Quick takes: The Golden Compass(/Northern Lights)
No spoilers herein. Though that should be irrelevant -- if you haven't read the books, stop reading this, shut down your computer, and go read the books.
We saw the preview tonight. Bottom line: See it, but lower your expectations before you go.
I'd seen the six-hour version at the National Theatre in 2004, and thought it was one of the most inspired, moving, and technically brilliant things I've ever seen on stage. I knew the film wasn't going to be that good, and was a bit dubious about how they were going to fit the whole first book into a movie timeframe at all. Without giving anything away, the bottom line is that they didn't. And what IS there moves at a brisk pace and seems liable to snap at you if you can't keep up. The pacing is a weird sort of breathless gallop: characters appear, drop a load of exposition and some rather painful dialog (part of that fault is Pullman's; what is up with some of those names?), and then exit sharp-ish. One is left with a sort of Reduced Shakespeare Company of a movie:
Lyra: "Oh, Mr. Bear, what ever is wrong?"
Iorek: "I was tricked out of my armor. My armor was my daemon. Now I drink whiskey all day."
Lyra: "Let me ask my little doodad here where it is." (closes eyes, frowns, and wrinkles nose) "Ok! Got it!"
EXTERIOR SHOT: IOREK BURSTS OUT OF BUILDING, FULLY ARMORED
Iorek: "I am forever in your debt. Roar, roar. Now let's go rescue your friends."
EXTERIOR SHOT: BOLVANGAR.
Ok, I jest, but less than you might think.
In addition to strictly functional, humorless (except unintentionally) and leaden dialog and characterizations, the whole film looks drained of color, crispness, and realism. I mean, I know the daemons were CGI, but I found myself squinting suspiciously at some of the actors as well.
On the bright side, the daemons aren't Alvin-and-the-Chipmunks-ized; on the negative side, surely more could've been done with them beyond having them turn up for roll-call in the plot? For heaven's sake, they were more animated (and charismatic) as puppets at the NT.
The movie respects the book, yes; as much as it can within time constraints, audience cluelessness, and the threat of religious boycott (more of the anti-Christian stuff is left in than K or I expected, but, in the midst of a very accessible and obvious movie, it's pushed a bit in the direction of subtlety. Shrewd hiding place, if you ask me.) But that's just it: the movie respects the book, the way that a Corporal respects a Captain. It does not engage, illuminate, explore, challenge, interpret, or otherwise have fun with the book. The audience doesn't get to have much fun either, although the sold-out crowd we saw it with hooted and howled with Rocky Horror-like glee at some of the clunkier bits (and, yikes, some of those names).
We saw the preview tonight. Bottom line: See it, but lower your expectations before you go.
I'd seen the six-hour version at the National Theatre in 2004, and thought it was one of the most inspired, moving, and technically brilliant things I've ever seen on stage. I knew the film wasn't going to be that good, and was a bit dubious about how they were going to fit the whole first book into a movie timeframe at all. Without giving anything away, the bottom line is that they didn't. And what IS there moves at a brisk pace and seems liable to snap at you if you can't keep up. The pacing is a weird sort of breathless gallop: characters appear, drop a load of exposition and some rather painful dialog (part of that fault is Pullman's; what is up with some of those names?), and then exit sharp-ish. One is left with a sort of Reduced Shakespeare Company of a movie:
Lyra: "Oh, Mr. Bear, what ever is wrong?"
Iorek: "I was tricked out of my armor. My armor was my daemon. Now I drink whiskey all day."
Lyra: "Let me ask my little doodad here where it is." (closes eyes, frowns, and wrinkles nose) "Ok! Got it!"
EXTERIOR SHOT: IOREK BURSTS OUT OF BUILDING, FULLY ARMORED
Iorek: "I am forever in your debt. Roar, roar. Now let's go rescue your friends."
EXTERIOR SHOT: BOLVANGAR.
Ok, I jest, but less than you might think.
In addition to strictly functional, humorless (except unintentionally) and leaden dialog and characterizations, the whole film looks drained of color, crispness, and realism. I mean, I know the daemons were CGI, but I found myself squinting suspiciously at some of the actors as well.
On the bright side, the daemons aren't Alvin-and-the-Chipmunks-ized; on the negative side, surely more could've been done with them beyond having them turn up for roll-call in the plot? For heaven's sake, they were more animated (and charismatic) as puppets at the NT.
The movie respects the book, yes; as much as it can within time constraints, audience cluelessness, and the threat of religious boycott (more of the anti-Christian stuff is left in than K or I expected, but, in the midst of a very accessible and obvious movie, it's pushed a bit in the direction of subtlety. Shrewd hiding place, if you ask me.) But that's just it: the movie respects the book, the way that a Corporal respects a Captain. It does not engage, illuminate, explore, challenge, interpret, or otherwise have fun with the book. The audience doesn't get to have much fun either, although the sold-out crowd we saw it with hooted and howled with Rocky Horror-like glee at some of the clunkier bits (and, yikes, some of those names).
2 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 12:47 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 11:25 PM
Post a CommentYou know....I have never read the book, and know nothing about the story. But I thought I had seen the movie when I was stuck overnight in a Red Lion Motel in some tiny, rural Oregon town, during a particularly grueling two day deposition. But then, I remembered that film was called 'The Golden Comp'ed Ass' or something like that--it was awhile ago, and late at night.
But your review sounds like the movie was made in the same spirit as 'A Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' or the Harry Potter films. I don't know why this idea is so hard for so many, but books are not films and visa versa. Kubrick took Burgess's disturbing novel, and made a disturbing film--mainly by discarding the non-visual aspects. Similarly, the guy (whose name escapes me) knew what he was doing when he took a really crappy novel of the old west called 'The Cowboys,' and made a decent movie with John Wayne, Bruce Dern, and a bunch of weird kids....
But why contemporary film makers who adapt novels to films think audiences are going to sit in the theater, checking off every obscure character and plotpoint--it makes a body wonder. Then again, I am really not much of a movie guy....even if I have seen 'It's a Wonderful Life' over a hundred times.
K's comment, on being read the above and being particularly piqued by the mention of the Red Lion movie: "Good god, man: what did she do with the aleithiometer?"
My comment: Niece, gentlemen. Niece.
<< Home