The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
—1. Overview
—2. Reviews and Blogs
—3. Cast and Crew
—4. Photo Pages
—5. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—6. Posters
—7. Production Notes (pdf)
—8. Spiritual Connections
—9. Presentation Downloads
If you were a beaver and four humans showed up on your doorstep wearing fur coats, would you let them in? I certainly would have second thoughts. Funny how that idea never occurred to me before, even though I’ve read about the Pevensie children’s first encounter with the talking beavers of Narnia countless times. It just serves to illustrate the difference between experiencing a work of literature in your imagination and viewing it on the big screen. Suddenly things look a whole lot different—some better, some worse. It also raises the question as to whether such stories are best left to the imagination. I’m still trying to decide in terms of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Perhaps the choice would have been easier if I had enjoyed the film more than I did…
It’s difficult to put my finger on exactly why I failed to connect with this movie. It certainly wasn’t for lack of solid visual effects. They were everything a Narnia fan could hope for—centaurs, fauns, Cyclops, minotaurs, talking beavers and horses—all looking as real as the humans with whom they interacted. Aslan, in particular, exceeded expectations, as well he should have. With more than five million individually rendered hairs and up to fifty animators working exclusively on him alone, anything less than virtual realism would have been a tragic disappointment. But as stunning as Aslan and a number of the other creatures were, most of them were really nothing more than beautifully rendered extras—fodder for the battle sequences, background actors with one or two lines or a brief close-up to add a sense of realism. They looked great, but we never really got a chance to connect with them emotionally, and so I found it difficult to care what happened to them in the end.
The same could be said for most of the human characters. For the most part, the acting was serviceable, but at times it felt like the performers were struggling within the confines of a mediocre script. Surprisingly, Tilda Swinton, who plays the White Witch, seemed to have the most trouble. After seeing Swinton’s scintillating performance as the quasi-evil half-angel Gabriel in Constantine, I was eager to see her go all the way over to the dark side in her portrayal of the White Witch. While she definitely looked the part, whenever she spoke, it seemed like she was reaching for a sense of significance that the lines just couldn’t give. The one exception is the scene where she kills Aslan. This was one of the rare moments when she came close to realizing the full potential of her character. Even then, however, the scene lacked the sense of cosmic significance that undergirded nearly every moment of Narnia’s literary and cinematic cousin, The Lord of the Rings.
I think that is the real problem with this film: It lacks gravitas. Even at 132 minutes, it just didn’t seem long enough for us to really get to know the main characters or the underlying mythology of Narnia. The best it can do is tell us that four human children are needed to fill the thrones at Cair Paravel, but it never tells us why. We’re left wondering why four children are required, who sat in the thrones before the children arrived, who built Cair Paravel, and how the White Witch gained control of Narnia in the first place. I fully realize that these same answers are missing from the novel. But couldn’t the filmmakers have taken a few liberties with the text to clarify things, much like Peter Jackson did by inserting some of the background material into The Lord of the Rings to flesh out Aragorn’s identity? Surely Lewis addressed these questions elsewhere in his writings, and I don’t think too many people would have objected if his explanations were introduced into the film.
As it stands, without these answers on screen, it’s difficult to become caught up in events like the epic battle sequence that forms the climax of this film. We know the good guys are going to win, and we know that will be a positive thing for Narnia. But it would mean a lot more if, as with The Lord of the Rings, we knew what was at stake if they failed—and that there was a good chance they might do just that. I realize that some people may think that such comparisons to Tolkien’s epic are unfair, seeing as Tolkien wrote for adults and Lewis wrote Narnia for children. However, I see no reason why children’s literature or movies should be held to a lesser standard. Good storytelling is good storytelling no matter who your target audience is. If anything, books and films aimed at children should be held to a higher standard, because they become a child’s primal reading/viewing experience.
Despite my overall disappointment with this film, one aspect of my past reading experience that it did manage to tap into, at least momentarily, was the sense of wonder and excitement I felt about the possibility that there might be more to the world than I originally assumed—far more, in fact. Not only that, this story was one of the first to make me hope that there might also be more to me than I originally thought. Like Lucy, Edmund, Peter, and Susan, I may have a sense of purpose and destiny far beyond anything I had ever imagined. That is the true power of stories like Narnia or Harry Potter, I think. While we all sense there’s more to life than meets the eye, the characters in these stories actually get to witness this deeper reality firsthand, and that fills us with a sense of hope and excitement that we can make the same sort of discovery one day. And I definitely believe that we can.That said, when adapting such a universally renowned book—probably the best piece of children’s literature ever written—you can’t be content to make a good film. It has to be a great film, or not at all. Unfortunately, the makers of this film didn’t seem to be aware of that fact. I have no doubt that someone could have made a cinematic masterpiece out of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. However, that someone just happened to be too busy adapting another work about a fifty-foot ape. Too bad, because I doubt we will get this chance again. Perhaps it’s for the best though, because rather than letting some filmmaker do the imagining for us, if we want to experience the true magic of Narnia, we will just have to read the books for ourselves.
—Overview
—Reviews and Blogs
30 Comments:
I have never heard of these books. I would not have seen the movie if my Pastor had not commented on it last Sunday. I went into the theater hoping that this was something we could use in our faith battles with the secular world. Hoping I could shout, "praise the Lord" when it was over.
I found the movie very slow and dull. Though I enjoyed the graphics and Lucy, the rest was a let down. Perhaps, I too, was looking for too much from this film. The biggest problem in the 21st century is that Christianity is becoming folklore, this film didn't help. It may even push us Christians closer to being labled as “Fairy tale followers.” You bring Father Christmas into the same story as our Lord, you may as well bring in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Then when you try to explain that Jesus is real but the rest are not. Why will they want to differentiate them?
Maybe I’m just bummed and in a bad mood. All that money spent, all the talk at church, all those possibilities of conversation about the Lord. Gone. Logged as just another silly fairy tail. I pray the book had better appeal. This movie will not draw anyone closer to the truth
I meant Fairy Tale
From reading your comments, it seems that the failings of the movie are the failings of the books themselves, i.e. why the four children are needed, who built Cair Paravel, what's at stake, how the Witch got control. Lewis's best attempt, of course, at explaining those, is in The Magician's Nephew. But yeah, the Naria books are at a much lower level than the Lord of the Rings. LOTR, simply, is just massive in its depth and consistency. That's why Tolkien actually didn't like Naria. He thought it was too much of a hodgepodge of various mythical creatures. There may be some truth to this. Nevertheless, I enjoy Naria, both the books and the film, for what they are.
Does the "disappointed Christian" realize this is an allegorical story, a work of fiction? Who cares if there's a Father Christmas character in it, who operates as a servant of the true King? If you're worried about explaining that Jesus is real and the rest are not, you'd better get rid of the talking animals, giants, centaurs, and just about the entire rest of the movie. I'm pretty sure my kids realized that not everything they saw on that screen was real.
This disappointed Christian also has a pretty dim opinion of the Holy Spirit by declaring that no one will be drawn any closer to the truth.
I saw the movie Friday night, when it was released. I had been so excited for the last few months and every time I saw a trailer, the hairs on my arms would prickle up and I would feel shivers down my spine. I distinctly remember being read the story by my teachers in grades 3 and 4 at my small, private Christian school, being in awe of the story and of Aslan. I wanted to know Aslan. I was jealous of Lucy and Susan that they were so close to Him during His death. It was really real in my mind. After the movie, I was feeling let down, although I couldn't understand exactly why. And then I read your blog and now I understand. Thank you for your words.
Dear Disappointed: Although the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is definitely allegorical in nature, anyone looking for a one-to-one allegory of the gospel will be sorely disappointed. I'm curious to know what you mean about Christians becoming fairy tale followers. Do you think we're focusing too much on movies and stories? Personally, I think the problems arise when we look on stories like this as "witnessing tools" rather than simply enjoying them for what they are. They may lead to spiritual discussions, and they may not. But they definitely awaken a hunger to experience a reality beyond our own. And that's exciting.
Dear Chris: I enjoy Narnia as well, but I share Tolkien's critique of it. The world doesn't seem as well thought out as JRR's. As to the film though, I was hoping they would strive to clarify some of these ambiguities the same way Peter Jackson strove to do so by incorporating some of the background materials into LOTR. It didn't happen though.
That said, one touching scene that I forgot to mention in my review was the moment when Aslan had a few quiet words with Edmund. Edmund had screwed up big time, and yet Aslan still forgave and restored him. What a great picture of redemption! Of hope!
To me the difference between LOTR and the Narnia books is the intended audience. The Narnia books are aimmed at little children while LOTR is aimmed at an older audience. The questions about why four children, who built Cair Paravel,etc.,? Those are adult questions -- adults who have left behind the paradoxes of childhood. Tolkien, writing for an older audience explains everything, and I mean everything --history, geneologies, languages. Lewis on the other hand allows the many of the mysteries to remain. Where does Father Christmas come from? Who cares? It's finally Christmas!
Rich: Very well put--and your point is hinted at in Kevin's review. I think we'd all do well to note Lewis' dedication of the book to his goddaughter (Lucy), to whom he says, basically, that she'll one day outgrow fairy tales, but then, one day, she'll be old enough to enjoy them again. I agree that it is the stifling, "adult" in us that dissects this type of story and finds it lacking, and that it's the wonder-filled "child" in us that forgets all the dissecting and, as you say, stops caring because it's Christmas. Stops questioning like Susan and starts having faith like Lucy. Let's not forget that Jesus said we must become as children--this is one of the senses he may mean.
Matt/Rich: I've revised my review above to address some of the things you've mentioned above. Please feel free to disagree though!
Hey, Kevin--yeah, I respectfully do disagree. I don't think the point was that children's stories are held to a lesser standard, but that fairy tales, as such, don't really have to follow the same logic as adult stories. I've read Tolkien and Lewis ruminating on this (as well as Buechner, in a great book on this topic, *Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Fairy Tale . . .*), and the idea is that things in fairy tales don't always require an explanation. This isn't so for more adult stories. Honestly, think of a modern day thriller--a movie based on Clancy or Grisham, say--not fully explaining the motivations of all characters, why certain things *had to happen*, *how* this or that happened . . . it's hard to do. But in fairy tales, there is the unexplained frequently. Why do I have to be back at midnight? Why does the Prince have to kiss me? Why do I have to guess your name? Where's Aslan been all this time--why four thrones--why--why? In fairy tales, characters frequently don't, and (the point is) don't need to ask these kinds of questions. And, by the way, this isn't to say that there aren't answers . . . just that something like faith is required for a fairy story.
Now, the more interesting issue is *why* this is so with fairy tales. I don't think it's a lesser standard--I think it's something much deeper than that. Something hinted at, again, in the admonition to become like children . . . But Kevin, as to your review, I actually agree in whole--I just think our reason for feeling about the movie in the way you describe, perhaps, is different than we might normally think.
I hear your point about fairy tales, Matthew, and it is a good one. However, I still think that if you probed stories like Cinderella or Hansel and Gretal on a cultural level--if not a literary one--you would find good reasons for why the spell ended at midnight or why the witch lived in the woods in a gingerbread house. Likely, these elements were based on pre-existing myths or stories of some sort that emerged as an expression of deep-seated psychological and emotional needs and fears. Which leads me to the gospel...
I realize we all need to accept the gospel as children, much like children accept a fairy tale at face value, realizing that we can't explain everything we see, hear, and experience. But as with fairy tales, eventually the need for logical explanation will come, and if we can't find it in the story itself or the author's commentary, I think these stories lose some of their impact. I don't think that points to a flaw in adults; it's just the way we're wired. We naturally seek meaning and explanation. However, just because we can't find meaning or explanation for some elements of the gospel does not mean that they don't or should not exist. We can take them on faith now, because we trust that the "master storyteller" did not choose the details of the story at random. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can trust C. S. Lewis in the same way. Then again, an entire cottage industry has risen up to explain away some of the apparent randomness in his stories, so I'm willing to stand corrected. What I'm saying is that I wish some of that commentary would have found its way into the movie, because randomness is the enemy of all storytellers.
Kevin: Like I said before, I agree with what you're saying about the movie--there just isn't that satisfying depth that something like LOTR gives, with all the backstory, etc. And I think you're right: there *are* answers to all those questions when it comes to the gospel (especially), and probably most fairy tales, and specifically Lewis' fairy tales (in other Narnia books, etc.). The point I was really trying to make is that for *some* stories, the characters don't ask for, and the author doesn't present answers to those probing, backstory-type questions, on purpose--and that this is okay, given the nature of fairy tales, and the appropriate reader approach to them. I think this is the case with Narnia, as well as lots of other stories. Of course, as you say, it's perfectly fine, as adults who need those answers, to go looking for them even when we weren't necessarily intended to. I just think that we need to soften our faulting (not even totally dismiss it) of such stories on the grounds that they don't give us the answers we wanted . . . again, they didn't mean to.
Kevin, I also had a hard time putting my finger on where I didn't connect with this film. It felt uninspired; it felt stock Disney. It felt as though it was not simply kept in check by studio producers , but that it was made start-to-finish by them. It felt like it was made by someone who thought the book was a good idea for a film; not someone who had a fierce and loving relationship with the book.
One place I was able to pinpoint my frustrations was with the cinematography. The shots that were offered were good, solid shots...and that's the problem, because the characters weren't in good, solid situations. For example, when the children come to the house, they (or at least Lucy) is suppose to be overcome by how HUGE it is...at least its that way in the book. It was also that way in my gut - if I'm in a children's movie, I want to feel like a child, and what would make one feel more like a child than exploring a HUGE, beautiful, wood-and-must-and-pipe-tabaco-smelling mansion on the english countryside? Even if the director wanted to focus on the children's sadness and seperation from their parents more than Lewis (which is fine), in the scene where Lucy is all giggly and running around looking for a room to hide in, the shots are all very tight, and use the same corridors and stairways we've already seen. There's very little sense of discovery there - it just seems like a small place. Similarly, when she comes out of the wardrobe into Narnia, we see very little of what is around her off in the distance. Instead, we get an uninspired "snow-blanketed forest" set. I could almost feel the fake set-snow not crunching under Lucy's feet. I just didn't feel like she was in a new world there. I wasn't treated to the BIGNESS of Narnia - something you may be getting at in your desire for more historical background to the Narnia stuff. The film wasn't BURSTING with the wonder of Narnia - it was more of a documentary of the children's journey than entrance in on it.
PS: To "A Dissapointed Christian:" If you go into a film like this looking too hard for ammunition, your dissapointment will be keen. But if you just try to soak up the story, you may find some golden bullets there.
WOW! Haven't seen the film yet (always the sluggard, me!) but I tell you what I am SO surprised at when I read all the above comments - INCLUDING Kevin's actual review!!
NONE OF YOU HAVE THE FAINTEST UNDERSTANDING OF C. S. LEWIS AND WHAT THE MAN AND HIS WORKS WERE ALL ABOUT! (Only you may/should, Kevin, you've reviewed "Shadowlands" - of which I've seen both the movie AND the original West End play.)
Bah! LISTEN to me. I'm not even a Christian, yet have studied Lewis extensively and feel very certain that I understand both the man and his works.
To the person who commented about "folklore"... well... I'm sorry... but *isn't* it folklore... at least one of the things that it is?? Your religion, I mean? I'm not arguing about "false" or "true" here: I'm simply pointing out that like most narratives, it makes use of ARCHETYPES. You gotta take the Jungian perspective on this.
Don't go andbelieve that C.S. Lewis was an inferior writer to J R R Tolkien. Read "Perelandra" if not convinced!! He simply had a different style and approach, is all. He was less of an "epicist" and more of a "literalist"... if that makes any sense.
I know something that nobody on here seems to know at all. I know that C. S. Lewis was in his essence, a MEDIEVALIST, (he was also a classicist, but I believe he was primarily the former!) He was a LATER MEDIEVALIST, rather than the Dark Ages/Anglo-Saxon buff that Tolkien was.
If you understand what a medieval mind he had, THEN you can begin to understand his fascination with allegory. (I for one am just wondering about his previous incarnations!)
Right: to the person who complained about it: "Folklore" is a FUNDAMENTAL characteristic of medieval Christianity: that is why people like Chretien de Troyes mixed it with Celtic myths and legends to produce things like King Arthur and the Grail legends. They didn't think this was a CONTRADICTION of Christianity; they thought it was a legitimate extension of it... and (subconsciously, no doubt) a way of making it mean more to their Northern European minds... all religions do this: it's like Tibetan Buddhism is actually mixed with their old pagan religion, etc.
And when the medievals wrote things like bestiaries (early, illustrated zoological treatises about animals both real and fantastic) they interpreted each of the animals to have an allegorical Christian meaning; such as the lion (for instance!) frequently represented God, as he does in the Bible... and the panther or something represented Christ... and there was all this kind of stuff!
It was how they thought. In FABLES.
"The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe" is a fairly long FABLE.
If none of it appeals to your soul - well can I just say that you (all of you on here!) have very boring and modernist souls, and have not a TOUCH of the pagan imagination in you... well, the medievals had it, but modern Christianity is boringly legalistic and literalist. (Eg: The Lion as Jesus is OK, but Father Christmas in the same story is NOT OK... (?) even though part of the basis for the figure is a (Greek Orthodox, I believe) saint? Hmm. Yet most Christians still celebrate Christmas with "Santa Claus" firmly part of the celebrations... I rather think that even Falwell or Dobson or someone like that would complain if Father Christmas was attacked by some bunch of secular humanists!)
Anyway, before I get lured into digressing.
Of course, "Father Christmas" is also partially a pagan figure.. but try to work out what evolved from which and when... it's a tangled web!
Anyway. If you don't see what Father Christmas is doing in Narnia then you miss the entire point of the whole story.
Incidentally, just from viewing the trailers, I ALREADY perceive that the directors/set designers have plumped for a REASSURINGLY appropriate "medieval art" look, with the bright and almost pale colours, the mixture of pale backgrounds, pale green grass and very bright details... that is very good... and it's just how it should be, unlike the murky and "dark" look which SOME directors (Peter Jackson?) would have been tempted towards, just because they thought it looked "adult", I wot.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Study the medieval and you can't go wrong. And I bet that's what the people on the part of this site that devotes itself to his work have said, BTW.
It's me, by the way, Kevin, in case you hadn't guessed!! I was going to put it under "Anonymous" because that's how I'm feeling at the moment, and rather tired of Christians after an altercation with of Maurice's sidekicks some weeks ago. But I still come by, occasionally, and take a look here. I think I owe you an e-mail, anyway. Maybe you'll get one before Christmas.
(I am as pro-Lewis as I am anti-F.M., BTW!)
Liz K.
*OH*... ye Lewis detractors! (And non-comprehenders!)
The "explanations" and backstory (it even explains how the Professor started out, fer Aslan's sake!) and the "Narnia Creation Story" is in the novel entitled "The Magician's Nephew". (Book 4?? I'm afraid I didn't read these books much in order! But I read them SO many times as a child... goodness me, I still remember them today!! After not having touched them for decades!)
Right. So. That's "The Magician's Nephew" that clears up A LOT of the loose ends!!
The REST of the quibbles.. the "why are there four monarchs in Narnia" type of thing... is explained in "Prince Caspian", the immediate sequel to "Lion", and which is going into pre-production as we speak, I believe!
You see, there were *always* going to be SEVEN movies in this movie sequence, one for each book, much as with those for Harry Potter (and I notice both writers picked the magical number seven - medieval significance, again?)
So they CAN'T go messing it up with borrowings from the OTHER books to "flesh it out"... because that will mess up the other movies!
Come on you lot! ARE there any REAL Lewis fans here? Which adaptations are YOU looking forward to, out of the other books??
*I* vote for "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader", which is when Prince Caspian (who we shall meet) is grown up and is a young king in Narnia. Peter and Lucy and all that lot don't get to go to Narnia this time; instead, it is a rather awful little boy called "Eustace" (which was probaby the most pretentious and "trendy" name Lewis could think of!!) who I hated at first glance because he was like one of the worse boys at my school (though he wasn't a total bully.) BUT... oh sweet reader! Just READ on, and you will soon come to sympathise with the hapless and morally unattractive Eustace.. much as Lewis draws one to sympathise with the traitor, Edmund. (Doesn't this film bring that off then - reviews led me to think that it does.)
Lewis is so CLEVER at this... that is what makes him a modern writer too!!
Anyway. To be a spoiler.. I hope it isn't too much of one because YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE READ THE BOOKS!! Eustace (this is in "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" NOT "LWW") basically, eventually gets turned into a dragon for his pride.... it's up to you to find out how he transforms into one and how he gets back!! The Dawn Treader of the title is a ship which he and a young schoolgirl cousin of his go on a voyage/quest in with King Caspian. It's all very... medieval??
So I very much want to see that one, as well as "The Magician's Nephew". Then there's "The Silver Chair", which ALSO has age-old prophecies and that sense of medieval fascination to it... "UNDER ME"... ah... ah!! I read those books so, so many times as a child, each time with fascination!! Though I couldn't agree with every single thing... it was just so... fascinating! And the underworld (which has several levels) and the salamanders and gnomes and giants... believe me! That one's enough to give any kid nightmares! No WONDER there's a rock band now, named for it... "Silverchair" of course! The movie guys will have to make that one! (Be great if they could get a bit of a rock score from the above for part of it!)
And the GENIUS of the whole thing is... LEWIS CREATES A WHOLE WORLD, OK, which he introduces in "LWW" and explains in "Magician's Nephew" how it came about... and the other books.. oh, can't forget "Horse and His Boy".. that's one of the BEST in it!!
Well, in only seven books, he introduces it, explains its genesis, and tells several CRACKING yarns set at VARIOUS ages of this society's (never further advanced than medieval) history, though.
AND then... in the finale of the seven, "The Last Battle", he effectively gives that world its own Ragnarok... or Revelations IF you prefer... he tells the myth-hungry readers how that alternative world (which we only know about through the graces of Lewis, of course!) MEETS ITS END. It's all so... perfect.
Of course, he prepared to do this as a child - he was a precocious genius and he was assisted by his brother much as the Bronte sisters were aided by theirs - well anyway, they invented a whole imaginary world which they called Boxen. (Also featuring talking animals, and in various historical "eras"... they actually wrote "histories" of it complete with reigns of imaginary kings and so on!) So he was preparing to write something like Narnia all his life.
(Fancy not getting "Narnia"!) Some of you modern Christians are dumb! Not a BIT as clever as your classically-trained predecessor Mr Lewis!)
I just thought I'd re-emerge (Kevin..) with a bit of crosspatchism! But HONESTLY, guys... liking Lewis is a matter of faith for me! ALL Christians should LOVE Narnia and HATE things like Sin City!! Pity I'm not a Christian (bishop) because I'd make it mandatory.
Signed, Pagan Liz.
P.S. (Maybe Lewis thought that if there were *four* monarchs - they would not constitute a dictatorship... as did King Henry the Eighth, etc? And they would feel a lot more *secure*, I have also thought, as a ruling family, rather than just one exposed person on their own!! Maybe it's a middle-class ideal of monarchy, hmm?? Anyway, Lewis and his pal Tolkien both cared about society and how it fared and they hated dictatorships - WOULD that were the case with more authors today! Frank Miller this means you.)
Here's an interesting link to a good article about "the Narnia controversy"!
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=84bgxkbbzvqrch10g3kbwp5g8kv3ccbn
Apparently there is one: the writer Philip Pullman has written something in a publication to beef about "the evil Lewis, promoter of the evil Church"... I paraphrase. (And he's also accused him of "racism", which is a REALLY cheap shot, and I am really getting tired of, at the moment, where the "traditional" fantasy writers are concerned, eg something else I read: "Tolkien was racist because some of his 'evil forces' are dark-skinned" (ie the guys with the Oliphaunts - they're described as southerners) and - get this - "Because some of the Orcs in Jackson's movies had dreadlocks"...AS IF TOLKIEN DESIGNED THE COSTUMES FOR IT!!)
I am really sick of all such accusations; and I don't think they hold water. BTW: I was recently reminded by a bunch of libertarians that Tolkien was a sort of (Christian) anarchist... actually, I think that of all the theories, is the most likely to be true! (Another digression.) Anyway, something I've often thought is: if you are Western and you base your fantasy on Western mythology, you are BOUND to get accused of guess what - that's right, racism! Well, wouldn't a way around that be to base something on African mythology, say, or a mix of Western and African mythology, other world mythologies, whatever. NOT in the way that Neil Gaiman does it, either: I hardly think he's of Tolkien calibre and he's not that original... no.. I mean something LIKE Tolkien... but more of a multicultural base. THAT'S what I mean. Also more encouragement for "indigenous" (ethnic) fantasy writers from other countries, INCLUDING, please, Eastern Europe!! As well as Africa. I've put my two cents about African folklore as a suitable base for "global" entertainment on one of the Christian message boards that links to this site - I forget which one now! But I did, months ago. Because I am sincere.
Back to Mr Pullman and his annoying anti-Lewis campaign:-
Well, I like Pullman as a writer, but I CERTAINLY don't agree with his metaphysics. (Not the alternative dimensions idea, that's fine.) But the idea of what happens to the soul after death: He's based that partly on Ancient Greek ideas of Hades, and partly on Democritus! (If anyone's interested.)
Anyway, he's wrong. I know more about what happens after death than he does, because of my research reading.
BUT what annoys me about Pullman at the moment - he'd better watch his step or I'll find one of his fansites and flame him... now no-one wants to get on the wrong side of an angry Liz, do they??
What *I* don't like about him, is that he WON'T just say: "Well I think that Lewis was wrong about Jesus, etc... but he's a very good writer"... the same as I do about Pullman's books.
NO - he has to go for the big "Lewis wrote evil ideas" claptrap!!
Tut, tut. Philip, Philip. Out of TRUE good intent shall no evil come. If thistles don't bear figs then figs don't bear thistles, either. The only evil in such a situation would come out of misinterpretation.
But of course, the journalists go for the big controversy... I've just read around the subject a bit on your site, and they're saying that NONE of the American colour supplements/magazines have done feature articles on the movie... they've all concentrated on "King Kong"... is that true??
Well in Britain the Christmas edition of the Radio Times has a promotional LWW DVD in it. So there.
We Brits (except for Phil Pullman) know good literature!
Also, I was thinking... maybe the film wasn't so "dramatic" to some of your tastes, because it was by Walden Media.. and they "toned it down a bit"... to fit into THEIR kind of children's market?? Maybe?? Like Disney always used to.. maybe in this age of violence, that approach "isn't enough" for many people??
Eh? Is that it?? "LWW" not violent/graphic enough??
(I understood what the previous commentator said about wanting it to feel "big" though...)
Liz,
Contrary to the implications present in your above statement, YOU HAVEN'T THE FAINTEST UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ABOUT (to put it in your own style).
I'm pretty amazed that you could come up with that much rebuttal without actually having seen the film. I'll try to respond anyway.
Ok, Lewis was a great medievalist. The Discarded Image is an enlightening study of the Medieval literary mind, and A Preface to Paradise Lost was a major contribution to the study of Milton because of Lewis' deep understanding of the Epic and its medieval origins, yada, yada, yada (oh...are you suprised that somebody, contrary to your opinion, understands that Lewis was a medievalist?)
Great. All hail Lewis the medievalist and master of allegory. This was still a weak movie that did not offer its audience many connecting points. That's the bottom line. If Lewis is as great as you think he is (and I generally agree with your generous assesment of his greatness), then he deserved a better film.
And hail, hail, Derek, king of clarity. Liz, we all know you're the queen of bluster and probably quite knowledgable about Lewis. No need to try and pin everyone to the mat with that. Why don't you just go see the movie and tell us what you think about instead? Is it a fair representation of his work or not? Stop the pointless speculation about our lust for violence, which is nothing but baiting. As I noted in my review, the film failed to connection with its audience--or at least with me and at least a dozen other people I have spoken with so far. The reason for that, wasn't lack of violence but a lack of heart, of soul.
Derek and Kevin... a depressing pair!! As you strike me, right now at this very moment. Why don't you STOP being so negative about a multi-million dollar movie of a work by a FAMOUS, WELL-LOVED, GENIUS of a writer, then! (oh, DO 'scuse me that I have to use the caps key because I don't know HTML (ooh, oops, more caps again!) and can't write here in italic, bold or anything else like that. (I've tried what it suggests at the start of this box but it just doesn't work. I've never studied HTML.)
What I am trying to say, is that this movie HAS to be at least as good as something by Peter Jackson, such as The Lord of The Rings or King Kong! (Ferpetesakes!) It is obviously going to be the start of a long movie franchise which should have as many entries in it as the Harry Potter franchise. As I actually WANT movies like this to be made (movies with VALUES, yes; movies, too, with a link to older, SERIOUS literature, and to myths and to archetypes) and I don't want a bunch of carping critics of any stamp to derail this fine idea for a franchise, I am not wildly pleased with all your negativitity. No.
I AM going to go and see this movie; maybe today, even. I have already said that I saw the TRAILERS for it and liked the LOOK of the movie... the way they had chosen to do THAT, OK?? (When I feel it would be easy to not understand Lewis's medievalism at all - now YOU may get it very easily, Derek... but you know what?? I read about ten p/reviews of it the other day, and not ONE of them even mentioned the words "medieval/ist"! Not even the one in the Guardian I don't think. So obviously flippin' Fleet Street (as we in Britain used to call the journo's trade) darn well doesn't know! OK?
Yes. I think it would be really easy to *not* capture the ardent, simple "flavour" of Narnia at all; visually or in any other respect: and to try to make it "dark"... as you postmodern t***s are so easy willing and seduced into doing.... Some fool of a director, for instance, could have tried to make it look like a cross between LTR and Harry Potter 3, for example. Now, the "murky" look might have worked for Harry Potter 3, but it wouldn't for this. And I have explained why and you haven't, Derek. (Did you even look at the Michael Nelson article anyway?))
As for "lacking soul"... (Kevin) well, I'll have to see for myself, won't I? But it can't be that bad. Disney is generally quite good! I loved all their cartoons, up to and including Lilo and Stitch.
Yes. The only thing which would REALLY annoy me would be if the filmmakers had sold out to the Religious Right with it or something; if they had changed the plot to suit the likes of Robertson and Falwell; and they *obviously* haven't. They've got a Gresham (one of Lewis's (grand?) nephews by marriage), on the production board. He's a Jew, ethnically anyway, so probably wouldn't let them!
And Derek, well I'm glad you agree with me that Lewis achieved greatness. Don't know why you say I'm being generous about it then though! Either someone IS or he ISN'T. Anyway. If Christopher Hitchens ("that lush") as he has been called, can have George Orwell as a tub-thumping running theme, then I can have C S Lewis, I think! Yes, Kevin, I should say I was "quite knowledgeable" about Lewis, having studied him and his works INTENSIVELY for a period in my mid-twenties, when the wretched (insincere) post-modern culture obviously beloved by so many of the people on this site was threatening to drive me insane...
Kevin - no need to call me "the queen of bluster"!
And WHY should my "speculation" about "your" (Christian reviewers?) "lust for violence" amount to "baiting"? (Nothing but?!)
Just wondering what about it wasn't pleasing you... I daresay I won't be able to put my finger on it after having seen it, not precisely.
I *do* find it ironic, that it should be me who finds it in her heart to champion it... for "look" alone, if nothing else, OK? Well I watched one of these promotional TV programmes about it as well!
And not some of the Christians on this site... well, not the "post-modern" ones at least! (Though I think others here would think differently.)
Yes, I do think you guys are often incapable of appreciating simple entertainment, I think I *do* know why: it is because you are always looking for something "sophisticated" or "clever" or "dark"... or... something!! Which means that you are kind of internally wired to try to appreciate something like your "namesake's" evil efforts, *rather* than something like a (non-pretentious) rendering of "Lion". You're always looking for the weird angle; and unfortunately for you and those of your tastes, C S Lewis really *did* have the heart of a child, I think (and he didn't flaming "keep it on his desk" like Stephen King, neither!), and so you always *would* be looking for "something more"... something of the nature that just wouldn't be there, in any faithful version.
Anyway: however well or ploddingly they convey Aslan and his "Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve" (which is practically the only recogniseable "Biblical" reference in the thing, isn't it?).. it *has* to be miles better than "Bin City", now doesn't it??
Apples and oranges, I know! But... I'd rather have a sound apple (even of a bland variety) than a rotten orange.
I shall rest my case there for now. When I see it I am sure that I will be able to sum it up easily.
Mm. I was going to say, Kevin: I think you're a good reviewer: I think that you and Maurice are among the "top intellects" of this site... actually! (which is why I trouble to argue with you!)
I just think you're wrong about Lewis. Haven't seen Maurice's review. He did say on his site that he'd be very busy. But I wonder... well I'll wait and see.
I think you underappreciate Lewis totally!! (You seem to be implying that he was an inferior writer to Tolkien because he wrote "for children". I think that is SO untrue, actually... I just came across aging - well aged - hippie SF writer Michael Moorcock's slagging off of both Lewis AND Tolkien, a couple of weeks ago, as well! I wasn't amused and am not prepared to take more of same.)
And I also find it ironic that neither Derek nor Kevin will at all respond to my obvious enthusiasm for Lewis and Narnia - apart from Derek's grudging admission that "he was great (maybe)".
What an irony!! (I can sense that I'm not talking to fans here.) Yes, that IS an irony.
(Though I did try to avow that I felt what Derek meant about "size". I think that all fantasy worlds should feel.. "big"... no?? Unless it's something very fragile...)
And to the "disappointed Christian"... I think I can appreciate what they meant, as well, but I think that anyone who wants Lewis' fiction (including the science fiction) to be some sort of simple pro-Christian polemic is always going to be disappointed. It's a literary allegory (really - though he said it wasn't!! It's speculative fiction, too. It has layers - far more than the secular bores likes of Michael Moorcock and Philip Pullman will allow!)
But if you want the really, well, obvious stuff... Christian viewers and readers out there, you have to go for something like "Left Behind"... which is unfortunately as I understand it based on a newfangled and not entirely accepted theology!
But I don't think there are any really "obvious" Christian literary fantasy polemics out there... British professors (who wrote most of this stuff!) don't tend to write simple-minded works. The best ones are all literary, folkloric, indeed, based on fairy tale... like the works of George McDonald.
So, we've got the evangelists saying: nope, too folkloric! And the postmoderns saying, eh, boring!! (And the seculars saying: Evil, simpleminded, Christian propaganda - when it's anything but, and at least *one* clever person in the press has pointed out, possibly has more pagan (eg, Mithraic) elements than Christian... depending on your reading of it!)
DEAR oh dear!
Liz: Okay, I'm sorry for calling you the queen of bluster. But you have to understand: I REALLY wanted to champion this film. As I mentioned in my review, I consider this to be one of the greatest children's books of all time (one of a handful that completely captivated me as a child, drawing me back over and over again). But this film just falls flat. There's no two ways about it. Sure, I'd love to see them make a string of these, too, but only if they're good. As for that, the only plans are to develop a film based on a combination of Prince Caspian and Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Plus, it wasn't Disney who made this film, it was Walden Media, a relatively new company. Disney just distributed it. So, yes, I do think Lewis is an excellent writer on many levels. Yes, I love this book (even with the apparent logical inconsistencies, which I am certain further investigation would reveal to be logical after all), and no, my dislike of this film had nothing to do with a lack of violence. There's plenty of violence in here. However, when the violence happened, I just didn't find myself caring about who won the same way I cared in the book.
Looks like someone (Liz) forgot to take their medication.. please don't review something you HAVE NOT seen! Go see the movie then comment, otherwise stop wasting everyone else's time. The review was for the MOVIE NOT the BOOKS!!
That said, Kevin, good review. I thought the movie was good actually but that's because I knew about The Magician's Nephew. If I had no prior knowledge of CS Lewis works, I would have agreed with you, not enough background is provided in the movie. I also was not looking for a Christian propoganda piece. Please people, this is a Hollywood production, Christianity is taboo there so don't expect much. I was simply glad to finally see an epic production that doesn't bash Christians, or tries to promote some other religion; and has no sexual themes, grotesque violence, or cussing and is a movie that I'm not embarrassed to go see with my family. It could have been better, but what's the alternative? The BBC version? blah..
And kc is... who?? (Not one of Maurice's elves, I hope!)
kc - leave off the insults, please.
Who says these blogs are JUST to discuss movies anyway? Why shouldn't they be about the side issues too, which knowledgeable people can discuss... the books, controversies relating to same, what the press has said and so on.
That said... OK, I'm going! (Going to the cinema is a miles-long trip for me, and it's the journeying I don't like!)
i have elves now?
cool!
Maurice, I've finally gotten that last batch of cookies baked. I'd have done it sooner if I had more elbow room in that darned oak tree! Tell Mr. Keebler he can...
Oh, hi, what'd I miss?
just stumbled across this site on my wanderings (bit like stumbling across Narnia through the wardrobe)....well what can I say apart from a great discussion...I just have to lean towards my daughters comment aftyer watching the film "papa isn't Aslan just like Jesus" sez it all really...for me at least!!!
Please sit up and take note. Evil creeps into our lives very simply and seems very safe. Narnia is filled with pure withcraft and in fact required reading for neophie wiches. Paganism and santanic rituals rule the entire movie. Sadly, it is creeping so easily into our churches, shcools and living rooms. We need to take off the blind folds quickly before it is to late.
Jancatty, I commend you for sitting up and taking notes. It is true that we should be consciencious about what we're letting into our minds. There are those of us out there, however, who are called to reach out toward others, who are also susceptible to evil. If we spend ALL of our efforts cleansing our own bodies, how can we be attentive to those whom God pursues? If the Narnia books are truly required reading for new witches, what an amazing blessing from God that they're studying an allegory of His time on earth! I could think of much more harmful things witches (or any other humans) could put into their minds.
I personally do NOT want to see this film because it is much too violent. I'm not sure what morals are meant to be learned, but watching animals and people getting gored wouldn't leave me impressed with a message of love and forgiveness; I'd just go home feeling sick and morose after witnessing so much death and destruction.
Maybe I'm weird, but I never liked fairy tales - this book included - as a kid, for much the same reason, and I still don't.
I really hate to say it, but I'm probably better off giving up movies altogether. Even the G-rated films manage to sneak in a death or three. Movies today are just too blood-soaked to be enjoyable. :/
Wow thats really sad if you can't handle something such as death in a movie especially if the movie is G-rated. How do you handle it in real life.
Post a Comment
<< Home