I saw The Golden Compass this afternoon, and though some of my friends and correspondents hated the movie, I rather liked it.I think I was in a good position to like it: I read the book and liked it, but not so recently that I could remember vast numbers of details that got left out or changed. Also, I thought the film was impressive visually. For instance, the docks and the dockyard neighborhood in Trollesund was just perfect. Things like that make movies for me, if there is quality in the other elements. Last, I really liked the remote Arctic setting of much of the book, and some of that was done very effectively in the movie.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the virtues and vices of GC, but I will remark on the fact that this was another example of Hollywood steampunk; steampunk being a literary/movie SF/fantasy genre where the present is one side or the other of the year 1900, and the futuristic elements are supplied by technology that is "super-science" by the standards of the 1890s or the 1900s. There are huge engines and electricity and advanced weaponry that Jules Verne could have believed in or made up, and given the huge size of his output, probably did. Oh, yes, there are plenty of brass scientific instruments, golden compasses and whatnot. And airships.
The popularity of this genre (which includes on the movie side the failed League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the much more enjoyable Wild, Wild West) is kind of curious. Another example of the backward-looking nature of the "speculative" imagination which currently refuses to speculate?
I'm tempted to say that this scaredy-cat looking at a Paleo-Future that's already long been superceded is a delayed reaction to World War I, an acknowledgment that modern culture went off the rails then. Who could argue with that? But of course that's probably too-clever baloney. The real World War II with its real nuclear bombing and fire bombing before that and its vast death camps didn't scare SF writers off, from utopian or dystopian speculation, or more realistic future construction. It spurred them on, gave them a sense of mission.
I think it's probably unfair to categorize the Golden Compass the book as steampunk, but the movie is certainly an excellent example of it.
As a huge fan of Golden Compass and Philip Pullman in general (after finishing the trilogy I did the total book-geek thing and wrote a fan letter...and yes, he wrote back), I am really excited for this movie. Admittedly I haven't seen in yet, but I've been living in a box of relatives and holiday requirements, so I hope to see it soon. Although I do hope it does better than your two examples of the same genre (the League, and Wild, Wild West), both of which I was really disappointed in. I could go on and on about the genres and the book (which is a longtime favourite of mine), but I will save you and just wish you a happy new year.
ReplyDelete-Beth
I watched the Golden Compass and quite liked it. I always enjoy seeing how other people interpret and adapt novels, and although Weitz's vision of the novel differs from my own, it was entertaining nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy this cross over genre of 'steampunk' (this is the first time I have ever heard that term), though sometimes writers go overboard and you leave the realm of believability, ex. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
like a month ago i watched the golden compass again and i hated it to me it was really boring and i just didnt understand some parts but when i watch it when it first came out i really enjoyed it but now i just hate it
ReplyDelete