Posted on 10/16/2007 10:17:59 AM PDT by NYer
LONDON – A debate over a movie’s anti-religious antagonism – or lack thereof – is heating up ahead of its upcoming release, with some accusing Hollywood of “castrating” the anti-Catholic themes present in the novel from which it is based.
The expected blockbuster, “The Golden Compass,” is named after the American title of best-selling author Philip Pullman’s novel “Northern Lights” and will star actress Nicole Kidman and James Bond star Daniel Craig.
The original children’s novel, part of Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” series, rejects organized religion – in particular, the Catholic Church – and critics of the movie version say the anti-religious elements of the book have been taken out of the storyline so as not to offend faithful moviegoers in the United Kingdom and United States.
“It was clear right from the start that the makers of this film intended to take out the anti-religious elements of Pullman's book. In doing that they are taking the heart out of it, losing the point of it, castrating it,” said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, a British organization that promotes secularism and which Pullman is an honorary associate of.
“It seems that religion has now completely conquered America's cultural life and it is much the poorer for it," she said in The Guardian newspaper Sunday. "What a shame that we have to endure such censorship here too.”
Filmmakers, however, say they have stayed true to a majority of the narrative in the fantasy novel – which tells the story of a young heroine and her battle against a dominant religious authority called the Magisterium, which condones the abduction of children for experimentation.
Movie director Chris Weitz, who directed the British hit family comedy “About A Boy,” starring actor Hugh Grant, assured that the film would be a fair reflection of Pullman's novel.
“In the books, the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots. If that's what you want in the film, you'll be disappointed,” he said.
The filmmaker explained that the sinister organization has been changed so that the film will now appear to be a more general widespread attack on dogmatic authorities.
“We have expanded the range of meanings of what the Magisterium represents. Philip Pullman is against any kind of organized dogma whether it is church hierarchy or, say, a Soviet hierarchy,” he noted.
Nicole Kidman, who is reportedly Christian herself, has also defended the movie.
She acknowledged that the movie “has been watered down a little,” but that it still introduces a world that is "dominated by the Magisterium, which seeks to control all humanity, and whose greatest threat, is the curiosity of a child."
“I was raised Catholic. The Catholic Church is part of my essence. I wouldn't be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic,” she has also stated.
Pullman, meanwhile, has said that he believes the “outline of the story is faithful to what I wrote, given my knowledge of what they have done.”
Although he is a self-professed atheist and a supporter of the British Humanist Association, Pullman has found support from some Christians – most notably Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams. They point out that the English writer’s negative portrayal of the "Church" in “His Dark Materials” amounts to an attack on dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself. Williams has gone so far as to propose that “His Dark Materials” be taught as part of religious education in schools.
Others, however, view the “His Dark Materials” series as a direct rebuttal of C. S. Lewis' series “The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” as both feature children facing adult moral choices, talking animals, religious allegories, parallel worlds, and concern the ultimate fate of those worlds. Furthermore, the first published book from “Narnia” begins with a young girl hiding in a wardrobe, as does the first “His Dark Materials” book.
The U.S. release date for "The Golden Compass," based off the first installment of Pullman's "His Dark Material" triology, is Dec. 7, 2007.
Probably. But he could be trying to make children comfortable with the practice of communicating with 'spirit guides' or 'ascended masters.' And we know what those are. Regardless, the word daemon is obviously similar to demon, and it is simply reprehensible to inure children to the idea of communicating with a 'spirit guide' or demon. Even if he doesn't know what he's doing, someone in hell does.
“So what are we to do? Cry out, and who will believe us?”
In all things pray.
Secondly, I would talk about it, discuss it and e-mail it to friends and neighbors who are inclined to do likewise. I think that many parents and teachers do understand the nuances of this kind of propaganda and, in fact, we even have a quote which acknowledges that the books are the work of a religious bigot. They simply can’t hide their hatred.
I actually felt that the conservative critiques of Harry Potter were merely a fringe element - and they are. Many fifth, sixth and seventh graders are very capable of discussing the issues of allegory, metaphor and symbolism implemented in fiction. My former students loved these literary devices. We were actually able to use elements of the Potter and Narnia series to demonstrate how it reflected Christian themes.
The nature of secular humanism is that it tries to muddy up the waters of open discussion. It doesn’t show well in the full light of day. It uses triangulation, moral rationalization and rhetorical devices that are meant to trick and confuse both adults and children. Children need to be instructed to step around these mines the same way that adults do. You can do it without bringing them nose to nose with evil.
This can become a teaching opportunity if you feel that your children are ready. That doesn’t mean they see the film, but maybe they learn why they shouldn’t. Make them tell you!
On the rare occasion that I get into it with a secular humanist the only way to have the discussion is to lay the ground bare; do they believe that evil exists? Do they believe in Hell? These are deliberate and uncomplicated questions. More than a “yes” or “no” is not an acceptable response. There are no smoke and mirrors available. Children can be taught that hemming and hawing and answering questions with questions are to be seen for what they are intended to be; obfuscation and lies.
They can tell you from whom such things come.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree with your remarks earlier on Harry Potter.
“We’re all somewhat flawed. Chipped. Cracked. I know I am. Aren’t you?”
All of the above, but still a work in progress. ;0)
No I just see people as they are, for you the standard of perfection is the idea of what Jesus was. There is no standard, in that sense, for me…that’s not to say there are no goals we should achieve or a morality to follow, just that the ideal person does not exist because we’re all different and we all have different goals.
(I actually have a very concrete morality, more rigid then Christianity even but that’s a different conversation.)
Now say that you’re right and Adam and Eve were fools. What does that have to do for us? Why should we be punished for their sins? Under what moral system can you justify someone as being sinful just as they’re born?
Finally why do you believe in all that? Cause you ‘feel’ it? Because you’ve reasoned it out? I’ve always assumed it’s because most people believe in what their parents believed.
I say we're not being punished for their sins, we're inheriting what was heritable in terms of damage.
We neither earn nor merit what we inherit from our ancestors, neither good nor bad. If your parents both had IQs of 150+, no allergies, optimum immune systems, cheerful dispositions and symmetrical facial features, you'd likely enjoy these benfits yourself without having merited them; likewise if they had low intellectual abilities, blood disorders, a tendency to depression, and facial deformities, you, though innocent, would likely suffer similarly.
The consequences of the ancestral breakdown were just like that. They are genetic, or closely analogous to genetic. That's what we mean when we say they are part of our nature.
"Under what moral system can you justify someone as being sinful just as they’re born?"
I don't.
"Finally why do you believe in all that?"
I don't.
The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.
It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
Notice that anything that is transmitted by propagation would have to be, by definition, genetic or quasi-genetic. The Catechism rightly calls it "mysterious," but one thing is clear: it is part of our nature as human beings.
That’s the idea I was trying to get at, sometimes I’m just horrible at actually finding words to say what I want to when I’m talking about something that’s not concrete like ideas or philosophy - on the other hand I’m excellent at expressingmyself if I’m talking about physics or fixing my VCR or something.
Anyways, I’m sad that Robert Jordan died, I hope he left enough notes and such for someone to properly finish up the series.
Whenever I hear the word ‘daemon’, I always think of the little Unix programs running in the background of things, like ‘services’ in windows. I’m imagining how I would have interpreted a kid having a personal ‘daemon’ if I had read the books... lol I think sometimes I’m almost too nerdy to function =)
Oh, for crying out loud, Bill Donohue is a textbook example of the sort of people who have no life other than to scour the earth high and low searching out things at which to take offense. Leave that sort of thing to the DUmbass left.
Here is a snippet of an interview the Sydney Morning Herald had with Phillip Pullman:
Pullman himself is shocked by how little reaction the books and upcoming films have received thus far. Talking with the Sydney Morning Herald, he confesses, “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.”
Thank you for that post. Do you have a link to the online story?
Not that they stop buying it of course. It's like these broads who buy Rolling Stone and fashion magazines, and then complain how women are portrayed.
So stop buying it, you FOOLS! Or else DON'T COMPLAIN!
Go to snopes.com and read what is said about the author there. These books are not HP parallels, the author not merely agnostic or even a true atheist, he is out and out Christian hater. He has publicly stated that his goal in writing these books is to kill God in the minds of children. Don’t buy the books, don’t borrow them, and certainly don’t support the movie.
I'm very sorry that the "boogetty-boogetty, this is eeeeevil" chant of the Christian critics pretty much shot their credibility and made them come off as paranoid, because…
Philip Pullman's trilogy really is evil.
I can't tell you how much it embarrasses me to put it that way.
Because, to repeat: Pullman has an agenda. It is an explicitly and viciously anti-God agenda. You can learn more about it by googling Philip Pullman kill God, Philip Pullman kids sex, or Philip Pullman atheist propaganda or similar combinations.
And he’s a clever writer, really much more seductive and talented than J.K. Rowling. Well, look him up and see for yourself.
Do not get your kids into this. You’ve been warned.
The warning need not apply to any rational person.
All fiction is Goldie Locks. It's pure nonsense.
Of course had the Python crew not had good comic sensibility the protest might have been accurate. According to various discussions Pythoners have had about Bryan there actually were quite a few jokes directed pretty strongly at Jesus and even organized religion in the script, but they turned out not to be funny so they got dropped. There’s two or three major lessons in that for a lot of authors and movie makers.
“Critics Slam ‘Golden Compass’ Movie for ‘Castrating’ Anti-Church Themes “
This sounds like the argument of Himmler (who spent a load of money
looking for ancient Aryans) with Hitler, who was afraid that the German masses
would figure out the long-range Nazi plan was to destroy Jews...
then to wipe out Christianity.
Hitler feared that Himmler might “tip their hand” too early!
For the movie critics, the film makers aren’t being “pure enough” with
the atheist themes in the source novels...but the director of the
movie is wise enough to know that incrementalism is the way to go
in “killing G-d”.
Heck, why should a film-maker give away the real agenda and suffer at
the box-office?!
Better to water down the deicide and amp it up in the sequel films!!!
Source on the Himmler/Hitler intersection is from the FIVE-STAR
rated book listed below:
The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust
by Heather Pringle
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Plan-Himmlers-Scholars-Holocaust/dp/B000RG1E2U/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6331327-2071827?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193697834&sr=1-1
But you are capable of cooperating with evil.
Your comment is (forgive me) the kind of useless observation which invites tautological formulation:
"Rational people aren't influenced by fiction."
"Such-and-such educated, intellectually sophisticated, accomplished persons were much influenced by works of fiction."
"Ah. Then they couldn't have been truly rational."
(Alternatively: "Ah. Then it couldn't have been truly fiction.")
Your assertion is immune to any countervailing evidence or disproof because its conclusion is really just an aspect of its own definitions.
Who isn’t? And as far as I know I haven’t.
Although he is a self-professed atheist and a supporter of the British Humanist Association, Pullman has found support from some Christians – most notably Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams. They point out that the English writer’s negative portrayal of the "Church" in “His Dark Materials” amounts to an attack on dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself. Williams has gone so far as to propose that “His Dark Materials” be taught as part of religious education in schools.
Others, however, view the “His Dark Materials” series as a direct rebuttal of C. S. Lewis' series “The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” as both feature children facing adult moral choices, talking animals, religious allegories, parallel worlds, and concern the ultimate fate of those worlds. Furthermore, the first published book from “Narnia” begins with a young girl hiding in a wardrobe, as does the first “His Dark Materials” book.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Interesting. Mr. Williams wants children to read these books to learn about Christianity.
I have read the first book. I wanted to screen it before letting my son read it. It was pretty harmless as far as relating to real life religion. The book was written very well, and was quite clever in bringing in innocent readers (not unlike the General Oblation Board, LOL).
My sincere opinion is that if it's read strictly as fiction, and not as (anti-)religious symbolism, then this is a great book. I understand that the next books are not as subtle, so reading them in this manner may not be possible. If I let my children read these books at all, I would definitely want to monitor and discuss the books with them - not just allow them to read the books indiscriminately.
(I do not know what the "General Oblation Board" is: a Harry Potter reference?)
The GOB is part of The Golden Compass, actually. The main character, Lyra, knows it as the “Gobblers” who steal children by luring them in on their (the child’s) own volition.
Hook, line, and sinker. They never know what hits them until it’s too late.
OMG, I remember reading a science fiction novel ca 1971 that had something of this concept in it. Remember little of it now.
Unusual by itself: we usually discuss SEEING a movie before we go, and we don't go often. Though LoM sometimes persuades me to go see this or that. Rarely do we discuss NOT seeing a movie.
But she persuaded me to go see "Evan Almighty" and it had me laughing out loud in the (nearly empty) theater, silly as it was.
In searching for a commentary that I read on this about a month ago I came across this article. I particularly love the lines about Nicole Kidman and the Magisterium towards the end of the article.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm
Atheism for Christmas?
Posted Oct. 30, 2007 2:28 PM || by Dr. Jeff Mirus ||
On December 7th, New Line Cinema will release a film called “The Golden Compass” based on Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. The books are vehemently anti-Catholic and anti-God but the movie has been altered somewhat. The final result remains to be seen. I guess it will come as a sort of Christmas present from Hollywood.
Philip Pullman is an avowed atheist who wrote his novels in an effort to draw readers into an atheistic worldview. In the books, which have sold extremely well, the protagonists resist the evil power of the “Magisterium”, and it becomes increasingly clear as the reader moves through the trilogy that this “Magisterium” represents the Catholic Church and that the ultimate evil behind it is God Himself. The trilogy consists of Northern Lights (published in the US as The Golden Spyglass), The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass.
Pullman and another children’s author, Michael Rosen, actually produced a course for schools called “Why Atheism?” This program is designed to persuade children eleven years old and older that theism in general, and Christianity in particular, are irrational and ultimately dangerous worldviews. As Pullman told a literary conference in Oxford: “We’re used to the Kingdom of Heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I’m of the devil’s party, like Milton. And I think it’s time we thought about a republic of Heaven instead of the Kingdom of Heaven. The King is dead.”
Throughout the trilogy, priests are portrayed as evil and violent; one of them is an assassin. In contrast, an ex-nun who has lost her faith is positively portrayed. She describes Christianity as “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” The “Magisterium” kidnaps children in order to take out their souls. In the final volume, characters representing Adam and Eve kill God, who is referred to as YAHWEH. In a 2003 interview, Pullman stated point blank that “my books are about killing God.” He has also said he wants to “kill God in the minds of children.”
It is unclear how bad the film will be, apart from the incentive it will provide for people to read the books. New Line Cinema (a Time Warner company) was concerned that the anti-religious character of the books would hurt the movie financially, so it has watered down the themes, making the “Magisterium” stand not for the Catholic Church or God but simply for all dogmatic organizations. In real life, of course, nobody uses the term but Catholics.
Nicole Kidman will star in the film. Kidman has stated: “I wouldn’t be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic” because “I was raised Catholic. The Catholic Church is part of my essence.” But one doesn’t really know whether thinking is part of Kidman’s essence. It is quite possible she had never heard the term “Magisterium” before. In any case, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has launched a two-month protest campaign calling for a boycott of the film.
In truth, not having seen the film, it is difficult to condemn it. But the books were written self-consciously to counteract the Christian themes and symbolism of C. S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. So the movie’s connections and antecedents could scarcely be worse. Parents should be very much on their guard.
Well, I haven’t read the books, so am not commenting from any insight, just what you just wrote. If your description is at all accurate then you have described a Gnostic universe, which has been the intellectuals’ semireligious plaything since late antiquity. It’s gotten quite popular lately, both for those who take it seriously and especially for those who recognize that any reasonably well-construceted Gnostic universe will end up looking quite ridiculous, much as Ptolemy’s epicycles now appear. For those who buy the initial premises, then, and begin to forget the actual theology being parodied, recognizing the fatuity brings the whole concept of theism into derision. Which may well have been the original point of the authors’ exercises.
BTW, this series was recommended to me by a cadre of folks at another forum site. Every one of those people literally hated Wheel of Time, which has its own theological problems, none of which happen to be Gnostic, fortunately. I found it interesting that they all would simply worship Pullman and absolutely loathe Jordan/Rigney.
And I could never never never get them to clearly state why, other than how well Pullman deconstructs Lewis. What they hated about Jordan they never never said. Having just wasted several months investigating series like the Sword of Truth and Song of Fire and Ice, I was no longer in the mood to give leeway to advertisers for obtuse fantasy series about which they refused to be honest.
The only reason I would even take up these books would be if I learned that someone in the parish was reading them and starting to have the problems that Pullman appears to wish to cause.
I’d consider that a penance to have to undertake.
The trailer says it all: boringly BORING!
Yes of course...Bella is the film to see this year.
Next year I hope this film will be making the headlines
Nicholas of Myra
http://www.nicholasofmyra-movie.com/
I’m torn over this too — of course I don’t like it but...
Isn’t Star Trek essentially the same kind of thing? Religious folk are often portrayed as narrow minded, political and bigoted, the gospel of Gene Roddenberry was that we are constantly evolving upward etc. etc...
Same basic principle isn’t it?
Personally I don’t get worked up over movies or books-of just about any type. People should read and think, regardless of the message. We’re far too sensitive these days. The world is full of deceptive trappings much more subtle than this. God’s light always shines through and His will will be done.
Would I go and see this movie? Probably not. As one person stated it looks boring and from what I saw in the previews, the special effects look chinzy. This hype is simply free publicity.
You seem to have missed the point. This film is targeted for children. In releasing it before Christmas, many unsuspecting parents may naively purchase the trilogy of books noted above. And that is where the author intends to deliver his message; not through the movie.
My family is not going to watch it. Period.
Pullman’s trilogy is absolutely nothing like Lewis’ science fiction trilogy. He’s a good writer, as is Lewis, but there the resemblence ends. I’m reading the last book of Pullman’s trilogy now and it’s a snoozer, unlike the first two. Pullman’s hatred for Christ and the church oozes throughout his works.
Probably the stars had dæmons just as humans did, and experimental theology involved talking to them. OMG, I remember reading a science fiction novel ca 1971 that had something of this concept in it. Remember little of it now.
The Perelandra trilogy has exactly this concept. It's really central to the plot, I think. The oyarsa (sp?) are the daemons of the various planets.
Pullman is just a hateful atheist, who set out to trash Lewis's Narnia books. Too bad he can string words together. But he has a long way to go before he has Lewis's persuasive facility with the language; you don't pick that up by the side of the road.
If he were as good as Lewis, his hatred wouldn't be so obvious. I still remember when I read The Last Battle for the first time, at the age of 7, being completely surprised by the line, "And then he no longer looked to them like a lion. . . . " Lewis doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve in his fiction.
I have read Perelandra several times, but not recently. I just don’t remember stars in it having demons. I can see why kids would like to read Pullman because they are more exciting to read—at least the first two of the triology. Third is boring. But Lewis’ writing stays with you and informs you throughout your life. At least it does me. I’ve read That Hideous Strength many times. I’ve thought about it a lot through the years. I enjoyed reading Pullman, and promptly forgot the details. It’s a one-time, forgettable book.
And it certainly informs one continually . . . his Apostate Bishop, taken in conjunction with current events, was a clear and certain warning for us to get OUT of the Episcopal Church USA. He sure did call it!
I read that many years ago. Maybe it’s time for another read. I also started to read The Abolition of Man recently for the first time. It’s short and excellent!
I understand. Children tend to be far more resilient than we give them credit for.
That being said this is a parenting issue so it's not for me to stick my nose into what movies parents let their children watch. My wife and I use to screen all my son's movies and books. There were times I would go to a movie prior to my son and watch it just to make sure there wasn't something wrong with it. So I can understand where people may be coming from on this. In one way, I would rather have my son go to something like this than overhearing the nightly news with the constant discussions on rape, murder, homosexuality, etc. I use to tell my wife to turn off the TV or go into another room.
If a parent doesn't feel their child can handle this type of movie, then they shouldn't take them. However, don't believe for one moment that their friends won't be talking about this in detail at school. They might even want to check the book out at the library if it hasn't been assigned in school. In the end, all we can do is to try to bring up a child in the best possible way and commit the rest to the Lord. It isn't in our control.
The optimistic vision of human progress (basically an evolutionary view of society) has often by pointed to as part of the reason for the success of Star Trek. I don’t know; maybe it was for some people. And there definitely are episodes in the old series and especially TNG which have an adversarial view of faith. But in the later series, GR’s unwillingness to portray conflict unless it had an alien source opened the door to other writers with more realistic views of human depravity. As I understand it, the other producers fought to free the series from that sort of constraint, especially since GR’s death.
(And funny that a lot of the people who get into the show prefer the Klingons or some other aliens, most of whom are more “human” in their actions than Roddenberry’s rosy vision of future generations...)
Interestingly, J.M. Strazynsky and Joss Whedon, writer/creators of two of the best of the new crop of TV SciFi IMO, are both atheists. But they’re good writers first, and while they may not have a orthodox understanding of faith and God, they don’t allow their work to be directly antagonistic, at least the bits I’ve seen (not a huge amount).
Is that different in kind or only in degree from these books? I don’t know the books, so I can’t compare. But I think the best in SF is about ideas, and challenging the reader/viewer to think. That’s not a bad thing, so long as people keep thinking critically and rationally.
But what makes it so much different than a lot of other godless entertainment targeted at children? To me it seems like just another drop in the bucket. I enjoy Star Trek, though it's obviously humanistic and anti-Christian. Suspension of disbelief does wonders I guess. Some of it I don't like and I don't really go out of my way to watch it. But I would argue that the same message is present in a lot of entertainment, not just this particular movie.
I don’t want to put any of my money in this atheist author’s pocket. So I think I will sit this one out.
I would rather they watch both, and discuss it with me, than to hear a titillating joke about sex on the radio. The other day on our local talk station they kept playing this stupid promo for a TV show that had a line where one of the characters was exclaiming almost breathlessly "We SHOULDN'T be having SEX in the OFFICE!"
I yelled at the radio each time and shut it off but it kept catching me unprepared. Anyway if something like that happens, I explain my frustration to the kids who heard it, and why it's wrong to put something like that on the air etc. Explain then the Christian attitude toward sex (at a level appropriate to their understanding).
It just seems there's no way to realistically expect kids to not notice the sex and other deceitful messages bombarding them at every turn. I just have to accept that I must explain it to them younger than I would have hoped. :-(
I probably will too, but it doesnt’ seem like there’s much point to making a big stink about yet another bucket of lies being put forth by Hollyweird!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.