On Narnia (Part II)
I was finally able to take a gander at The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe over the long Christmas weekend. As you’ll recall, this movie was of some importance to my wife who absolutely loved the books. That is not to say that there was not some desire to see it on my part either, but there was considerable less…anticipation. I say we finally saw the movie because our previous attempts to see Narnia were foiled by pregnancy related tiredness, and non-pregnancy related lethargy…on my part.
It’s almost impossible for me to review Narnia without making comparisons to the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movies. I guess that is natural considering the now famous friendship and common love of myth that Tolkien and Lewis shared. I will admit, it has been a couple of years since I read the Narnia series so I did not go into the movie with the same attention to detail that I did for LOTR, nor did I watch Narnia through the eyes of a purist. I cannot tell you accurately what was left out from the book and what was added onto the screen that did not exist in the original work. For example, my wife reminded me that the reason that the four Pevensie children enter the wardrobe in the book is different than the one given on screen. Whatever. I was just happy that they got through and the real fun could begin.
Although I’m no purist, I think there are two components of Narnia that must be done well to make a successful movie. The first is the Pevensie children. If any of the four turns in a particularly weak performance, the whole movie could stumble. Happily, this is where the major strength of the movie is found. The four actors portraying the Peviensie’s are well cast, particularly Georgie Henley who plays Lucy. She carries much of the first half of the movie. Skandar Keynes plays Edmund, the child that eventually is seduced by the White Witch to sell out his siblings and Aslan. I’ve seen other reviews that are upset at how dark Edmund is played in the movie and that his counterpart in the book is simply more naïve than angry. I’ll let the purists debate that, but for me, the movie portrayal of Edmund worked. The other two Pevensie’s, Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) are also well played. All four children will eventually become Kings and Queens of Narnia, but one gets the sense that Peter is the real King and he plays that role well.
The second major component is Aslan the lion. In both the book and the movie the story drives towards the Pevensie’s and the reader/viewer meeting Aslan. His name is spoken with reverence and anticipation from all the woodland and mythical creatures of Narnia, including Father Christmas. He is obviously viewed as the Savior (more on that in a minute). Aslan in the movie was impressive, but more due to the CGI that went into building him than for his actual role. I think that is more to do with books versus movies though. Aslan in your imagination takes more awe than any character on screen possibly can. When Aslan finally comes of out his tent I was somewhat let down. I also think that Aslan in the book is much more of the authority/father/friend figure that he is in the movie, probably owing to time constraints.
Narnia itself is done very well. The creatures, the land and the buildings were all very cool to look at and built that sense that you were very much in a land of fairy tale. The contrast between the land of internal winter produced by the White Witch and the springtime thaw that comes with Aslan is sufficiently stark. The CGI is not as meticulous as the LOTR, but I like it that way. Where LOTR needed to be ultra realistic in it’s portrayal of Middle Earth, I like that there is something a little less so about Narnia and its characters. It is, after all, a fairy tale land meant to appeal to children.
Before I go into what I really want to highlight about the movie, I do also need to state that Tilda Swinton was a perfect choice for the White Witch. Her performance is strong and, in some ways, I’d say she outshines Aslan in many of her scenes.
Okay, so all that is really the set-up for what really impressed me about the movie, and ties back into my original Narnia post of a couple weeks ago. I stated then that there were two controversies occurring over Narnia, the first being whether the story was really Christian allegory. I was interested in seeing if somehow the movie toned down those allegories from the book, because frankly, I didn’t think there was much question that they existed. To my surprise, the allegory is very obvious in the movie. I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but if it is not obvious to you then you are not familiar with Christian theology. This is not just a movie that uses western themes, of which a savior/messiah has been prominent for centuries (e.g., The Matrix). This is distinct representation of Jesus as a big CGI lion dying to redeem the sins of Edmund (man) to redeem the world (Narnia). I’m not saying you have to agree with the theology, but don’t be blind to what Lewis was trying to do. If anything, I believe the visuals of the movie do a better job of telling that story than the books do. That alone makes Narnia a success.
It’s almost impossible for me to review Narnia without making comparisons to the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movies. I guess that is natural considering the now famous friendship and common love of myth that Tolkien and Lewis shared. I will admit, it has been a couple of years since I read the Narnia series so I did not go into the movie with the same attention to detail that I did for LOTR, nor did I watch Narnia through the eyes of a purist. I cannot tell you accurately what was left out from the book and what was added onto the screen that did not exist in the original work. For example, my wife reminded me that the reason that the four Pevensie children enter the wardrobe in the book is different than the one given on screen. Whatever. I was just happy that they got through and the real fun could begin.
Although I’m no purist, I think there are two components of Narnia that must be done well to make a successful movie. The first is the Pevensie children. If any of the four turns in a particularly weak performance, the whole movie could stumble. Happily, this is where the major strength of the movie is found. The four actors portraying the Peviensie’s are well cast, particularly Georgie Henley who plays Lucy. She carries much of the first half of the movie. Skandar Keynes plays Edmund, the child that eventually is seduced by the White Witch to sell out his siblings and Aslan. I’ve seen other reviews that are upset at how dark Edmund is played in the movie and that his counterpart in the book is simply more naïve than angry. I’ll let the purists debate that, but for me, the movie portrayal of Edmund worked. The other two Pevensie’s, Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) are also well played. All four children will eventually become Kings and Queens of Narnia, but one gets the sense that Peter is the real King and he plays that role well.
The second major component is Aslan the lion. In both the book and the movie the story drives towards the Pevensie’s and the reader/viewer meeting Aslan. His name is spoken with reverence and anticipation from all the woodland and mythical creatures of Narnia, including Father Christmas. He is obviously viewed as the Savior (more on that in a minute). Aslan in the movie was impressive, but more due to the CGI that went into building him than for his actual role. I think that is more to do with books versus movies though. Aslan in your imagination takes more awe than any character on screen possibly can. When Aslan finally comes of out his tent I was somewhat let down. I also think that Aslan in the book is much more of the authority/father/friend figure that he is in the movie, probably owing to time constraints.
Narnia itself is done very well. The creatures, the land and the buildings were all very cool to look at and built that sense that you were very much in a land of fairy tale. The contrast between the land of internal winter produced by the White Witch and the springtime thaw that comes with Aslan is sufficiently stark. The CGI is not as meticulous as the LOTR, but I like it that way. Where LOTR needed to be ultra realistic in it’s portrayal of Middle Earth, I like that there is something a little less so about Narnia and its characters. It is, after all, a fairy tale land meant to appeal to children.
Before I go into what I really want to highlight about the movie, I do also need to state that Tilda Swinton was a perfect choice for the White Witch. Her performance is strong and, in some ways, I’d say she outshines Aslan in many of her scenes.
Okay, so all that is really the set-up for what really impressed me about the movie, and ties back into my original Narnia post of a couple weeks ago. I stated then that there were two controversies occurring over Narnia, the first being whether the story was really Christian allegory. I was interested in seeing if somehow the movie toned down those allegories from the book, because frankly, I didn’t think there was much question that they existed. To my surprise, the allegory is very obvious in the movie. I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but if it is not obvious to you then you are not familiar with Christian theology. This is not just a movie that uses western themes, of which a savior/messiah has been prominent for centuries (e.g., The Matrix). This is distinct representation of Jesus as a big CGI lion dying to redeem the sins of Edmund (man) to redeem the world (Narnia). I’m not saying you have to agree with the theology, but don’t be blind to what Lewis was trying to do. If anything, I believe the visuals of the movie do a better job of telling that story than the books do. That alone makes Narnia a success.
posted by Beeley at 11:50 AM
2 Comments:
I think it's worth noting that part of the struggle that many have in comprehending the story is in the use of this word "allegory," which is the word most often thrown about in the media and in discussion. "Chronicles" really isn't an allegory at all. An allegory is what you get when you take an immaterial reality/idea/concept and then have it be represented by a physical object. In "Chronicles," Aslan, the physical object, does not represent a mere idea/concept, but an embodiment of a Christ figure. An allegory is something all together different, like Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress."
This is why CS Lewis himself wrote that the stories are not allegories, but "suppositions." Lewis would say, "suppose that a world like Narnia existed, and there was a figure that was meant to die and rise again...now, what do you suppose that figure would be? A lion, perhaps?"
Changing the analysis in this way helps guard the critic from going down errant pathways that lead to problems, and make the stories make a lot more sense in that they are freed from rigid symbolism and typologies.
Good points dude. Thanks for defining the difference between allegory and supposition. Supposition is, of course, ahem, what I meant to say...
Post a Comment
<< Home