« Stallone on Bin Laden: Too Serious for a Movie | Home | Sell Those Tobacco Stocks! Christopher Hitchens Quits Smoking »
Chris Weitz on His “Golden Compass” Fiasco: Blame the Media
By Kyle | January 18, 2008
The writer-director of “The Golden Compass,” Chris Weitz, is peeved. The movie tanked so badly that the second and third installments are not going to be made (it did fairly well overseas, but unfortunately for New Line Cinema, that didn’t help because it pre-sold those rights). In an article in the December Atlantic, Hanna Rosin wrote about Weitz’s evident frustrations in making the film. (After he first agreed to do it, he dropped out, fearing either the Christian Right or the atheist followers of the book, then changed his mind again, then alarmed fanboys by basically telling them that he was going to water everything down to please his studio masters.) Rosin’s article was well-reported and even-keeled; it was a detailed look at how Weitz was trying to make a film that was both faithful to the book and a financial success. He’ll be (falsely) remembered as failing to dilute the book’s atheism enough; what was left of the story, supposedly, was still enough to repel the average Christian. (Actually, the movie died because it was confusing and starred an actress audiences don’t like.)
Weitz wrote a hysterical letter to the Atlantic in response. It is so badly written– highschoolish,petulant, clumsily sarcastic–that it makes you wonder: How is this man finding employment as a massively-paid professional writer? This is not something he said off the cuff; it is a letter he prepared for publication in a national magazine.
I had high hopes for Weitz after he made a film I loved, “About a Boy.” After the execrable “American Dreamz” and the lumpy ”Compass,” though, “About a Boy” is starting to look like a fluke, an easily adapted book that was nicely realized with appealing actors.
Here is Weitz’s letter:
Hanna Rosin’s hatchet job on my film of Philip Pullman’s novel The Golden Compass (“How Hollywood Saved God, December Atlantic), and by extension on me, is so comprehensive in its disdain that one might go so far as to imagine she had seen the movie! She hasn’t, of course, though that fact was not mentioned in her assemblage of carefully cut-and-pasted quotes and surmises pumped up with paraphrase. For example, it is true that I said that clerics and religious people had been presented as boobs and hypocrites in many Hollywood films in the past few decades. But her statement that this was, to me, an “explanation for why I’m not selling out” is her own invention. We were talking about entirely different things at that point in our interview, and the notion that I somehow regard myself as doing the religious right a solid is grotesque.
Elsewhere she simply seems not to have finished her background reading. If she had got to the end of my script, she might have noticed that the Genesis story she says I have stricken from the movie is addressed, though in the mouth of the villain Mrs. Coulter. “A long time ago, one of our ancestors made a terrible mistake. They disobeyed the Authority. And that is what brought Dust into the world. And ever since then, we’ve been sick. Sick with evil, sick with Dust. It shouldn’t take much for somebody with half a brain to understand the import, and Rosin, who writes about theology, ought to be able to catch it. But evidently it didn’t suit her thesis, which is that I “sold out” the book I happen to love. What did I sell? Who sold the rights to the books? Not me. From the article, we discover all sorts of new and interesting information–studios are afraid of controversy! Actors sometimes don’t have an easy time answering press questions!–and some fascinating paradoxes. A page after a lengthy description of religious imagery in the film, we find a picture in which one of the characters “flies over a land denuded of religious imagery.” Eh? I suppose one can blame an overenthusiastic caption writer for that one.
It has been an interesting experience to be accused, in the same month, of forwarding the aims of a stealth-atheist conspiracy and of selling out the secular ideals of a great work of literature. Thank you for expanding my sense of the absurd!
Chris Weitz
Los Angeles, Calif
Hanna Rosin replies: Comprehensive disdain? Certainly not. What I conveyed was more a sigh of resignation. The second half of Chris Weitz’s letter captures the spirit of my story more accurately than the first. Yes, we all know Hollywood is afraid of controversy. And here is a particularly choice example of that instinct in action. I never said Weitz sold out the books. It was plain, in both our interview and my story, that he loves them. I merely described the delicate process by which he reconciled the books with the needs of a Hollywood studio. “Kidnap the book’s body and leave behind its soul,” is what I wrote. The script contains all the rich characters and adventures of the books. But not, as I explained, the deeply subversive anti-God message. Is that a surprise? Probably not. I don’t think anyone expects a Hollywood studio to make a $180 million holiday-season movie that trashes the Old Testament.
At the time I wrote the story, neither Weitz nor the studio would let me see the film. My story was based on the shooting script, as well as several earlier versions. Readers can find my review of the finished movie at www.theatlantic.com/compass.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
[...] All I can say is ‘heh’: The writer-director of “The Golden Compass,†Chris Weitz, is peeved. The movie tanked so badly that the second and third installments are not going to be made (it did fairly well overseas, but unfortunately for New Line Cinema, that didn’t help because it pre-sold those rights). [...]
January 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Actually, it was both. Word got out pretty quick about the aggressive atheism of the book trilogy and that spilled over to the film. The anti-religionism could not have helped the flick, at least not in America.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Weitz’s letter read like he’d lurched off his meds a few days before. He does seem a bit angry she hadn’t seen the movie, but doesn’t seem cognizant that that might have been by his own design….or that of the New Line folks.
Typical Hollyweird one-trick pony, I guess. Weitz might be a postcard from the edge, or just another victim of Tinseltown.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
just out of curiosity - who the hell greenlights a $150m budget “children’s” film that’s gonna be labeled controversial before it even gets out of the gate?? duh
“hello, we’re new line & we really want to lose money today”
look at what guillermo del toro did with $19m in “pan’s labyrinth”
no compromises there - an adult film with fantasy elements… it didn’t go for a youth audience & made much more than its weight back
funny that new line has a hand in picturehouse… you think they would have learned something from the “pl” success
there are so many better ways the “compass” project could have been pulled off so those involved wouldn’t be crying the blues now
just sayin
January 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Deeply subversive, anti-god message? This is the same caricature of the story as presented by people like Pat Robertson, and it completely misses the point. Which probably has something to do with why Weitz is so irritated.
I agree that it could be considered as deeply subversive for some people, but the idea that God might not be a pleasant fellow, or even a perfect being of love, isn’t exactly new in western literature and philosophy. It’s really pretty standard fare, even mundane.
In any case, a lot of the criticism of the movie and the series have less to do with the story and more to do with the feverish persecution fantasies of religious people who think that their religious beliefs and institutions are beyond criticism, however harmful or innocuous they may be. This is abundantly clear when it’s called “anti-god” even by well-meaning critics who are favorably disposed to the story.
It isn’t anti-god. It’s anti-authoritarian, which (surprisingly, to some) is not the same thing. In this case, one of the main things being criticized is the unthinking acceptance of dogmatism and the toll this kind of authoritarianism can exact on innocent people. The desire by certain religious institutions to reject humanity in favor of unattainable and unhealthy ideals has cost us dearly. Dust is original sin, and the fear of it should strike us as repulsive; Pullman explains why, partly through Lyra’s coming of age story. You’ll notice this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with authoritarian human institutions who merely hide cowardice and cruelty behind false piety, god and the government.
That much should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who has read the series. Instead, Hannah focuses in an a supposed “anti-god” message, which is doubly misplaced because of what I said above (i.e. it isn’t actually god that’s being criticized, but human institutions and activities) and because that aspect of the story isn’t even mentioned until the second book. We don’t even know who or what The Authority is at this point in the story, so how could it be possibly be “anti-god”?(Which is a stupid phrase anyway, meant only to deflect the criticism away from the people who deserve it and onto God, who could not possibly be faulted!)
In any case, perhaps it was just an innocent slip. It just so happens to be the same slip that keeps happening over and over and over again, and frankly, it’s tiresome. I’m sure Weitz is even more tired of it than I am.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
[...] two) to The Golden Compass. Instead, I’ll look over in this direction (â†Â), while you read here news about the potential for a future film in this [...]
January 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am
it was a good movie .
i hope they make the sequels
January 20th, 2008 at 6:14 am
The movie sucked, that’s why it tanked. Not because of the cast (which I thought were great and fit their characters well), not because of the visual effects (also great), but because the script was clumsy, filled with non-stop exposition, and had less than 0% respect for the audience. The movie failed because Weitz can’t write and has no balls. How he ever got attached to the project I can’t even imagine.
It’s still better than the HORRIBLE Narnia that they put out a couple of years ago, but that’s like saying the third Matrix was better than the second.
Chris Weitz owes every fan of the books and/or good movies an apology.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Please, the movie tanked in the States, the States is not the whole world and considering the god-awful movies that become hits in the States, I have no idea what criteria people are using to say the movie tanked because it sucked. In my country, it made £25m and has made $315m worldwide.
God bless America but you are not the whole world.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“It isn’t anti-god. It’s anti-authoritarian”
Oh, give it a rest. Pullman himself said his motive for writing the books was “to undermine Chritianity” (his words). He didn’t start claiming they were about authority in general until after the backlash started (and New Line began to worry about profits).
“God bless America but you are not the whole world.”
The execrable “Eragon” was embraced by overseas audiences but tanked in the U.S. There’ll be no sequels to that bomb, either. God bless America, indeed.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
New Line PRE SOLD the rights for overseas distribution that is, they only get a small chunk of that 315 million international gross of a film that actually cost closer to 300 million to make.
That is the total cost of the entire LOTR trilogy.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Interesting that, by contrast, the much-criticised “heavy-handed Christian moralising” in “Lion Witch & Wardrobe” (which offends Phillip Pullman so much) didn’t put of mainstream audiences, including many non-Christians.
It seems a substantial proportion of non-religious moviegoers prefer the subtle (no pun intended) theological allusions of CS Lewis to the unsubtle theological head-bludgeonings of Phillip Pullman.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
“It seems a substantial proportion of non-religious moviegoers prefer the subtle (no pun intended) theological allusions of CS Lewis to the unsubtle theological head-bludgeonings of Phillip Pullman.”
I’m not a fan of the *Narnia* books, but I didn’t even realise that *The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe* was a Christian allegory until my teacher pointed it out in English class. I haven’t seen the most recent movie version.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 am
[...] novel-turned-movie The Golden Compass has apparently become a huge flop for New Line Cinema, and the director Chris Weitz is pretty unhappy. Apparently the movie “tanked so badly that [...]
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I can understand why Weitz is ticked, and I would suggest that you do some more research before you accuse Weitz of making a terrible film. It was New Line’s cut-happy editing that doomed the film, not Weitz’ script. Read the link above (from the NY Times), and you will see that Weitz’ original script was MUCH more detailed, expository, and gorgeous than what ended up on the screen. New Line cut a great deal from this movie - many scenes that were already filmed. They decided to chop off the original (filmed) ending, and even re-ordered the events from how they were originally filmed. All of this led to the choppy editing we finally saw on the screen. If you want to see how “last-minute” these cuts were, note that the Golden Compass video game AND the official movie storybook feature some of the cut scenes.
Weitz himself has said if a director’s cut of the film was done, he would make it 40 minutes longer (not even including the original ending which was slated for the beginning of the Subtle Knife). It must be frustrating for him to see what New Line’s meddling did to the film, and yet see himself be accused for the problems. And yet if he wants to have ANY hope of directing the next two films, he cannot be vocal about this issue.
If Weitz is blamed for anything, it should only be for not having enough guts to stand up to New Line. Perhaps he did not have enough confidence in himself. Granted he does not have the clout in Hollywood that some other director’s have, so New Line might have brushed him off.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:01 am
[...] Zitat von svenchen hmm ich sehe fast schwarz für Kompass, der wird nun doch ziemlich sicher letzter… Laut Chris Weitz wird es KEINE Sequels geben: Chris Weitz on His “Golden Compass” Fiasco: Blame the Media | KyleSmithOnline.com [...]
January 28th, 2008 at 6:34 am
This is a trilogy that should never have been made into a movie to begin with. If they toned down the first book, which was the tamest of the 3, there is no way they could even make the 3rd. It was just a plain stupid decision.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
[...] The Golden Compass fans, this article claims there will not be a sequel to the first film. It also links to angry film maker’s letters in The Atlantic Monthly. Chris [...]
April 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“It was New Line’s cut-happy editing that doomed the film, not Weitz’ script.”
That’s right! The movie went wrong because of the awful 2-hours cut, an absurd lenght for such a long, complex and detailed story. It’s sad to know that many beautiful sequences and all the character and plot development were cut, so the movie seems rushed and superficial.
And a believe that a director’s cut would redeem the movie. Weitz did a great work and New Line ruined it with last-hour changes.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The movie and this page is very good example of how Christianity in America is a large consuming sucking moronic authority that does not give people free will. (Let’s not even go into the Catholic church pedophile idiots)
If the movie was released with out it being chopped up to satisfy those fanatic freaks it probably wouldn’t have made any money! Sad isn’t it. And US who cares it’s one country of the world nothing more. The world countries move on and evolve the US…nothing till we get a new president that welcomes change.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
[...] nicht mehr viel davon zu finden ist. So hatte zum Beispiel ein Artikel im Atlantic eine heftige Reaktion von Regisseur Chris Weitz zur Folge. Seis’s drum. Was noch als christlich bezeichnet werden kann und was nicht ist, war [...]
August 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I liked it the movie, if left me wanting to see more. And really, the only justification for ending a movie with so little resolved is if the _will_ be a sequel.
Haven’t read the books, and don’t really care if the movie is or isn’t true to the book. Few Hollywood movies are. But the the movie worked I think, you care about the characters, it looked beautiful, and it didn’t take a lot of effort to suspend disbelief.
It’s definitely pigheaded though, to call a movie anti-god simply because it has repressive religious leaders in it. Fact of the matter is, repressive religious leaders are the ones that are anti-God, and I expect the Creator scarcely knows what to do with such people. Perhaps the books are more bitter on the matter, but this movie wasn’t.
Mr. Weitz, sequel please. Finish what you started.