comment #1

Larry says ...

Donohue has long been a lousy spokesman because he comes across as a nut.

I remember the attack on Dogma, which I thought was pretty funny, since Dogma, when you look at it, is practically the most pro-Catholic films to come out of Hollywood since The Nun's Story.

comment #2

stickybump says ...

The Catholic League hates it? That's a stamp of approval in my book.

comment #3

Howlingman says ...

"And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books."

Because nothing will turn children off reading something like a parent telling them they're not allowed to.

comment #4

JohnCope says ...

The real story here is New Line's unsurprising lack of any interest in integrity by "watering down" the books. Replace that phrase with "gutting". Though I actually agree that the books eventually descend into an agendaized harangue, which ultimately comes across as shrill and does the elegance of the series no favors, I can't imagine that the movies will have any weight to them at all other than as spectacles. You can try to get by with this approach in adapting The Golden Compass but Pullman's entire purpose demands that you engage with his subtext and by the time of The Amber Spyglass they will have a damn problem on their hands.

That first book is excellent though, not because it is so much less of a screed but because it's far more interested in the craft of storytelling and the skill of well deployed language at its disposal.

comment #5

parttimesaint says ...

Considering the columnist has only read half the trilogy, I'm a little surprised he feels qualified to defend the content of His Dark Materials. Then again, I'm also a little surprised that people in New Jersey are actually reading books.

comment #6

JoeJustice says ...

Not that I agree with the Catholic League's premise, since they're nuts, but I could say...

No one stuck up for me when I was forced to go to church as a child or watch Jesus cartoons, so... what's good for the goose...

comment #7

ScreenRant.com says ...

"Then again, I'm also a little surprised that people in New Jersey are actually reading books."

LMAO!!! :-D

Vic

comment #8

arch451 says ...

What is so wrong about a children's book or movie that promotes atheism? We are bombarded with religious messages so much that it is only fair to tolerate other viewpoints. Wasn't tolerance one of the most important teachings of Jesus? If a child is old enough to read a novel, he or she is old enough to hear other points of view.

comment #9

Andrew says ...

Got the message loud and clear, skip the movie, buy the books as Christmas gifts for all my nieces and nephews...

comment #10

arch451 says ...

btw, I would have ignored this movie but now I'm interested in it. It's ironic how the Catholic League actually ends up promoting what they try to discourage.

comment #11

Craig Kennedy says ...

The dude has every right to warn his followers that the books might contain something offensive the movie doesn't. I have every right not to care and to wonder why this is on a national news channel. Oh right, it's controversial. Plus, how many times can you run the story about Britney's bare cooter?

comment #12

bdboudreaux says ...

Well that settles it. I'm going buy my eight year old these books today. Here's a crazy idea for most adults and parents, which I am, why don't you present as many different view points for your kids to ponder and let them decide for themselves what they want. Shockingly children are smarter than most people give them credit for and are able to make good choices for themselves when given the option.

comment #13

BurmaShave says ...

How insecure do you have to be in your beliefs to be influenced by what's written in a single book? Oh, right...

comment #14

DavidF says ...

cjkennedy took the words out of my mouth.
why does this guy get air time, ever?
He's against stuff. Good for him.

Since the current administration in the USA knows all I must accept their premise that the media is run by bleeding heart liberals and only Fox aims for some sort of balance.

Given that obvious situation, is this guy on MSNBC because:
a) The liberals want to show him for the fool he is
b) The liberals are so misguided on their whole "free speech" thing that they will even allow the moral majority's views to be aired to their own detriment - the fools.

comment #15

Monument says ...

In the third book the author...

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

...kills God.

seriously

Phillip Pullman is as religiously atheistic as his nemesis C.S. Lewis was theistic.

comment #16

DarthCorleone says ...

arch451 & bdboudreaux >> I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll be taking my niece to see this over the holidays, and she is more than smart enough to figure things out for herself.

comment #17

thatmovieguy says ...

bdboudreaux, you make an excellent point. When my sisters and I were children, my parents took a lot of heat from their relatives because they did not get us baptized immediately or force us into strict religious training. Instead, they not only allowed but encouraged us to learn about different religions and points of view. My parents were raised as Baptists, but neither of them ever cared for the holier-than-thou attitudes of many of the people they grew up with and they decided they wouldn't impose those "this religion is right and everything else is wrong" lessons on us. We went to Catholic masses, bar mitzvahs, Southern Baptist services, etc. If there had been Hindus or Buddhists in our neighborhood, we probably would have checked out their ways of worship as well. Everything turned out just fine. On the flip side, I will say that just about anything my parents told me I should not watch or should not read became extremely interesting, so Donohue should be very cautious about putting the forbidden fruit label on those books, unless he wants to put them on the pre-teen best seller list.

comment #18

Joel says ...

"In the third book the author...

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

...kills God."

Actually, technically he kills an impostor, a higher being claiming to be the creator. In fact, there is no creator, and the source of all life is basically defined as conscious thought.

The overall message of the books is humanist, which is inherently atheist, I suppose, but they are really mostly an attack on the Catholic Church and blind faith in general.

comment #19

Armin Tamzarian says ...

And it begins...

comment #20

bdboudreaux says ...

thatmovieguy - I had a similar up bringing to yours, grew up Catholic in Louisiana, with a mega sized Baptist Church next to my neighborhood, but neither of parents were particularly religious. My Grandfather, who I admired greatly, was a pretty strict Catholic but always said that if he died and found out that there really wasn't a god then the worst thing that happened is that he led a good life and tried to help people, not judge them. I always liked that take on religion. Myself, I'm an atheist now, mainly because religious extremism in all it's forms basically but off of any ideas about god I ever had. That being said, on the bookshelves of our home we have three different translations of the bible, a Torah, and a Qua-ran. We live in NYC, on the edge of Chinatown, so our kids see Buddhist monks and temples regularly, our babysitter is Muslim, and my kids have taught me how to play dreidel during Hanukkah because they've learned it form their friends. We're leaving it up to them to figure out their own spirituality and are doing our best to make sure that they realize that they have to respect other's beliefs, even if they are not their own.

comment #21

christian says ...

Donohue sure does have little faith.

comment #22

Edward says ...

BurmaShave nailed it. Well said!

comment #23

swordandpen says ...

Doesn't Donahue have anything better to do than attack movies, like deal with real world problems? The last time I checked, no religion is beyond criticism.

Why is it amoral to him for atheists to promote their beliefs while some members of the Catholic Church can force their beliefs down other's throats whenever they're feeling insecure?

comment #24

rocco says ...

Christianity is a religion filled with much beauty...unfortunately, christians tend to behave more like humans and less like Christ. Most intellectuals can distinguish between the admirable tenets of Christianity and the inherent flaws in man's nature that ultimately lead to a corruption of the religion's ideals...

...but defending one's faith is much different and less offensive than pushing it on others. Warning parents against materials that might easily corrupt their impressionable children is not intolerant and is nothing to be ashamed of unless, of course, you believe any defense of spirituality or faith is inherently foolish/stupid/wrong, etc...

comment #25

rocco says ...

...and before I'm attacked, you should know I'm agnostic, which puts me somewhere between Philip Pullman and Barack Obama.

comment #26

Mark B says ...

I love this quote from Whitty's "informative" article:
"There isn't one way to see the world -- unless you're one of those people who wants to make the world a hard place for everyone else to live in."

I see. So individuals who view life from the vantage point of their devout faith MUST by definition also be ruthless ogres out to make the world as miserable as possible? Whatever.

comment #27

malibugigolo says ...

If someone thinks one movie can test one's faith to the point of dissolving it, they have little faith in their flock.

But then again, I suppose that's why they confirm new initiates into their religion before they are able to reason.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

"Donohue is not actually not ripping into the film as much as trying to warn Catholics parents not to give the "Dark Materials" trilogy to their children as a Christmas present, which would be tantamount, he feels, to indoctrinating them into the evils of atheism."

Of course, Lewis was an atheist, too...Anyway, he really shouldn't be worried, since most people see the movies precisely to avoid reading the books.

John: "The real story here is New Line's unsurprising lack of any interest in integrity by "watering down" the books. Replace that phrase with "gutting"."

No studio is gonna spend a bunch of money on a political tentpole flick.

arch: "btw, I would have ignored this movie but now I'm interested in it."

I'm not. I'm afraid it'll be Kidman's answer to The Da Vinci Code, and man, was that a snooze-fest!

swordandpen: "Doesn't Donahue have anything better to do than attack movies, like deal with real world problems?"

He's more worried that children will read something which contradicts their faith than whether their local priests will rape them...

comment #29

BurmaShave says ...

"Of course, Lewis was an atheist, too..."

What? You are aware he was primarily a theologian? Kind of a bizzare choice for an athiest, no? Sometimes your ignorance scares me.

"He's more worried that children will read something which contradicts their faith than whether their local priests will rape them..."

Thanks for adding your exceedingly adult and relevant voice to this issue.

comment #30

christian says ...

Speaking of pious fools, right-wing hottie mouthpiece Ann Coulter does it again!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21257498/

comment #31

Hallick says ...

If Donahue's faith (or a colleague's faith, whoever it is that vets the anti-Christian reading material for the CL) is strong enough to survive and shine after looking at these books, then...I guess nobody else's is. Fellow believers...we're fucked.

Damn you kids - damn you and your spiritual hemophilia. Do we have to hide all your lights in a PLASTIC bushel now? Screw that. You get out there, and you read those anti-christ books, and you grow some freaking RHINO dermis, for the love of Christ (literally).

And somebody tell that Bill Donohue you love him, but he's being a sissy.

comment #32

DarthCorleone says ...

christian>> I'm with you except for the "hottie" part.

comment #33

PerfectTommy says ...

BTW, rumor had it that Pullman was the model for J. K. Rowling's pompous author, Prof. Gilderoy Lockhart. I have no problem with athiests writing children's books, but I also have no problem with people letting parents know about the contents of the books. Just as parents should know that the Narnia series has Christian themes. If parents know, then they can intelligently discuss the books kids read and films they view. We have learned so much from LaVar Burton ("Take a look, it's in a book...")

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Burma: "What? You are aware he was primarily a theologian? Kind of a bizzare choice for an athiest, no? Sometimes your ignorance scares me."

From wikipedia: n September 1913 Lewis enrolled at Malvern College, where he would remain until the following June. It was during this time at the age of 15 that he abandoned his childhood Christian faith and became an atheist, becoming interested in mythology and the occult.[1]Later he would describe "Wyvern" (as he styled the school in his autobiography) as so singularly focused on increasing one's social status that he came to see the homosexual relationships between older and younger pupils as "the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with fetid water) in the burning desert of competitive ambition. […] A perversion was the only thing left through which something spontaneous and uncalculated could creep" (Lewis 1966, p. 107). After leaving Malvern he moved to study privately with William T. Kirkpatrick, his father's old tutor and former headmaster of Lurgan College....

Although raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland, Lewis became an atheist at the age of 13, and remained as such until he was 31 years old. His separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and as a duty; around this time he also gained an interest in the occult as his studies expanded to include such topics. Lewis quoted Lucretius as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa (Lucretius)

"Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see."

comment #35

carla kolchak says ...

DZ is right, BurmaShave. Read Lewis' autobiographical "Surprised by Joy".

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/surprised.html

comment #36

SpinDozer says ...

'BTW, rumor had it that Pullman was the model for J. K. Rowling's pompous author, Prof. Gilderoy Lockhart.'

Really? Could you point me to a discussion of this rumor? TIA, Spin

comment #37

BurmaShave says ...

A study of Lewis' lifeswork would indicate that despite youthful doubt by his adulthood some expression or at least attempt at faith had reentered the picture. Perhaps agnostic would be a better word. This is the athiest (which is a belief I don't personally share but have no problems with, no more than any other belief) problem of trying to ascribe athiesm to as many people as you can. I will sight words from the very entry D.Z. just posted:

"an atheist at the age of 13, and remained as such until he was 31 years old"

comment #38

DarthCorleone says ...

I am far from an expert on C.S. Lewis, but his stint with atheism until he was 31 seems irrelevant to the comparison if he wrote The Chronicles Of Narnia once he had returned to Christian belief. Yes, it is an interesting bit of trivia, but the analogy does not fit. Pullman wrote His Dark Materials while he was an atheist. You might as well call me a Christian even though the label has not applied since I was a teenager.

comment #39

PerfectTommy says ...

Hey SpinDozer,
Looks like Lockhart=Pullman is not true (the character was more likely based on Rowling's first husband) but here's a place to start looking:
http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=39
(sorry not to put it in as a link).

comment #40

Rich S. says ...

Leaving aside the atheist v. Catholic question for a moment, John Cope is absolutely correct. The first book is excellent, but at that point it is not clear where the story is going. The second book starts well, but declines when its real intent is revealed and the lecture begins. I barely remember the third book, for the reasons Cope describes. I can't imagine how they're going to dumb it down without keeping the central theme. As I recall

SPOILER

it ends with the two pre-teen protagonists hooking up and purging the human race of original sin.

I got the first two books from my bright, 13 year old niece. She liked the first one, but lost interest after the second when she figured out where it was headed.

I agree that it is wrong to promote a boycott of the books, but I also think it is disingenuous of New Line to remove the central theme of the books to dumb the movies down for mass consumption. It is even worse for the author to tacitly agree to it and fair game to point out that the reason might be what this guy fears.

comment #41

carla kolchak says ...

No, Burma, not agostic. He called himself atheist. And he describes, in "Surprised by Joy", that wonderful/terrible/awesome epiphanous moment when he had to admit to himself that he'd been wrong. It's quite a remarkable and moving read, and certainly my personal favourite Lewis book.

comment #42

PerfectTommy says ...

OK, Rowlings apparently didn't base Lockhart on her ex-husband either. But she says he is based on a real person.

comment #43

Josh Massey says ...

Christian, I'm assuming you already have one, but I thought I'd at least point you in the direction of this on eBay.

comment #44

christian says ...

Thanks Josh, I do have one. I've found quite a few great SKIDOO rarities on ebay...

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

Darth: I'm assuming it was relevant, because the books clearly have a pagan interpretation of the religion. Not that Christianity didn't co-opt enough of those already, but at least they tried to pretend otherwise.

comment #46

George Prager says ...

Wow. I'd rather _______ Andre the Giant than see this movie or read this thread again.

comment #47

DarthCorleone says ...

D.Z.>> Ah, I understand your point now. Sorry - I was missing that.

This begs the question: was Pullman raised an atheist, or did he ever have a Christian perspective? Also, is a "pagan" interpretation of Christianity automatically invalidated, or can an intelligent, rational human being who does not subscribe to the faith offer a valid critique? One can be rigorously studied in the specifics of a faith and can conclude it is bunk without ever following it.

For the record, I really dug the first Dark Materials book, but like several others have mentioned here, the second and third books had their merits but ultimately lost me.

comment #48

otakuhouse says ...

Everything you need to know about Pullman, such as the fact his grandfather was an Anglican priest.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/26/051226fa_fact

It seems obvious Rowling based Lockhart on an ex of some kind; by the fact that she's worried they'll turn up at a signing or appear out of the past.

As for DZ's admonishment that CS Lewis was an athiest; sure, he was for a large part of his life, but given that once he converted he ended up writing some of the most influential, adored, revered books on Christian worship such as The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity, it's sort of ludicrous to deny the importance of the Christian faith in his work.

After all the Narnia series ends with the girl who blossoms into adolescent sexuality (represented as an interest in boys and makeup) being banished from Narnia forever, while the other children all die in a train crash... But that's okay, they get to go to Narnia and live forever!

To paraphrase Pullman, that's a really fucked up moral message for children.

Despite protestations that the His Dark Materials series are an athiestic tonic that will cause children to start prepubescent sex, burning and looting churches, etc... In reality the books' heroine probably goes through more innocent stuff than say the girls in the movie Thirteen.

The new trailer for The Golden Compass is heartening; but it's quite astonishing that apparently Weitz has decided to move the cliffhanger ending of the final three chapters to the start of the proposed sequel. Scared of the film not making it? Can't figure out how the fuck they're going to adapt the next two books?

Which, btw, are nowhere near as bad as people say. But you have to accept gay angels, consciousness present in dark matter, and so on.

comment #49

Heleno says ...

Surely what we should really be worried about here is the fact that the movie doesn't look anywhere near as good as the book? And the fact that they're so busy trying to tie it in to the Lord of the Rings audience that they've neglected to give it much discernable character of its own in the trailers?

comment #50

biffbolt says ...

I've been constantly amazed that this series got greenlighted in the first place. Didn't anyone at the studio *read* the books before shoveling money at them? How the hell do they hope to adapt the subsequent volumes without pissing off the majority of the populace? You can only water them down so far without making them unrecognizable.