St. Nicholas of Myra is not amused.
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.
I have to say I disagree. We enjoyed it very much.
From Screwtape Proposes a Toast:
And a child who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante is forced to listen to his coeval's attempts to spell out A cat sat on a mat.
No cheers, unfortunately.
IIRC there were different names for the Wolf between the British and American versions of the books... one was Fenris Ulf, one was Maugrim.
Fenris/Maugrim got killed by Peter ("Back! Let the Prince win his spurs." followed shortly by "Never forget to wipe your sword.")
So I guess the Minotaur (tho' not in the books as such) was the " #3 in Al-Qaeda" of Narnia.
Cheers!
Bingo!!
I think it may be a personal choice.
You are probably right. Thanks for the perspective.
I found this quote particularly funny:
In principle, both devout Chronologists and sincere Publicationists both allow that people should read the books in whatever order they chose. Yet both groups, in their hearts, believe that their order is best. Fisticuffs can easily develop, and the first excommunications and crusades cannot be far away.
Thanks for the insight!
So either one is a good name for a wolf.
The Minotaur DOES appear in a Pauline Baynes illustration in the original book, but just as a bystander in the scene of Aslan's death.
Just read your review and it sucked.
I am ashamed to admit I am not up on the Norse myths, save for a picture and explanation of Bifrost which I received on a wedding invitation.
Even worse, I don't know the Elder Edda from my ass the Norse Edda.
Cheers!
I remember that photo! He was holding a torch or a staff or something...
And who can forget the list of wicked creatures associated with the bad guys?
"But such people! Ogres with monstrous teeth, and wolves, and bull-headed men; spirits of evil trees and poisonous plants; and other creatures whom I won't describe because if I did the grown-ups would probably not let you read this book -- Cruels and Hags and Incubuses, Wraiths, Horrors, Efreets, Sprites, Orknies, Wooses, and Ettins."
No cheers, unfortunately.
Fair enough.
Excellent assessment of the film. I liked it, but not much. I've seen far better films with much more depth. I hoped for more but, in fact, the underlying story for all of its Christian allegory is somewhat childish. Santa Claus!!? Puh-lease. Sure, the Chronicles are great works of literature for they must have been meant for children as they really don't appeal much to me. However, my children LOVE the books and the film and I strongly encourage them in this respect.
It actually was fun . . . I even got a "teach yourself Icelandic" book because that's closest to Old Norse.
St. Nicholas of Myra is not amused.
I really hate to get into the whole numbering controversy again but I just have to interject here. The fact that you have a picture of books published in the '80s with numbers on the spine that show "Magician's Nephew" as #1 is not "checkmate". ("Aha, here are the numbers! See! That proves it!")
The ones I read as a child in the '70s were numbered too. In the original order. Here's a picture of them:
The LW&W is book #1. The Magicians Nephew is #6.
However, neither my numbers nor yours prove anything definitive. Publishers can choose to put any number they want on the spine. The numbers on the spine in your '80s books or my '70s books are irrelevant to the question.
Nope, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying I didn't have a problem following them no matter which order they were in.
Did you have trouble understanding Star Wars because Revenge of the Sith wasn't made until 25 years later?
No, because the Sith goes further back into time when Luke Skywalker was a little boy chronologically and historically speaking. Just because it was made 25 years after the original Star Wars doesn't mean it's out of sequence. Anyone who has seen the original Star Wars made 25 years ago isn't going to be confused with Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith because like the original, it has all the central characters everyone is familiar with. Sith just basically takes the viewer further back into history, and one who has seen the original 25 years ago, can say, "Ah! So that's how Darth Vader ended up on the dark side", even though the viewer realized 25 years ago that at one point in chronological history Darth was on the good side.
"The Magician's Nephew" goes into alot about the creation of Narnia.
You said yourself, of the Star Wars series, that "Sith goes further back into time when Luke Skywalker was a little boy chronologically and historically speaking". Did you have trouble with seeing and understanding the 1977 "Star Wars" before seeing the prequel (Sith) that flashes back to how it came to be? Doesn't it even become more interesting to see the "back story" (Sith) later in the series, when you know what will come after? Wouldn't the back story be kind of boring if you saw it chronologically first and didn't already know who Luke Skywalker is? Would it mean anything to you?
There are arguments for both sides of this Narnia ordering question but strictly chronology is not a particularly strong one, if you ask me. Since Lewis wrote them with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" as the 1st book and "Magician's Nephew" as the 6th, there are assumptions made in "Magician's Nephew" about what the reader already knows. Those things make no sense to the reader if he's reading "Magician's Nephew" first. For example, from a website noted earlier:
The narrator of "The Lion..." says 'None of the children knew who Aslan was, any more than you do.' But if 'you' are supposed to have read The Magician's Nephew, then you do know who Aslan was.
The charm of the opening of "The Lion..." is spoiled if you already know, from Magician's Nephew, that the wardrobe is magical; that the Professor has been to Narnia, and why there is a street lamp in Narnia. Similarly, the 'shock of recognition' in Magician's Nephew is spoiled if you don't know the significance of the wardrobe.
Those points coincide with my opinion, maybe because I first read them in the original order so I'm wedded to that. Like I said, others differ. But simply chronology does not seem to me a persuasive argument. There are many stories and series ("Star Wars" is but one example) that don't follow a strictly chronological order and many are more interesting for it.
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.