(Weitz 2007) The Golden Compass

My friend Isaac White mag­i­cal­ly came up with tick­ets to a pre­view show­ing of The Gold­en Com­pass, and we were both pleas­ant­ly sur­prised. We both knew Pullman’s superb nov­el for kids, and did not have high hopes that it would trans­late well into a movie. But we end­ed up quite sat­is­fied with the results. Of course, changes were inevitable, because what works in prose often doesn’t work in film. In order to pre­serve the rather com­plex plot, the pace had to be quick­ened. The book has leisure­ly paced seg­ments punc­tu­at­ed by occa­sion­al bursts of action. By neces­si­ty, the film com­press­es every­thing so that the action sequences dom­i­nate. But the impor­tant thing is that it pre­serves the integri­ty of the book.

And integri­ty is the right word. I’m talk­ing about this on my blog page, because the film is already under vicious attack from all the forces of bar­barism. The book is a pro­found­ly moral one, with a sense of out­rage at injus­tice, that urges its young read­ers to ques­tion author­i­ty, think for them­selves, and rebel against tyran­ny. It has come along just when it is need­ed. The film pre­serves much of this moral strength. So it’s no sur­prise that the march­ing morons are out in force. I have read of numer­ous cas­es where schools are post­ing signs warn­ing their stu­dents against see­ing the movie, and there are boy­cotts being orga­nized by var­i­ous author­i­ties who, appar­ent­ly, have no trou­ble iden­ti­fy­ing them­selves as the intol­er­ant Mag­is­teri­um of the film’s fan­ta­sy story.

Con­for­mi­ty, cow­ardice, igno­rance, and grov­el­ing before author­i­ty are the pre­scribed cul­tur­al norms of the last thir­ty years, in both the Unit­ed States and Cana­da. A whole gen­er­a­tion has been raised in a kind of cesspool of Con­ser­v­a­tive immoral­i­ty. That is the only word for it. Orga­nized reli­gion and gov­ern­ment have com­bined forces to destroy the very idea of moral­i­ty, which depends on the func­tion­ing of the inde­pen­dent, autonomous, rea­son­ing indi­vid­ual mind, and sub­sti­tute its own false gods: Super­sti­tion, and Blind Obe­di­ence. The Con­ser­v­a­tive ide­al is always a world with­out moral­i­ty, and with­out reason. 

This film will, per­haps, offer a ton­ic, a bit of inspi­ra­tion for chil­dren raised in the bleak amoral­i­ty of a Con­ser­v­a­tive cul­ture. Its sym­bol­ism is easy for any bright child to absorb. The “gold­en com­pass” of the sto­ry is a gad­get, but it is clear­ly meant to sym­bol­ize the moral com­pass — the indi­vid­ual com­mit­ment to rea­son and jus­tice that allows a human being to dis­tin­guish right from wrong, free­dom from slav­ery, truth from lies, and hon­our from dis­hon­our. Peo­ple with­out a moral com­pass do what they’re told. They tor­ture pris­on­ers in Guan­tanamo when told to, they let med­dling big­ots man­age their sex lives, they accept rigged elec­tions, they don’t talk back to Those In Charge. They become amoral zom­bies, and that is what pow­er­ful reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions and gov­ern­ments have gen­er­al­ly pre­ferred human beings to be.

His­tor­i­cal­ly, young peo­ple have usu­al­ly found their moral com­pass through art. My under­stand­ing (and hatred of) slav­ery was first learned by read­ing Huck­le­ber­ry Finn, as a child. It is invari­ably the books that touch on sig­nif­i­cant moral ques­tions, that encour­age the young to ques­tion author­i­ty and think for them­selves that attract the atten­tion of the cen­so­ri­ous. Usu­al­ly the rea­sons prof­fered to jus­ti­fy the attacks are spu­ri­ous, what­ev­er sounds most plau­si­ble at the moment, because the under­ly­ing rea­son is too igno­ble to make plain.


Leave a Comment