Interview with Chris Weitz gives truth on His Dark Materials

DarkMaterials.jpgI popped by a friends house in the northern reaches of Scotland at the weekend and happened upon a copy of Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights. I quickly asked him what he thought of the story of proposed butchery that we had previously posted quoting from the BBC, and I was quite surprised at the answer.

The BBC have it all wrong, the cornerstone of news reporting has yet again been misquoting and blowing out of all proportion, so it was with much humble pie that I was corrected. Apparently Chris Weitz, while he was still both Screenwriter and Director for the films, approached the main fan site for these popular novels to give an interview before madness ensued at the thought of the adaptation. Seems it slightly backfired, however my friend passed me the site and I’ve read through the interview.

It’s a very good interview, and Weitz is clear and quite open, by no means did it make me think that what had been said about the removal of the religious aspects of the plot was incorrect, merely lacking a lot of surrounding words of comfort.

Weitz talks of the fact that he has sat down with Pullman and they both discussed the need to rework the religious tones and ensure that religious groups do not take offense.

First let me say that I have visited with Pullman and spoken with him about this subject at great length. His feeling, and I say this with absolute certainty that I am not unfairly paraphrasing him, is that the “Authority” in question could represent any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual, whether it be religious, political, totalitarian, fundamentalist, communist, what have you. This gives me a certain amount of leeway in navigating the very treacherous issues that beset adapting HDM for the screen.

I’ll quote these in whole so that there’s no ambiguity, but please do go and read the original interview.

New Line is a company that makes films for economic returns. You would hardly expect them to be anything else. They have expressed worry about the possibility of HDM√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s perceived antireligiosity making it an unviable project financially. My job is to get the film made in such a way that the spirit of the piece is carried through to the screen, and to do that I must contend not only with the difficulties of the material but with the fears of the studio. Needless to say, all my best efforts will be directed towards keeping HDM as liberating and iconoclastic an experience as I can. But there may be some modification of terms. You will probably not hear of the “Church” but you will hear of the Magisterium. Those who will understand will understand. I have no desire to change the nature or intentions of the villains of the piece, but they may appear in more subtle guises.

So yes, the religious aspects are going to be altered, I may not totally agree with it, but in my discussion of censorship and rewriting my definition concerns the creators right to do with the work as they see fit, and in this case it’s very clear Pullman is at the front of these alterations. All that aside, it certainly does look like Weitz is a big fan and is taking care and time to transfer the work to the big screen.

Now, on the recommendation of Dave (thanks for the link) I think I shall make that my next read.

Comment with Facebook

8 thoughts on “Interview with Chris Weitz gives truth on His Dark Materials

  1. Two things:

    First, Weitz has quit the film.

    Second, this is a series of books that involves deicide. You cannot remove the religious content without essentially creating an entirely new work. Weitz’s comment that anything else could be substituted is pure spin. The religious content is the primary thrust of the books. People are upset about this for the exact same reason people were upset when the early (and false) rumors about the removal of the religious aspect in the Narnia films started to circulate. It’s a key element.

  2. That is certainly a given but I must reiterate my point that a “huge fan base” for a book does not necessarily translate into huge box office. The very fact that they are more worried how certain thematic elements will play to a movie should show the target audience for this film is far beyond the “huge fan base” and such must be the case if it is to be a financial success.

    *I* have read the books and could certainly accept this interpretation of the material. With Pullman seemingly being closely consulted I will at least wait a bit more before I pass judgement.

  3. My point is that this series of books already has that huge fan base, who’ve bought into the author’s anti-Church vision, and if anything making significant changes to the material for the film will more likely bring on their wrath than approval. As has happened in numerous other films which try to pull it off.

  4. In response to Bill’s post I believe it is fool-hardy to place best-selling books and best-selling movies at the same level of “success”. The Lord of the Rings was always a popular book, deemed a modern classic by many and voted as one of (if not the) best book of the 20th century in some poll. Yet as a work it has reached, I daresay, at least twice more people as a film than it ever did as a book. Ask the average person how many films they’ve seen vs. the number of books they’ve read (excluding school texts and the like) and I’d bet that the former would win hands down. Which awards does the general public pay more attention to: the Oscars or the Pulitzer?

    Another problem is that unlike films where there is a definitive system that calculates the box-office, in the publishing world it is more varied with magazines, newspapers and online stores like Amazon relying on their own methods and wielding varying levels of influence.

    A book being a “best seller” really doesn’t mean much beyond the fact that there is a fanbase to build on. Monstrous successes like the Harry Potter series and The Da Vinci Code present rare occassions where faitfulness to the text may be placed higher on the list of priorities for both the studio, the director and the writer.

  5. What makes these kind of statements more hypocritical, or perhaps less honest, is that Weitz is talking about proven salable material. These books are best sellers! Why should the studio by unwilling to be as unsubtle as the books (which I admit to not having read) if this is so? To me the clarification doesn’t let Weitz off the hook at all.

Leave a Reply