Posted on 12/27/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Bob J
After reading all the hype in the media and on FR, I was excited to see the film of the CS Lewis book. I have to say I was disappointed. For all it's grandiosity and provenance, I found it clunky, sometimes difficult to follow and worse, unbelieveable (even a "fantasy" movie must reasonable enough in the story and behavior of it's characters to hurdle the initial "willing suspension of disbelief")
The religious basis and backdop to the story has been argued at length on FR, so let's leave that at the doorstep and discuss it's cinematic achievements, or lack thereof.
The Story.
This may have been why I had a problem with the movie. After the presentation of the premise and the characters, I found myslef resisting acceptance that an entire fantasy world filled with magic, mythologic creatures, witches, generals and armies was waiting for a four small children to come and save their world....by prophecy and design. It would have been more believeable if they happened into the world by accident and through clever plot twists were responsible for the salvation of Narnia. But there was nothing really special about these kids, no ancestors with a special connection/knowledge to Narnia, no special abilities, expertise or talents, They were not exceptional in any way...they were just kids. Why did the land of Narnia need them? They added nothing that wasn't already there and in fact detracted from it.
The opening.
The setup took far too long. I wasn't watching my watch but it must have taken over 20-30 minutes for the first kid to walk out the back of the wardrobe closet into the land of Narnia. I didn't understand the emphasis placed on this part of the book as it had little to do with subsequent events. Did it matter that much to the story that the the kids were sent off to the professor because their mother was concerned about the danger of WWII? There was a passing reference later about being shipped off to avoid the effects of war only to be dropped in the middle of the war in Narnia (and whether they should get involved at all), but it fell limply to the ground.
The characters.
Ouch. Let's go by the numbers.
The Professor and his maid (?).
Good cop bad cop. The maid is stern, the professor, kind. So what? The movie feints toward this professor knowing more about Narnia and the wardrobe, but it leaves it there. You think he is going to add some specific knowledge or experience that the kids might benefit from (if not be involved himself) but they movie drops it and he becomes a useless figure in the overall plot. Why waste screen time on it?
Lucy - A typical, precocious, British eight year old. The most likeable character in the movie (which might not be saying much) but I grow weary of the English tendancy to cast their child characters beyond their years. I had three "laugh" moments in this movie, two concerning her. First, when she hits the bullseye with her magic "knife" and then when she "flashes it" and heads off to vanquish the armies of evil. A real laugher.
Susan - The most annoying, negative character in the movie. At first I made parallels to Wendy from "Peter Pan, but you believed Wendy was concerned about the younger children while Susan comes off as a party killing shrew. They needed to soften this character but didn't. Throughout most of the movie I kept wondering when she was going to use those damn arrows...had to wait until the last 2 minutes and by then it was anticlimatic.
Edmund - The anti-hero who becomes hero. I busted out laughing (third instance) when they put he and his brother in those stupid looking suits of armor. We are asked to believe this 10 and 14 year old are going to take part in a "Braveheart" type battle with huge warriors and mythological creatures and vanquish all? I might have believed it if they were given extrahuman strength, speed and agility. Even with their magic "implements" the battle scenes with these two were comical. Think of William Wallace in a sword fight with Doogie Howser.
Peter - Peter is supposed to be the 14 year old hero of the story, protecting his siblings while winding their way through the dangers of a mystical kingdom. The residents of Narnia wait for his arrival to lead their armies of druids and gargoyles againt the forces of evil in a final battle of epic proportions and historic finality. Sorry. Through the first 4/5ths of the movie Peter comes off as an effeminate British girlie boy and it is too much to ask the audience to believe he is the saviour of Narnia. Why would they want or need him?
The Witch - Huh? Tilda Swinson does comes off as an evil bitch but I never did beleive she, or anyone, would want to be the King or Queen of Narnia. It would be like Sauron of Moldor and his legions of Orks waging an epic battle for the control of The Shire. Snooze.
That's my nutshell of a take. If you ave seen narnia and would like to comment, feel free to do so but let's keep it clean.
That is good. I am glad that my figures were a bit off and the film will end up in the black.
I dont recall implicitly. Go read The Magicians Nephew.
In regards to splitting hairs ... actually, no, I am not. Magic by definition is evil. God not only does not condone it, he forbids it. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "good magic"
"If you are going to be a literary critic, you must learn to use English correctly:"
A "literary critic" reviews books and other writings. If you're going to be a critic critic, you must learn what the meaning of is is.
From what I undestand, the original apostles did not venture far outside of Palestine, it was subsequent disciples, such as Paul, that moved the word successfully to other parts of the world.
BTW - I'm sorry about my use of the "b" word in my original post.
"God not only does not condone it, he forbids it. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "good magic"..."
So the childrens acceptance and use of the magical tools and weapons they received from Santa was not "good magic"? I don't think you can casually brush this aside by simply claiming "I don't consider anything God does as magic".
It sure looked like magic to me.
Didn't Lewis write Narnia during WWII, and could it also have been allegory about the fight against the Nazis? I figured the witch could have been interpreted as a proxy for Hitler.
His Chronicles of Narnia is for children (although adults can enjoy it as I did). For adults, he wrote the space trilogy. It is equally chock full of Christian metaphore, which is EXTREMELY unusual in science fiction.
It is arguable that the professor represents Lewis himself. The books were inspired by the children Lewis billeted at his home during the WWII bombings of London and, specifically, one particular little girl who did crawl into a wardrobe and imagined it a sort of gateway to another world.
Luke also travelled quite a bit, definitely to Greece, as did John. Bartholomew and Thomas are believed to have gone to India.
Not sure if it was written during WWII, but that's when it's set. Given the Witch has a sceret police, she could represent Hitler or any oppressive g regime. But some another poster drew clearer paralelles between the Witch and Satan.
Ironically, it occurred to me by film's end that Mrs McCready's frosty attitude and confidence it laying down the rules for the kids in the old mansion were rather like the White Witch. When McCready and the old Professor come to meet over Edmund's upsetting the peace in the mansion by upsetting Lucy, Old Professor (with wild mane of hair and beard) reasserts who make the rules and kindly sets things right-- as Aslan might. (And to show that McCready ain't all bad, she helps Lucy to some cocoa.)
That scene isn't in the book, but small things like that that the director inserted (such as the horse-drawn carriage) draw some our-world parallels to Narnia.
BobJ was having a difficult time seeing the central appeal to the way children think and find this story "believable" and how they can easily accept the phenomena of entering an alternate world as Lewis scripted it.
I agree re the central Christian theme and would add that, as an adult, I enjoyed the movie immensely and found it engrossing.
I used the phrase "literary critic" because if one is a "movie critic" one does not have to know how to use English correctly. ;-)
I had never really thought about that. I suppose it depends on the reader / viewer. I don't have a problem with the concept.
My favorite reviewer's comment:
"Lucy's wondrously expressive smile is an absolute triumph of British desntistry." :^D
My favorite reviewer's comment:
"Lucy's wondrously expressive smile is an absolute triumph of British desntistry." :^D
... Susan is beautiful, and will grow up to be quite the heart-breaker, but then her character actually was supposed to be very pretty, unlike Lucy.
I was talking about your "S" word...!!
I must conclude, Bob, that you have had a glitch in your taste gene. I am sorry you hated this movie, but your opinion is just flat out wrong. You are a very nice freeper, but you just didn't see this movie with the same eyes as my family. I would recommend this movie to anyone.
Right. Because Chronicles Of Narnia is actually the 2nd book in the series. Anyone who starts reading the entire series of books from book number two will have problems following the story, or understanding the characters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.