Later:
I saw the second half. It does get better, and in fact if the first half was as good as the last we'd have an excellent movie. The best things: Sam Elliot's cowboy, the girl's acting, the visual design, and if you insist, the bear warriors, even if they don't make much logical sense.
My recommendation: Only see the second half. You won't miss the exposition of the first half at all.
Regarding the bear warriors. A war is mentioned and the cowboy (who is a friend of the bear warrior sez "War? I haven't heard of any war?" Which only proves my point about the unjustified existence of a warrior race in this planet.
A recommendation to writers and movie makers in the future: Quit ripping off Star Wars. While the first movie was fun, the dramatic components of the series (and I am talking about the three first movies,) are at the level of TV soap operas. It is not worthwhile to rip this off. I am talking to you Eragon, and to Golden Compass on a lesser degree (lesser than Eragon, but still quite substantial.)
The people who grew up on Star Wars and are now writing novels or making films seem to have read or watched nothing else at all.
Also, while it is obvious that Golden Compass was to be a series, and it is likely to remain unfinished as such (since it tanked,) the open ending manages to work quite well. We don't need to see a series of what is likely to be fantasy cliches played out. We already know how the thing ends.
...this is an adaptation of a highly regarded literary work...
I've never read the novel, so I cannot comment there.
But the execution certainly does not work as film.
While the poetry may work in the novel, the fact that these people deal day in and day out with this leads me to think that people would not even mention it, specially if the daemon has its own name, as Pan does.
I can go a whole day without mentioning I have an immortal soul or what I think of it and its nature.
When everyone knows that Pan is a daemon, there is no need to call attention to it.
I would mention my companion Pan by name, if I needed to refer to him, but I wouldn't even need to mention that he is what is known as a daemon.
An outsider would simply think of it as my pet, or my animal companion. My familiar even, to a particularily perceptive audience member.
I could call my son, my "human son," every time I mention him, but it would have a weird effect on my conversations.
Just think of the movie Dragnet, when Joe Friday kept calling the lady a virgin. This has a comedic effect simply because people do not express themselves in this manner and do not call attention to what is obvious to everyone else or what is simply superfluous information.
There are movies about homosexuality that do not mention the word homosexual because of this same reason of avoiding controversy. I'm sure it could be done and that it would work. That at least would have circumvented the backlash.
As I said, the backlash is but a small problem with the movie, but one that stopped and will stop many people from seeing it.
...To suggest that the word "daemon" not be used is kind of like suggesting that Peter Jackson should have discarded the word "hobbit" and gone with "half-pints" or "small fry" instead.
I disagree, simply because "Hobbit" is not something that might be offensive or might disorient the audience. Plus consider the fact that "Hobbit" has been a part of the current popular culture much more than the obscure term "daemon".
And yet, personally, I don't have a problem with the term "daemon".
I knew the movie used it even before getting the movie. (The movie was recommended at the office as a beautiful film, which I agree it is.)
I have a small kid who is beginning his Catechism and I had to explain the difference between "demon" and "daemon" to him (I'm sure he still didn't "get it").
I had no problem with him seeing the movie.
But it is obvious to me that others do and will.
An example is the word shag" in the Austin Powers movies. The American audience did not have a problem, because "shag" was a term not frequently used, if not a new term.
To some European audiences, it was however offensive, from what I heard. However, in a movie like Austin Powers that was probably an unintended bonus.
...I don't think starting to watch at the midway point is really going to help, but maybe you were joking about that.
My wife saw only the last half, and she quite enjoyed it. I told her she could watch the first half if she really wanted to, but that I did not recommend it. I don't know if my appreciation of the movie exceeds hers, but at least she didn't suffer thru the initial bad portion of the movie.
Like I said, I did not read the novel, nor do I feel like reading it, and I certainly don't feel as if the movie needs to be faithful to it. Especially when the translation of novel to film doesn't work.
...your lack of even the remotest interest in the source material is hard for me to understand.
I have piles of reading stuff on my night table. I am (actively) going thru Dirk Gently (which I never read before, but for some reason thought I had) currently in addition to the two last issues of VW Magazine.
I also just purchased 4 Discworld novels that I wanna read.
I started Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand... and laid it to the side, but I intend to finish it.
I just finished the three volumes of DVD Delirium which I started in June of last year.
I have literally hundreds of movies and TV shows which have been purchased and are sitting on a shelf and in boxes waiting for me to watch them.
I'm sorry I don't have time or interest to read this series, I don't know the author and he hasn't been recommended to me, in addition to the fact that I find myself not having patience with Juvenile Fiction lately.
I don't think the material should be dumbed down, I simply think that for the movie to work much exposition needs to be taken out. If that screws up some of the story clarity, so be it. How many obscure films have I seen? God knows. When I watch a surrealist movie I don't understand everything I see, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it, or thinking about it or discussing it.
They can take the word "daemon" out of it, without dumbing it down, easily: leave everything exactly the same in the script, but every time someone says daemon substitute the name of that particular daemon instead.
That would simply make it more accessible to lots of people who would otherwise not see it, I know the author would not be happy with it. But they never are, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment