Comments on: The Golden Compass

By: david

david — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:21:07 +0000

if god was a tyrant i would want to kill him too…
just sayin

By: HeartQuest

HeartQuest — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:04:45 +0000

Jim, I suppose that ’s the subtle message that builds over time - hook the audience in the beginning with an ambiguous fantasy story, then bring it to the author’s conclusion later on in book three; God is dead, we have killed him and now are set free from the tyrant.

Jonathan, perhaps someone without any knowledge of Christianity could watch the Narnia movies or read the Lewis books and say the same thing, “I don’t get it, it’s basically Lord of the Rings with talking animals.” They don’t see the Christ-centered parallel with Aslan and the stone table. Perhaps it’s the same with Pullman’s story, except when Pullman himself describes the symbolism as a slam on the Catholic Church and the God of the Bible; where some people see Nazis, Pullman is clear in interviews what his books are about.

The Sydney Morning Herald does a good interview back in 2003. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125644900.html?from=storyrhs

Scott

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:47:35 +0000

I heard all the noise but I had not watched it simply because it just didn’t look interesting. Recently however I was on a long flight and had few options so I watched it. Guess what - while I didn’t see the “theological problem”, I hated the movie. Maybe I’m not smart enough, maybe I’m too old, whatever … I just didn’t get it.

And I should add that I was not encouraged to read the book. But as I think about that - I don’t ever remember wanting to read a book based on a movie. In fact, whenever a good book comes out I always prefer simply waiting for the movie.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:20:52 +0000

My wife and I just saw the movie the other night as well (with 2 kids, soon to be 4, we don’t go to the theaters much anymore!). I had the same reaction, Jonathan. I was expecting (hoping?) to see something very anti-Christian and couldn’t quite place it.

The reference to “demons” made me wonder if they were drawing on the Gnostic terminology? Or perhaps Stoicism? Each had what they called deamons which could be good or evil. It was what helped separate God from the evil of the physical world (blaming the deamons).

I dunno. Was not nearly as good as Narnia.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:46:25 +0000

Pullman, the author of the original trilogy, has been quoted as saying that this was his trilogy was to atheists what the Chronicles of Narnia is to christians.

I read the trilogy, and in the last book, they find that god is senile, metatron (some archangel) is trying to take over, and the multiverse is falling apart.

I can’t remember, it’s been awhile, but I think they kill god and dethrone metatron. I remember being disgusted enough that I threw the books in the trash.

By: jonathanbrink

jonathanbrink — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:25:59 +0000

Daniel, probably.

Leya, unfortunately after watching the movie I would never read the book. Visually it was nice but the story leaved a lot to be desired.

By: Leya

Leya — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:14:20 +0000

I highly recommend you read the book (10 times better than the movie). I didn’t understand what all the ruckus was about either. If you really want to stretch it to be social commentary on the church so be it, but can’t we do that with most books? Anywho, I think the book explains the daemons (a term that didn’t originally have a negative connotation) to a greater extent.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:07:51 +0000

I have not seen it but I guess the problem is that the books are clearly anti-christian and so by watching the movie, kids will want to read the books. Cause we all know how much people read now days…

Could the ruckus just be a different form of legalism?