Spring Break
The Antichrist didn't even get top billing
Ryan Nowelll
Issue date: 12/10/07 Section: Opinion
There's been a lot of umbrage lately over this season's newest bombastic PG fantasy epic, The Golden Compass.
For you umbrage aficionados out there, it may be very reminiscent of the controversy a few years back surrounding a then-pretender to the Potter throne, not-so-coincidentally titled The Golden Compass.
That Compass was the first in a trilogy of children's books written by Philip Pullman.
An atheist and ardent critic of organized religion, Pullman tied together some typical fantasy standbys (a struggle between good and evil, a child who turns out to be "the one the prophecies spoke of," wuddly talking animals that normally would maul you and dirigibles) and created a saga reflecting his views, acting as a Nietzsche-flavored retort to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Naturally, such radical-circa-1870 ideas didn't sit well with some folk.
During the Potter-spurred witch-hunt against "questionable" religious content in children's books, the philosophical commentary in Pullman's work made him an obvious target.
The Catholic Herald stated his trilogy was "worthy of the bonfire," and many religious groups considered him, if not actually Satan himself, than at least earmarked for eternal pitch-forking. Pullman had the dubious honor of becoming the children's section's Salman Rushdie.
But the books were well-received by their target audience (kids), became bestsellers, and without secular youth movements cropping up in middle schools and playgrounds nationwide, the controversy subsided.
Until, of course, a few weeks ago.
With the recent release of the film adaptation, the news has had its fair share of mothers clutching their 2.5 children, vowing boycotts and deriding the film's stance as just darn awful. Leave it to hysterical, overbearing parents to pick out philosophical nuance.
The studio has been assuring parents that the movie has been intellectually castrated to the point where all controversial subject matter was lost in the transition to the screen, marking perhaps the first time a studio has used inaccuracy to source material as a film's major selling point.
For you umbrage aficionados out there, it may be very reminiscent of the controversy a few years back surrounding a then-pretender to the Potter throne, not-so-coincidentally titled The Golden Compass.
That Compass was the first in a trilogy of children's books written by Philip Pullman.
An atheist and ardent critic of organized religion, Pullman tied together some typical fantasy standbys (a struggle between good and evil, a child who turns out to be "the one the prophecies spoke of," wuddly talking animals that normally would maul you and dirigibles) and created a saga reflecting his views, acting as a Nietzsche-flavored retort to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Naturally, such radical-circa-1870 ideas didn't sit well with some folk.
During the Potter-spurred witch-hunt against "questionable" religious content in children's books, the philosophical commentary in Pullman's work made him an obvious target.
The Catholic Herald stated his trilogy was "worthy of the bonfire," and many religious groups considered him, if not actually Satan himself, than at least earmarked for eternal pitch-forking. Pullman had the dubious honor of becoming the children's section's Salman Rushdie.
But the books were well-received by their target audience (kids), became bestsellers, and without secular youth movements cropping up in middle schools and playgrounds nationwide, the controversy subsided.
Until, of course, a few weeks ago.
With the recent release of the film adaptation, the news has had its fair share of mothers clutching their 2.5 children, vowing boycotts and deriding the film's stance as just darn awful. Leave it to hysterical, overbearing parents to pick out philosophical nuance.
The studio has been assuring parents that the movie has been intellectually castrated to the point where all controversial subject matter was lost in the transition to the screen, marking perhaps the first time a studio has used inaccuracy to source material as a film's major selling point.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 55
Craig Hawley
posted 12/11/07 @ 4:26 PM MST
Researchers have discovered that people of faith live approximately three years longer than those who have no faith.
Sorry but right or wrong , real or not , living longer appeals to me. (Continued…)
Vince Mowery
posted 12/11/07 @ 7:56 PM MST
I don't think he was trying to attack Christianity, but more calling in to question why some Christians felt threatened by the movie. I haven't seen it or read the book, but from what I hear it goes against Christianity to some degree, and so it shouldn't be surprising that it is offensive to some. (Continued…)
Craig Hawley
posted 12/11/07 @ 10:19 PM MST
Good point Vince. My answer is just because some one may speak against something or not patronize this movie does not mean they are afraid of it or threatened by it. (Continued…)
the Real Ian Brown
posted 12/12/07 @ 1:45 AM MST
The New England Patriots are undefeated.
Rudy Giuliani might be the next president.
Pretty clear proof that there is no god.
Anyway, another Nowell classic. (Continued…)
David Wright
posted 12/15/07 @ 10:54 PM MST
I don't have a problem, as a Fundamentalist Protestant with divergent viewpoints. I do have a problem, as the father of a 5 year old daughter, with exposing her to entertainment that says her parents are wrong, and she should ignore them. (Continued…)
Craig Hawley
posted 12/16/07 @ 1:56 AM MST
Well said David Wright and a very good point.
KMD
posted 12/17/07 @ 10:05 PM MST
Hello, I love what this protest is doing for the movie, more and more people will go see it now. Just think, in the late part 2008 Harry Potter will be back with a movie and Dan Brown's 'Angels and Demons' will be out. (Continued…)
Craig Hawley
posted 12/18/07 @ 12:19 AM MST
Hi KMD I guess from your comments you are not a Christian. Well God bless you , some one should. I guess you non Christians can't read. The movie is not doing nearly as well as the producers predicted and they are whining like little girls. (Continued…)
KMD
posted 12/18/07 @ 3:31 PM MST
There seems to be a lot misconception about this country being founded on Christian principles, if not outright lies. Less than ten percent of the founding fathers went to church on a regular basis. (Continued…)
Craig Hawley
posted 12/20/07 @ 2:06 AM MST
Notice you did not respond to the fact people of faith live 3 years longer or that leading a Christian life has no down side.
Under God wasn't added until the 50's , but it was added. (Continued…)
Post a Comment