I went to see The Golden Compass on Wednesday, despite having been invited by a Christian friend to join a Facebook group inviting people to boycott the film, warning that it “promotes atheism”. It’s based on Northern Lights, first in the His Dark Materials trilogy written by Philip Pullman , which is certainly very critical of organised religion and a particular idea of God. But there’s something wonderfully ironic about Christians objecting to a film that portrays religion as suppressing freedom of thought by trying to ban the film. It’s a bit like those Muslims who protested against the Danish cartoons portaying Islam as a violent religion by calling for the cartoonists to be beheaded as blasphemers!
It’s an unfashionable view, but I do agree that art, including literature and film, contains a moral dimension, and can be morally good or morally bad. Art should reflect those transcendent qualities of Goodness, Truth and Beauty. But as I see it, what makes a work of art morally good or bad is not to do with what the characters do. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with depicting immoral actions (fiction would be pretty boring if you didn’t!) It’s more a matter of what the work of art invites us to approve or disapprove of, the context in which immoral actions are shown. If a work of art encourages us to approve those actions as good, then I think it can crossed a moral line.
Pullman makes moral judgements himself about the Narnia books, condemning them as racist and misogynist. I disagree with his assessment, but I think it’s absolutely right that he can make that kind of evaluation of C S Lewis’s books, and I think that it’s fine for people to make judgements about the moral quality of his books as well.
But unlike some of my Christian brothers and sisters, who think that if this is the case, the work of art should be entirely dismissed, I think that this is only one consideration among a number of others. That art can be morally good or bad doesn’t mean that you should ignore the piece of art’s other artistic merits. And are we so insecure in our faith that we fear to read anything we disagree with? Isn’t it better to engage with people’s ideas, and with their art as a whole, not just on the basis of a few limited aspects?
I actually think the moral quality of Pullman’s books is mostly very high; they extol heroism and loyalty, love and friendship, critical thought over dogmatism and control, a sense of wonder at the universe and the importance of making a difference in the present world. However, there are issues.
The most fundamental problem with Northern Lights is the idea that the Fall is necessary for wisdom, that innocence is never wise and wisdom never innocent. Pullman basically believes the lie of the serpent to Adam and Eve. The books present a false choice between an absolute autonomous freedom and unquestioning obedience. In suggesting that it is necessary to rebel in order to become wise, the book is in that respect immoral.
The Christian faith, properly understood, calls us to be both followers and thinkers. It calls us not to unquestioning obedience, but to questioning obedience, because it is only in seeking the truth, in questioning in order to know and properly understand the truth, that we can truly be faithful to the God who is Truth. Maturity comes not from disobedience, but from the choice.
This is only fully developed in the trilogy as a whole, and it only translates into the film in the most basic and generic way. To avoid offence, the film avoids naming anything in explicitly religious language. We never learn that the Church in Lyra’s world believes Dust to be original sin. We never hear that world’s version of the story of Adam and Eve, which is the rich and lyrical key to the novels’ themes of innocence and experience. Instead, we are informed that “Our ancestors disobeyed the Authority, which brought Dust into the world”. This gets the basic ideas across, but while Pullman’s novels engage with long tradition of theological and philosophical thought, the film cuts itself off from that past.
It’s also rather disappointing for a film that celebrates freedom of thought to self-censor itself in this way. I’d rather that religion was discussed, even negatively, and have people think about issues of God and faith and so on, than for the subject to become taboo because it’s too controversial.
As a film, the special effects are impressive, and the actors performances are very good. However, as a piece of storytelling, it fails to live up to the novel. Some chopping and changing is inevitable in translating a novel to screen, but some of the changes sacrifice coherence and logic for the sake of movie conventions, to the detriment of the story. The general message of freedom of thought against oppressive tyranny is one that Christians will find little to object to, and it’s an entertaining and largely well-made story. But given the richness of the source material, it isn’t as good as it could be. It entertains, but doesn’t enchant.
Other reviews or reactions by Christians can be found on the blogs Prognosis and A Better Hope.