The Golden Compass Trailer

[tinwë]

Ah. Well, I guess I can't really comment on the matter any further without getting into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that I detected no anti-religious slant to the movie at all.

[Athrabeth]

Killing God?

Apparently Mr. Pullman has made it his mission to "kill the idea of god". I don't think he's going to succeed!!!

But the chat around Tay's school is this bit about killing god. Man, if you want to make kids want something, tell them it's wicked.

These people never learn.

No doubt I will have to see it, since the kids want to. And I also have taken the initiative to discuss it with the kids, pointing out the absurdity of killing something you don't believe in -- and that Pullman didn't say he was going to kill god, but the idea of god.

Everyone knows you can't kill god, so why worry about it?

Spoilers ahead, for those who haven't read the books.................

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
One of the main plotlines of His Dark Materials is Asriel's mission to overthrow "The Kingdom of Heaven" and replace it with a "Republic". In the third book, "The Authority" ("God", in a way) does die (in a way). But he's not killed. Actually, for me, it was quite a lovely and poignant moment within the rather cacophonous final installment of the series......not at all "wicked". I think the most important thing to consider is that in Pullman's multiverse, "God" is a hierarchical position created by powerful beings known as "angels" (again, you've got to read the books to figure these guys out.....they're not the "traditional" kind, that's for sure). This is not "The Creator", because in Pullman's view, such a thing simply does not exist.

[Alatar]

Vison,

I discussed this with a fairly religious friend of mine and I thought his argument was compelling. He basically said "How can Religious fiction be considered an attack on Religion? Nobody claims Science Fiction is an attack on Science!"

Worth mentioning to your school, perhaps.

[Frelga]

I don't think it is so unreasonable for a religion-centered school to warn the parents that their kids might see something that is at odds with what they are teaching at school and at home. I abhor the "ban and burn" crowd, and will probably see the movie just to support it but there's nothing wrong with suggesting that parents preview the movie and decide whether their child should watch it or how to talk to them afterwards.

[vison]

I don't think it is so unreasonable for a religion-centered school to warn the parents that their kids might see something that is at odds with what they are teaching at school and at home. I abhor the "ban and burn" crowd, and will probably see the movie just to support it but there's nothing wrong with suggesting that parents preview the movie and decide whether their child should watch it or how to talk to them afterwards.

You're right, Frelga. And I haven't taken offense at being "warned". It might make me roll my eyes (it did), but I know where the school is coming from. I did pass on the review Alatar posted, don't know if anyone will read it or pay attention.


v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

It is, indeed, Pullman's denial of The Creator that has their knickers in a twist.

[Primula Baggins]

Ironically, the last time this came up as an issue at my church was THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Should families see it? Should kids see it? How to talk about it before and after? (It's a pretty un-Lutheran film. )

Frelga's got a point that there is a difference between this kind of discussion and saying "Boycott this" or "Ban this."

People have different thresholds for the degree to which they're willing to have their beliefs challenged—especially challenged to the children they're trying to bring up within those beliefs. My own are rather high: I tend to think that if your child falls away from what you were trying to teach him, insulating him from other ideas probably would not have prevented this. You can't insulate them forever, after all (as if you should!). And if the way you try to live, and would like your kids to live, is a good way and is possible for a particular child, chances are that is where he'll end up.

In other words, you're not programming them. Keep them from outright nasty inputs, in which I would include genuine porn, gratuitous violence, and stories consisting of people belittling and being nasty to each other. But encountering different opinions and ways of looking at the world is good for kids. Asking questions is good.

[Alatar]

Prim, as a SciFi author, what do you think of the remark I quoted?

[tinwë]

Frelga's got a point that there is a difference between this kind of discussion and saying "Boycott this" or "Ban this."

There's also a difference between saying there is no God, and not saying anything about God at all. Most movies, most forms of entertainment even, don't deal directly with the subject at all. Neither does this movie. Again, I haven't read the books, so I don't know what they say, but I fail to see how anyone could construe from this movie a message that there is no God.

[Primula Baggins]

Prim, as a SciFi author, what do you think of the remark I quoted?

Which was:

"How can Religious fiction be considered an attack on Religion? Nobody claims Science Fiction is an attack on Science!"

Science fiction can't be an attack on science, if by science you mean the scientific method and the information it's gathered for us about the universe. What makes SF "science fiction" is that it starts from the assumption that science forms a valid basis for understanding the world and that things that happen in an SF story need to at least appear to agree with what we currently know. (In other words, you can make things up, but you need to "paste" these new developments into our present understanding of reality in a way that makes it seem like a reasonable discovery or advance based on what has come before.)

So SF takes science, with its built-in uncertainties, and says, "This is true, which means these speculations are valid, too; let's tell a story."

If "religious fiction" means "stories about religion," rather than "stories intended to strengthen people's faith in a particular religion," then it starts from a different place. Since religion, for religious people, starts from faith—the conviction that "this is true"—then a logical starting point for religious fiction is, "But what if it's not?" Or "But I know it's not!" or "But there's this other thing instead—that's true." And there's no single consensus about "religion" in any case; believers believe all kinds of things.

So "religious fiction," if it has any ideas in it at all, is going to offend some at least of the people who have different ideas. That really can't happen in regard to the science in science fiction. (It can with the social ideas and political ideas and ideas about sex and violence, for sure. Just not the science.)

ETA: tinwë, it sounds as if they took what was distinctive about this trilogy and made it generic so as to avoid offending people. That's too bad, I think.

[vison]

I don't think they were concerned about "offending" people, Prim. I think they, like so many other movie and TV makers, have a very low opinion of the audience: they don't want to take the chance that people might think it's got "something to do with an idea".

Look what PJ did to LOTR, for example.

Same thing.

[yovargas]

Look what PJ did to LOTR, for example.

You mean make it awesome?

[vison]

Look what PJ did to LOTR, for example.

You mean make it awesome?

You be's a ninny, yovargas.

You and I are bound to be twain on this issue.

Otherwise, we is as one, right?

[Primula Baggins]

Shan't argue with you on that one, vison (after all this time we have our trenches not only dug, and bricked in, but plastered and wallpapered and furnished and all set up with nice little fireplaces and tea tables and doilies on the backs of the overstuffed armchairs, and really it now seems pointless to go over the top and storm the no-man's land once again when one could simply invite the other to one's trench for a nice cup of tea and a chat about Anything but PJ's Films).

I do think Golden Compass represents a specific kind of evisceration of ideas, though. There are plenty of mass-market films out there that are full of ideas, if sometimes lunk-headed ones, and that do try to challenge people. But I can't think of one mainstream would-be blockbuster that went after religion.

[Athrabeth]

There's also a difference between saying there is no God, and not saying anything about God at all. Most movies, most forms of entertainment even, don't deal directly with the subject at all. Neither does this movie. Again, I haven't read the books, so I don't know what they say, but I fail to see how anyone could construe from this movie a message that there is no God.

ETA: tinwë, it sounds as if they took what was distinctive about this trilogy and made it generic so as to avoid offending people. That's too bad, I think.

You know, I can't really recall if the whole idea about "The Authority" ("God") was actually developed in the first book, but I could be wrong about that - it's been a few years since I read the trilogy. "His Dark Materials" is, after all, a kind of mystery as well, with the central theme gradually becoming more and more revealed as several disparate characters and events (and worlds!) merge. I was far more intrigued by Pullman's concept of "Dust" than that of "God" anyway (and wonder how that's going to be handled in the subsequent movies). Anyway, for me, the central themes are much more about the corruptive temptation of power, the struggle between good and evil (or "innocence and experience", just to get a little Blakean ), the workings of free will, and the sad beauty of self-sacrifice . I'll just have to see if the movie(s) can deliver on those.

[Alatar]

Science fiction can't be an attack on science, if by science you mean the scientific method and the information it's gathered for us about the universe. What makes SF "science fiction" is that it starts from the assumption that science forms a valid basis for understanding the world and that things that happen in an SF story need to at least appear to agree with what we currently know. (In other words, you can make things up, but you need to "paste" these new developments into our present understanding of reality in a way that makes it seem like a reasonable discovery or advance based on what has come before.)

So SF takes science, with its built-in uncertainties, and says, "This is true, which means these speculations are valid, too; let's tell a story."

If "religious fiction" means "stories about religion," rather than "stories intended to strengthen people's faith in a particular religion," then it starts from a different place. Since religion, for religious people, starts from faith—the conviction that "this is true"—then a logical starting point for religious fiction is, "But what if it's not?" Or "But I know it's not!" or "But there's this other thing instead—that's true." And there's no single consensus about "religion" in any case; believers believe all kinds of things.

So "religious fiction," if it has any ideas in it at all, is going to offend some at least of the people who have different ideas. That really can't happen in regard to the science in science fiction. (It can with the social ideas and political ideas and ideas about sex and violence, for sure. Just not the science.)

I think thats a pretty narrow definition. Instead of saying "This is True", Religious fiction can take the form "This is what we think is true, lets explore the ramifications of that", or maybe "Lets try to deconstruct that". Neither can be considered an "attack" any more than someone who explores the idea of Faster Than Light travel in SciFi.

Science Fiction often starts by taking our set of rules or physics and changing one thing to see how that plays out. Alternatively, extrapolating based on what we think we know and seeing where that leads us. How is it any different to apply that to religion?

[Primula Baggins]

I think thats a pretty narrow definition. Instead of saying "This is True", Religious fiction can take the form "This is what we think is true, lets explore the ramifications of that", or maybe "Lets try to deconstruct that". Neither can be considered an "attack" any more than someone who explores the idea of Faster Than Light travel in SciFi.

Science Fiction often starts by taking our set of rules or physics and changing one thing to see how that plays out. Alternatively, extrapolating based on what we think we know and seeing where that leads us. How is it any different to apply that to religion?

Because that's how science advances, when scientists do it. That is science. There's nothing disturbing to scientists about science fiction, other than general amusement or sometimes annoyance when the ideas are egregiously silly.

Changing anything in a belief system, then seeing what happens, is not how religions work. Religious fiction such as you describe might well be less offensive than religious fiction that examines the bases of people's beliefs. But my experience as a lifelong church member—and a pastor's daughter, who saw some of the life of the congregation from the inside—is that there is no telling what is going to offend people, and someone is always offended.

[Alatar]

Ah yes, but its still not an attack on the religion. People can and will take offense, but for no good reason. Me saying "I don't think God exists" isn't offensive or an attack on religion. Me saying "The church is responsible for a lot of evil in the past" is not offensive or an attack on religion. That doesn't stop people taking offense.


The question is not whether people can or will take offense. Its whether the fiction in and of itself can be considered an "attack" on anything.

[Primula Baggins]

For the movie studios' purposes, an "attack on religion" is anything that is seen by some group as an "attack on religion," fairly or not.

People will protest and boycott, whether they "ought" to or not. For a major studio release, the perception of being "anti-religious" is just as expensive to the studios' bottom line as the actuality.

[Alatar]

Oh I get that. I'm just wondering whether people believe that it is justifiable. Its like, can you censor an idea? An opinion? A belief?

[Frelga]

The people who protest obviously think it's justifiable. I disagree, but that doesn't seem to stop them.