Like Richard Dawkins, A C Grayling or Christopher Hitchens, Philip Pullman is not really writing for the likes of me, of course. His only purpose is to hate the Narnia novels: the His Dark Materials trilogy was written because certain parents could not stand their children's love of Narnia.
The Christianity in Narnia is subtle (some people manage to miss it entirely, like most readers of Tolkien), whereas the anti-Christianity, and especially the anti-Catholicism, in Pullman's work is painfully and tediously obvious and obsessive. Like, say, Dan Brown, Pullman is wholly parasitic in relation to Christianity (even the trilogy's title has been lifted from Paradise Lost), and presupposes a very high degree of familiarity with it, far beyond what often exists in fact.
Pullman's trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children of about 12. Is it back to this that future generations are to look nostalgically when recalling the formative books of childhood? Indeed, are Pullman's pubescent readers today to emulate this behaviour? After I asked that question in an letter to The Observer a couple of years ago, I was repeatedly told (as if I did not already know it), "Will and Lyra touch each other's 'daemons' as a mark of love." Well, is that what they are calling it these days?
Pullman's 'daemons' physicalise processes that are primarily emotional. This extends to many other interactions in Pullman's world (persuasion, seduction, lying, betrayal, befriending), and it is very clever and effective, in that it allows extended expression of the psychological and emotional by means of physical vocabulary.
However, precisely because this makes it far easier for younger readers who may not have the capacity or inclination to follow more sophisticated and difficult expressions of persons' 'inner lives', what of those younger readers (or, now, viewers) who have no 'daemons' with which to physicalise the primarly emotional process of being in love? What are they supposed to do in response to this literature?
We know the answer to that one, since Pullman himself has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels: sexualisation is even higher on his agenda than is secularisation, of which his obsession with Christianity is in any case a standing contradiction.
This disgusting film should at least have been given an 18 certificate (in the United States, the trilogy itself is only marketed to adults). After all, The Passion of the Christ was given one. Or have I missed something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After all, The Passion of the Christ was given one.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that that was for extreme, close-up, prolonged and relentless graphic violence, not for religious reasons.
And the notion that the BBFC might vet films for (allegedly) subversive ideas as well as sex and violence is truly horrific - we're censored quite enough in this country as it is. The mere fact that we still have a blasphemy law on the statute book is proof enough of that.
"extreme, close-up, prolonged and relentless graphic violence, not for religious reasons"
ReplyDeleteThat's what's in the Bible. When it says "scourging" or what have you, then that's what it means.
The films of a trilogy the whole point of which turns out to be the glorification of sex between 12-year-olds should have been refused certification outright.
That's what's in the Bible. When it says "scourging" or what have you, then that's what it means.
ReplyDeleteBeing in the Bible doesn't make it any more suitable for children - in fact, I'd argue it makes it less suitable, but then again I think the world would be a far saner place if religious texts were restricted to adults only.
Especially not when a word they probably don't understand like 'scourging' is substituted by prolonged scenes of a man effectively being flayed alive, which they most definitely can understand.
It's one of the most graphically violent films ever made, and more than deserved its 18 certificate.
The films of a trilogy the whole point of which turns out to be the glorification of sex between 12-year-olds should have been refused certification outright.
Would you care to highlight exactly where in the film it spells this out in such a way that a 12-year-old could grasp it?
"Would you care to highlight exactly where in the film it spells this out in such a way that a 12-year-old could grasp it?"
ReplyDeleteThe third one will have to. That's how the trilogy ends.