Posted on 12/05/2007 1:15:32 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl
Michael Medved is discussing the upcoming film "Golden Compass" now. I'm not familiar with the book, but I've seen that there is controversy about it being anti-Christian. He says people should be concerned and is explaining it now.
I just thought people would be interested in hearing about this who have posted concerns about the movie.
My wife and I saw the movie over the weekend. I’ll dig out my comments on another thread and bring them here.
The movie appeared to have great graphics, etc....but I still won't be seeing the movie.
Even with Sam Elliot, no thanks.
Elliot is getting better roles with age.
I like Sam Elliot, too. The only thing I’ve heard about the book is that a friend of mine who is a high school English teacher mentioned that he liked the book series.
My wife and I went to see The Golden Compass over the weekend. I wanted to see the thing for myself because I was leary the plot would move into dangerous ground.
I know some people wince at the idea a movie could actually move into dangerous ground. I am baffled by this perception. If we believe that the media is biased and produces leftist propaganda, why can’t a movie? If Hitler’s minister of propaganda was a bonified evil character, how can we come to the conclusion that movies can’t also be mediums of propagandist ideology? We were glad to see the Passion of Christ, because we appreciated the focus on Christ. Why? Because we considered it to be a good thing for people to be exposed the subject of His sacrifice. If good influences people, where are people coming from that think evil can’t influence people?
What we are exposed to in movies is important. It’s as important as what we are exposed to in newsprint, television news reports, books, and I might add, the television plots that flood into our homes.
My emphasis here shouldn’t be misconstrued. It’s not the presentation of ideas to adults that I wish to focus on here, although I do consider that to be very problematic. It is the movement of all sorts of ideas into the rhelms of childhood entertainment that causes concern. Showing witchcraft to adults might be problematic, but at least an adult has some basis for determining what is reality and what isn’t. Children don’t have the foundation to make such determinations. And some of these determinations are difficult enough for adults. Political probaganda and the reactions to it, should make that abundantly clear.
IMO the main underlying theme of the movie, was that children have dynamic souls that deminish upon becoming an adult. Each child had a dynamic soul in the form of an animal. The leading character had a weasle for a soul. Her weasle (soul) was able to morph into a bird, mouse or other forms, each form living and communicating with her. Adult souls settled into one form, and were not able to morph. Other than that one trait, they still remained able to live with and communicate with the adult. This theme was present throughout, as the main plot transitioned to one of an evil government personality fighting against those represented to be good. (I don’t want to give away too much plot to those that haven’t seen the movie yet)
Entering the movie, it was my perception that the external soul figures would be the problematic part of the movie. Surprisingly, I didn’t come away with that being reinforced. Instead the representations of this aspect seemed innocent enough. Although these figures did defend their human partner, I didn’t get the impression they were replacing a Biblical concept. They represented an outward rendition of a person’s internal soul. They pretty much stuck to that, obvioiusly depicting in a physical sense what a person’s interal soul would operate like.
At one point in the movie, the leading character is warned that evil people are trying to control what she and other children think. Talk about a pertinant concept to mention to children and their parents... Couldn’t be more timely with this concept, and it’s the one area where I think the left really screwed up, if you accept that the left may have been wanting to send a message through this movie. Our government (through public education) is unquestionably trying to redirect the perceptions of our nation’s children. Parents defective, the collective (why of course your teachers, counselors, other public authority figures) good.
One last point that occured to me, was that I grow more uncomfortable with the ‘evil’ figures that are presented to our children these days. For some reason the writers of the plotlines seem to think it is important to humanize the evil and dramatize the good. In this movie, the evil figure rescues the child and at certain points comes off as a good person. This ambiguity is confusing to the true nature of the figure. As an adult, I thought it was rather clear the figure was eveil. The same is done with certain good figures though. One ‘good’ character, supposedly on the child’s side, is made to look like they may actually be contemplating evil by the end of the movie. This wasn’t so easy to evaluate. These tactics confuse the determinatios of what is evil and what is good. Even as an adult, I came away form the movie wondering which direction certain characters were going to be lead in subsequent movies. And yes, I could best describe this move as a long chapter one.
I wouldn’t take young children to this movie. Hey, that’s my take on it. I’ve talked to folks who think kids should be able to see anything, as long as the adults explain to the child what was good or bad about it. I have one response to that theory. When my kids were about three, they asked if Santa was real. We sat them down and explained that Santa was a conglomeration of good men that dressed up each year to do nice things, but that there wasn’t a real Santa. They accepted this at the time. We were sure we had been honest with the kids and they seemed happy with the explanation. Well, years later we still got blamed for letting them think Santa was real. Folks, kids will believe what they want to. Exposing them to certain complex ideas is a very iffy proposition.
In conclusion I have found that the Wizard of Oz seems to be a movie of choice, when folks try to downplay witchcraft and the problems of presenting evil figures to children. In the Wizard of Oz, the evil nature of the evil character was never humanized. The wicked witch was wicked. In the society where that film was first presented, parents and schools joined forces to clearly define the difference between right and wrong. In today’s climate, the schools teach that there is no evil, there is only your truth and the truth that others see. Moral equivelance has taken the place of right and wrong. And today the evil characters more often than not have been morphed into some form that does good and bad. That is terribly confusing to children. “What was this person mommy, good or bad?” “I’m not sure honey. We’ll just have to wait two years until the sequel.”
I don’t think this is a good object lesson for teaching the concept of right and wrong to children. It is very reflective of where certain adult figures are headed in the development of the minds of the innocent, in deference to what their parents have in mind.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934036/posts?page=41#41
Well, the bad guys are still called "The Magisterium" - so clearly they weren't all removed.
95% of all movies are anti-Christian. I don’t understand what all the fuss about one more being the same. Folks, this world is not Christ’s Kingdom, and it never will be. But soon this transformed Earth will be.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up (Christ) into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Any question who is currently in charge of the world?
His caller “Kevin” is denouncing parents’ sharing their religion with their kids for 20 years “brainwashing them” (he says that brainwashing is “too harsh” a word but used it nonetheless).
He talks about parents insisting that their children believe this vast story of an all encompassing god and doomsday.
So get the Global Warming scare out of our classrooms NOW. It is a religion and one that the establishment is demanding children echo.
I’ve actually read the books; they were quite good -— until I found out the author’s express agenda of tearing down Judeo/Christian theology — calls himself the “anti-C.S. Lewis.”
I read the books are pure fancy — and on that level — they are good reads.
If you look at it deeper, the agenda becomes more obvious.
It’s a shame really -— there are great visuals and texture to the “world” he creates — a wonderful imagination at work.
I don’t recommend buying the books or seeing the movie because I would not want to give money to someone so committed to evil — but, if you have a solid faith and are interested in learning how the “other side” thinks (or rather how they believe we should think) in an otherwise enjoyable read, check them out of the library.
So does that mean we just give up?
From what I’m hearing, the film isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-anyone who is raising their children in a religious environment.
It isn’t that this film has elements that are CONTRARY to living a moral lifestyle, this is a film targeting children with the specific message that the Church is the source of evil in this world and that we’d all be better off if God is dead.
It is anti-Christian in the sense that it is AGAINST Christians and Christianity.
Parents should know the agenda of the author and not provide him easy access to their children or pocketbooks.
The first two books are good. I thought the third was dreadful; I just finished it last week. It was hard to read for a number of reasons. I would NEVER see those movies, though.
Nothing wrong with that. The problem is this nut is expressly going after the innocent.
The left actually believes that parents should not instill values into their children, but instead, let the elites do it through their brainwashing emporiums called public schools.
They didn’t take the homeschool movement seriously enough early enough and get it squashed - now we have legal defense organizations, lobbyists, etc, in order to protect us from them.
The books are definitely evil. I read them when they first came out. They are specifically anti-Catholic, but also anti-Christian and an attack upon the idea of God. And they are deliberately designed to hide that purpose in the opening novel and then to bring it more and more to the fore as the books progress.
In the end, the two kids who are the heroes kill the interfering, busybody God so he will stop interfering with their desire to enjoy good sex. Pullman gets most of this from Blake’s Nobodaddy and from Nietzsche.
I enjoy reading science fiction, fantasy, and magic novels as long as they have reasonably decent intentions. I have no problems with Harry Potter, although I understand why some people might. But the Golden Compass series is deliberately evil, IMHO.
Monkey daemons are cheeky and naughty.
They should be soundly spanked.
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.