Michael John Grist

Garbage.

I’d heard from various reports that this movie wasn’t good, so my expectations were already lowered, but still it completely underwhelmed. It had none of the dread of the book. None of the ominous thick sense of foreboding. It was by the numbers, over-lit, over clean, overly orchestrated garbage.

What a shame. The book is amazing. The book evokes real emotion. I don’t remember precisely, but in the book I feel we follow Lyra fairly exclusively. It is the world from her point of her view. And so- it is a world full of mystery, intrigue, deception, and also with black terror and evil deeds.

The movie is scatter-shot. The bad guys are carbon copies. The bad deeds are over-played and under-effective. The terror completely fails to materialize. And all the rich complexity of Dust, of Original Sin, is lost in a cartoon-ish rendering of the Magisterium, the Gobblers, and the Cutter.

The effects were shoddy. Really shoddy- blatantly unreal. Their juxtaposition with real actors really took away from any sense of wonder I’d hoped to generate. Every outfit was too clean. Every set too sharp and delineated, with no clutter, no sense of being lived in. Every contour too stark and simple.

I didn’t believe in it. Did they actually spend money on this film? On what, I wonder? The effects in TV shows like BSG are more realistic. Not once did I feel awed by anything I saw. They just gave it all to us on a platter. Here’s Oxford, whoop. Here’s how the alethiometer works, whoop. Here’s the bad guys, here’s Bolvangar (very nicely lit, and clean!). Here’s that damn monkey.

The music was cheap orchestral pap. Rising at every moment it ’should’ rise at. Playing low and menacing to show us things were low and menacing, because from the words the actors spoke and the colors and lighting, those things were not clear.

Exposition! Too much exposition. And yet, not enough. What the hell was going on in this movie? Was there anything to care about? Exposition on stupid things that aren’t important or we can infer, with nothing on the important things. What are these witches doing? Nothing important. What about these Gyptians? Nothing important.

Costumes, dress, music, effects, sets, plot, structure, acting, makeup, battle scenes. It felt like a by-the-numbers movie made on a cheap budget for British television. It felt like one of the poorer episodes of Dr. Who (which is, to be honest, most of them).

The only single redeeming feature was the actress playing Lyra. She was the only good thing in it. But some of the lines the poor thing had to spout? Nonsense gibberish. Completely unnatural. And her speech at the end? Come on!

Did anyone on this production even read the book? Perhaps they gave it a cursory glance, but they certainly didn’t understand it. They transliterated the major events to film but with none of the feeling. None of the spirit, wonder, or dread of the book is present in this movie. It’s a shoddy farce that fails on every level. What a shame.

I first heard about the book ‘Into the Wild’ from my Global Issues teacher, when I was taking a Gap Year in a US high school back in 1999. She said I reminded her of the main character- Christopher McCandless.

At the time I didn’t know what that meant. I didn’t know anything about Christopher McCandless. I wondered why she compared me to him, generally I thought it was a positive thing- she said he was a bright young guy who sucked the marrow out of life- but there was an edge to it that I didn’t quite understand. I respected her though, her class was probably the most eye-opening class I ever took, so the comment stayed with me.

Years later I got the book- an excellent book by Jon Krakauer- and found out the ending. He dies. He’s this intelligent, gifted, athletic, seemingly loved and pampered kid, but one day he gives away his study-fund to Oxfam, leaves his car and burns all his money, and just lights out.

The mystery is- why? Why would this kid do this thing, to himself, to his family?

At first I thought he was heroic. After reading the book, I was awed by the way he lived the short life he had. He really sucked out the marrow, travelling the Western US, leather-tramping the roads, hitch-hiking, meeting wacky characters and forging new connections, always seeking and finding new experiences, enriching his life and his mind.

More recently, I started to think of him, when I thought of him, as a bit of a jerk. As immature and even selfish. Why hurt your parents like that? Why be so irresponsible with your own life like that? For what- spiritual learnings? What is that worth to the family that care about you if you die acquiring them?

That’s how I came to the movie. And for the first hour or so, the movie even reinforces this belief. He is incredibly cavalier with his own life. He blocks his family out completely. He has turned down everything they ever gave him, everything they ever made him, and decided to re-do it all for himself.

But why?

The movie answers these questions. They’re answers that speak to my own situation- why I’m in Japan. I’m not angry at my parents like Chris was. I’m out here in Japan, re-inventing myself, doing things for myself, because I didn’t know how to fit in and belong in England.

I’ve written about it on these pages before. It’s nothing really abhorrent. It’s just- not knowing who my people were. Not feeling like I was myself. Not knowing what I wanted, or where my space was to do it. So, I’m here, still searching for those things.

What my Global Issues teacher said about me and Chris being similar is true. Both looking for ourselves, for reality, for a new heritage and control over ourselves and our environment.

His final revelation- as shown in the film anyway- is one I felt myself when setting out on my proposed ‘bike tour around the world!’. It’s the reason I quit, and came back here, hoping to share my life with my then-girlfriend. But not everyone is on the same page at the same time, and that didn’t work out.

Anyway- is this a good movie? It certainly captures the spirit of Chris McCandless. It’s long, but it pays off. It shows us his reasons without over-explaining. Most importantly though- it shows us Chris as reckless carefree vagabond dominating the landscape, dominating people’s hearts, moving through and leaving inspiration and hope in his wake. We see that and while we may tsk at how reckless it is, we love him for it. His spirit is indomitable.

Then we see him brought low, and eventually to death. But even then, he comes through.

I would have loved to have met him. If he’d lived, I think he would have become a wonderful, empathic, understanding, caring man. It’s a tragedy he died.

What a great movie.

James Stewart is just so darn likable. Affable. Put-upon but bearing up. Gets riled if he has to. Talks straight, shoots from the hip, sticks up for himself. Gives the bad guy a bloody nose. But also sensitive. He’s a willowy guy- not so strong to look at, but he works hard, and he sticks to it, and he makes it come out right.

I’m trying to think of our modern day equivalent. I suppose Tom Hanks has pulled it off in the past. In You’ve Got Mail, the remake, he was perhaps a bit show-offish. But a movie like Forrest Gump, which I loved- he came through a lot like I described above- just slow-witted. Basically, a decent person.

Hugh Grant would be another.

But neither of them has quite what Stewart did. That basic decentness seems to have grown out of the times- difficult times, where you had to work hard, and no-one would help, and if your dreams got crushed- well, you had to just cowboy up and take it. I’m thinking of both Shop Around the Corner, and It’s a Wonderful Life here. Hugh Grant often plays loafers with trust funds, not hard-workers. Tom Hanks- well, hmm. Has he taken on comedies with such sad depths like Stewart did?

But it’s not only in character that the film excels. There are also some fantastic lines. Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) dogs Stewart throughout, wittily, and his comebacks are delightful. For example-

Klara Novak (Miss Novak): Well I really wouldn’t care to scratch your surface, Mr. Kralik, because I know exactly what I’d find. Instead of a heart, a hand-bag. Instead of a soul, a suitcase. And instead of an intellect, a cigarette lighter… which doesn’t work.

Alfred Kralik (thoughtfully): Well that’s very nicely put. Yes, comparing my intellect with a cigarette lighter that doesn’t work. Yes, that’s a very (thinking of the right word) interesting mixture of poetry, and meanness.

And one more, after him saying her illness was ‘only’ psychological-

Klara Novak: Mr. Kralik. It’s true we are in the same room, but we’re not on the same planet.

Alfred Kralik (again, thoughtfully): Uh Miss Novak, although I’m the victim of your remark, I can’t help admiring the exquisite way you have of expressing yourself. You certainly know how to put a man back on his planet.

How could you not like a guy like that? Takes an insult and just keeps on coming. Speaks of huge inner confidence.

And what an expressive face James Stewart has.

And what an ending to a movie. Sock suspenders!