Nicole Kidman, 2007
Photo: Stephen Shugerman / Getty Images
Christian groups should probably sleep easier, though, because much of the religious critique has been pulled from the story. Apparently, Nicole Kidman wouldn't have agreed to work on the film otherwise. An organization depicted in the film kidnaps children in order to steal their souls, and this organization is regarded as a reference to the Catholic Church, but Nicole Kidman is herself Catholic and wouldn't have worked on any film that she thought might be critical of Catholicism.
Kidman...has told a US magazine her Catholic faith affected her consideration of the script for another project, The Golden Compass. ...Kidman said some of the religious elements were removed from the movie script. "It has been watered down a little," she told Entertainment Weekly.
"I was raised Catholic, the Catholic Church is part of my essence," Kidman said. "I wouldn't be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic." ...
"Clergymen who kidnap children. Witches who aren't wicked. Even a pair of sexually ambiguous angels. If you thought Harry Potter was blasphemous, wait till you get a look at [this] trilogy," wrote one film critic last week.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
The book trilogy in question is called His Dark Materials and consists of the books Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in North America), The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. The first book, Northern Lights, won the UK Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in 1995. The final book, The Amber Spyglass, won the 2001 Whitbread Prize for best children's book as well as the Whitbread Book of the Year prize in January 2002 — the first time a children's book had ever received that award.
Josh Tyler comments at Cinema Blend:
I’m disappointed, but not surprised. Non-belief in god may be the third biggest belief system on the planet (right behind Christianity and Islam), but the religious majority loves pretending atheism and agnosticism simply don’t exist. The “His Dark Materials” series is at its core, about a group of people deciding to kill god because well… he’s kind of a douche. Along the way they fight evil Church authorities who kidnap and murder children, and get help from a pair of helpful homosexual angels. Apparently it’s ok to make a fantasy movie like Narnia, which is absolutely soaked in religion, but not ok to make a movie which is rooted in the opposing viewpoint.
The really disheartening thing here is that the first book, on which the first movie is based, is the most innocent of the three His Dark Materials novels. The Golden Compass is the most family friendly of the three, the least anti-religion, and in fact you could easily read through it and miss most of the god-hating elements entirely. If they have to water this one down, I shudder to think what garbage they’re going to turn the latter books into, should they ever get made.
Philip Pullman, 2004
Photo: MJ Kim / Getty Images
Many regard Philip Pullman's trilogy as a sort of rebuttal to C.S. Lewis' Narnia series, and Pullman has been very critical of the Narnia books. At the same time, though, even some Christians support some of the messages and ideas which Pullman's stories communicate. Although Pullman himself is an atheist, the negative portrayal of the "Church" in his books focuses primarily on dogmatism, how religion is used to oppress, and the suppression of freedom. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has even gone so far as to recommend the His Dark Materials trilogy for inclusion in religious education classes in schools.
I guess it's understandable if this first book was watered down in order to attract or keep the interest of a high-profile star like Nicole Kidman, but I have trouble seeing how it might have been worth it. Apparently, Nicole Kidman's career is stumbling badly, so it's arguable that she needs a good movie much more than this movie needs a big star. Perhaps it's only fitting that she's playing the villain in this movie, if it is true that she was a villain off-screen as well.
I think it’s fair for Kidman to refuse to play the role or ask that the script be revised if they want her in the film. There are a lot of actresses in the world, and I can’t imagine they couldn’t find someone else willing to be on the big screen without revisions to the script. She’s under no obligation to work on this movie–and they’re under no obligation to use her.
But, you’re point is well taken. It is interesting that it’s hard to imagine this in reverse.
Check out Kidman in “The Others.” Her role is that of a mother who is quite religious, if not fanatically devout. I believe one of the primary subtexts of this movie is that her character may be suffering from religious hysteria. Hmm perhaps she was able to play that part so well because she feels so close to Catholicism.
I am reading Northern Lights at the moment, after a friend gave me Pullman’s His Dark Materials series for my birthday. It’s an excellent read, and I would recommend it to anyone, and especially for religious education classes.
I was looking forward to the film adaptation, however, I am having second thoughts about paying £5.00 for a cinema ticket, ever since Mrs. Coulter demanded that the critical references to religion should be removed. What a pity! I can understand why actors might object to nudity scenes, but cutting the moral nudity of the church is one step too far, because it alters the original point being made.
I suppose the film director will now use a less offensive double for the Catholic church…
Alan Mackenzie, I just bookmarked your page. It looks interesting. I will spend some time there.
Why didn’t Pullman insist on creative control and story integrity, as JK Rowling did with the Harry Potter series?
The use of metaphors and symbols as stand ins seems to me to be religious. I think I’ll check out Elmer Gantry with Burt Lancaster and Jean Simmons.
I think the books and the movie sound absolutely ridiculous. I had never heard of Philip Pullman until recently. I don’t think the Christian church has much to worry about as the movie is obviously distasteful and surely no one would take it seriously.
As for Austin Cline’s bitter denunciation of Christianity, I think he is full of hate himself. Anyone can disapprove and criticize an ideology or action without hating the people personally. We are all entitled to disagree. Austin seems to think that if Christians don’t like being persecuted they are full of hate but his own bigoted attitude is more hateful than anyone I have heard in years.
Lesley
Given that you have not seen the movie, not read the books, and don’t know much about either, how much do you suppose your opinion here is based on the fact that Pullman doesn’t agree with Christianity and how much is an honest, informed appraisal of the merits of the story — a highly acclaimed and award winning story, I might add?
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Would you care to support it?
The movie will not strike Christian parents as troubling. The is being watered down of the most despicable elements—so as to make money and not anger Christians—the fact remains that the movie is bait for the books. To be specific, if unsuspecting Christian parents take their children to see the movie, they may very well find it engaging and then buy Pullman’s books for Christmas. That’s the problem.
As an adult, I have read Mr. Pullman’s His Dark Materials series and I loved it. As a practicing Roman Catholic and as a Catholic educator, I support the Anglican church’s attitude of using these books as tools to teach our youth and teens. “Watered down” or not, I’m certain that the main themes will shine through in the screen adaptation. It saddens me to think that an ignorant critic will dismiss these stories and the soon-to-be released movie as “anti-Christian” when they are in reality anti-corruption. We need to teach our children to be aware of the political windings of the world, and how it is important not to have blind faith in those who hold power.
As the adult in my household, I purchase the books and magazines my children read. A good suggestion would be for Catholic/Christian parents to read the books (as I plan on doing) and then decide if they are appropriate for the age and discretion of their children. I was told (as an adult) not to read Angels and Demons and its sister book, The DaVinci Code because of its anti-Catholic references. I found both to be exactly what they were great works of FICTION. I also read every Potter book, Narnia Chronicles and the Hobbit/LOTR series. If you teach your children that FICTION is fiction you have nothing to fear; except maybe spawning a great imaginitive writer for the next generation.
I think Michael’s comments above are spot on and are one of the major concerns parents are having about this movie. I’ve discussed this issue with others and have researched it online and I am troubled by the amount of Christian hatred out there. Specifically the hatred that blames the “watering down” of this film on religious organizations. Let’s be honest here, the “watering down” came from the studio’s hunger for Christian money, not for sparing the feelings of Christians.
I also find it interesting that the Chrisitans are the ones who get attacked for trying to stand by their faith. Almost all of those critics would be reluctant if not frightened to make such comments about the members of the Jewish or islamic faiths.
I, for one, will not buy his books or see his movie. I’ve read what Mr. Pullman believes about religion in general and Christianity in particular and find him to be just a plain, ordinary, hateful man. Just go to Wikipedia, read the article and then click on the references at the bottom.
His hatred doesn’t stop there, though. It extends to C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels and he so misrepresents the Narnia books that I find it hard to believe he’s even read them. An excellent rebuttal to his bash on Narnia can also be found in the References section at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. The man may be eloquent, and a good writer, but his critcal thinking skills leave much to be desired.
And of course you’d have no problem with a movie that depicted being an atheist as having your soul stolen by a group of evil people.
Nicole Kidman has established herself as an accomplished actress, 2 time oscar nominee, and oscar winner. To say that she needed this movie and that her career needs a boost of some sort is ignorant. Futhermore, I don’t think Christians have a problem with stories or films that are Anti-Christian, but they do want to know what they are watching and how it may go against there principles. The Divinci Code was defintiely against Christian beliefs, and a lot of Christians chose not to watch it. It still made a bunch of money, and people went on went their lives. Bottom line for me is, Atheist or other people who are Anti-Christ or Anti-God can put whatever they want out there, and Christians have a right to ask questions about that material, to make sure that they are not watching anything that is against their beliefs.
It’s not ignorant, it’s just not something you want to hear. Even accomplished performers hit bad times with bad choices and I gave a reference to support my comment. You can engage it substantively and with serious argument, or continue just flinging out accusations and insults.
Feel free to explain how the film in question is “Anti-Christian” rather than anti-authoritarian.
…because Christians are so insecure in their faith that they can’t handle watching anything that might be against their beliefs?
“…because Christians are so insecure in their faith that they can’t handle watching anything that might be against their beliefs?”
I don’t think that is why Christians wouldn’t watch it without research first- that sounds like a very negatively-opinionated comment. TRUE Christians are trying not to be self centered but God centered, and we don’t want to do anything that would anger or displease Him. How would you feel if your children went out and engaged in activities that you felt were inapropriate after you had told them not to- would you just let it slide? I commend parents for researching before just blindly letting their kids watch whatever “everyone else is.” Evil has a was of sneaking in under that guise of “it’s okay…everyone else does it”
Perhaps it’s only fitting that she’s playing the villain in this movie, if it is true that she was a villain off-screen as well.
Could you explain this statement? What villainous deed has Ms. Kidman committed off-screen?