His Dark Materials

[caddyman]

Why say yes when they come at you with large amounts of money? I can't imagine why. - Philip Pullman

I have largely given up commentating on political issues in an attempt to keep my blood pressure problems within manageable parameters. I still get annoyed by politicians and their unending authoritarian childishness, but only occasionally now do I get outraged by them; my cynicism runs too deep, and my health can't support it.

So today I find myself being annoyed - and no doubt some of you will be outraged - by that other paragon of Mammon and purveyor of the tawdry, Hollywood. Quite as capable of getting the blood up as politicians, but in a more ephemeral and meaningless way.

Today's edition of the Times tells us that New Line Cinema have driven up a couple of truckloads of used tenners and parked them outside Philip Pullman's hose and handed him the keys.
In return, and with his agreement, they now have the rights to film Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

Fine.

Except that to avoid upsetting the religious right in the US, the trilogy will be filmed with all criticism of religion excised.

There's really not much left to film, is there?

It is often said that Americans do not appreciate irony. And this is odd since the US is such a rich source of the stuff.

All references to the church are to be banished, says the Times, and the "Authority", Pullman's weak God figure will be altered to represent "any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual".

This is even more bizarre since the trilogy is not even primarily concerned with the nature of religion and belief per se. It barely addresses the issue. It does parody an over-mighty and repressively dogmatic church, and as such is a criticism of, if anything, mediaeval religious institutions more than any individual or personal belief in God. And more to the point, his is an invented church, set in an alternative universe. When the protagonists move into our universe the real church, and real religion is never addressed.

So what is there to upset anyone in the books? Very little, actually when push comes to shove. The man is hardly Erasmus.

So, to keep the increasingly paranoid, unthinking and illiterate bible belt securely buckled, Pullman is co-operating in a revisionist version of his own works which are intended to criticise a system that blinkers individual thought, by removing all reference to the system that blinkers individual thought.

Er…

Comments

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Have you swallowed your keyboard again, James?

[jfs.livejournal.com]

He's not co-operating.

Witness League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Hellblazer and countless other stories. It's a standard contract in Hollywood to say "once you've signed on the line, we can do what we like with the story."

It's why Pratchett ("Mort? Great, if we lose the Death character!") won't even open discussions with film agents.

Pullman said in a quote a couple of years ago something along the lines of "I've signed the film rights away. I've accepted that the story that emerges is not my story."

Myself, I'm completely with you - to anyone actually reading the books with half an eye, Lyra's Church is not mine, and the Authority is not my God. However, that didn't stop some of the anti-clerical people I know pointing to it and saying "see - your Church is bad".

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

The Times article suggested that he is co-operating with the director of the movie.

Biblical belts

[drjohnsilence.livejournal.com]

Surprised at your characterization of the "bible belt." Hollywood doesn't understand red state America - that's why they failed to back the mega-smash "The Passion of the Christ" - and you must remember that most of the churches in that area are small and deliberately anti-hierarchical. If Hollywood is altering the premise to avoid offending these people, it demonstrates once again that the military-industrial-entertainment complex* is out of touch with a large segment of its audience.

Now if America were in the grip of the Catholic church, I'd understand it. Perhaps they want to avoid upsetting John Kerry?

Re: Biblical belts

[drjohnsilence.livejournal.com]

* (c) Fox Mulder

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Contextual analysis :-)

Less cryptically; if you read the Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1393306,00.html alongside the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4077987.stm you can see the bones of the press release shining through.

The Times are writing to sell papers, so they quote Pullman as saying ""Why say yes when they come to you with large amounts of money? I can’t imagine why,” he replied, laughing. "

Might he have said more before or after that? Probably, but it doesn't make as good a quote.

It's one of the reasons I really like fan-written articles; they aren't as well written, but they do usually give deeper quotes, rather than the soundbites that newspapers use.

There's a good transcript of the conversation between Pullman and the Archbishop of Canterbury at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml if you're interested.

Re: Biblical belts

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I would be willing to reconsider the perception of the bible belt, which in itself is probably a result of the influence of the Mulderism.

Nonetheless, my basic point about the general futility of buying the rights to a book and then making a completely different story into the movie stands.

Re: Biblical belts

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Nonetheless, my basic point about the general futility of buying the rights to a book and then making a completely different story into the movie stands.

And when it rains, people get wet :-)

It's a fair point, and Tokyo burns on a regular basis, but they keep making the movies, and people keep going to see them.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

I must say Hollywood seems to have forgotten everything it ever learned about marketing. As a rule, movies actively protested by religious groups make out like gangbusters at the box office here. What on earth can New Line be thinking?

(I'm not familiar with the trilogy at all so I can't say whether anything in it would be actually offensive to evangelical Protestants--but people would be protesting based on what their pastor told them rather than on the movie, which they obviously wouldn't see if they were protesting it, so who knows? Maybe it would be a gigantic controversy. And make money hand over fist.)

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

As a writer, there's often not much you can do once you've signed your rights away except pray and stare at the returns. But your co-operation is a different matter - writers can and do disassociate themselves from adaptations they consider travesties - and if major sources like a national newspaper or the production company involved claim your approval, you can certainly disclaim very loudly if that is not the case.

What matters is not Pullman's conversation of yesterday, but his press release of tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

The report I remember reading of Pullman when this first arose (with all disclaimers for poor memory, and increasing age) gave me the impression that Pullman had done a Pilate, signed the form, taken the money and washed his hands of the outcome.

Alan Moore responded recently to the furore over Hellblazer (I think - it may have been LoEG) by returning the money, saying that the film wasn't his story so he wasn't due any proceeds. I think that's admirable (but I'm not sure ...)

Clutching at silver linings

[kt-peasant.livejournal.com]

If he's actually co-operating, perhaps it might be less painful all round to just think of it as three entirely new novels, set in a completely different world...