Earlier I linked to this Wall Street Journal article about David Gemmell. I thought the article was interesting, particularly the part about fantasy literature inspiring acts of real-life heroism. I did feel that the article featured some pretty gratuitous right-wing editorializing, which I guess isn’t surprising now that I see that the writer, John J. Miller, works for The National Review, but I let it slide. Though the more I think about it, the more bothered I am by this statement:
“Whereas antiwar films flop at the box office, those that celebrate military heroism, such as last year’s ‘300,’ ring up sales. If Hollywood wants to find a new book-based, war-filled fantasy franchise that repeats the success of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ — and avoids the disaster of ‘The Golden Compass’ — it may want to look to Gemmell for inspiration.”
Of course, there are a lot of assumptions packed into this paragraph that I might take issue with, but the thing that really keeps bugging me is: In what sense is The Golden Compass an “antiwar” movie? (Or, at any rate, insufficiently celebratory of the martial?) I mean, the story gets rolling with the Gyptians blowing away a few Gobblers. Then the movie introduces Iorek Byrnison, a bear who has devoted his whole life to glorious battle, and who redeems himself by kicking the crap out of an evil bear-warrior, thereby saving the day. Then at the end a whole army of witches flies in and kicks the crap out of an army of bad guys and their wolves. So it seems to me that The Golden Compass glorifies military heroism to about the same degree that the Narnia movie or The Lord of the Rings movies do.
So, has this article writer just not seen The Golden Compass? Is it just that The Golden Compass is viewed as anti-Christian, and therefore by association Liberal, and therefore by association antiwar, regardless of the film’s actual contents? Or am I missing something here?
Leave a Reply