COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Bêthberry]

I'm confused by the wording of this thread and the Books thread. Pullman Rips on LotR, others. This thread seems to be devoted to mere film popularity rather than a comparison of the two authors, although it's title suggests that comparison. So, taking a nod from this thread title, I'm posting here, but perhaps Esty might decide this belongs on the Books thread.

Having seen GC, I'm currently rereading HDM.

Northern Lights I still find very intriguing. My fascination lies with Pullman's creation of a world so like ours but existing under a different historical consequence. That for me is what makes the story compelling, not so much the ideology.

I remain just as appalled by Coulter and Asriel on this reading as I was on the first tread. Pullman's depiction of parents is intriguing--at once so very contemporary and yet also so reminiscent of early historical attitudes towards children as familial property. Both perspectives show parents oblivious of emotional responsibility to the child they brought into the world as they pursue their own ambitions and professional pursuits. Coulter and Asriel are both horrible, horrid and dispicable in their abuse of children, whether it's Coulter's kidnapping and experiments or Asriel's murder of Roger. (I have real problems accepting Asriel as a hero after what he does to Roger--how can I glorify a man who would bring down The Authority when he stoops to child murder to pursue his own ambitions? Is killing an innocent child (from a lower class) acceptable as a preamble to going after the big kahuna?)

How to contrast this depiction of parenting with parents in Tolkien's Middle-earth? The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen. Their willfulness is in large part responsible for the trials their children undergo but even they are not active child murderers.

Lyra's childhood at Jordan College is presented with Tom Sawyerish idyllic freedoms and a wistful delight in the rough and tumble play and wars of various childhood factions. Then in SK we get a different version of childhood as something akin to a Lord of the Flies viscious mob--children run amok when adults aren't there to supervise them.

Is this the difference between Pullman's view of human nature--something Darwinian--and Tolkien's--something less bestial? Is it evidence of Pullman's playing with alternate universes? Or is it simply an example of the inconsistency of his moral outlook?

[Lalaith]

Really interesting comparisons there, Bethberry, and ones to ponder. I hadn't thought about the parenting thing in Pullman but you are right, it is odd. Then there's Will having to look after his own mother, too.

I will allow myself a brief quibble, though.

The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen.

Asriel/Thingol I will accept, but my own interpretation of the characters makes it hard for me to see parallels between Morwen and Coulter. Coulter was sinister and entirely self-seeking, and her eventual mothering instinct is as much of a surprise to her as it is to the reader. Morwen loved her children very much, but these were terrible times and she was purposefully trying to bring them up to be tough and hard, just so they would have some chance of survival. She made mistakes and she had become very bitter, but I don't think she was remotely conceited.

[davem]

And yet I still wonder why TGC has fared so badly at the US box office & done so well everywhere else - face it, if TGC had performed as well in the US as it did across the rest of the world New Line would have a massive hit on their hands & there would be no question of whether or not a sequel would happen. So it could be argued that its US audiences (or lack of them) that has put the franchise at risk (or killed it).

I'm intrigued - is it because there are no American stars (or American accents) in the movie? Is it because, unlike LotR & Narnia, there isn't a large book fan-base ready & waiting? Or is it the 'message' - did the boycott actually work & stop people going to see the movie? Or, & of course one has to ask this, was the movie just bad, or confused?

[Sauron the White]

davem ... as a Yank, perhaps I can offer something in the way of explaination. First of all, Kidman is more or less considered as an American actress despite the reality of the stiuation. So its not the lack of US stars. Pullmans books are simply not any really big deal here. Period.

The Christian right has attempted boycotts of films and other things before with varied degrees of success. I do not think they get any credit for this one.

And I know from previous posts that there is interest in a sequel but I really think that New Line is moving beyond any Pullman films because of the massive investment in the upcoming Middle-earth films both in money as well as energy. New Line has never been a top studio and I really think they cannot juggle more than two very heavy bowling balls at the same time. And they have that with the 2 ME films. And those are more or less sure things.

[davem]

I take your point, but that doesn't explain why the movies have been so popular across the rest of the world - in many places Pullman's work is no better known than in the US - & why there was so little interest in them in America. Many successful movies have been made of books that no-one has heard of.

If they had been as popular in the US as they have been across the rest of the world NL would certainly have gone ahead with sequels alongside the Hobbit movies. Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

Its interesting (to say the least) that in every country but the US TGC has been fantastically successful. Thing is, TGC is not a 'flop' outside the US - just the opposite.

[Lalwendë]

Bethberry - might be worthwhile looking up some of Pullman's recent comments on education as they shed a lot of light on his views of children and childhood. He's very much against all this business of setting targets and denying the chance to exercise the imagination and just 'be children'. I think a lot of this comes into his portrayals of children. In addition I detect a lot of comment on certain attitudes towards children, certainly in British society, which has been judged the worst place to grow up in Europe If you look at Asriel and Mrs Coulter they are very much like the wealthy 'career' parent who does not necessarily have a child's needs and wants at heart - though taken to extremes. They also have echoes of the upper class parents of days gone by who would pack off the kids to boarding school for most of the year.

More than this though, it's the characters of Asriel and Coulter. He is rather like the ultimate Byronic figure, though one with rather more flaws than normal. He is rich, dark, powerful and rebellious. He is Milton's Satan! She is a character Pullman has said he loves to write about as "there is nothing she wouldn't do" and there have been parallels drawn with Margaret Thatcher - her 'metallic' smell (the iron lady), her entourage of adoring men from the Magisterium, her odd unmotherly attitude towards her own child...though of course Mrs Coulter gets some kind of redemption at the end and 'learns'; you cannot say the same of Mrs T at all

There is also something in these two figures who create a child in the throes of (illegal, certainly in their world as she is married) passion when contrasted with Lyra and Will, who fall in love quite innocently and in their innocence, end up doing good for the world and saving it.

I certainly don't think you are supposed to like them.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

You are either attempting to make this more complicated than what it really is or you are working the wheel rather hard to grind a particular axe ... its really simple... the upcoming HOBBIT movie has not even the shadow of a question mark about it. No matter how much you or others may like to see a Jackson Middle-earth movie fail, its as much as a sure bet as any single property to come across the movie screen other than the Star Wars prequels. And I would be willing to bet a decent amount on that if anyone wants to put their money where their prejudices lie.

There was no positive buzz here at all about the GC film. Nobody really knew anything about it in advance... the reviews were mediocre .... the word of mouth was very blah .... and the advertising certainly did not reach out and grab anybody. I really do not think anybody gives a rats behind about Pullman, his philosophical position, the right wing reaction to it, or anything else that rings of an excuse or rationalization.

I also think it came upon the heels of that STARDUST movie which did very mediocre box office as well and people looked at it as just more of the same. Please understand something: nobody here confuses LOTR with the rest of this stuff. The LOTR films were in a special category all of their own. They are not to be packaged, confused, affiliated, or even contaminated by anything else that others may call fantasy. If ten different fantasy movies came and died between now and the debut of the Jackson HOBBIT, it would not impact the box office of that film one single US dollar. Again, I would bet on that.