It is a tired axiom that a film adaptation will never be as good as the novel it is based on. The trend of poor adaptations, however, doesn’t stop studios from continuing to crank out disappointments. The latest great novel to be butchered in this fashion on the big screen is Philip Pullman’s “The Golden Compass.”
I will concede that, in this case, I am not an objective observer. “The Golden Compass” has long been my favorite book, and Christmas came early when I heard that they were going to adapt it into a film. Unfortunately, the scope of the project, as well as its controversial nature—Pullman and his books have long been under attack by conservative religious groups for their anti-Church bent —meant that the movie was bound to have a rocky creation. Along the way, there were casualties: the unavoidable but not unreasonable dilution of anti-religious aspects in the story, for example. Less excusable, however, was the tweaking of various names, places, and dialogue to be more generic and user-friendly. Most egregious of all: the last three chapters of the book were excised from the final cut of the film. This cut was made after Bob Shaye, the head of New Line Cinema, voiced concerns about poor audience reaction to test screenings. Fans of the trilogy, you have been warned.
The main tenet of “The Golden Compass” (and the “His Dark Materials” Trilogy that it is based on) is that there are infinite worlds beyond our own, held together by mysterious Dust Particles. Soon after, we meet such a possible alternate reality, one not unlike the one we live in. Humans rule a planet with familiar geographical boundaries and locales (the movie’s opening sequence is at Jordan College in Oxford, England). People from Texas wear wide-brimmed cowboy hats and carry guns. There is even a raging fanatical blonde bitch named Miss Coulter.
But there are a few key differences. Instead of airplanes, people ride around in futuristic zeppelins. The evil “Magesterium,” a collection of quasi fascists determined to put the lid on independent thinkers and free will (a stand-in for the Catholic Church in the books) controls Britain, as well as most of the world. Most notably, a person’s soul — or “daemon” — manifests itself outside the body and takes on an animal form that represents key personality traits (the fascist has a snake, the cowboy has a hare, etc.).
The story follows the adventures of young Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards), a tomboy under the care of the masters of Jordan College. She shares the boldness of her Uncle, the intrepid explorer Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), who comes to the college to explain his ambitious plans for traveling north, much to the annoyance of the wicked Magesterium.
As in the book, the plot gets underway when Lyra is whisked away to a pseudo-London to be cared for by the aforementioned “Coulter woman” (Nicole Kidman). When Lyra discovers that her best friend, Roger, has been kidnapped, along with other children, for mysterious uses by Miss Coulter (and the Magesterium), she escapes with her Compass and attempts to rescue him. Along the way north, she joins up with a traveling band of “Gyptians” (basically gypsies), a cowboy/balloonist named Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliot), a witch (Eva Green), and, most importantly, a talking armored polar bear named Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen).
There are definitely things to like about this movie. The acting is excellent, by Nicole Kidman and Dakota Blue Richards especially, as the two fully embody their characters. I’m not a big fan of CGI, but the polar bears are done fairly well, and several of the scarier scenes in the book come to life terrifyingly in the film. Also, I was surprised with how obvious the Magesterium’s symbolism was: the leaders wear pope-like robes and accuse people of “heresy.”
“Compass,” however, is far from a great movie. The film is very rushed, with most conflicts solved within minutes of their introduction. Characters constantly explain the “rules” of their world to the audience and appear (literally!) out of thin air to come and help, in distortions of their more organic introduction in the book. Pullman populated his world with a rich collection of characters, creatures, and locales, but the film is far from a fully realized “Star Wars”-esque universe.
To be sure, “Compass” has no glaring flaw. Yet beyond all the individual components, what you have is an utterly generic, undistinguished entry in the now very crowded fantasy film genre.
The failure of “Compass” is particularly painful in light of its potential to offer interesting social commentary. Lyra’s world should have been a more drab and sinister version of Victorian England—instead, it’s populated with bright colors and a parade of gosh-golly-wow gadgets and vehicles. The bittersweet ending of the original story gave a chance for a more ambiguous and thought-provoking experience, as opposed to a traditional happy recap. “Lord of the Rings” (the success of which inspired New Line to gobble up the rights for this film) succeeded because it avoided this pitfall—Peter Jackson and New Line trusted that Tolkien’s material, left reasonably intact, would sell itself.
“The Golden Compass” could have left fans raving. Instead, they greeted the ending with shocked spats of laughter (one, probably a fan of the book series, screamed “What!?” when the end credits starting rolling). This movie is destined merely to make millions at the box office and then go quietly into the night. Director Chris Weitz promised complete fidelity to source material for the next two adaptations in the “Compass” series, provided the first was a success. He deserves more creative control. I would not be too displeased, however, if this movie bombs, the studio execs cancel the sequels, and in 20 or 30 years someone comes along with the courage to make the adaptation that the greatest fantasy series ever written truly deserves.
Leave a Reply