Movie News


GOLDEN COMPASS Director Answers Questions

By: Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Source: MTV

It's not often when a director will sit down with fans before a high-profile movie gets released and answers tough questions relating to his project. That's exactly what Chris Weitz, director of THE GOLDEN COMPASS, just did for a Q&A session over at MTV. He was asked some strong fan-related questions about the adaptation of the Pullman series and how much he cut or left in the final cut.

Here's a sample, the first question being about the religious angle of the story...

QUESTION #1 (from Simon):
Some changes were made in the adapting process — taking out talk of religion, original sin, beating death, etc. — to avoid controversy. And yet, some religious groups are still upset. If you can’t please everybody either way, if it’s not possible to avoid controversy by taking religion out, do you feel more or less emboldened to put it back in the rest of the films?

ANSWER:
It’s very important that people understand that nobody just hands you a couple hundred million dollars and says “Go ahead, knock yourself out!” What you have is a dynamic — you could call it a debate — between me, the filmmaker, and them, the studio — that, one hopes, results in a good film. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. It is my job to fight, by hook or by crook, for the best adaptation of the book possible. It is their job to get the movie to pay back its investors. Even Peter Jackson had to deal with this dynamic, which is why there were shorter theater releases and longer DVD releases of the LOTR movies. But also consider that there was practically nothing that might be deemed controversial in LOTR (other than what you might consider some reflexive racism on Tolkien’s part).



So, how does one go about adapting a book that has controversial elements into a film that a very wide variety of people can enjoy, without betraying the original? One tries to be clever about it. I realized that the overt stating of some of the themes in “The Northern Lights”/”The Golden Compass” would never — this is important to make clear — never EVER get across the goal line. There isn’t a wide enough audience for that — yet. If I wanted to popularize this series of extraordinary books and open them to a wider reading public than ever before, I was going to have to make some compromises. But I also knew that as a filmmaker one has more means of expression than dialogue, and that dialogue is a more subtle business than characters saying exactly what the characters say in the book. Sometimes I transpose elements - for instance, the biblical ideas that Asriel addresses towards the end of the book are voiced in a different context (and at shorter length) by Mrs. Coulter at Bolvangar in the film. Sometimes I turn textual or narrative arguments into visual ideas.

What I would say to fans of the book who are worried about the fidelity of the film is - just see the film. Then we’ll have a good point of reference from which to talk. Or, of course, don’t see the film if you think that the book itself is harmed by departures from the text. Philip Pullman likes to quote James M. Cain on this issue. Once, when somebody asked him if he was worried what a movie adaptation would do to his book, he said, “What do you mean? The book is right over there, on the shelf.”

Now, one thing that some of the extremists who have attacked the film are right about is that I would be happy if it made more people read the books - not because I am pursuing any sort of atheist agenda (this is a ridiculous idea), but because they are great works of literature, beautiful, permanent, and unassailable. They’re not going anywhere. And as for those who are concerned that I have not used the word “Church” but only the word “Magisterium” for the bad guys, and that sort of thing, I would advise them to do a little research into the meaning of the word “Magisterium” for starters. Some people will only be satisfied if the film I’ve made is an outright attack on religion, which to me shows that they have misapprehended the meaning of Pullman’s books as much as the “other side.”

It’s true, though, that “The Subtle Knife” and “The Amber Spyglass” tread in territory that is much more controversial than the first book. This is also addressed by a bunch of questions that I will lasso under the heading “what next?” Well, though I saw it as my duty to build the franchise of “His Dark Materials” on as solid a grounding as I could, it would all be in vain if the second and third films did not have the intellectual depth and the iconoclasm of the second and third books. The whole point, to me, of ensuring that “The Golden Compass” is a financial success is so that we have a solid foundation on which to deliver a faithful, more literal adaptation of the second and third books. This is important: whereas “The Golden Compass” had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can’t be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. There is simply no way to adapt them without dealing with Lyra’s destined role, her secret name, and the war in the heavens. I will not be involved with any “watering down” of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films. If I sense that this is not possible, there’s no point my continuing to work on them.

Let me also kind of round up some of the other questions in the same vein that I have received - let’s call them the “Religion” questions. First off, I would like to state what I think about Philip Pullman’s books and their view of religion. A lot of people — mostly those who haven’t read the books but are only repeating what they have read in some biased chain e-mails — are saying that Philip is “against religion” or “against Christianity.” These people don’t really want to engage with the very subtle philosophical and theological ideas in “His Dark Materials.” There are many grand ideas and themes in “His Dark Materials,” and Pullman asks us to question a lot of cherished and engrained beliefs; but if I had to boil it down, I would say that Pullman is against the abuse of religion for political power. He is against forcing people to believe what you believe, and against accepting something you are told without thinking about it. Which makes it ironic that none of the people who have attacked the film from a religious angle have seen the film!

To read much more from this Q&A, click here.

 


More Content By Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor
Agent Zero & Barnell Revealed for WOLVERINE
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Amazon Producing Fantasy CHILD
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Cameron Updates Status on AVATAR
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Doomed JLA, More Mutants & Ant Man!
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
First Bloody Pic from LOST BOYS 2
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
IRON MAN Trailer Debuts on Feb 28 Lost
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
New Victims Ready for FINAL DESTINATION 4
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Two More Gangsters for Mann's ENEMIES
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Weaving Tracks After the WOLFMAN
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
BIONIC WOMAN Officially Axed by NBC?
(Thursday, February 21, 2008)
Comments/Responses
1 2 > >>
WISEGUY562 • Nov 14, 2007, 06:47pm •
I'm tire of the super sensitive religious lot. This is fantasy and entertainment, it's not suppose to be Sunday mass.
As for the movie, I must say that I'm looking forward to it. But some of the CGI work I've seen so far doesn't look real promising. Hopefully the final product will look better. I love this genre, so I hope it does well so we can get the sequels as well.

EvilMonkey • Nov 15, 2007, 06:22am •
Count me in as one of the people who will go see this and read the books because of all this ruckus. I didn't know this story/movie even existed til the protests started happening.

WhiteKnight • Nov 15, 2007, 07:40am •
Odd how that works, isn't it? Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code...both hugely successful franchises at least in part because of all the hate they receive before they even make it to the big screen. My bet is "His Dark Materials" will be successful, at least partially, for the same reason.

I started to read the first book right before the release of "The Deathly Hallows," but I only managed to get a few chapters in because I had Harry Potter on the brain. I need to try it again before this comes out in December.

necroskippy • Nov 15, 2007, 10:03am •
Thing is that on issues like this compromise is pretty much doomed from the start because the people who are going to condemn and boycott the movie will hat it no matter what changes are put in simply because of the books. They will, as some already have say that it's a "stealth agenda".

fft5305 • Nov 15, 2007, 10:25am •
Agreed necroskippy. It's probably all BS, because they probably didn't have time for any religious subplots and had to cut them anyway. But if they say they cut it to avoid offending people, it gets the religious nutjobs to talk about it more and the movie gets more free publicity. Gee, I don't sound too cynical, do I?

mbeckham1 • Nov 15, 2007, 11:32am •
If I hadn't already been planninbg to see it. The hate rant would've convinced me. You just can't buy publicity like that.

Does soundf like a fairly cool premise too.

Saintsashes • Nov 15, 2007, 11:41am •
First off, i'm somewhat religious, but I love these books. Alot of the people putting up a fit about these are people that don't read, or know how to read, or know how to come up with opinions of their own. I wasn't offended by the parallels made about power and the church, because I feel like it's a valid point. I think this movie will be great, even if it cuts out alot of the philosophy. I'm stoked about Iorek.

allsburg • Nov 15, 2007, 11:52am •
Look, quite frankly, religion is a fairly minimal element of the first book. But, like Weitz says, it's a crucial element of books two and three. There is simply no story to them without religion.

And it's not just that it's about religion: these books open up a whole can of worms, and start asking questions that, quite frankly, most religious people don't want to think about.

I was amazed that the books--very strong sellers, and very popular--didn't elicit more controversy when they were published. I'm astounded that a movie studio thought it was a good idea to turn them into films.

The outrage and controversy over The Amber Spyglass and the Subtle Knife will make the "Last Temptation of Christ" controversy look tame in comparison. IF those films even get made.

Schools will start banning these books very soon.

Whiskeymovie • Nov 15, 2007, 01:31pm •
I think people are way to caught up in Religion. I think it can be a very helpful thing for people, but I also think it can be used as a form of biais. I work with a woman who tells me that because I have not accepted Jesus as my personal savior, I will go to hell. I just laugh at her. That is truly an ignorrant statement. Religion, like race, is something that people take way to seriously. You have to be able to poke fun at these things. I feel sorry for anyone that can not. And I mean poke fun, not be mean or hateful, there is a diffrence. And this is just my opnion, not fact. When you look at "The Da Vinci Code",something like 30% of people questioned their own beliefs after the movie came out. If you questio your own beliefs because of a movie, your convictions could not have been that strong in the first place. I think that is one reason these "groups" get upset.

estavares • Nov 15, 2007, 03:59pm •
I think we need to be careful, however, about the subtle bigotry that is seen in some of these posts...the presumption that "most" religious people have a problem with these books and "most" don't want to read the things these books share or people are too "caught up" in religion. As if, somehow, Christians are so sheltered that a children's book might 'enlighten" them to the foolishness of their ways.

Let's be frank here. Those complianing about these books are few and far between. As an active Christian myself, I think these books are BRILLIANT. Are they anti-Catholic? Anti-religion? You betcha. The third book is a veriable diatribe against the very concept of God, and don't be fooled by the rhetoric that Pullman meant it simply as an "abuse" of religion. Because it deals with the idea that religion and God, in and of themselves, are ultimately irrelevant.

With that in mind, I still heartily recommend the books...at least the first two. They are brilliant, intelligent novels. The third is weaker in a pure literary sense.

Be careful not to bunch the knee-jerk reactionaries with everybody else. I will be in line on the first day to see this film!!

1 2 > >>
Login to post a comment!