Philip Pullman - His Dark Materials

[caliburncy]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> While that is true, I have to say I'm somewhat skeptical about the 
> screenplay(s) for the trilogy.

Yep, I'm skeptical about the what the screenplay would be like, too, 
but I think mostly for some different reasons than Barb is, although 
Barb's concerns about Hollywood trying to make it acceptable to a 
mainstream audience are quite valid.

With that in mind, actually, if you want to hear my random idea of 
the day, (strange as this will probably sound to some people) I 
actually think HDM is a case where it might perhaps work better as a 
cartoon than as live action.  In terms of marketing, of course, this 
would fail *miserably* because "cartoon", in the public Western eye 
connotes a pure, G-rated children's film, which would only exacerbate 
the problems of darkness that Barb points out because excessively 
young children would go see it and jaded adults would steer clear.  
But from an *artistic* point of view, I have seen some truly 
atmospheric and moody cartoons the style of which would be, I think, 
very well suited to HDM because these things play up the 
psychological darkness (more important to Pullman's work, IMO), while 
simultaneously playing down the literal graphic darkness.  I don't 
know if that explanation makes much sense.

Of course, the odds of any studio going for the artistic approach 
rather than the marketing approach is rather slim, so if they ever 
opted for an HDM cartoon I think that would initially make me even 
*more* skeptical, because this would likely indicate an intention to 
Disney-fy it, not an intention to do what I am suggesting above.

Anyway, specififically referring to some of Barb's examples, let's 
see if, collectively, we can come up with a way for these issues to 
be handled without either deviating from the spirit of the books or 
alienating more of the mainstream audience than is necessary:


> Pullman's work is not merely dark; it contains many things that
> will be very, very difficult to sell to a mainstream audience,
> especially if the production company plans to market the film to as
> wide an audience as Lord of the Rings.  A thirteen-year-old boy who
> is a murderer, for a start

This is dark, certainly, but not too objectionable for a PG-13 film 
(wasn't LOTR, your example, rated PG-13?), seeing as how the victim 
in question merely fell down a set of stairs and snapped his neck 
(it's not as if Will attacked him with a knife or anything).  The 
*concept* may bug people regardless of treatment, but I don't see why 
this has to be *treated* in a way that could not be acceptable to a 
relatively mainstream audience.  And as for graphicness, people 
falling down stairs happens even on shows as benign and mainstream as 
Murder She Wrote all the time, and the reason this works is because 
it is treated in a certain way.  The only thing I would probably take 
out for the sake of this mainstream acceptability (and in any case, 
it's a thought, not a statement, and hence too difficult to convey 
anyway) is Lyra's thought that she can trust Will because he is a 
murderer.  Since most thoughts would be cut anyway I see no special 
reason why this one needs to stay; and while I think it is a 
surprising and therefore interesting comment, I do not feel that 
omitting it from a screenplay would be an automatic violation of the 
spirit of the books.

Oh, wait.  I just realized that there are one or two other instances 
where Will has to attack people (unlike the aforementioned incident, 
which is basically an accident), aren't there?  I guess that's 
probably more what Barb was talking about, huh?  I suppose I 
immediately thought of that first instance, because that's where Will 
decides he is a muderer.

Okay, well, hmm, I'll have to think about that, because I am having 
trouble remembering the details of those other incidents, so I can't 
really comment on how these scenes could be treated in a way that 
would fit the goal of acceptability without violation of the book's 
spirit.

But I do imagine that it's possible, because I personally think any 
subject can be presented to any audience, provided that 
the "treatment" of that subject is handle appropriately (i.e. know 
your audience and deliver accordingly).


> the connection between sexual awakening and when a person's daemon 
> becomes fixed in its form

Even Pullman treats this with a certain degree of distance.  Like 
Pullman said in the Readersville interview:


> As for what they actually DO - it's none of my damn business. My
> imagination withdrew at that point. If you want to follow them
> under the tree and watch what happens, you must bear the
> responsibility for what you see. Personally, I think privacy is a
> fine and gracious thing. I describe a kiss: and there are some
> turning-points in life for which a kiss is quite enough.

Again, I think this can be done in a way that is completely 
acceptable.  In the film (as was done in the book) just show a kiss 
and stop there.

Personally, I don't think that a whole lot more happened even in the 
book, but that's just my opinion.  Then again, I don't really care 
either way, so perhaps I am not the best judge.

I guess my point is that all that is important thematically-speaking 
is notion of the very start of a sexual awakening, for which a kiss 
is (just like in the book and often just like in real life) more than 
sufficient.  And I would like to think that most people would not 
find two pre-teens kissing to be ethically offensive.


> There's violence, mutilation

This is very true, and this is probably another area where the idea 
above of a very dark and atmospheric cartoon might be of some merit, 
at least artistically speaking--not for the sake of "cleaning up the 
film" but just because I personally think it fits the spirit of the 
books better to focus in on mood moreso than actual graphic 
depiction, an idea that I think fits the style of the type of cartoon 
I am describing.  It would not be a 'clean' cartoon, which might 
confuse the MPAA: "Wait, your telling us it's a children's book, and 
you're making into a cartoon, but you don't expect us to rate it G?"


> a very unconventional view of death and heaven and hell

I don't suppose anything can or *should* be done to make this 
more "acceptable".  It's Pullman's worldview; you don't mess with 
someone's worldview.  I would like to think, perhaps too 
optomistically, that any Hollywood-type who likes the books enough to 
try and make a film adaptation of them would at least recognize that 
This Must Stay As Is if there is to be any hope of retaining the 
original spirit.


> As film(s) I'm frightened that so much will "need" to be changed to 
> be palatable to the general public that it will be unrecognizable
> to those of us who've actually read Pullman.

With Hollywood execs involved, yes, this is quite possible, maybe 
even likely.   I will not debate that.  But I do not think that this 
is representative of a reason why a good film adaptation could not be 
made, simply a reason why it probably won't be.

And yet there are other reasons besides mainstream appeal that cause 
me to wonder if, just logistically speaking, an effective adaptation 
could be achieved, but that's another story.


> In the same way, "The Neverending Story" is rather dark, and when 
> they made the film, they only told half of the story, making it as 
> upbeat as possible at the end and completely omitting the darker 
> themes near the end of the book, such as the boy coming to terms 
> with the death of his mother.

I am certainly not 'in the know' when it comes to the decisions of 
the people who adapted "The Neverending Story" to the screen, but I 
have always suspected this had more to do with matters of length than 
it did to editing out any elements of darkness.  The sequels to this 
film, as I understand it--though I've never watched them through to 
completion--are based (perhaps loosely) upon the remainder portions 
of the novel.  And IIRC (which I very well may not--it's been awhile 
since I saw the film), they did attempt in the first film to resolve 
Bastian's coming to terms with his mother's death by changing the new 
name for the Childlike Empress to being his mother's name (unlike in 
the book where it is "Moon Child").  Not a perfect solution for some 
book-fans, I'm sure, but considering the fact that the story had to 
stop at this point, it seems more like what they viewed as the best 
compromise, rather than an attempt to 'cleanse' the film and make it 
more universally upbeat.

I have never considered "The Neverending Story" book to be 
particularly dark at all, though, so perhaps this is why I am not 
noticing the 'cleansing' done in the film version that you are 
commenting upon.  It seems to me that most of the changes made 
to "The Neverending Story" for the film adaptation were in an 
endeavor to make what they thought was a good, cohesive film, 
regardless of how far they had to deviate from the text of the book 
to achieve it.  Whether this was wise or not, I couldn't say.  As 
many will remember from my comments on the HP Movie, I come from the 
school of thought that, for most circumstances, believes in capturing 
the same spirit as the source, even at the blatant expense of the 
letter.  (Of course, this does not mean the letter should be thrown 
out for no good reason, either.)  I do not think "The Neverending 
Story" film was entirely successful in this attempt, but that did 
appear to be the general goal as best as I could tell.

Interesting thoughts, Barb!

-Luke