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.
Star Wars is in the right order. I don't have an issue with that. If you bothered to read it, The Magician's Nephew is not out of order by publishing date or copyright date, which is what you're arguing. To me it makes no difference if it was published today or 50 years ago. The fact that it's book #6 in the series is incorrect. If you've ever read the book, you'll see it deals mostly with the creation of Narnia. Chronologically speaking, if it's toward the end of the series, the "timeline of events" is screwed up. If you wanted to read it in the correct timeline of events, you start with The Magician's Nephew.
You're argument is saying that the book of Genesis should be the second to last book of the Old Testament. I'm saying that's incorrect, you're saying I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Of course, we're not talking about that.
Star Wars is in the right order. I don't have an issue with that.
Why? Why is a non-chronological "Star Wars" OK with you but a non-chronological "Narnia" isn't?
If you bothered to read it, The Magician's Nephew is not out of order by publishing date or copyright date, which is what you're arguing.
If you're talking about the current publishing order with "Magician's Nephew" 1st, yes it is "out of order" by publishing and copyright date. You do know that "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was published several years before "Magician's Nephew", right? That's what a publishing and copyright date are.
Right!! I just said I had NO ISSUE with that!!! FGS!! And people say I can't read. Geez!
Maybe you need to explain yourself more clearly because you're not making logical sense. Your argument seems to be that "Magician's Nephew" belongs first because the events in it happen chronologically before the events in "The Lion..."
Why is that not an issue with "Star Wars" then, which you say you have no problem with?
I already explained it twice in the last hour. You're arguing that the book of Genesis should be the second to last book of the Bible. I'm saying that's incorrect, or is this conversation too hard to follow? If it is, I won't bother wasting more time trying to debate with an intellectual lightweight.
I've explained myself very clearly and politely. You're the one who appears quite confused and unable to express himself clearly.
You're arguing that the book of Genesis should be the second to last book of the Bible.
When did I say that? Narnia is not the Bible.
Once again, slowly...
Star Wars is a story. It is not presented chronologically.You stated "Star Wars is in the right order. [non-chronological]. I don't have an issue with that."
Narnia is also a story. It also was not written chronologically. Yet you seem to have a huge problem with the original, non-chronological order of Narnia, likening it to making the book of Genesis the second to last book of the Bible, whereas you have no similar argument regarding Star Wars.
Please explain your glaring inconsistencies and logical fallacies, if you can.
Right. Narnia isn't the Bible, but if you've truly read the series, you will see many, many, MANY parallels between it and the Bible. But, of course, if you've never opened a Bible, you wouldn't notice these glaring similarities, but Narnia is still a good read, whether your a practicing Christian or not.
Like I've said, the Magician's Nephew is much like the Book of Genesis of the Bible, and The Last Battle is much like the Bible's Book of Revelations. Aslan the King in this story would be Jesus, The King of all, Lord of lords, in the Bible. Of course, toward the end of the movie, Aslan is sacrificed on an altar, much like the fact Jesus was sacrificed on the cross. Aslan sacrificed his life for his followers....., and so on, and so forth. Need I carry on?
I think most people can see who is and isn't an "intellectual lightweight" in this conversation.
Set, match, game.
Look, it's nearly 2am and I'm not in the mood to stay up all night and argue in circles with you but you are wrong if you think the Chronicles of Narnia should be read simply as a strict parallel to the Bible. If C.S. Lewis really meant it to be that, he would have started as the Bible did, with the Book of Genesis equivalent (the creation of Narnia). But he didn't. He started with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" as Book 1. Which is how millions of people the world over read the books for decades, starting in 1950 when it was first published. And yes, we all understood the series perfectly well. And it became beloved the world over despite not being strictly chronological. Fancy that.
There's only one Bible. Leave Narnia as what it is. A fanciful children's series, full of wonderful characters and stories and with a clear, though not strict, allegorical relation to Christianity. Don't confuse the two.
G'night.
For the umpteenth time, I said,....if you read the Chronicles, you will notice GLARING SIMILARITIES between it and the Bible. Savvy?
Perhaps you could also stop twisting my words beyond recognition and maybe you'll have a better understanding of what I'm trying to get across to you in a plain and simple matter.
If you're so inclined and you have enough time on your hands, read up on C.S. Lewis, the man himself, you will see he was a theologian.
Now. Go kiss your mommy good night.
Lewis wrote them in a certain order, which you have been shown. He wrote The Magician's Nephew AFTER the first five books because he thought his readers might like to know how Narnia came to be. Some publishers have re-ordered them, and there is a huge controversy about this among Lewis fans. It makes no difference to me, since I already read them in publishing order, but your insistence that there is a "correct" order that is less confusing is simply preposterous.
Maybe you or someone else could continue the discussion with this guy, BigSkyFreeper, if you have the patience because I certainly don't have the patience anymore.
His rudeness is only exceeded by his density. The best I can glean from this discussion is that his argument boils down to: If you prefer the original, written order of "Narnia" ("The Lion, the Witch..." first; "Magician's Nephew" sixth) then that is akin to wanting to move the Book of Genesis to the second to last book of the Bible. That seems to be his whole argument in a nutshell though if you try to pin him down to exactly what he means he will obfuscate, appear not to understand and change the subject. (Or maybe he really doesn't understand?)
I'm tired of the game. I toss the torch...
LOL! I think you have summarized it correctly. I am actually more interested in following what's going on with the DOJ investigation of the NSA leak. I also have to get some housework done today, so I probably won't be wasting much time on this.
Did you read my earlier post? It seems like C.S. Lewis didn't really even care much about the order. He originally wrote LWW as a single book, and then decided to write more.
It seems like the order was not of concern to him, so I don't know why anyone is arguing over the order.
It seems to be a personal choice, and let it be at that.
I have let it be. You will notice my last post was some time ago.
Yea, Bob J:
It must be a Texas thing. I'm 61 read the ooks, seen the animated video and now the movie and loved every minute of it. Thes folks that don't get it wouldn't get it if it was expalined to them as it went along.CS Lewis was a brilliant writer. I'm anxious to see the other books produced on film.
*laughing* just catching up on FR??? :)
Glad you enjoyed it too!
Don't know what this is all about. My two daughters, both 30 and over, and I attended the movie in a mood to enjoy it and thought it was wonderful. All of us had read the book.
I just came back from seeing it, thought the special effects were great, thought the girl who played Lucy was marvelous, thought it dragged a little in places, but basically was a good adaptation of what is, after all, a YA or Juvenile fantasy (this is a genre I like, so calling it a YA isn't a put down in my book).
A good time. If there were more movies made like this (interesting, clean, with clearly defined right vs. wrong and heros), I would probably go to the movies more often.
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.