Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba
I read the first of His Dark Materials with no real knowledge of who the author was or what his agenda was. By the end of the first and the beginning of the second book I had a pretty good idea of where he was coming from. Perhaps it is naive of me to, but I slowly began to imagine the books not as a story but as a guy stood on a box shouting about how terrible the Church is. I think there is always a problem with writing a story with an ulterior motive which is where Narnia falters in my opinion. I still find the story enjoyable and will read them again and again. But it is a difficult thing to try and get across a message you feel passionately about without being a little overt in its delivery. You fear the risk of being too subtle with what you see as important.
|
And yet, when it comes to the changes which Pullman is 'happy to accept' in a movie adaptation its this very message he's prepared to see downplayed, or thrown out. In the book he shouts it too loudly, but for the movie he's prepared to see it silenced. And let's face it the only reason that message will not make it to the screen is because New Line fear a backlash from the Bible belt. I'm pretty sure that Tolkien would have made the opposite choice - if it was a choice between keeping the message & losing (for example) the Fell Beasts, or keeping the Fell Beasts & sacrificing the message he would have gone for the former - or raised a big stink. He certainly wouldn't have just smiled & said 'Well, movies are different.' If Pullman's target is God - & it is, because, for all he now claims he's attacking 'organised religion'/totalitarianism in the book, his 'final solution' is to kill God off & build the 'Republic of Heaven' - then he should stand his ground & demand that theme remains central to the movie adaptation. If he is so willing to have that message thrown out then it says to me that actually he doesn't care that much about it - for all his shouting of it in the book.