement knocking on the door of the school? The UK does have a veritable mixing pot of cultures and religions, but apart from nuts trying to use religion to incite acts of terrorism, I can't see what you mean there. Even then the police have an extremely difficult time of trying to stop them lawfully.

 

[Briareus Delta]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

it seems to me from what Pullman is quoted as saying that his agenda is not so much to present a competing World View, that view is already out there and well stated in the world of ideas. But rather to tear down the Christian world view. This would have to be seen as an attack by a Christian.

I am convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate (not subvert) children to agree with his viewpoint ............. the real worry here is not in the exchange of ideas, but in the possibility that people will uncritically buy his message, and that parents won't be concerned enough with their children to know what they have been exposed to.

What I am opposing here is an uncritical look at "His Dark Materials."

I don't see how you can be convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate children when, by your own admission, you have never read the books or seen this film. As I stated previously, they are clearly aimed at the teenage/young adult market and the film over here carries a 'PG' rating (Parental Guidance). Even if Pullman was attempting to indoctrinate children (and I'm equally convinced that such a suggestion would be abhorrent to him), this would be nothing in comparison to the indoctrination that the Church unashamedly executes every single day in pursuit of its 'world view'. An issue from my last post that I notice you have neatly side-stepped.

I really don't think you much to worry about, Parson, when it is Christianity that dominates the agenda. The Church has far more resources, wealth and political power in pursuit of its goal than Pullman could ever hope to have in pursuit of his. As has been discussed in another thread here, in the current climate, it would be absolutely impossible for an atheist to be selected as a candidate for the US Presidency or for most other political positions in the USA. And that is not a healthy state of affairs in my opinion. And because of this climate, of course, the anti-religious content has been considerably toned down for the film (otherwise it could never get made).

And finally, I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of anyone seeing this film without knowing Pullmans views. The outcry from Christian groups has pretty much made that a certainty.

 

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

This has been quite a discussion! Can I just pick up on one small thing that Parson mentioned. What act of worship in the UK would have local law enforcement knocking on the door of the school? The UK does have a veritable mixing pot of cultures and religions, but apart from nuts trying to use religion to incite acts of terrorism, I can't see what you mean there. Even then the police have an extremely difficult time of trying to stop them lawfully.

I was reacting to what Briareus Delta said. I assumed "an act of worship" was a prayer, --- notice I'm from the States and have no first hand knowledge. If it is a prayer I know of some schools who were warned that they could no longer have an audible prayer during school time, or even at the graduation exercises by the courts or the "sheriff."

If it is not a prayer, what kind of act of worship is there?

 

[Parson]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I don't see how you can be convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate children when, by your own admission, you have never read the books or seen this film. As I stated previously, they are clearly aimed at the teenage/young adult market and the film over here carries a 'PG' rating (Parental Guidance). Even if Pullman was attempting to indoctrinate children (and I'm equally convinced that such a suggestion would be abhorrent to him), this would be nothing in comparison to the indoctrination that the Church unashamedly executes every single day in pursuit of its 'world view'. An issue from my last post that I notice you have neatly side-stepped.

I'm afraid I have some very difficult reading ahead of me. I do not care much for Fantasy as a genre. I read the Hobbit, and just about gagged so many times I never care to read "The Lord of the Rings." I finally saw them in the theater with my son. My opinion "good not great." But I will have to read "His Dark Materials" Blah! Because of this debate.

I think Lilth spoke about the indoctrination point well when she said "Whether a thing's fictional or not has no bearing on whether it's compatible or contradictory to your beliefs. Fiction has always included within it moral lessons and the author's convictions. A person can't help but push their beliefs, directly or indirectly, on others, since they are beliefs, and not mere ideas." I have no doubt that Pullman is doing this directly. The big difference between sending your child to Sunday School or the theater is that in Sunday School you expect they will be receiving Christian Education, in the theater you might believe you are dealing with escapism entertainment, and not consider that an atheist world view would be pushed.

I really don't think you much to worry about, Parson, when it is Christianity that dominates the agenda. The Church has far more resources, wealth and political power in pursuit of its goal than Pullman could ever hope to have in pursuit of his. As has been discussed in another thread here, in the current climate, it would be absolutely impossible for an atheist to be selected as a candidate for the US Presidency or for most other political positions in the USA. And that is not a healthy state of affairs in my opinion. And because of this climate, of course, the anti-religious content has been considerably toned down for the film (otherwise it could never get made).

I would agree with this if you mean a "cultural Christian" vs. an atheist. There are certainly many politicians and officials in the US who do not in any obvious way follow the teachings and ethics of Jesus Christ. Even President Bush who makes much of his Christianity seems to me to be woefully lacking in compassion. Illegal immigrants being being an outstanding example.

Today a very serious Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is not a Christian but a Mormon. (I realize Mormons will sometimes debate that point, but from my perspective it is a true statement.)

And finally, I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of anyone seeing this film without knowing Pullmans views. The outcry from Christian groups has pretty much made that a certainty.

If this is true, which I seriously, seriously doubt. ["No one ever went broke betting on the ignorance of the masses."] Then there is reason for celebration.

 

[roddglenn]

Re: Golden Compass Backlash...

I was reacting to what Briareus Delta said. I assumed "an act of worship" was a prayer, --- notice I'm from the States and have no first hand knowledge. If it is a prayer I know of some schools who were warned that they could no longer have an audible prayer during school time, or even at the graduation exercises by the courts or the "sheriff."

If it is not a prayer, what kind of act of worship is there?

There hasn't been any law passed in the UK to prohibit audible prayers of any religion during school time for an individual, but what isn't allowed is for teachers to show a preference to pupils during schooltime. This obviously only applies to unaffiliated schools as there are many schools up and down the country that are affiliated and funded by specific religions (Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc). Unaffiliated schools need to be seen as neutral and as such recognised religious symbols and rituals of all faiths are allowed.

It's dangerous for people to make assumptions about other countries when they do not have all the facts.