Monday, 6 December 2010

Treading Water: Narnia at the Movies

There are few things I hate more in life than the Major Motion Picture sticker.  You might as well have the sticker say "why bother reading when you could watch it on a big screen?"

This SF-and-F history month, I wanted to talk about some of the other greats of SF-and-F.  I'm just back from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (with the kids, you see, yeah, the kids!), and among the trailers, which are part of cinema habitual routine for me, I noticed that Walden Media really really seem to have gotten The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader off the ground.

Considering I had to sit through The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian to get to the one Narnia book I truly enjoyed, I'm excited - though given what's come before, about as nervous as one can expect.




I read The Chronicles of Narnia as a lad, and enjoyed them fairly.  The first two in the series were fairly fun, though I wasn't really that enamoured with them.  I think the main problem was that I was young, but I could tell this was a book for young'uns: the language, diction, dialogue and whatnot.  I was a precocious little scamp raised on Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs, so I could tell the difference between the two styles.  Thus, the first two books reminded me more of Carrie's War, another book that was aimed towards children in an adult and unpatronizing manner, but nonetheless one felt that the author was choosing their words extremely carefully, with a sort of distance between author and reader. I'm sure some might disagree about Narnia not being patronising, but I've read my fair share of children's books that read like they were aimed at illiterates.  Also, Father Christmas appearing in TLTWATW was such an immersion-breaker for me, even if he was a kickass Santa (how come I never got deadly weapons for Christmas?), that the rest of the book was a let-down.  Even the big battle at the end.

Then I read The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and everything changed.  Now we had a story centered around a sea voyage, modelled after the great Celtic cycles or Norse Sagas, or even The Odyssey. Daring the treacherous high seas, visiting unknown and mysterious lands, all far from Narnia and the lands we've known, in a search to find seven lost souls. Plus the toughest mouse in fantasy fiction, slavers, a two-week storm, a battle with a sea serpent, and a freakin' dragon.  It almost seemed that Lewis was finally hitting his stride, merging the sense of wonder with subtle character nuances, mixing his Christian symbolism with Celtic, Norse and Greek allusions.  That's more like it!



So, the trailer had me alternately enthused and perplexed.  It looks great, of course.  I can already tell I'm going to love Eustace, the Dawn Treader looks like a cross between a caravel and a longship (not quite enough of the latter, and it's a touch on the flamboyant side, but I think I could grow to dig it), the drawn-into-Narnia scene looks nice, Ramandu's Daughter looks unearthily beautiful, and the Dark Isle mist looks suitably haunting.  If nothing else, the visuals look as spectacular as the previous films, if not quite as strong as, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and certainly not Harry Potter, which has really been impressing me on a visual standpoint since Prisoner of Azkaban.

That said, some things bothered me (what, me? Surely not!)  For instance: Eustace appears to hold off on shedding his dragon skin, where he fights the sea-serpent while in said form: this seems to seriously undercut his bravery in attacking the beast when he was a mere squidgy human.  Not to mention it presents a problem on how they're going to fit a few tons of dragon on board the ship.  There's also a bunch of nonsense about uniting the "seven swords" (what's wrong with the seven lords?) to defeat a "Great Evil" that looks like the Smoke Monster from Lost with a bad tummyache.  There are a lot more battles than I remember, further inviting unfair comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  For some reason there are now faun and minotaur crew members on the Dawn Treader, which somewhat dilutes the sense of wonder: it's difficult to be impressed by the Dufflepuds when you have a gigantic bull-beast at the helm.  Besides, how are they going to feed those guys, and how are they meant to navigate the ship's deck with their hooves, and where are they supposed to bunk? 

It wasn't until recently I realised that the Witch was actually wearing Aslan's mane at the First Battle of Beruna in the film adaptation.  What a wonderfully barbaric touch.

Most irritating to me, as with Prince Caspian, the dreaded White Witch is forced in for another cameo.  Guys, Tilda was wonderful, but give it a rest.  I get the impression they're trying to foreshadow her appearance in The Magician's Nephew, but there's a difference between foreshadowing and flattening, with these gratuitous cameos that would make Boba Fett blush through his helmet.

(And you know what?  THIS IS STILL CLOSER TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL THAN OTHER FILMS I COULD MENTION.  BUT I WON'T.)

I can only hope that the above elements aren't as bad as the trailer makes out, and that it's still the more discovery-oriented voyage of the book, rather than another attempt to cash in on The Lord of the Rings with heavy emphasis on battles.  If they want that, they can just wait until The Silver Chair: it has a freaking Underworld Invasion in it.  I just hope they don't make the boneheaded decision to make the Lady of the Green Kirtle into the White Witch, like some are wont to do.  Even if it takes as many liberties as Prince Caspian did - liberties which made Peter look like an incredible fool, might I add - I can always hope for a Purist's Cut.



Ahhh, that's better.

Of course, special mention must be given to the big brouhaha this week: Liam Neeson having the unmitigated gall - nay, the blasphemy - to speak his mind about his own personal opinion.  What was this outrageous statement, you ask?

“Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.

“That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me.”

Now, I'd like to emphasize that Neeson says "but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries," and "that's what he means for me."  For him.  In addition to Christ.  It's a bit glib and blase, but hey, he's an actor.  A very good actor, of course, but it isn't as if he's saying "Lewis intended Aslan to be viewed as a Mohammedan figure" or anything.

But you sure wouldn't know that from the outcry that's poured out.

Walter Hooper, Lewis’s former secretary and a trustee of his estate, said that the author would have been angered by Neeson’s comments.
He said: “It is nothing whatever to do with Islam. Lewis would have simply denied that. He wrote that 'the whole Narnian story is about Christ'. Lewis could not have been clearer.” 



Mr Hooper, please, calm down. Once again: Neeson said Aslan was Mohammed for him.  That's what Aslan means for him.  As in, this was his personal, individual association, where he equates Aslan with all the positive and encouraging aspects of spiritual leaders. It's pretty clear Neeson isn't making any sort of statement that Lewis intended to equate Aslan with Mohammed or Buddha, or anything.  It's just, like, his opinion, man.

Not just Hooper, but the usual quarters start to get in a tizzy: Catholic kneejerkers.  Speaking as a Catholic and a Narnia reader myself, I can't see the problem with what Neeson said.  At all.  He's just speaking his opinion - a banal one, but an opinion - and he clearly notes it as such.  It's a weird opinion, I'll grant, and one I disagree with (kinda hard to square Aslan with Mohammed, simply going by the two's biography, character and background), but the guy's allowed to have one, right?

Anyway, I'll be off to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader this week or next.  Hopefully I can grit my teeth through the additions and alterations, and enjoy the film for what it is.

15 comments:

  1. I hadn't heard about Neeson's comments or the furor over them. *LOL* Did people also get up in odds about Swinton's comment about the first film that she believes it's a Holocaust metaphor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sure plenty did. However, I think Swinton does have a point there, since Narnia is also heavily influenced by the post-war world. One can see the parallels in the post-war generation having to rebuild from a devastating conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post. I agree that the latest trailer(s) made me scratch my head after having just recently read Dawn Treader. I was left wondering how I'd missed the White Witch and where this subplot about the lords' swords came from. Glad I wasn't the only one.

    I'm sad that Hollywood felt they had to add in so much extra tension/adventure to an already great story. I can see the idea of adding a few threads to keep the intrigue going, but I also agree with you that the blatant White Witch references are too over the top and certainly not what the original material presents. Furthermore, the witch's presence detracts from some of the other/current intrigue of this novel and somewhat undermines Edmund.

    Oh well...such is the case with most/many/any book-to-film adaptations. I'm still stoked for the movie and hope it is worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bah, both the books and the movies are crappy christian propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've always found the CG in the Narnia movies to be too conspicuous, this seems to continue the trend. Do we really need a CG minotaur aboard?

    Ah well, still looks a good sight better than Prince Caspian. I don't have much to complain about, because I'm not a big Narnia fan in the first place (still a good deal better than Pullman, though; Lewis never made me _angry_ at his books).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post. I agree that the latest trailer(s) made me scratch my head after having just recently read Dawn Treader. I was left wondering how I'd missed the White Witch and where this subplot about the lords' swords came from. Glad I wasn't the only one.

    Indeed. I can only hope it doesn't end up as bad as it might.

    Bah, both the books and the movies are crappy christian propaganda.

    They are indeed propaganda. That's pretty much the point. But then, some great works of art are Christian propaganda: paintings, literature, poetry, sculptures, films. Not just Christian propaganda, either: Eisenstein's films being a prime example of propaganda being great art at the same time. It isn't as if Lewis was being surreptitious about it, either.

    I've always found the CG in the Narnia movies to be too conspicuous, this seems to continue the trend. Do we really need a CG minotaur aboard?

    They were pretty bad, come to think of it. A shame, since the animatronics and makeup was pretty excellent.

    Ah well, still looks a good sight better than Prince Caspian. I don't have much to complain about, because I'm not a big Narnia fan in the first place (still a good deal better than Pullman, though; Lewis never made me _angry_ at his books).

    I'm not so much a Narnia fan as a Dawn Treader fan. I just really liked that particular book. I'm not quite as enamoured with the other Narnias, though The Silver Chair has its moments too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe you are right, but Lewis propaganda is BORING. Tolkien was a fanatic roman catholic and his stories are great.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought the Narnia books were great, And I've personally been pretty pleased with the films. They may not be great but they certainly are better than the BBC adaptions from the 90's.. if lacking the charm of the Animated adaption from 1979.. but that could just be because it was the original version I saw long before I ever read the book.

    As some one who is not a christian I don't really have any problem with Lewis's works.. And I've reread each of these books before seeing the live action film. Yes perhaps, they are propaganda.. but I think unless the Child has previously been instructed via Sunday School or Parental guidance in the religion it's propaganda for.. then the bulk of that will be lost on them.

    Which is perhaps why I never understood what Pullman's problem was with them. As he views them with only an adult perspective and thus dislikes them for not agreeing with his philosophy. But a Child could and usually does take a totally different perspective from it. Sometimes a Talking Lion is Jesus, and Sometimes a Talking Lion, is Just a Talking Lion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It isn't as if Lewis was being surreptitious about it, either."

    Heh, this reminds me of when I was talking with someone about...I don't even remember now, but I was asked if the author imbued the work with "the hidden Christian agenda." I thought that was funny because most Christian artists I'm aware of are usually quite blatant about the evangelism of their art.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This was indeed the best of the Narnia books. There was nothing hidden about Lewis's agenda, for he was an unabashed Christian having converted from atheism by this point. For a childrens series, Narnia was quite decent. If they get as far as The Last Battle (book), the scenery could even shift more sci-fi if I'm remembering my books correctly. That book was post-apocalyptic, post-Aslan.

    The best part of Dawn Treader was the imagery at the end when they sailed into the sea of lilies and it appears the film captures that angle exactly as I've always imagined. I haven't been a fan of the film adaptations so far, but I'm willing to give this one a go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe you are right, but Lewis propaganda is BORING. Tolkien was a fanatic roman catholic and his stories are great.

    Eh, to each his own. One of my favourite Tolkien stories is that he was so angered by the change from Latin to English that he would resolutely bellow in Latin during Mass, completely uninterested in adopting the new routine. This is the same guy who allegedly ran down a street dressed as a barbarian, frightening the neighbours. The man's fantastic. Where's his damn biographical movie?

    I thought the Narnia books were great, And I've personally been pretty pleased with the films. They may not be great but they certainly are better than the BBC adaptions from the 90's

    I view the BBC adaptations more as "filmed theatre" than anything else. It's a lot more bearable that way.

    Which is perhaps why I never understood what Pullman's problem was with them. As he views them with only an adult perspective and thus dislikes them for not agreeing with his philosophy. But a Child could and usually does take a totally different perspective from it. Sometimes a Talking Lion is Jesus, and Sometimes a Talking Lion, is Just a Talking Lion.

    I think it's Pullman's jumping to conclusions about Susan that's the most problematic. I'm one of those who thinks Susan wasn't in the fatal train crash, explaining her absence in The Last Battl. Hence how I quite liked "The Problem of Susan" (Aslan/White Witch sex notwithstanding, seriously Neil, that's just silly.)

    Heh, this reminds me of when I was talking with someone about...I don't even remember now, but I was asked if the author imbued the work with "the hidden Christian agenda." I thought that was funny because most Christian artists I'm aware of are usually quite blatant about the evangelism of their art.

    Heh, wonder if anyone noticed the "hidden Christian agenda" in the Sistine Chapel, or the Last Supper.

    If they get as far as The Last Battle (book), the scenery could even shift more sci-fi if I'm remembering my books correctly. That book was post-apocalyptic, post-Aslan.

    I don't know if they'll get that far, but it would be pretty neat.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well I just got back from seeing it. And I will admit I'm a tad disapointed.

    Not from what they added, not from the change of storyline or adding the quest element.. despite what some reviews would have you think, they don't muddle the film or detract from the normal Narnianess of it..

    No what I found annoying, and this is what ruined the movie for me, was that they have obviously decided.. since its now a Fox production.. to cater the movie more towards the people who watch FOX.. Practically beating you over the head with the fact that Aslan is Christ. So much for the subtlety of Lewis's work, which is, ya know.. what made it Allegory instead of Pastiche.

    The other bit, which I'm not sure about. In the film, it states that the reason Edmund and Lucy are with the Scrubbs, is that Peter, Susan and the Parent's have gone to America for a diplomatic function. It's been about 14 years since I read these books.. so perhaps it was in them.. but I don't think so, it then used this comment to form a dream-sequence where Lucy wishes she was beautiful like Susan, and then they are all suddenly in America with the stars and stripes flapping behind them. If this was added, it shows a marked degree of insecurity in the Fox studios heads.

    I hate to say it but I hope they don't make any more of these if all they are going to do is proselytize.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In the book it wasn't a diplomatic function (I don't recall - did they say that's what it was in the movie, or were they just generally "in America"?), but rather a lecturing job that had Susan and the parent Pevensies leaving Edmund & Lucy with the Scrubbs (Peter was studying under Professor Kirke). They were indeed in America, however.

    As for Lagomorph's other complaint . . . much as I hate to disillusion you, Aslan's comparison to Christ is exactly as obvious in the movie as it is in the book:

    "Are - are you there too, Sir?" said Edmund.

    "I am," said Aslan. "But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."


    -"The Very End of the World", Voyage of the Dawn Treader Chapter XVI

    I don't know if you've seen the film yet, Al, but if not you'll probably be happy to hear that the White Witch is much less pivotal then the trailers suggested - she's pretty much just a visual representation of Edmund's ongoing struggle with his own sinfulness.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cheers for the reports, guys: I still haven't seen it (snow and obfuscating Scottish government beaurocracy, a deadly combination), but I'm still planning on it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Narnia Chronicles has been nominated as Best Movie on my site! Support Narnia Chronicles' movie here...

    http://topmovieplusjournal.blogspot.com/2010/12/movie-marathons-2010-best-movie-awards.html

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete