Saw "The Golden Compass" on Sunday--

And although it is exactly the sort of movie I would love with reckless abandon, I pause.

Was I wrong to read His Dark Materials first? I only wonder to the extent that I read the books in the first place out of anticipation of the movie, imagining that I would only like the movie more for understanding the story and the characters better from the outset. And to that extent--I think it did enhance my appreciation of the movie. But did reading the novels impair my ability to critique the movie? Alas--this is how my pathetic conscience works. Had I a daemon, it would be no ermine, just a straight-up weasel--if not a fox.

But nonetheless, here goes my review. I liked this movie a great deal, by and large because after reading the books, I wondered how it would be done at all. The Oxford of Lyra Belacqua is a unique universe, where each person possesses a daemon--an animal familiar representing their soul. This alone needs some exposition, and I thought any scene of teeming humanity with critters gallumphing about might needs muct be awkward. But, sensibly, the film convention did not tend towards any persons having water buffaloes, elephants, or rhinos as their daemons. What we do experiencein the Oxford landscape is a breathtaking antique-seeming architecture--where the CGI zeppelins can freely fly. Let me state for the record--the movie is visually gorgeous.

Also impressive is Dakota Blue Richards. Color me an antique snob of the worst stripe--I did not imagine so much would come of an ingenue tagged "Dakota Blue". But she has moments of embodying this character--where, near the very beginning, when she makes in issue of being called "A lady"--"Take it back!" I adored that. Lyra is proud of who she perceives herself to be--also compelling as one extraordinary scene where she lulls the evil King of the Panzerbjorne (this is a warrrior, sentient, ice bear) into thinking she's on his side with much flattery. She did a fine job as Lyra, and because she was the focus of this part of the narrative of the trilogy, she carried the film. The previews may well show Nicole Kidman (icily menacing and by turns hot and cold as Mrs. Coulter--a charismatic but dangerous woman, (who is an agent of the Magisterium working with the Gobblers--kidnappers--and you can tell they are all wrong--because Count Dooku is there, they are down with the Sith}--and always, might I say, shown in the most beautiful light; she is ice blonde, perfect, glacially pretty--and that only lends to the scariness of her character and Daniel Craig (resplendent in tweed and bearded-a rogue scholar daring to seek a forbidden truth), but in sooth, Lyra is where the action is.

Also captivating the lens are Sam Elliot as Lee Scoresby and Eva Green as Serafina Pekkala, respectively a cowboy aeronaut with a wisecracking hare as his daemon, and a mysterious Witch Queen who accepts Lyra as the child of a certain prophecy. But outstanding of supporting characters is that of Iorek Byrnison--Ian McKellan, whose voice I recognized at once, but whose skill did well create the pathetic, yet noble figure of a prince in exile, a bear betrayed. In a way, I think the CGI Iorek stole this movie, a little bit. He suffers in his heavy labor and strong drink, and is shamed when Lyra calls him out, and delights when he has his armour back, and feels himself again. His warrior spirit is charmed by the plucky Lyra--he even names her "Lyra Silvertongue" when her fabulations earn him a shot to fight the usurping bear king--Ragnar, who stole Iorek's throne. He exudes a kind of brave and determined persona that can gently shelter the child Lyra, even though he was born to battle.

Curiously, another actor who has done good work here, Sam Elliot, as Lee Scoresby, has done his more touching scenes with "A bear that was not there"--reacting to the CGI Iorek as a fong amigo. It's the Scoresby character, and Iorek, who are more father figures than Daniel Craig's Lord Asriel, and the movie, I believe, made more of the 'Gyptian Ma Costa--the mum of one of Lyra's playmates snatched by the Gobblers, who it is eventually realized that Mrs. Coulter was a part of--long after she has already captivated Lyra. It is Ma Costa's own boy, Billy, who Lyra finds when she realizes what inscision is--a dastardly cutting away of a child's daemon--his own very soul.

This scene could well have been more terrible, I thought. I think I might have liked it to be more horrible, to better depict how crucial the daemon is to one's personhood. In the novel, the poor victim was some other shild, but I think it was in the interest of the film that it be Billy Costa--and his mum gets him back and swears she'll find his daemon (poor boy--in the book--the daemon is long gone, and the boy, Tony, dies.) It may have been a bit better if that part was brought out--just to grasp the perfidy of what the Gobblers are doing.

Already, I think it may be too much for someone who has not read the books. How better to understand why Lyra can trick the evil Bear King into fighting Iorek (who in a marvelously bloody scene--er, wipes the smile from his face?) or use the Golden Compass (or alethieometer--a thing that tells the truth) to decide what she should do next? The movie needs exposition, but expostion needs pacing. The movie excells at moving to the next scene--but there are pacing issues.

All in all, this is a glorious adaption of a movie I came to believe, from reading the book, would be very hard to make. (Spoiler: the book does end with Lyra having set out what she intended to do,finding her playmate Roger, who was taken by the Gobblers. She opines that they still have things to "sort out."

Well they do--in the book a vey bad thing happens, and I thoroughly understand why the movie forbore from depicting the thing.

But if there is a sequel, you'll see.

Or, crazy thought, you can read the books.

As for the controversy from the Christian right--whev. You heard me. Crediting your young'in's with being able to perceive an atheist argument in a work of fantasy with daemons (souls) and magic is....hard I'd suppose. To avoid really giving them ideas, say niente. Let them just enjoy the ice bears and witches and weirdness--and the lovely brass gadgets, and the zeppelins.

And if the Magisterium seems like an oppressive religious institution, what with its fear of freethought and heresy and all--well my, my--

Odd anyone religious would see their own institution as a soul-removing, authoritarian, false entity?


Might be better to instruct tolerance and open mindedness-and let them really enjoy the adventure, without an adult (dusty?)taint of preconception.

Or so I suppose.