Narnia and Imagination
"There is death in the camera," C. S. Lewis said, meaning that films kill the imagination. Andrew Adamson, director of the upcoming The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, has said that he wanted to film what the book spawned in his own imagination.
So as we get ready to see the Narnia film, what's in our imaginations? Tell us. Let it all out; no inhibitions.
And do you think that the Narnia film will kill your imagination? Was Lewis really right?
Greg Wright
Senior Editor and Narnia Blogger
So as we get ready to see the Narnia film, what's in our imaginations? Tell us. Let it all out; no inhibitions.
And do you think that the Narnia film will kill your imagination? Was Lewis really right?
Greg Wright
Senior Editor and Narnia Blogger
29 Comments:
The book was so spare, I didn't imagine it anything like the way it looks in the film's trailers. The first film has apparently gone way past the first book in "feel" and acquired the epic scope of the entire series. While I don't think this will kill my imagination, I maybe become preoccupied with the question, "Gee, that was fun; but where do we go from here?"
While I agree that the book was rather spare, I guess that really fits in with what Lewis desired - that the child's imagination would "take over" and bloom with completion of the picture. I don't expect my mental pictures to match Adamson's and I've read enough books that have been made into film to know that the movie will be different than what I have envisioned of Narnia. I must say, however, that the trailers I have seen - espcially Tilda Swinton's White Witch - so far have lived up to what my imagination has previously manufactured. I don't expect the movie to kill my imagination, just as the Harry Potter movies have not affected my ability to lovingly reread Rowley's books and allow my imagination to combine with the images I have seen and cause new imaginings to arise!
How am I supposed to know if it has killed my imagination? It it's dead then I don't even know!!
Kidding...I can't speak for my generation or the Billions of people out there but for me Movies spark my interest in reading. Lord of the Rings definetly did that! Before that trilogy I would tell you I had no imagination!
I know that CS Lewis and wrong don't go in the same sentence but it's true for this quote. I just think film and books and poetry and painting are different art forms. The provoke imagination differently. So that famous saying goes "It's not good or bad it's just different." (who said that?)
I for one can't wait to see the movie. I loved the books and wouldn't call them spare at all. Long live Narnia and long live THE Aslan...
From the trailers I've seen, the CGI talking animals will probably be the biggest disappointment to my imagination. In my mind, Mr. Beaver, Reepacheep, et al. were talking animals, not some well done animation.
However, even at that, if the film does credit to the books, it will probably let imagination go in new areas.
It would be good to remember that C.S. Lewis wrote NARNIA in the 1950s and died in 1963. Therefore, he could only make his comments on what that then technologically possible. Today, CGI unleashes the imagination and we (Hollywood) can make anything we envision in our mind's eye. I say "Thank God" for the technology that we can create a Narnia on film that equals the wonder, mystery and beauty of it as found in our own minds and on the written page.
Gee, it almost scary. Matthew beat me to my comment (by a matter of hours). I think that C.S. Lewis was basing his comment on what was envisioned for the film technology of his time. Who could have imagined what could be done on film with the advent of the computer and CGI.
From the trailers, it feels like the story is going to jump out of the screen in an epic adventure that seems to exceed even Lewis' design. However, I agree with Darrel that, at least from what one can see in the trailers, that the talking animals may not be a lot less impressive then some of the battle scenes.
I am torn on the issue regarding whether the film will dull (or to the extreme, kill) my imagination regarding this series. I have my own internal vision of what the animals, the White Witch, and the scenery looks like -- and I am somewhat jealous about giving that up. Also, what we really are seeing on the screen is the Director (or some combination of people's) imagination -- how they see it in their mind (or at least to the degree they can duplicate what they see onto the studio set). But at the same time, I agree with others that films like the Harry Potter series have helped to solify and reinforce my vision of many of the characters or scenery. Though even as great as Lord of the Rings triology was on film, it is really hard to improve on the detail created by Tolkien. So, while I feel that my imaginzation may be somewhat diminished by having my own vision for the story supplanted by another persons -- I also feel that I am broadening my imagination with the auxiliary visions provided by the film.
It's been so long since I've read the books, that it will be an entirely new experience for me. Only a few things I remember, specifically the wonder of a wardrobe opening up into a whole new world, and the sound of ice crunching underfoot. I remember some sense of "What's going to happen next?" and that I poured through the book almost without stopping.
As for whether film kills the imagination, I say most definitely. Imagination is all about making up your own ideas, not having them defined for you. Film is the antithesis of using your imagination, as is theater. It's not designed to make you create, but to evaluate.
I would say that unless you're making up the story yourself, you're not using your imagination much. That's the value of books. By giving us only half of the story, we are forced to fill in the blanks. And that's why movies based on books are rarely favored over the books themselves. Everyone has already filled in the blanks for themselves. And the director's version of the story differs greatly from everyone else in the world.
Still film is an unusual form of entertainment. It's storytelling WITH the details. Although it doesn't exercise the imagination, it has its own merits. It exercises our sense of justice, our passions, and our opinions. Without the need to create details, we are freed up to evaluate. We reflect more clearly on the messages of the stories, and are able to consider our lives and our beliefs.
It's not like imagination is the end-all of great art. It's just the beginning.
Film is film and literature is literature. Imagination operates in both, just in different ways. Also, it is a different age, in terms of the cinematic art, than what CS Lewis could have ever imagined. This film, in terms of CGI, would not have been possible just 5 years ago. The Narnia film is the collective imagination of many artists, story board artists, animators, cinematographers etc. Whereas, the Narnia book series is essentially the imagination of one person. Book writing is not as community centered as film is and tends to be very individualistic.
I think movies spark the imagination -- and depend on it -- more than we typically think. Even in the simplest scene, a director in fact DEPENDS on the viewer's imagination to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately, more often than not, this filling-in just leads in entirely predictable directions. But a movie like Memento (or The Sixth Sense) reminds us that we are much more engaged with the visual construction (and interacting with it) than we take for granted. Composers also rely on our familiarity with musical conventions to anticipate where melody and harmony go; but the best music takes us in places that we don't expect.
The best films do that too!
Just ran across this article at the LA Times... A good summary and analysis of Lewis' thoughts on film.
To piggyback on what Melinda said above, I agree with the dear Professor that, in a sense, "there is death in the camera." However, in a different sense, there is also life. My 7th-8th graders and I have just finished reading *Lion* in preparation for a field trip to see the film on Friday, and I can tell you that we've talked A LOT about how we envision the book, how the movie will be different, etc. And for those of us who have read the book, seeing the movie will kill, or at least challenge, how we originally saw the story. But as Melinda said, it will also bring to life all sorts of other imaginings: similarities between our visions and the filmmakers', differences, shortcomings in the production, triumphs, etc. To me, this experience is just as vital, though different, than the experience of just imagining the story for one's self.
In any case, it's going to be an experience . . .
Not to push the issue, but this is a discussion and delving deeper IS the fun part about it. Perhaps I can learn something new.
Greg said "Even in the simplest scene, a director in fact DEPENDS on the viewer's imagination to fill in the blanks." I want to know which blanks the audience can fill in? The appearance of the characters is defined, their facial expressions and physical reactions are acted out for us, the mood, lighting, set and music are all established. What is left to imagine? What blanks are not filled in for us?
I agree with David that the beauty of film is that it is a compilation of many people's vision for a story, but it still leaves out the audience I think. At least in terms of creating something new in their minds. Give me some examples of how the audience must participate, other than absorbing and accepting what is shown on the screen. This is an idea I've never really explored. From what I know of film, the only thing not defined for us is the character's thought life. We can only fill in the words we imagine they are speaking internally when they are not delivering their lines. Other than that...what else is there?
Anxious to hear your ideas...
Melinda said, The appearance of the characters is defined, their facial expressions and physical reactions are acted out for us, the mood, lighting, set and music are all established, and then asked, "What is left to imagine? What blanks are not filled in for us?"
This is where the apparent simplicity of film is very deceptive. Take a BAD example that happens to be one of my favorites. In Hook, the adult Peter, played by Robin Williams, worriedly drives down a lane, anxious to see his son's ballgame. He pulls over to the curb, hops out of his car and runs to the top of a hillock. The camera pulls back in a crane shot to reveal an empty ballfield. The game is over. Peter has missed the game. Wow, what a drag!
But the emotion of the scene is ruined for me because the shot also reveals what the camera DIDN'T show us when it was tight on Peter to start the sequence: that Peter drove right past the empty ballfield and didn't need to get out or run to the top of the hillock to find out that he'd let his son down.
Spielberg's cinematic laziness (and dishonesty) in this scene demonstrates how the audience's imagination is often not the least bit trusted by a director, or may even be entirely unengaged. How many audience members even NOTICED how they'd been duped in this way, even though it was laid out right in front of their eyes? How many even cared? So this is a case of blanks being filled in for us in terrible, manipulative and shoddy ways. And if we haven't filled them in properly for own selves, it's simply because we're not thinking very deeply about what we're seeing. And that's to our shame, as well as the director's, in this case.
In contrast, Siskel and Ebert ranted violently about all the blood and gore in The Hiticher; yet, as is also the case in most of Hitchcock's movies, all that stuff actually happened offscreen. The director didn't have to show ANY of it, because he trusted the audience's imagination to be far more powerful than anything he could visualize for us. This is a good example of a director and audience working together to create something far more visceral that what's present, technically, onscreen.
The best films suggest a framework for our imaginations to play upon: they don't lay everything out for us to merely consume.
At a more basic level, just think about the purpose of a simple reaction shot in most films. The camera cuts away from the subject of a scene, just for a moment, whowing us someone else's face, so that the story of the scene can be told more efficiently. We don't have to actually watch a character walk the entire way across a room—and the reaction shot allows us to fill in the blanks and still not mind that the scene hasn't played out in "real time." If our imaginations were NOT engaged and active, or if the cuts were managed in a clumsy way, our willingness to accept the "reality" of the scene would be thrown off track. At the very least, we'd think, "Gee, that scene didn't work," even if we didn't know exactly why.
Part of the mistake we often make with film is to also think that the imagination is just visually oriented. It is not. Film is seductive, in part, because the power of the visuals easily distract us from the hard work our imagination is actually doing in so many other ways, and in even in visual ways that we don't suspect.
The Sixth Sense is a great case of a film that presents a very contrived and subjective point of view; but until the end of the movie, we think we've seen a film from an objective point of view. We think we know what's going on. And we haven't. We don't. But boy, have our imaginations been active!
I hope those concrete examples, which regrettably require familiarity with the films discussed, shed some light on what I was getting at.
Okay, I can see your point, but isn't that more like reading these words? I slpet on a bnech lsat nihgt. Most people "auto correct" for mistakes. Despite the fact that I misspelled almost every word in that sentence, most people understand, "I slept on a bench last night." We read or view film so quickly that our brains just pass over the mistakes in order to get to the important information. Is that the same thing as imagination?
I think of imagination as being something creative, something that increases what was already there. Hold on, let me look it up... "1. The mental power of forming images of unreal or absent objects; 2. Such power used creatively." Okay, so it can be defined both ways, but I think Lewis was talking about definition 2.
WHICH...would be the case in your second example. Things that happen off screen are far more powerful than those that happen on screen, but how many directors use that technique anymore? I don't see it very often. When I do, I usually notice it because I really appreciate that style of filming. Still, I think it's rare these days.
I did think of one other way that imagination is used in film, and that is one of prediction. If we don't already know the story, we imagine scenarios or responses before the scenes arrive. If a man does something horribly wrong at work and receives a message that his boss wants to see him, long before the confrontational scene arrives, we have already dreamed up several variations of how the boss will respond and how the conversation will go. Particularly if we've never met the boss before. That's the value of suspense and build-up.
And also what Papabear mentioned and Matt suggested, when we view another's imaginings of a film, we add to what we've already dreamed up. Which expands - as Kathy said - our imagination even further. Now we have two versions of the same story to mix and match as we see fit.
Any others anyone?? Good stuff. Thanks Greg.
Chiming in from the netherlands...
Sure movies do engage the imagination. Look at all the fanfiction sites all over the web (www.fanfiction.net being one). People are starting to imagine their own stories from the images and characters portrayed on film. They expand on what they see, even with obscure films. They come up with new angles, new scenes, based on the film. I know my imagination works that way. I'm visually oriented in that way, even though I write stories. I always imagine my stories visually first. Even as movies: I come up with a trailer in my mind before I wrote a letter. Often movies (lord of the rings, the matrix) inspire me to write more. And I would love to one day write a comic or be able to see one of my stories filmed.
Just to say: like any great art cinema, like literature, can enlarge the imagination, just by providing it with images.
No, it does not require the same imagination while watching. But to say that it kills the imagination... No way!
Johan
Because I haven't read any of the books, I have ZERO expectations on what this film will look like. However, I wonder how much of the Christian allegory will ultimately be preserved since this film IS a Disney product, after all.
As an academic I think CS Lewis may well have broadened his statement regarding the death of imagination had he been able to see the state of the UK education system 50 years on from the creation of Narnia.
As someone who works in a school (but not as a teacher), I have plenty of opportunities to observe how little books are used in a modern secondary school and how the entire education system steers away from using paper in favour of TVs, computers, interactive whiteboards et al without any proof of this improving childrens abilities outside a very stringent set of guidelines required for "good" examination results. The education system seems to be geared towards training children out of the "childish" use of imagination, instead relying on concrete facts and figures to make a point.
I suspect that those of us who have read the Narnia series will find the Disney translation hard to relate to, but for a generation of young people who are book-starved, I think this film will do great wonders in terms of entertainment and subtle education in the christian concepts of sacrifice, propitiation, love etc etc. I am not willing to definitively state whether the film itself will refire childrens' imaginations, but as this film is the potentially the first in a series of seven, I suspect many children will be unable to resist the urge to see where the tales of Narnia go and thereby read the other six books in their excitement.
When I heard that Disney were making this film, I was very, very reluctant to embrace it having seen the way that Walt's crew were quite happy to "adapt" stories to their liking. Remember how Disney can change the end of "Beauty and the Beast" for aesthetic purposes anyone?
I am new at using this blog site, and had just written my "take" on the discussion of Narnia and the Imagination. I cannot imagine what happened to the comments note, so I will not repeat them. I just want to ask everyone to please not block the vision for any children (or adults like me) with discussing this miraculous work of God to death! Let's all do as the professor tells Lucy at the end, "Keep our eyes open." God has given a really great gift to us of these two DEAD geniuses, and that is enough to renew my faith in life after death, with Jesus! "I can only imagine..." What GRACE!
P.S. Maybe later when I have recovered from losing my comments into cyberspace, I will attempt to share my thoughts again on how God used this movie to renew the faith of an "old woman" (myself), and set aside her struggling with her own mortality, which an upcoming December birthday has generated. God be praised, thank you Jesus.
My father read the WHOLE Chronicles of Narnia as bedtime stories to me SIX time through, starting when I was six. I have not read it for myself in 20 years. It was only this past fall that I have read The Lion/Witch/Wardrobe outloud to a second grade classroom.
My imagination came alive again like the stone statues in the witch's garden...The movie will not disappoint...
To use a specific example, I found that the Lord of the Rings trilogy (at least one of if not my all time personal favorites) did kill my imagination in the sense that i cannot think of the story, even the books, without the movie images coming to mind. The pictures, images, and conceptions that i had created in my own mind as i read the stories before i saw the movie are dead, gone, never to come back again, replaced by the new film versions of Viggo Mortenson et al. playing the much loved characters i once knew my own way. However, i don't necessarily think that this is bad or wrong. (Although, i would much prefer, in cases such as Narnia and LOTR, that people read the original stories first and come up with their own imaginative ideas.) Unfortunate? Maybe. Slightly disappointing? Sure. But this new medium of telling the story opens up many new avenues for still more imagination to take place.
I couldn't wait to see the movie when after I saw the trailer. I must admit that it didn't disappoint. The themes and explanation of Christ are very clear and it will be a great evangelistic conversation for all ages. I'm excited and can't wait to see it again and take others too! I'm in Spain, so it came out today here. You'll love it and it'll be a great opportunity to share with your children the love of Christ and the love He desires to share with them! God bless!!
I personally have read all the Narnia books once and I am in the process of reading them all again! I fear that the movie may kill my imagination but I plan to veiw it! I am a Christian and I believe it is a great way to send the message of Christ Jesus to everyone all over the world! I think the movie is a great idea to make the movie!
Here's a link to a blog discussing Narnia. The theory presented in this article is that the power of imagination is, in fact, so powerful that Narnia gets away even from Lewis. It's an interesting position.
From this standpoint, imaginative reactions to the movie would be wide, wide open.
Every time you read a book its story unfolds in your head.
Obviously everyone will have a different version, and this film is Andrew Adamson's. Narnia was written as a book and should be enjoyed as such. I am not against the film - I think films like this both encourage as well as discourage reading of the original work, but that's another arguement.
As for the story relating to Christianity, I think that anything dealing with magic, witches, and talking animals has nothing to do with it at all. There are too many films out there nowdays pushing magic while hiding behind so called 'Christian' values. All it does is help make magic, and all that goes with it, seem more and more acceptable as well as harmless in a Christian environment. The Bible tells us to distance ourself from these things, not embrace them.
Of course Hollywood loves to wrap them together and present them as New Age Christianity, a view that incorporates anything and everything. A view we saw in the "Passion" where a false (and wrongly violent) Roman Catholic perspective of the crucifixtion was shown, and the most important part of all - the Resurrection itself - was not even a part of it. "Harry Potter" and"LOTR" can't be called Christian. If they were, people would be turning towards Christ. Instead they dress up as wizards and witches and learn spellcraft.
Remember that the Bible tells us "You will know a tree by its fruit, a good tree produces good fruit, while a corrupt tree produces evil fruit. - Food for thought.
Respectfully, R, I don't know if the "food for thought" you offer will be too nourishing. The fact is that the question of whether "witchcraft" et. al. in recently popular stories (LOTR, Potter, Narnia, etc.) is harmful or not is a *very* open one--one which has sparked its own little section of books in lots of Christian bookstores. Narnia, without question, has tons to do with Christianity, as any investigating into the author, his life, and intentions for the book will make clear. The magic presented in the book is obviously not of a kind that any reader can try to somehow learn or reproduce. I'd say the same, incidentally, for LOTR and Potter. You'd have to actually find me a sect of LOTR-inspired witches doing "spellcraft" before I'd ignore the *obvious* Christian elements in that story, and (dare I say it) in Potter as well.
As to Hollywood, the Passion, etc., there certainly is a Christian-friendly-yet-not-too-distinctively-Christian feel to certain circles, which can be seen in various ways in various movies, but that really doesn't equal a secret plot to "push" magic on anyone. It just means that things that are distinctively Christian aren't readily accepted in certain circles. It also means that it's our job, as Christians, to be "in the world, but not of it" and to find the "gold in the gutter" and to look through these types of stories, not dismissing them because of "witchcraft," but instead seeing redemptive, positive, telling, etc. things therein.
Oops . . didn't see that soapbox coming. Anyway, I'd suggest googling the question of Christianity/magic/modern fantasy/etc. if this is a concern for you. I think it's a much more complex issue than your post implied--and one that Christians have lots of options on . . . (p.s. The resurrection *was* in the Passion . . . again the issues you bring up surrounding that movie aren't so simple . . . )
Well Matthew, all I'm saying that generally speaking these films inspire more of an interest in magic than an interest in christianity. And don't forget that most non-christians would not really even see such a corellation in these stories - after all "good triumphing over evil" is the oldest plot of all.
It is so easy nowdays in a bookstore too make a stop (after the Harry Potter display of course) at the ever expanding esoteric section, and pick up books which do show practical applications for all kinds of magic. In fact many of these "harmless" books are aimed at children.
Don't get me wrong, I've read all the C.S. Lewis, Tolkien etc and really enjoyed them too, but I still maintain that, if anything, they turn more people to 'magic' (or at least spark an interest in it) than to the Lord.
As for the 'Passion', compare it to the Bible and you have a rather different series of events. Peter did not confess to Mary after denying Jesus. Satan did not tempt Jesus in the garden. He was not flogged in such a violent and enduring way. Simon carried the cross not Jesus. The temple did not split in two after the curtain did so, etc. It's plainly a dogmatic Roman Catholic version of the events scripted in the Bible. A version that perverts the whole thing towards extreme violence and abuse, while of course wrongly throwing in a much Roman Catholic symbolism as possible.
My apologies for getting off the subject of this blog.
R--I see what you're saying, and maybe you're right: maybe LOTR/Potter/etc. is inspiring interest in the occult. I just wanted mainly to point out that it's hard to see how Narnia in particular would do so. And I wanted to say that, for Christians in particular, I think there's a lot to be gleaned from the recent fantasy boom.
As to whether non-Christians can be gleaning the same, that's another open question. I'd like to think that part of a believer's role (by means of sites like this and in other ways) is to help in this area. "Good triumphing over evil" is the oldest plot of all, I agree, but hopefully, eventually, everyone will end up wondering *why* this is so, and see how well the Christian story jives with, explains, and fleshes-out that phenomenon.
The Passion, as you say, is a separate issue. You had said that The Passion (and the current fantasy trend) was part of a Hollywood push that wants to put the occult and Christianity together into a "New Age Christianity" that "incorporates anything and everything," but then you end up just saying The Passion is too Roman Catholic. As to the first point, I'm not so sure what you mean or whether you could really back such a thing up . . . and as to the second, we'd have to get into a whole thing about Catholic vs. Protestant views, etc., which, again, is a separate issue. I agree that the movie has it's own take on things, as does everything else, but the specific things you mention, to me, can be seen as augmenting the story for lots of reasons *other than* just to skew Catholic--but that's a talk for somewhere else.
Anyway, trust me, I hear your honest concerns about a possible rising interest in the occult. I just wanted to voice the other side of the concern. Best--MHill.
To steer the conversation back to the subject of the imagination and Narnia, the "rising interest in the occult" is a natural consequence of the larger imaginative turning of our culture toward the metaphysical.
What it all points to is an increasing openness to spirituality -- not a unilaterally increasing rejection of God. This is not the end of the story, as one of my pastors is fond of saying.
Any quest for spiritual truth can lead through many convoluted and misguided paths (including the ones I've walked, and am undoubtedly still on); but we can be thankful that people are actually looking can't we? And can't we be grateful that this quest expresses itself in imaginative explorations like these movies?
What an interesting and exciting chance to talk about spirituality! What a fantastic thing to have people interested in spiritual truth!
While I don't agree with neopagans, wiccans, Buddhists, Mormons or even many of the Christian pastors with whom I've worked, I'm confident that the truth we're all looking for is out there, and that the Truth will reveal itself.
And imagination is one terrific tool (as is Scripture) through which truth may manifest itself -- because whatever my conception of God may be today, it's undoubtedly incomplete and needs to be broken and reshaped: to reveal, as Lewis himself said, "not my idea of God, but God."
Now, do fantasy films help do this for everyone? No. Will the Narnia film in particular do this for everyone, either? No.
But where it DOES, wow. What a great thing. And who knows where all this leads, anyway?
Post a Comment
<< Home