I agree with you, Dan, on so many levels. I have read Pullman's Trilogy, much of which seems to echo themes and events in Dante's writing, and have been very disturbed by people calling for boycotts on events/films/books they haven't experienced themselves! Thank you for such a thoughtful review.

I haven't read the books, but I saw the film the day it came out and was also completely underwhelmed. I had really, truly wanted to like this film. I got used to hearing Christian conservatives bash Harry Potter without solid reasons (and without reading/viewing), so the more I heard about this supposedly anti-Christian film, the more intrigued I got.

However, the film had simply no magic (literally and metaphorically). Try as I might, I couldn't get into it. Not only were there no anti-Christian themes, there were no themes of interest at all. I gather from your review that they excised anything potentially offensive, and in doing so, I agree that they cut out its soul. Sure there's nothing wrong with this film, but there doesn't seem to be anything right either. Maybe if they'd left in Pullman's controversial elements there would at least be something to sink my teeth into--even if I disagreed. He surely has some good ground to stand on if he accused Christians of (sometimes) being tempted to institutionalize religion and use it as a club to beat people into compliance with. But, alas, the film had none of this.

I missed Dumbledore; I missed Gandalf; I missed magic.

With so many movies that I want to see before the end of the year, you've given me good reason to skip on this one. Thanks, Dan.

I saw the film over the weekend, with minimal background. I have not read the trilogy and had only skimmed news stories telling of its purported anti-religious bias. My daughter-in-law wanted to see it but my son - who professes no religion - was hesitant to go with 'dear old dad' I think because he feared we would get into an unwelcome religious discussion. So I watched it, antenna up for any religious component.

Not to worry, son. Yeah, there was some stuff. Terms like 'magisterium', church-like buildings the bad guys operated from, etc. But there was nothing really to discuss because the 'theology' presented was both simplistic and incoherent IMO.

Now the CGI effects were fantastic ($180 million can do that) but there also needs to be a story that is credible (and this complaint has nothing to do with fantasy as a genre). The film was visually fabulous, but ultimately uninvolving (for me anyway) because the purposes and motivations of the characters seemed confused, silly or contrived.

At the end, after the obligatory 'big battle' when they were all sailing off into the sunset the dialog shifted to talk of future actions the characters needed to do. That either meant they were telling us there was going to be a sequel, or we were in for another hour of screen time to resolve these additional problems. I actually got a bit worried and was relieved when the credits started to roll. Of course, I was hungry and we were planning to go out to dinner next :-).

I haven't read any of Pullman's books nor have I seen the recent movie. I would like to comment, however, on the conservatives who rallied to "expose" what they viewed as the movie's dark, anti-Christian underpinnings. Way to go for them (even if they ended up being wrong)!

They may not have been completely correct, but can they be blamed for wanting to shelter their children—impressionable and often unable to comprehend subtle attacks on their belief system—from a film or book series that could undermine the principles that these parents are striving to instill in their children? Ideas and concepts do matter, and parents do have a responsibility to shelter their children.

Going overboard is too easy—and perhaps they did so in this case. I'm glad that there are people, however, who want to shelter their children from that which will harm them. I think that is noble.

Bare with me, I feel an enumerated list coming on.

(1) This film was a bit of a let down, particularly the omission of the end.

I had high expectations for this movie. I too had listened to the audiobooks. My impression was that the universe/s Pullman creates were made up as he went along. The writing seemed to lack the fleshed-out writer's guide that is essential to creating a fully-formed, convincing universe. That's exactly the type of fantasy text that makes the conversion to film the most readily--the movie had the opportunity to be better than the books because the director has the advantage of having seen the entire universe. To some extent, the breathtaking CGI fulfilled this hope, but fixing this flaw couldn't save the film.

When the credits started to roll, I found the directory had sacrificed the greatest asset of the books for the sake of a Hollywood ending. He left out the fact that none of Pullman's characters are truly good nor truly evil. All are human.

We are left convinced that it is a fight between good and evil, not the choice between the much more ambiguous lesser of two evils Pullman crafted. Pandering sucked the genius from the story.

(2) Pullman's world is not against God, it's against religion.

His recent claims to agnosticism make complete sense to me. By creating an enervating force and calling it "good," Pullman introduces a conception of God to his universe/s. It is not the Authority worshiped by the Magesterium/Church; it's Dust. Dust is the source of free will, creativity, and, to an unknown extent, creation itself. That sounds like God to me.

On the other hand, the character known as the Authority, who will be introduced later, is a charlatan and liar. That sounds like Satan in Christian cosmogony.

Perhaps in spite of his best intentions, Pullman has indeed written a Christian allegory, the salient points of which are still evident in this movie.

(3) Sean and others who wish to protect children overestimate the power of literature and underestimate the power of a child's mind.

Before the film began, we were treated to a trailer for the upcoming _Prince Caspian_, the next installment of _Narnia_. The similarities are striking. While watching the preview, I wondered if anyone thought Lewis' allegory had the power to convert the unsaved.

_Narnia_ gives Christians a new perspective on a story they have heard often. Anyone who is not Christian just enjoys a good story. The same can be said of Pullman's books. If you're inclined to dislike Christians, you will see the corrupting power of organized religion anew. If you're Christian, you'll just enjoy a good story.

Children have the ability to differentiate between fiction and reality at a very early age. If they haven't developed this skill by the age of three, they most likely suffer from a neurochemical imbalance. I would much rather show this movie to children than the much more impressionable adults who have developed analytical thinking and may find their conception of god is a cardboard cutout that can't hold up under scrutiny or a light breeze.

My God is much more infinite than that.

(4) Thank you for this excellent review.

Very well said Scott.

Like many of you, I was skeptical of the claim that the film was "anti-Christian," particularly when I considered the source of some of those comments.

However, I came across a very interesting article in this month's issue of The Atlantic entitled "How Hollywood Saved God" that talks about this film and the way Hollywood actually watered down Pullman's anti-religious sentiments.

I'd recommend reading the piece (which is still online at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/religious-movies ) It is probably the most balanced article you'll find on the subject.

Michael

Having seen this film I must confess that it is anti-Christian only if Christianity is an irrational institution seeking to perpetuate its control in the face of a reality unfriendly to its truth claims.

I know a lot of people do see Christianity this way- even some Christians.

I don't however. I thought it was a great film.

Hi Dan:

Thanks for your insightful review. I neither plan to read the books, nor see the movie, but find discussions of this sort interesting. Thanks for resisting the hand-wringing, the “atheists are out to get us” mentality, and knee jerk wagon surrounding behaviors often engaged in by Christians who feel under siege. Best way to handle it is to engage it head on -- as you have done.

This does not deny however that there are indeed ideas in Pullman’s books that contradict some basic tenets of the Christian faith. I found this essay by Alan Jacobs called
“The Devil's Party: Philip Pullman's bestselling fantasy series retells the story of Creation -- with Satan as the hero” to be informative. Seems the theology of the books that follow is significantly darker.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/011/746hxu...

One aspect that particularly fascinates me is the attack on the notion of God being creator. Here’s Jacobs:

“In the early pages of The Amber Spyglass, a pair of angels explain to Will certain events from the origin of the cosmos. (The role of the "Dust" they refer to is complicated; suffice it to say that Dust is the embodiment of either Original Sin or the creative energy of humankind, which may be the same thing in Pullman's world.)
The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty -- those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves -- the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. . . . The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.

(Milton is quoted here)

In other words, Satan believes that Creation was determined by some impersonal destiny ("fatal course") -- just as Pullman's rebel angels contend that Dust inexplicably "condensed" into angels. God holds his throne, Satan says elsewhere, only by the strength of His "thunder." There is no question, then, of His eternal right to sovereignty. Satan's debate is purely strategic: whether to "beseech" or "besiege" the Authority in his Kingdom. Eventually, Satan chooses war and loses, after which, unwilling to submit, he finds a third course, to be pursued on Earth rather than in Heaven: "guile" rather than "force." From this new strategy results the temptation in Eden and our subsequent history of pain and brokenness.

Satan's struggle is not over, of course, and the book of Revelation, in some readings, envisions a final battle between the old antagonists. By telling a version of this Armageddon story, Pullman extends his narrative from Creation to Apocalypse. The human leader of the rebels, Lord Asriel, marshals a vast army of mortal and immortal troops to assault the forces of the Authority and his Regent (the rather dubiously named Metatron). Asriel proves his fitness to be a Satanic hero by repeatedly announcing his determination to "break free" of the Authority's tyranny, for the good of himself and all humanity. He exploits the whole rhetorical apparatus of the self-proclaimed Liberator, and it is not clear that Pullman realizes how much Asriel sounds like all other Liberators, from Robespierre to Stalin.”

So those seem like some themes pretty close to the heart of Great Controversy believing Adventists -- don’t they. I’m recalling EGW’s attempts to explain the seeds of rebellion in Lucifer’s heart as he shared covering cherub duties with Christ (the other Light bearer). (? -- is there any other Christian group who reads this scenario as do we Adventists?) and being jealous of Christ’s seeming loftier status as creator -- even though to all appearances he was just “like” Lucifer. (ie how could Lucifer, who must have had an awareness that he had a “beginning”, a time before which there was no memory, not wonder if Christ had not been also created -- only earlier?? -- who knows…)

This insistence on the lack of a need for a creator -- it just happens by some other unknown means -- and inability to comprehend or accept an uncaused First Cause, form an important and central challenge to Christian theory. This, to me anyway, sheds light on the current “evolution” discussions among we Christians. I really don’t mind if God “used” evolution as His means, so long as God remains necessary and central. But we must be very aware that this is precisely NOT how many (most?) envision that term.

Lastly, I find the suggestion that God keeps control of us via His “thunder” (read force and violence) to also have direct application to Christian theory. Except that here I find I agree with Pullman; for I have come to believe that God does NOT rely on force (and therefore fear) to run His Universe. Yet look how much Christian theology is dependent on violence.

Just my heretical two cents worth.

I always enjoy your heretical two cents Bob! From what I know of the series Milton plays a big role (His Dark Materials, the name of the series, is direct from Milton). One of the scandalous things that Milton did was write Satan as a tragic hero--he's an very sympathetic figure. It sounds like Pullman might have taken this even a step further.

One of the real problems is that many people who don't really have a good understanding of the subject have weighed in with poorly reasoned and researched material. such as the article above

"One aspect that particularly fascinates me is the attack on the notion of God being creator. Here’s Jacobs:"

The story is not relating the creator but the imposter who has become the authority. Here is a quote from the Amber Spyglass page 15:

"Tell me, then," said Will. "Tell me about Metatron, and what this secret is. Why did that angel call him Regent? And what is the Authority? Is he God?"
He sat down, and the two angels, their forms clearer in the moonlight than he had ever seen them before, sat with him.
Balthamos said quietly, "The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty, those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves, the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter loves matter. It seeks to know more about itself, and Dust is formed. The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie. One of those who came later was wiser than he was, and she found out the truth, so he banished her. We serve her still. And the Authority still reigns in the Kingdom, and Metatron is his Regent.
"But as for what we discovered in the Clouded Mountain, we can't tell you the heart of it. We swore to each other that the first to hear should be Lord Asriel himself."

As it turns out in the story the angels here were incorrect in their understanding as Metatron appears to have trapped the ancient of days and imprisoned him. More like god suffered a coup. But hey it is a completely fictional world and angels can do what ever the author wants them to do.

It was interesting to read the movie review as I did not think the movie could possibly end like the book without people being really mad.

Just talked to two of my coworkers who saw the movie. Both loved it. I asked them about the ending and it is not at all like the book which means that the second movie will be far different from the books as well. So it appears it really is a lot of hoopla for nothing.

Why they even said that Mrs. Coulter was so mean to her daemon. Huh, that is not even possible in the world of the book

I appreciate the comments and the interesting links. I especially like the Atlantic.com article that Michael Peabody mentioned—which is indeed a balanced treatment from an author and source with no particular agenda.

What I find intriguing and challenging about The Dark Materials trilogy and Pullman himself is that I can agree with him on many points—and agree with his critics as well.
Pullman made a recent appearance on MSNBC and Al Roker’s book club where he responded to questions put to him by readers—many of them kids:

(Pullman) “I always mistrust people who tell us how we should understand something…and whether we should read it or not. …I prefer to trust what I call the democracy of reading – where everybody has the right to form their own opinion and read what they like and come to their own conclusion about it.”

“It doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not…What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression.”

OK, I think that's reasonable. Read it—or view it—and make up your own mind. Don’t use religion to stifle free thought and free will. However, one of the questions Pullman answered comes from an eight-year old girl whose class is reading the Golden Compass. Eight years old? That’s nuts on so many levels! I do believe that parents need to be aware of and actively involved in what their children are reading and viewing—whether it’s Sesame Street, Chronicles of Narnia, Beatrix Potter or Harry Potter. With the young adult audience that Pullman presumably writes for, there’s certainly less control, but—I believe—no less need for awareness and involvement by parents. And there are definitely themes and ideas throughout the trilogy that need to be identified, brought to mind and discussed—at age-appropriate levels.

Although this review was on the movie the Golden Compass, I think it’s fair to consider the overall context of the other books in the trilogy. And Pullman has certainly included some hair-raising theology such as the point made by other commenters here that there was no creation, only a pantheistic awakening of matter—dust—that began to constitute various life forms including the first angel who became the imposter we know as the old testament God—Jehovah. In fact, we learn in book two when the researcher Mary Malone creates a computer program that can communicate with dust, that she is actually communicating with angels who had rebelled against the tyrant. These angels also provide the truth that comes from Lyra’s alethiometer—and in the I Ching that Malone also consults for guidance. The apocryphal book 3 Enoch figures prominently, as does Metatron, the former Enoch who is now the ruling power of the universe since the original God is senile. Fortunately though, Enoch hasn’t had a woman since his mortal days, and so he’s vulnerable to the feminine wiles of the wickedly beautiful Mrs. Coulter.

My point is not that Pullman has written outrageous or dangerous things. He’s written a critically acclaimed story. However, as a parent, I would want to be aware of story content and be actively involved in reading and discussion to help my child understand and deconstruct a story’s possible meanings. Story as a medium is powerful stuff—too powerful to ban, and certainly too powerful to ignore.

Dan, just wanted to offer hearty agreement:

"Story as a medium is powerful stuff—too powerful to ban, and certainly too powerful to ignore."

Hear, hear!

I'm coming late to this discussion, but had a few thoughts on the article in The Atlantic that Michael drew attention to. As the author notes, it's a rare Hollywood film that truly engages with religion on a substantive level, asking the difficult questions. Perhaps most famous in the "watering down to avoid the fundamentalist Christian lobby" canon is the Bob Zemeckis version of "Contact," which dilutes Sagan's views on religion and drives home the whole "science requires faith too" nail with an obvious and repetitive hammer.

The FILM version of Golden Compass bends over backward (if a film could do such) in order to avoid naming the institution of orthodoxy in any substantial way (other than the fairly neutral term "Magisterium"), leaving the mechanism of the oppression (secular politics, religious orthodoxy) unclear.

On a side note, while watching the film, and thinking about the narrative gymnastics undertaken in order to avoid discourse on the subject of religion, I found myself thinking about the "Planet of the Apes" cycle, which takes a much more overt (and negative and devastating) view of religion.