« When he's good, he's good | Main | Menino fires back »
December 10, 2005
All Hyped Out
We all - and I mean all of us - went over to the Rave late this afternoon to catch a showing of Chronicles of Narnia. I had thought it surely would be quite crowded, especially since there had been no school that day, but...it wasn't. Maybe half full? But it was playing in several theaters, every 30 minutes or so.
Full disclosure: I've read the Chronicles twice: Once when I was around 12 or 13. Being a person with an acute sense of dramatic gesture, I decided it would be appropriate to read the series while sitting under a neighbor's large willow tree. (We were living in Kansas at the time, and it was summer.) A couple of years later, when we moved to Knoxville, I decided it would be fitting to sit outside in the midst of our many trees in the front yard, memorizing poetry. One a day, during the summer, I determined. I don't think I managed that goal.
The second was about twelve years ago- actually, I don't think I read them all, but perhaps the first two, out loud to David and Christopher, at which point they took them up and devoured them on their own.
So I'm saying, I won't be doing a lot of comparisons to the book here.
It was okay. I agree with most of the reviews I've read on the major points: the little actress who played Lucy was a charmer, the other child actors, not so much. It is always startling to see British child actors who are just a little beyond wooden. Tilda Swinton has just the right, naturally blank look to play a frozen, evil White Witch. Mr. Tumnus was marvelous. The scene in which Lucy first enters Narnia is a magical marvel.
But what the adaptation, with its choices, additions and omissions has done, in the end, is left the film without a clear sense of why. We know that this is about a struggle of sorts between good and evil, but the bigger picture is lost to us. White Witch: bad; Aslan: good, and there is a sacrifice of a good creature for a sinner, but...why? As one critic noted in one of the links I'm going to give you in a minute, the bigger picture is restoration, but the importance and weight of this is just not clear in the film, and it all ends up being less lastingly memorable because of it.
I titled this post what I did because, while I absolutely did not have any expectations about this film, and am not emotionally or spiritually invested in it, I have read so much about it for the past few months, especially about the exploitation/denial/what have you of the Christian connection, I couldn't help but watch it within that framework.
It took a couple of hours for my thoughts to form on this...as Katie and I followed up on a thoroughly lazy day by watching Mad Hot Ballroom...but I think I decided that I am weary of the dynamic of this new Christian market - what Barbara Nicolosi calls the Passion Dollars. I am tired of the film producers and distributors using (some) Christian churches and organizations to market their films and tired of (some) Christians clinging on to these cultural products in the hopes that they will evangelize. It all comes out seeming rather sad in the end. It is this web of mystery we are caught in. Art is a fundamental part of life, and people see glimpses of the transcendent through it, which has the power to open their hearts to God.
But in the crush of the marketplace, where everyone is exploiting everyone else, authenticity gets drained, even just a little bit, out of the moment. The key in LWW, of course, is Aslan's sacrifice. The way it all occurs in this film, less-than-deeply rooted in any sense of broader, deeper purpose, it comes across as clearly a Christ moment, but almost here as a trick, as a convenient, easy-to-grasp symbolic action that might certainly remind some, if not most, of the Passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, but doesn't spark much of any sense of the role of this sacrifice - the scapelion's resurrection ends up being more of a "Here he comes to save the day" moment than a moment of restoration.
You might disagree. In fact, you probably will. Some other views:
FW-area Catholic blogger at Lofted Nest, who was apparently at the same showing I was, and was disappointed. Not that I was there, but in the film.
And then - this is interesting - a rather heated exchange in the comments box of Overstreet's blog, mostly between Chattaway, Greydanus and Barbara Nicolosi: here.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83425787353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All Hyped Out:
» Welborn on The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe from Eunomia
But in the crush of the marketplace, where everyone is exploiting everyone else, authenticity gets drained, even just a little bit, out of the moment. The key in LWW, of course, is Aslan's sacrifice. The way it all occurs in... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 12, 2005 6:11:19 PM
Comments
I didn't think that was THAT heated an exchange -- it's pretty much the standard when clash happens between film critics with strongly divergent views of a film, but the same fundamental worldview.
BTW, Barbara is right about the LOTR movies.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 10, 2005 12:42:28 AM
I am an equal opportunity model of indifference when it comes to fantasy novels/movies--whether it's Lewis, Tolkien, Rowling. I didn't get into that stuff when I was a kid. I don't begrudge anybody who does. But I sigh when someone asks me to do it now, at age 50. I'm going to roll over on the couch if my wife asks me to go to Narnia, or else suggest "Pride and Prejudice" in its place.
Not to steer the ship too far in another direction, but if you wish to see a Hollywood picture that delivers an authentic Christian message, go to the video store and rent "On the Waterfront."
The message? "I am my brother's keeper."
Posted by: Whitcomb at Dec 10, 2005 1:00:04 AM
I agree that restoration is the theme of film LWW. The offing of the White Witch by Aslan was a real downer. Same old same old: guy in white hat blasts black hat wearer and audience gets self-righteous jolt of catharsis .. except audience in this case sees Aslan do it from the witch's pov.
Still, I give it an up thumb since the restoration I feel immense nostalgia for is merrie Catholic England, Mary's Dowry.
The Father Christmas alone made the movie worth it.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 10, 2005 7:09:04 AM
I have to agree with most of the comments here. I loved taking my 8 and 10 year olds to it. The simply loved it. They have read all the Narnia books (before all the hype) and were a little disapointed with some of the liberties taken but all in all they can't wait to see it again.
I too was left with a little question of why? I asked my kids if they thought someone who had not read the books would "get it". They both agreed that they did not think so.
Overall a thumbs up but with some hesitation.
Posted by: mom of 4 at Dec 10, 2005 10:11:43 AM
I found Peter Chattaway's comment raised the most interesting and robust practical individual principle for Christian entertainment:
I phrase it as Does it foster in me an increased ripeness for worship and virtue?
I haven't seen the films under discussion, but individually I can remember the usual Brideshead and Pride and Prejudice (Ehle) experiences, and Dersu Uzala by Kurosawa.
Barbara Nicolosi's student seemed to have a good grasp of principles by which to create and evaluate film narrative. I'm not encouraged to see the Narnia films right away, not least by the wearying "tol'j'a so & proves we're right!" Christian marketing enthusiasm.
Posted by: dilys at Dec 10, 2005 10:18:52 AM
Greetings,
Thought the movie was Okay. They really missed out on the Turkish Delight issue. The entire them of Sin was Lost. Edmond didn't seem like he had motivation to do what he did.
peace
Posted by: TP at Dec 10, 2005 10:37:02 AM
For my money, both Jackson and Adamson made some remarkably bad mistakes with their adaptations.
The one they shared was "bad fanfic". I expect seventh grade kids to write sad scenes about beloved characters falling in the river, and I expect them not to have intelligent characters act with no shred of intelligence. I do not expect this from screenwriters who are adapting books that don't have those flaws.
Still, the stupid action scenes did have one good effect -- they made one scene from the book a lot scarier. Kudos on that!
Both also waste a lot of time on "reluctant hero" arcs for characters that aren't reluctant. Aragorn isn't Frodo; he's a man who's been working to become king of Gondor as well as of the Dunedain for longer than most of us have been alive. If you have to bring WWII into it, then Peter should have been burning to be just a little older and get to fight back. In the book, you get the impression that while he's not thrilled about his sisters and younger brother getting involved, he's just as glad to be able to strike a blow and do something.
Post 9/11 kids could surely understand that. I know a lot of boys who are very proud to have dress-up soldier suits, and others who spend a lot more time at it than we did when we were young. (And I grew up in a military town.)
I was a bit worried about the swordplay. It didn't look all that great even after Peter got some training, and it really didn't reveal character very well. (Hey, kids do notice swordplay.) A sword is not a stick or a gun; you don't just point it at somebody. (I guess the kid who played Edmund had a little more aptitude, because I didn't worry so much about him poking himself.)
I also thought it was a flaw to show all the children with l33t skillz, with no explanation of the effects upon them of being in Narnia and breathing Narnian air. You don't really want to suggest knifethrowing to kids as young as Lucy without some sort of "not quite this easy here on Earth" warning.
Adamson did not, I think, really understand that LWW, in many ways, is a movie of the Resistance. I think WWII's Resistance fighters and good guy spies captured Lewis' imagination strongly, since he also used that as a metaphor for the fight against Satan and Christ's Incarnation. I kept wanting to urge the characters to be more cautious, to hide in the snow, to walk along the sides of things instead of right in the middle in plain sight. Characters in the movie didn't seem intelligent enough to survive under the White Witch, frankly, and that wasn't a flaw of the book. (If you did something stupid in the book, you got turned to stone.)
I agree about the de-statue effects. On the whole, the Witch's power was also underused. I agree with my brother, who said that there was absolutely no reason we shouldn't have had a battlefield shot along the Witch's wake showing nothing but a line of statues, including a few of her own servants who didn't get out of the way fast enough. That's what CGI's for, darn it.
I did really like Aslan's camp, though. I thought they did a good job with all the pavilions, the various creatures, and (great touch!) all the smiths a medieval army would need. The armor wasn't waaaaaay over the top like the LOTR armor, either.
On the whole, though, Jackson failed when he attempted too much, and Adamson failed when he attempted too little. I wanted to rein in Jackson, and to urge Adamson on.
Still, Adamson made me roll my eyes less and didn't threaten to drive me out of the theater at any time. (I seriously cannot bear some of Jackson's stupider scenes with Arwen and Elrond.) So a few reservations on a director's part seem healthy to me.
Although much of my emotion during the Narnia movie was from my feelings for the story rather than what was on screen, Adamson didn't stomp on those feelings the way Jackson did. My younger brother enjoyed the first Narnia movie, while he swore the instant he got out of The Fellowship of the Ring that he would never watch the rest of the film trilogy.
Indeed, we both enjoyed it. So I recommend it, on the whole.
But do read the book. It's better.
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 10, 2005 10:48:33 AM
Our theologies themselves don't agree on the "why" and that with many written words. We went through this discussion with Mel's version of the Passion. Were Narnia to deliver an answer to the "why", there would be endless argument about the soteriology involved. Silence is more reverent here than trying to promote a particular theology of why.
Posted by: Caroline at Dec 10, 2005 10:55:01 AM
Oh, and I agree about the Turkish Delight not being used to any good effect at all. A first year film student could have done that one. Even the worst adaptations on TV and stage have managed that one. It's a gimme.
Btw, if you're looking for Turkish Delight here in the States, you might have more luck looking for "lokum" (the Turkish name), "loukoumi" (the Greek version -- indistinguishable to me) or "Aplets", "Cotlets", and "Fruit Delights" (which are extremely similar).
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 10, 2005 10:59:52 AM
I liked FOTR well enough until the entrance of Elrond, but I thought that Jackson seemed to have conflated the concepts of "epic" and "big". No, not even big: humongous, gi-normous, and all those other portmanteau words that suggest hype and pretension. There were so few small moments in the films, and those there were, were too cute and too whimsical. Frodo was too young. Merry and Pippin were like stage Irishmen. Elrond was ridiculous.
I hope that the LWW is better than this. But all y'all are making me wonder.
One problem I see is that I believe Lewis's writing, taken paragraph by paragraph, is more textured and detailed than Tolkien's, and so even more difficult to capture on film. (And yes I know that Lewis's imaginary world was less finished, his vision less comprehensive, than JRRT's.) One of Lewis's great strengths, though, is his ability to convey the sensuous quality of experience, both pleasurable and painful. Susan's blistered heel; the eruption of Spring; the girls' exhaustion after crying all night over Aslan's death - these are the kind of thing that made the books so memorable to me. So often, as I lived out my life, I would find myself flashing back to those descriptions and thinking yes, this is what _that_ meant. But how can you capture any of that on film?
I think few people are responsive to such qualities in writing any more. Yet what is Lewis's work without it? He was at heart a Romantic, and a poet, which means the essence of his writerly concerns is the self in its responses to the sensual world. Remove that, and you may still have food, yes, but without flavour.
Posted by: alias clio at Dec 10, 2005 11:03:09 AM
Caroline - that is not the "why" of which I am speaking. I am speaking, within the context of the work and the world Lewis created. In that context, the question is largely unanswered, and as one reviewer/commentor pointed out, the end effect is that one gets the impression that the 4 children are the saviors, not Aslan.
Posted by: Amy at Dec 10, 2005 11:24:27 AM
I liked The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, despite its flaws. It is what it is.
I agree with Whitcomb about On the Waterfront; I quoted extensively from the priest's dockside sermon in one of my Good Friday homilies.
Posted by: (Fr) Septimus at Dec 10, 2005 11:39:45 AM
Our 6:30 p.m. showing in suburnan St. Louis was half full. The 7 p.m. was sold out. I never attend opening night, as I hate crowds, but was pleasantly surprised it was so empty. I still hope it does really well at the box office, to show producers family films can make money.
Posted by: willy cook at Dec 10, 2005 12:02:38 PM
I had a very similar reaction to the movie. Thank you for expressing it so well!
Posted by: Julie at Dec 10, 2005 12:05:12 PM
I loved the movie, my kids loved the movie. Though I must admit in large part it is because we have read the books (myself, repeatedly) and I think we "filled on the gaps" that many site as flaws and just had a really good time. It made me feel very young.
I also agree with alias clio's comments completely about Lewis' writing. How do you put on the screen his beautiful descriptions of the children's feelings as they here the name of Aslan?
Posted by: Maria Ashwell at Dec 10, 2005 12:39:43 PM
Oh, please, please, please, please, please tell us about Mad Hot Ballroom!! I've been trying to rent a copy for ages, but our local movie rental place doesn't have it.
Posted by: TNP at Dec 10, 2005 12:57:20 PM
"Hyped out" speaks to my condition, fer shur. After all the wrangling over The Passion and LOTR, I feel disinclined to get into either the atheists vs. Christians battle over whether or not religion is evil or the intra-Christian debates over the merits of the films. I'm sure I'll end up seeing the movie. Maybe I'll even like it. But I can tell from what people are saying that it's going to be a mixed experience at best, because some of you are noting some of the same things that I really disliked in the Ring movies: in a word, Hollywoodization.
The Two Towers was on TV last night. I found myself thinking something along the lines of "What was all the excitement about?" There are some good things and some not so good but not too far down the line the movies seem to fade into insignificance compared to the book.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Dec 10, 2005 1:09:19 PM
I just dropped an apropos of the snow comment in the thread.
Heh.
Posted by: PlatoStepChild at Dec 10, 2005 2:22:54 PM
I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed. They're apparently going the the theater expecting to have some sort of relgious experience and instead will get a pretty good movie.
Posted by: dymphna at Dec 10, 2005 3:18:18 PM
Has anyone else here seen the BBC version from about 15 years ago? In spite of special effects at the level of Dr. Who, I thought that it was much more effective -- particularly at portraying things like the children's feelings when they hear that Aslan was on the move, also in sticking more faithfully to the book(s).
I agree with much of what has been said in criticism of the movie. Here are a few thoughts of my own.
I think that some who object to this movie are being set off by things that aren't in the book. In an earlier post Amy linked to an anti-Christian screed by Polly Toynbee occasioned by the movie. Some of her complaints make some sense to me as directed against the movie, but it seems she has never read the books, and can't tell the difference between them.
Toynbee wrote that
"...here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right."
My wife (who loves the books) had a similar reaction -- she thought that the movie came across as a pro-war movie, in fact in some ways distinctly pro-war-in-Iraq -- pro-intervention to free an oppressed people from a dictator, etc. The moments she reacted to are just not in the book (as she knows well, unlike Toynbee) -- the wolf Maugrim taunting Peter with "this isn't your war" for example, and the fox ally of the Beavers speaking of his allegiance to a "free Narnia."
The battle scene seems to glorify war in a way that Lewis's books do not, especially given the prominence it is given in the movie in comparison to the book (2 pages out of 189 in my copy). And why did there have to be birds dropping rock/bombs?
In the movie, Aslan is made to say "It is finished" after killing the Witch. I found this apparent Biblical reference jarring. These words would have been more appropriately said on the Stone Table.
It struck both of us when an ad for the National Guard was played before the movie, along with ads for various violent video games. Altogether, the military story seemed to me to overwhelm any kind of Christian message in the movie, and some of the best lines pointing to Aslan's similarity to Christ are left out -- for example that Aslan is the son of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea, or the scene in which Aslan, having risen from the dead, reassures Susan that he is not a ghost.
In the end, much of the sheer joy I have felt in Lewis's book seems to be missing in the movie, replaced by fear, foreboding, and then, maybe, relief, but not much else. There is no romp with Aslan after he rises, and the comfort and plain happiness of the Beavers' house seems to go missing. At least so it seemed to me. To return to my opening question -- I felt all that much more plainly in the BBC version.
Posted by: Michael Kremer at Dec 10, 2005 3:29:31 PM
I still think one of the best "religious" movies of the year was Millions. It is out on dvd now. Despite some flaws it was a wonderful film.
Posted by: Fr. J at Dec 10, 2005 3:57:58 PM
Well, it beat taking the family to RENT for Eddie's birthday. ;)
To be honest, fantasy isn't a genre I'm particularly good with, so this was a good intro for me. We bought a new set of Narnia books for my husband for Father's day (to replace the worn out ones of his youth)...the movie made me less afraid to pick one up and give it a try.
Posted by: Ellyn at Dec 10, 2005 5:42:35 PM
I'm glad the film was made. Any film that hints at what is true is welcome by me.
That being said, the movie screamed Evangelical Protestant to me... and Protestant in ways that C.S. Lewis was not Protestant. The soteriology was flawed, the music was miserably "hip" and out of place, and the borrowing from The Passion (we must start the film with a blue filter and clouds, we must have that wailing woman in the soundtrack)... really indicated that people missed what was successful about The Passion.
I have to say that I would have rather seen the story told by pagans than by Evangelical Protestants... not because they aren't good, virtuous, resourceful, talented people, but because they have a ppor sense of narrative and a really truncated/dualistic view of grace and transcendence. In many ways, this movie was to The Passion what an Evangelical Free service is to the Mass of the Last Supper.
But now I am splitting hairs. Especially living in Los Angeles, I need to remember that anyone who loves the truth deserves my support.
I'll rant more on my own blog about the movie... but not until opening weekend is over. There was much to enjoy and praise. I just was troubled by how much better it could have been. But until Catholics get their spiritual and artistic act together, we can't expect much more than this.
Posted by: Clayton at Dec 10, 2005 5:59:13 PM
"My wife (who loves the books) had a similar reaction -- she thought that the movie came across as a pro-war movie, in fact in some ways distinctly pro-war-in-Iraq -- pro-intervention to free an oppressed people from a dictator, etc. The moments she reacted to are just not in the book (as she knows well, unlike Toynbee) -- the wolf Maugrim taunting Peter with "this isn't your war" for example, and the fox ally of the Beavers speaking of his allegiance to a "free Narnia.""
Yet more reasons for me to love the film!
Just got back from seeing it. Excellent movie for kids, although adults might be a tad bit bored. Those expecting a Lord of the Rings blockbuster will be disappointed, but it still is miles ahead of what usually passes for entertainment in most movies. I thought the kid actors were great. I loved Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, the comedic interplay between them added some very necessary "lightening" to a fairly serious movie. The White Witch was over the top and reminded me of a cross between Bride of Frankenstein and Cruella de Ville, but when you are playing a character called the White Witch who is a stand-in for Satan, I guess subtlety flies right out the wardrobe.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 10, 2005 6:25:59 PM
I saw LWW yesterday. While I enjoyed it, for me it was a B film. I love the books, but I was not as deeply moved as I was with many other recent films. I attended the movie with a brother. I had urged him to see THERESE with his teens (on the basis of all the hype) some time back. BIG MISTAKE which I realized only after seeing the film myself. His kids were bored and my reputation as a movie critic was damaged forever! LOL I'm glad we have critics like Stephen Greydanus. I agreed completely with his review.
If someone wants to make a film about a religious subject that would really grab people today, how about one about Franz Jaeggerstetter, the Austrian farmer who was NOT a pacifist, but resisted Hitler's wars on the grounds of the just war theory. He was refused Communion for a while while in prison because the chaplain believed that he had no right to oppose Hitler since the bishops had not condemned the war! His wife begged him to think of the children. He was abandoned by all. The chaplain relented the day before his execution on the grounds that he was "invincibly ignorant" of his duty to fight for the Fatherland. His cause is now up for canonization.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Dec 10, 2005 7:51:20 PM
