I don’t know about John, but in spite of my love of mythopoeic literature, I have thus far acquired no interest in seeing this “controversial” movie or reading the Pullman books on which it is base. Other, perhaps, than to discover if the author & moviemakers can somehow manage, unlike their other anti-Catholic storymongering brethren, to tell an interesting tale without relying on the very Catholic tropes, imagery and story arcs one would think honest atheists would wish to eschew, but never seem to do. Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of three-act story structure, and the fact that it is far more reliant on the Judeo-Christian “story” than even most Christian storytellers realize. As someone once asked, have you ever read a really good Buddhist novel? (Poetry, yes, novel…not yet, but I’m open to suggestions.)
But others have seen The Golden Compass and taken pen in hand; indeed, considering how much is being written on the film, one begins to suspect that critics must have made up the better part of of the viewing audience opening weekend, given its (by Hollywood Big Movie-standards) dismal take of a mere $26 million. At any rate, one of them, Harry Forbes, director of the bishops’ Office for Film and Broadcasting, liked the movie very much, in spite of its themes, and said so on the Bishops’ office film website. But if you go there, you will search in vain for the review, because it was pulled following a wave of protest from individual bishops and Catholic laity.
But the horse had already galloped leagues from the barn–Mr. Forbes’ comments have been plastered everywhere anyway, particularly by folks eager, apparently, to defend the movie from charges of overt anti-Christianism.
Pulling the review from the site no doubt smacks to outsiders, who know little of the Wild West atmosphere that prevails in the sphere of Catholic Opinion (whatever that is) of de haut en bas clerical censorship. In which case, perhaps the moviegoing audience would have been better served if the Bishops Office had let the review stand, with a caveat saying that it didn’t represent the opinion of the USCCB; better yet, set up some forum on the site for comments–of which I have no doubt there would have been many many many.
Our Sunday Visitor has an article on the kerfuffle, and Forbes’ original review can still be read on CatholicOnline.
his A-game when he composed the score-sheet for Scrooge. He pairs memorable melodies with witty, literate lyrics. In sour, Scrooge-like moods, I sometimes find myself singing the lyrics to “I Hate People” under my breath:
All in all, Dicken’s simple (but not simplistic) story of faith and redemption translates nicely into the musical format. Apart from the “Happiness” road bump (and maybe that’s just my Scrooge-like aversion to sap and sentiment), the songs are remarkably consistent in catchiness and quality, from the hilariously cynical, “I Hate People” to the joyous, celebratory “December the Twenty-Fifth” to the sweet and heartbreaking, “Christmas Morning.” The songs are performed in an expressionistic fantasy of Dickensian London, with some eye-popping costumes and creative choreography. Scrooge was nominated for 4 Academy Awards, for its sets and costumes, for its music, and for Best Original Song (the wonderful “Thank You Very Much” guaranteed to be stuck in your noggin for days). 
and broad, from his insect-like scuttle, to his wheezing, high-registered whine. I appreciated little touches, like the dirt under his fingernails, the way he slurps his gruel, and the little pouch of coin he keeps around his neck. Not to mention the greasy comb-over. Appropriate to a musical’s splash and spectacle, Finney plays Scrooge the Icon instead of Scrooge the Character (see Alastair Sim’s definitive portrayal of Scrooge in the