Honestly? I have been looking forward to this movie's release. I thought that the first movie was awesome, after having seen it in the theaters (more on that later). I think that Belle was looking forward to it more than I was though, because it means a Big Night for her. The kids go to Grandma's and then we get all polished up and go and have a nice steak dinner and then we sit side by side for two hours with no "distractions" and then Saturday morning rolls around and there still aren't any kids to wake her up three times a night (I'm a heavy sleeper. It takes dynamite to wake me) and she gets to sleep-in, undisturbed, till about eight or so. I don't know, I was still asleep. At nine.
I have been looking forward to this movie, but not nearly as much as some others on the Blogosphere. In preparation for the release, I dug our copy of the book out last month, or so, and read it as I was driving back and forth from work. In small bites, it took me a couple of days.
When I was done with the book, I was disappointed. I wanted more. I wasn't satisfied with what I got. I wanted more detail, more action. More, substance. And then I realized, that C.S. Lewis' target audience had been children, and for a kid, 6, 7, 8, it was probably a great story. But despite this lack of satisfaction, that is pro'bly a better way of describing my thoughts, I new that as a book, it would never translate directly over into a film, like, say, Lord of the Rings did. One, it would ultimately be too short, and two, it would just be a lousy motion picture. So I was curious to see how they would make it work, and made more so by the trailers that I started to see.
Belle had been Lurking flowershopgirl, because of Jak's impending information regarding her special pre-release showing of the movie, and had relayed to me what Jak had said. So I was prepared to be disappointed, with at least the beginning. Belle and I had also been talking, over steak, that with movies like this, it's best to try and curb your expectations with the exception of two: that it would be good, and that if it wasn't better, then at least it would be as good as the first one.
After much thought, I have decided that I am disappointed with it.
Now, so that I don't get screamed at for spoiling it for you, don't read any further. Go watch it, form your own opinion and then come back and finish reading. All you need to know from me, at this point, is that it's PG, though how they pulled that off I will never know, and that there is absolutely no language or sex. And Moms and Dads, if you let your kids watch this movie, but won't let them watch LOTR, I only ask: Why? Are minators, satyrs, centaurs, fauns, hags, werewolves, incantations, and evil sorceresses really better than orcs (goblins/demons) getting what they have coming to them? But, that's another discussion.
Now. On with the story
I like the way that it opened. It wraps up that whole Prince Caspian sub-story in the first ten minutes, where if they had transliterated it, it would have taken at least a half hour. And though that whole scene would have made a good TV slot, it would have been kinda slow in a Motion Picture.
I was very surprised that the first scene that you see the Pevensie kids in, one is a lying snob, and another is a brawling jerk with a chip the size of Texas on his shoulder. The writers failed to realize that, yes, they were children in the real world, but in Narnia, they had already lived a lifetime. Aslan had breathed upon them. They had grown out of their childishness, their "adolescent fears." This would have made them odd in the real world. Superior, in the true sense, and very mature in their comportment. It had only been a year for them; the memories of a lifetime in Narnia would still be fresh, vibrant, overshadowing their behavior. If the one had been approached by a curious boy she would have been sweet and understanding. And if the one had gotten into a scrap, say, defending the defenseless, he would never have been mastered. He really would have "sorted" it. Narnian years of martial training would have seen to that. Especially when later, he "takes it to the enemy."
Its convenient how they explained how Trumpkin comes to be captured by Telmarines and about to be drowned, though I don't know how or why in the world they would have taken him all the way to Cair Paravel to do it. Where was Mirazes castle anyway?
The mice were cool. Vicious little assassins. Ankle and throat slashers.
I liked the added scene: the storming of Mirazes castle. That was cool. The gryphons are awesome. I want one. The best scene is when Edmund is deposited on the minaret roof and then you just see gryphon feet silently snatch up the wary guard. But then it turned into what it did. And it ended very poorly. When Glenstorm nods to his son, all those Narnian's left behind would have rallied to at least try and make a difference.
And what is up with the whole Susan/Caspian thing? And the kiss at the end? That just made her look easy and loose. Are they trying to set her up for The Last Battle? What can we expect in Dawn Treader? Painted face and riding in hot rods with boys? Sorry, I forget for a moment that that is an American institution. I could understand the initial reaction: Caspian to himself: That's Queen Susan? Dang, she cute! Susan to herself: Oh, that's Caspian? Wow, he handsome! But then to have it turn into some sort of romance? How? When did they have time? Comradeship forged by war, absolutely. It was a waste of time to try and gin up anything more. It left me confuzzled and ultimately disappointed. Did they really need to pander to the teeny-boppers like that?
The best part of the movie: when Edmund delivers Peter's letter to Miraz. That was clever, and smart. That whole scene was awesome.
Come to think of it, I think that Edmund was not only the best actor in the bunch, but his scenes where the strongest.
And then it just ends. The kids go home, and inside of thirty seconds the credits roll. What about all that conflict at the beginning? Where is the resolution to that? Where is the change in those two unlikable characters that we thought we knew?
There is no resolution to their real world predicament. There is no evidence of change in their previously flawed characters.
Even when "Phyllis" is given the chance to make right her wrong, she doesn't. Are we left to believe that perhaps the director saw nothing wrong with this behavior? Where were the producers who owned the rights to the story? Why didn't they set this wrong right?
And where was Aslan? You hardly see him at all. He was much more predominate in the book.
Ultimately, there were too many mistakes, and not just minor. Too many cliched shots, like five people hiding in bright clothes behind a small pile of logs in the middle of hundreds of pairs of eyes, some of which belonged to war tested Generals and Kings; falling off of towers with smiles on faces to be snatched up by flying wings, like Gandalf from Fellowship; blurry, slow motion sword fights that were always awful anyway but made archaic with the advent of Hero and House of Flying Daggers and Gladiator. And far too many cliche's in the dialogue. To many "You're not what I expected . . .Neither are you" lines for at least the first hour and a half. There was a point where the dialogue and the action got noticeably better, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I didn't notice anymore cliches. It became more natural, fresh, flowed smoother. I think it was about the castle scene or just after.
I would really like to know who wrote what? Three people wrote this one; four for TLWW. Unless it's a writing team, that writes better as two people than most people by themselves, you run the risk of muddying the waters. Many times you end up with wallpaper over original paint and new paint over that wallpaper and new wallpaper over all of that: a great big mess. (exactly)
Now, I understand that their target audience was PG; children. But they forget about all of the adults who, as children, read the books and were looking forward to an acceptable interpretation of Master Lewis' dream. My girls won't be watching this one when it comes home on DVD. At least not for a while. 10, 12, 13 maybe. And if they were targeting children, then why was it so violent? I was expecting it to be like the first, with it's cut away scenes. Is that what they want? Stupid, silly, loose, violent children?
It was nothing like Enchanted, which I think is the cutest movie I have ever seen. Enchanted is kid friendly, at lest until the end, but smart and honestly funny. Prince Caspian had none of that. Smart and Original were left unemployed for too long.
But honestly, Incomplete, what do you expect from the director of Shrek? But the first one was so good! Yes it was. In small doses. The more you watch it, the more it's short comings are made apparent. As good as it is, it is no Princess Bride: timeless
Would I recommend going and seeing Prince Caspian? Sure. But only once. And if you can catch the twilight matinee (5 bucks around here) do that. Cuz called me on the phone and asked me what I thought. I gave him the nutshell of this briefing. He's gonna go check it out.
It's not bad. It's just not nearly as good as it could have been. What would be cool, in my humble opinion, is if they fired the director and got someone fresh. Maybe Michael Bay is available, or John Favreau, or even Kurt Wimmer. Heck, maybe Sam Raimi would even consider it, as long as he didn't try and push it over the top like he did with Spider Man 3. Of course, my preferred choice would be Peter Jackson, but that's expecting too much. After all, he is already getting a good slice of the pie with Weta doing so much already.
The second best part of the movie? Regina Spektor and The Call. I can't get enought of it.
I won't be buying any of her albums, but I love her voice. Blue eyed soul wrapped in an anti-folk package. Makes me think of my sis KitKat and my sisinlaw KT. Not the voice, the face and the behavior. I spent two hours last night watching her videos on YouTube. Let's just say, she needs Jesus.
So, go enjoy. And don't be afraid to tell me where I'm wrong. I crave change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
I agree with a lot of your comments, but I didn't think the Regina Spektor song fit the movie *at all*. I actually put my fingers in my ears because it was so jarring compared to what came before. It's probably fine in another context, but it seems to me utterly un-Narnian.
I don't know. I don't think it's any different than the segue at the end of TLWW into Imogen Heap's Can't Take It In or the further move into Alanis Morissette's Wunderkind. I s'pose the editing could have been better. But that would just add to my list of gripes. ;)
Well, Brother Ty, I don't agree with you at all, but I still love you:-)
I don't say that PC didn't have problems, but I choice to ingnore them and enjoy the movie for what I did. I look forword to VOTDT.
Okay Lyds, if you're calling me "Brother" as in "my dear brother" then that's a'ight. But if you're calling me BROTHER, then ... STOP! Sorry, I don't mean to shout, but I really don't like being called BROTHER.
You are completely, one hundred percent allowed to totally disagree with me. I have no problem with that. :{D
As to ignoring, or over looking problems . . . that is the sacrificing of personal standards. And ultimately, that is up to you.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that PC is a "bad" movie, or that it won't end up in my DVD collection, only that it was not nearly as good as it could have been.
And after all that, here is the weekend update on PC: my nephews and neices saw it today: they absolutely loved it. They are twelve and under. I guess THEY hit their target demographic rather soundly. Us older Lewis lovers will just have to learn to endure the Master's art work being misinterpretted.
Like I told Belle this afternoon: I just need to stop thinking about it, obsessing over it, or I will go crazy.
It is JUST a movie after all. Only entertainment. At the end of the day is has nothing of substance to offer anyway.
are you aware that Susan is not even IN Dawn Treader?
yes, you do need to quit obsessing.
"I only ask: Why? Are minators, satyrs, centaurs, fauns, hags, werewolves, incantations, and evil sorceresses really better than orcs (goblins/demons) getting what they have coming to them? But, that's another discussion."
I'd be interested in a real answer to this question...
Of course, last time you sent me a real answer, I forgot to email back. But it's coming. :)
Ummm... so I'm confused... why does Regina remind you of me??? Maybe it's cause I'm tired, can you explain please.
I don't remember my whole reaction in the theater to the song but I do remember thinking that the style didn't at all fit with the rest of the movie. The words do, the music doesn't.
Frankly, I'm not going to read all of your review, I don't want to dampen my enjoyment of the film.
With the Susan/Caspian thing, yes, the kiss wasn't necessary. There was mutual admiration, nothing wrong with that, they are fighting side by side to the death for a country they both care about. I'll be lenient. I mean, if I was fighting to the death for something I loved and cared for I would hope others would admire me for it.
I'm tired too. I too need to go to bed.
Marmey, I have this great big post that I have been meaning to do about LOTR for a year now. I just need to do it.
Jak, at IMDB, Anna Popplewell is listed in the credits for VOTDT. Oh, and I've stopped obsessing now.
KitKat: Like I said, I spent two hours watching Regina Spektor, and she has a bunch of live videos from different events and what made me think of you was her smile and how readily she smiles, and what made me think of KT was just the little glimps of her behavior; the endearing, slightly oddball, quirky slappyness. AND YOU CRACK ME UP! "Frankly, I'm not going to read all of your review, I don't want to dampen my enjoyment of the film." That is HIGH-larious! But you really shouldn't give me that much power. And if you read that far, then you should just go ahead and finish the post, or maybe you did already.
Ty,
I don't give you that much power, don't worry. And I didn't read that far, it merely jumped off the page.
I'm jumping with with Jak on the VOTDT. Susan is listed on IMDB, one because it is the Incorrect Movie Data Base and 2 because they didn't want people to know ahead of time that Aslan tells them they can't go back to Narnia, so they "signed them up for VOTDT".
Katie is always on my side :)
um, why the "prince *cough* caspian"? do you have a cold?
Forgot to mention, I don't plan on reading any negative reviews.
Kitkat: Glad to hear it.
Why do you call it the "Incorrect Movie Data Base"? I have always found it to be very accurate and a very good resource for movie buffs.
I bet you dollars to donuts that both Anna Popplewell and William Mosley WILL BE in the next movie, for at least a real-world cameo. After PC I would not be surprised at all if they DO go back to Narnia.
Jak: I coughed because that was how I was dealing with my disapointment at the time.
Why is it when someone expresses their honest disappointment about how C.S. Lewis' work was interpreted, it is considered a "negative review"?
And what is wrong with reading "negative" reviews? Why deny discourse? Are you afraid that your opinion might be changed?
You will always retain the right to disagree. But what if what is being said is true? Sometimes the truth hurts.
As to the power of reviews: I read this one
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/ENTERTAIN/80518008&sfad=1&nocache=1
and it didn't affect my opinion one bit.
I have come to realize that reviews are only good for two things: determining language content and sexual content. And then I get that from PluggedInOnline.com. I only read reviews AFTER I have seen the movie.
Like, The Interpreter, I heard that it was an "awful" movie. So I didn't see it, rent it, anything, even though the trailers really appealed to me. Then, I saw it at the Library, said, "why not?" I took it home, and now it's in my DVD drawer. I really enjoyed it, despite the barely palatable political speak. (and the best part was, that I got it from MartWal for 5 bucks!)
Do something for me: go outside of my opinion AND yours for a few minutes. Go here,see what THESE people have said:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chronicles_of_narnia_prince_caspian/
honestly I don't feel as if Lewis' work has been misinterpreted.
Douglas Gresham used to spend hours talking with Lewis about Narnia, and he's an executive producer. He knows more about Narnia than any man alive.
See, the thing is so many people read these books and they all have it in their imagination. and when it's not the way they expect it to be, they're dissapointed.
I admit, it wasn't exactly what I imagined in some places. Other scenes were exactly what I imagined.
I'm open to seeing how someone else imagines Narnia. Especially, when Douglas Gresham has his stamp of approval on it.
I don't really care to read any other reviews. I'd rather just enjoy the movie.
and by the way, I agree with you on mosely and popplewell appearing in the next movie. I'm sure they will. People love them and will want to see them. They will not go back to Narnia, though. The movie makers are smarter than that.
One such example is the following, an excerpt of a review written by David Edlestein for NYMag.com:
"At every turn, the filmmakers go for clutter and tumult where simplicity would do—and Adamson, to put it kindly, isn’t the fleetest of action directors. In one scene, our heroes (human, Narnian, and centaur) run from a bunch of Telmarine soldiers heading down a flight of stairs, and there’s a shot of the good guys trying to lift the heavy gate and then a shot of the soldiers on the stairs and then a shot of the gate beginning to budge and then a shot of the soldiers on the stairs and the heroes say “Hurry, hurry,” and the Telmarines—they’re still on the stairs. No army deserves to win that takes so long to go down stairs."
I never laughed so hard! I'm still laughing!
And you know, at the end of it all, that is all that matters: that you enjoy it.
I know those of you that have been commenting here have pretty much closed the book on any "dissenting" thoughts about Prince Caspian, but I'm going to post anyway, because I finally have an opinion! Everyone kept asking me what I thought of the movie, and frankly, after listening to my husband’s disappointments, and having a few of my own, I really wasn’t sure WHAT I thought of it. But that was yesterday. I have since sat down and read the BOOK, and today, I know what I think of the movie. :)
As far as action, they did a good job. As far as costuming, they did a great job. The music moved me, made me anxious when I was supposed be, made me thrill when I was supposed to be thrilled (except for the kiss - I TOTALLY didn’t like that)(nor did I like the modern-day song they put in the last scene as all the kids were leaving Narnia – it clashed with me). But when I left the theater, I was…conflicted. There seemed to be too many things that just didn’t work for me in the whole “this is the second book of the Narnia chronicles” that I was expecting to see. If I’d been going to see a swashbuckler, I would have gotten what I was looking for. But I didn’t necessarily go to see a swashbuckler. I went to see “Prince Caspian” put to screen. And since I had very much LIKED "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe", I was looking forward to seeing this movie. And getting out of the house with just my hubby, but that’s another story. :)
In general, I didn’t like how they kept throwing modern day nuances into a story that is set in the 1940s and jumps backward into the medieval era. I noticed those right away, and they bothered me from the get-go. All of the little, supposed flirtation going on between Susan and Caspian was just that – too little, and too shallow to have amounted in a kiss at the end of the movie. I never really saw Susan coming to a point of LIKING Caspian, and the most we get from Caspian is a whole lot of puppy dog eyes in her direction. Their interaction was too little and too romantically insignificant to have come to a romantic ending for the two of them. Since it started out that Susan didn’t really like Caspian, I could EASILY have seen the two of them coming to a mutual admiration of each other as warriors and being FRIENDS at most. The romance was forced, and made me feel a little gaggy. And it was cliché, because everyone seemed to WANT it to go that way if I judge by all the cheering in the theater.
I was also really let down that they would change the CHARACTER of the characters so much. It all struck me as somehow wrong as I watched the movie, but I didn’t understand WHY it seemed so wrong until I re-read the book. And then I was *really* dismayed. Whoever adapted the book to the screen didn’t just miss how the Pevensies became more regal the longer they were in Narnia – they ignored it altogether. And it wasn’t just that they were like regular modern kids with modern kid attitudes while they were in Narnia, they were *worse* in England, and you would have thought, after having “grown up” in Narnia and having had the experiences that they’d had there, they would have been a different kind of kid on this side of the wardrobe. It was like they were almost worse for having been in Narnia, rather than better. It made me kind of sad that they took out all of the real kindness that went between the siblings as they made their way through Narnia again. Sure, in the book they did start to get grumpy with each other after a day of hiking in the wrong direction, but that was a MOMENT in the book, not the prevailing attitude.
And it bothered me as I watched the movie to see how Peter and the others kept trying to do things in their own strength and understanding (AND FAILING MISERABLY EVERY TIME) when the BOOK had them meet up with Aslan the day they left Cair Paravel to travel to Aslan’s How. And it was only ONE time in the book that they made a mistake, and Peter (whose attitude was portrayed as being the worst in the movie) actually agonized over it, and was genuinely sorry when it did turn out to be a mistake. You don’t see that in the film. Aslan should have been as big a part as Caspian, but that would have meant that the movie makers would have had to admit that there is a “higher power” out there influencing and directing in a BIG way, not just a sort of hit-or-miss, maybe-he’s-there, maybe-he’s-not, we’d-better-just-do-what-WE-think-is-right kind of way. The movie makers completely stripped out Lewis’ message of a Leader, that when you follow HIM, it doesn’t matter if you don’t know exactly where He’s going, because it’s going to end up well.
I won’t be letting the little girls watch this one for a very long time. The battle scenes are too scary – those trees at the end, while reminding me a little of the trees in Lord of the Rings(3), were a bit creepy with their roots going all over. And I know they wouldn’t have been able to handle the Witch, or the hag, or the werewolf, or the guy getting his head chopped off, or the soldiers shooting a billion arrows into Caspian’s bed, or the dwarf nearly drowning, or any of the battle scenes whatsoever, because even *I* found myself a tad nervous during some of them. And just as an interesting note, one of my 12-year-old nephews said to me that HE thought they made some of the characters just a little to scary looking, too.
Anyway. I think the base story, the story Lewis wrote, is a good story, but the movie makers took the movie too far away from the book. They changed too many of the finer details of the story, and made it into a good money maker, but it wasn’t really the story that C. S. Lewis wrote anymore. I don’t regret seeing the movie, because it’s fairly decent as far as movies go, but I like the story in the book much better.
i did wonder what your opinion was, Shan.
Ok, it's been interesting to read your comments - each different person's opinion adds a little here and there. This is coming from someone who hasn't seen the movie for different reasons.
The main reason is that I re-read the book when the first trailers for PC came out, since I couldn't remember what the story was, and while I found it an interesting read with plenty of um, intrigue (I don't know if that's the best word for it but we'll leave it at that) and action, I could not tell exactly what Lewis was trying to convey to his readers, spiritually speaking. LWW was a little more obvious in its storyline, as well as The Last Battle, but I couldn't see it in this story. Maybe I was trying too hard to see it and completely overlooked it; if someone has some insight on that I'd like to hear your thoughts.
The second reason is that some of the characters that appear in this story don't sit right with me. Mainly Bacchus, which is one of the names of Nimrod, and he's portrayed as one of the good guys. I don't get it - why is he there? And how on earth is he in 'cahoots' with Aslan, a symbol of Jesus? I find it rather confusing. It doesn't seem to line up with Scripture.
(2Co 6:14b-16a)
...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?...
I don't have any wish to be antagonistic, but these are some questions I haven't been able to resolve to my satisfaction. I'd like to hear what any of you has to say about it.
KRISTI, In my humble opinion, I think that Lewis was sort of trying to re-create the general feel of LWW when he wrote PC. I can explain more if you need...
anyway, the spiritual analogy isn't as evident and strong as it is in LWW, for sure...
I didn't like Bacchus either. He's not in the movie.
Read Pilgrim's Regress. Lewis explains in there, towards the end or the story, his opinion on pagan mythology. When I first read the Narnia books, I think I was twenty-one, I too had the same initial problem.
Then I read Till We Have Faces.
We have to remember that Lewis and Tolkein and their contemporaries at Cambridge were all well versed in the Greek and Latin masters. Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripides, Easop, etc. etc.
Even though I wasn't greatly impressed with Till We have Faces, I came to discover one fact: Lewis believed that the origin of the dominant pagan creations was God, but that it was man who took it too far. In his writing, I believe, he was trying to redeem those characters out of the degradation that man had drug them into to.
I don't have any experiance, other than the watered down Easop's fables that you read in the kids books, with the Greek and Latin masters. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding them, but I believe that there was an entire world developing outside of what the Bible records and that God had witnesses in all lands pointing back to Him. And like Jak said, Bacchus wasn't in the movie. I was actually looking forward to how they would deal with that scene; him and his madcap women. ;)
Check out Dionysus at Wicki. I thought it was very interresting that his origins are sighted as being "non-greek."
Uncle Tyson we are actually 13(hanna and i are both 13:)) and under!
And if my 2 cents mean anything I LOVED the movie-the Susan Caspian kiss at the end didn't need to be there but I think that more than anything it was just like Bye sorry it didn't work out type thing I also think that the whole movie was really great and anything that wasn't in the book gave the movie originality from the book and made it something a tad different. I think that the whole Susan Caspian Romance wasn't going quickly enough to a kiss....i think that good friends would be the best way to end the movie. I really like the book, and the movie was really great!
I thought that at the end Susan could have a better attitude with the Phylis thing and Peter should have had a better attitude through the whole movie:)
I really liked the battle scenes(they were probably my favorites but i liked a lot of them) and I think that the fact that Aslan wasn't in the movie a whole lot was because it was like giving the children a chance to work things out for themselves-I think that Caspian and Peter could have been portrayed as friends more than enemies after all they are on the same side!
Over all I really liked the movie and I can't wait for The Voyage of The Dawn Treader! BTW Ben Barnes, Anna Popplewell,and William Mosley,signed a movie contract so that said they had to be in any movie that required their part :) Which I was glad for because they do a great job at their parts!
Anyway I can't wait until the voyage of the Dawn Treader to come out! Two more years!!! I think that the movie was great and i just LOVED it!
pretty much all of the main characters aka Susan,Peter,Edmund,Lucy and Prince Caspian are all coming back in the other movies whether or not they go into Narnia or not they will still be there for part of it! :)
also i read somewhere that Douglass Gresham totally approved of the movie even the Susan- Caspian thing....to my knowledge the Directors were consulting him through the entire movie.
Also in case you want to know The Voyage of the Dawn Treader has a different director than the other two movies:)
Okay i am done for now!
(blogger needs to add an "edit comment" window)
Sorry Mo, I won't ever call you twelve again!
About Doug Gresham: it only proves that he knew ABOUT Narnia, not that he KNEW Narnia. It's the difference of knowing ABOUT Christianity, and BEING a Christian.
um, ok and what makes you more of an expert on Narnia than Douglas Gresham?
I am not an expert on Narnia. There is only one expert on Narnia, and unfortunately, C.S. Lewis is dead.
I don't need Doug Gresham's opinion in order to have one of my own.
I think that I have found something that WE ALL AGREE ON:
A romance between Caspian and Susan was unrealistic, and their kiss at the end was absurd.
MoMo, if I ever catch you kissing a boy "Bye sorry it didn't work" I will be personally exercising Disciplinus Famillius!
You also said, MoMo "Aslan wasn't in the movie a whole lot was because it was like giving the children a chance to work things out for themselves" If Aslan is supposed to be Jesus, then we have to take into consideration that Jesus NEVER tells us to work things out in our own strength. He says in Matt 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light
I said Cambridge. It should have been Oxford
I think that I have found a very good final thought. One that I can completely and totally agree with. A thought that sums up my motivation and expresses it better than I could have:
"He[C.S. Lewis]was a very rational man," Douglas says. "His Christianity was not the result of some strange mystic experience - his Christianity was the result of his searching for truth. I think that's one of the guidelines of his life - he always searched for the truth in every situation. I think that today people wander about looking for what they want to believe in or what they think they ought to believe in rather than searching for the truth." - Douglas Gresham as quoted at
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/son.html
I also think that part of the reason why Aslan wasn't there was because the children needed to prove themselves it was like a test.
Oh and don't worry uncle Tyson this:if I ever catch you kissing a boy "Bye sorry it didn't work" I will be personally exercising Disciplinus Famillius!
Will NEVER happen! I can assure you of that!
Okay, I promised my self I wouldn't get involved in this but... here I am.
I think the point Katie, Rebecca and I are trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong girls) Is this:
We liked Prince Caspian. As a movie. If you think about PC compared to 90% of movies made today, it's awesome. Yes, it's not EXACTLY like the book. Yes, there's a kiss in the end, but BIG DEAL!! It's a good clean movie with spiritual truths in it. Yes, Aslan wasn't there as much as I would have liked. The upside is Aslan was in the movie, a Christ-like figure!! In a Hollywood movie!!! That's good!
How many big budget movies are made like that? Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 from the last 5 years. Amazing Grace, and LWW.
Sure, it could have been better, ALL movies could be better. Sure, it doesn't capture the simplicity of the books, but technically, making a movie simplistic is very difficult to do.
Conclusion: It's a good movie. I think we should all be thankful it was made.
2nd Conclusion:I think we should stop debating, it can't be good for our friendships. And don't you all start saying "We're not auguring, we're having a friendly debate." HA!
So that's my 0.02 I hope you all don't mind.
Lydia
P.S. Ty, Su and Peter will NOT go back to Narnia, that's absurd. This isn't the Love Comes Softly movies or anything.
P.S.S. I was calling you "Brother" in a "my dear brother" way. Don't worry.
Well, I thought that I had written my last comment yesterday, but I guess I was wrong, because I am compelled to respond to Lyds' latest comment.
First, we are far too good of friends to allow a disagreement about a stupid movie adversely affect our relationship. It's just a movie, for cryin' out loud. We are bigger than that.
First I think its necessary to explain myself, not in defense, but for clarity's sake.
As I said in the original post, that gave birth to this giant, I had recently reread Prince Caspian. BEFORE the movie came out. I said that, as an adult, I was dissatisfied with the book. It did not have enough substance for me. But then I had to remind myself that C.S. Lewis' target audience is children. Children LOVE the books. He met his objective. I commend him for his achievement.
As I have stated previously, I knew that the movie would have to be different than the book. I was EXPECTING it to be different from the book; in structure, not substance.
My problem with the movie, other than what I have already stated, is that it does not have any of the substance of the book.
If you like the movie: that's fine. If you LOVED the movie: that's really all right with me. It doesn't bother me at all. And as I stated previously, I don't "hate" the movie.
I ask in all openly ignorant honesty: what spiritual truths were conveyed in Prince Caspian? How was Aslan portrayed as Christ-like?
As a movie, in my opinion, it's a decent movie. As an adaptation, it is a dismal failure. And that point has been my problem. I did not read the book and enjoy it with the expectation that the adaptation would be different and better. Rarely does the adaptation tell a better story than the original. Far too often what you end up with, as in this case, is a man thinking that he can tell someone else's story better than they did. But he doesn't care: he's making money hand-over-fist. The producers don't care: they're making money hand-over-fist and you never kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Unfortunately, this shortsightedness has a long-term effect upon the fan base who loved the original FIRST. It may not be immediate, but there will be an adverse reaction to Prince Caspian.
Further, I can not compare THIS movie with 90% of all other movies; I have to compare it to its immediate predecessor: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Which we all agree is an excellent movie and an awesome adaptation.
And Li'l Sis, I think that this has been a great CONVERSATION. For my part, I have not once felt like we were arguing or debating. Everyone has expressed their opinion in a very suitable and civil fashion. No one has been nasty or snide.
And speaking of opinion: Jak, please elaborate on your thoughts regarding the book. I am genuinely curious to hear what you have to say. I have a thought about what you wrote in response to Kristi, but I don't really have enough information.
As an assignment to all: read the book. Unless of course you already have or are currently doing so.
Rebecca,
I've been thinking about your answer, and I agree with Tyson: I'd like to hear some further thoughts from you. It's been really interesting to consider all of this.
*ahem* I'd be happy to write up my thoughts on Prince Caspian the book, however, I won't have time for a few days... so stay tuned.
this is a bit of an awkward format...
anybody up for moving it over to Our Mutual Faith?
jak - responding because i'm the one home...
why is this an awkward format?
and what is "Our Mutual Faith"? another blogsite?
it just seems awkward to me, 'cause I think OMF would be easier... but, this is fine too.
Our Mutual Faith is the Forum Katie and I started that I sent you an invite to a long time ago....
Ri, I agree with you :)
I think that all of the Narnia books are for all ages...everyone read them when they were a kid and their parents read them when they were a kid...C.S Lewis was an adult and loved these books and I think that he wrote them for anyone because it is all good against evil these books also teach children good values to live by and yet it is clean and entertaining...I don't think that the books are just for kids, yes they involve children but the children are put in situations that everyone goes through in some form or fashion through their whole life. And yes it is mainly kids who read them, but I mean criticizing C.S Lewis's masterpiece would be like criticizing little house on the prairie books or any other meaningful book that has been considered a literary masterpiece by many generations- I mean it is just a movie with a stupid kiss at the end...and hey they left out a few things and added some....There is NOTHING wrong with that, I think that the creators of the movie did a really good job interpreting C.S Lewis's work. And I mean we waited long enough for this movie to come out and I know that I for one wasn't disappointed with it!
I would prefer to see this conversation stay here. For only two reasons.
First: for linear continuity; so that we can all look back and re-read what has prompted the review and asessment that Jak has tentatively agreed to supply.
Second: so that all of those that have been lurking this conversation, as evidenced by Anonymous at the top of the page, can share in the subsequent data.
I know I wouldn't mind a few days rest from this topic.
And really, format shouldn't be a problem, as we have all discovered that we can leave HUMONGUS (yes) comments.
And don't any of you fret none: I don't believe in closing comments.
^ not to mention that you are LOVING seeing your comment count climb :)
ok, I just finished re-reading Prince Caspian. I had planned to read it before I saw the movie, but didn't have time.
I have to say, I stick with my original statements, that I think the movie is a GOOD adaptation.
That said.
I was going to tell you all why I feel that the Prince Caspian story is a re-creation of LWW.
To me it is obvious that Lewis wrote PC after LWW. He uses the same characters (Pevensies) and almost the same plot.
There is a young boy that is the rightful king, but there is a usurper (White Witch/Miraz). Lewis even goes as far as having the "old Narnians" all "Asleep" or in hiding so that Aslan can wake them up, which is exactly what happens in LWW. What's more, they even fight the climatic battle at the exact same location in both books.
I don't know if I can really make it clear, but it's the same outline in both books.
There's nothing wrong with that. But, in my opinion PC sort of play second fiddle to LWW. PC's story is just a little weaker, as a result of being a copy.
Some people mentioned the lack of Aslan in this movie. After reading the book again, I realized the lack of Aslan in the book. He's just not as prominent of a character as He is in LWW. In fact, as I remember His character is even less prominent in the books to follow, with the exception of the Last Battle.
This didn't bother me, after all we don't see God physically everyday do we? We see the evidence of Him, and we talk about Him, which I saw the Pevensies and Narnians doing with regards to Aslan.
Also, it was interesting to me again the scene when Lucy sees Aslan and no one believes her. They don't believe her and go another way and get into trouble. Later on when she sees Him again, the rest of them have to make the decision to have faith and follow sight unseen.
I guess that's all I have to say right now.
Jak, I'm still wondering why you think the movie was a GOOD adaptation. Can you give us your reasons?
sure. ok. I thought it had all the key elements of the story.
the things that they did change didn't bother me, because I felt they kept to the same feel of the story.
as I've already said the book wasn't adaptable to the screen. It just wouldn't have worked. So, things had to be changed.
I thought it all worked out well.
Really, I guess I don't understand why you think it wasn't a good adaptation. I mean I've read what you said... but, we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Just so there's fifty comments...
I realised this morning that if you think about it... Susan is in VOTDT.
When Lucy reads a spell out of the book she sees herself getting more beautiful than Susan and Sue being mad, etc.
So maybe that's way Anna Popplewell is in the IMDB listing, she'll do a cameo for that.
I'm not trying to start the "discussion" up again, just making an observation.
Thanks for pushing me into milestone territory, Lyds! And don't worry about starting the certified discussion back up, it's not over yet. I've just been informing myself for my next monster comment. One last shout into the non-echoing cavern, and all that. Pip pip, Oy!
Actually, I don't really care about the comment count, because half of them are mine, and the rest are MoMo's four liners. haha.
The reason why it has taken me this long to get back to y'all is because I read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and reread Prince Caspian.
I am now EVEN MORE convinced of the validity of my opinion.
I got a little bit of a revelation the other weekend. I believe that our disconnect is occurring at two points: Structure and Substance.
I did not have a problem with the STRUCTURE of the motion picture Prince Caspian, other than what I have already itemized above (and WAY above) [though I do now]. My problem is with the SUBSTANCE of the movie. Or rather, the lack of substance. And those of you who love it and don't understand why I DON'T are not bothered by the lack of substance, or the changing of the substance of the source material.
How I tried to explain myself to MoMo over that weekend was like this:
I love donuts It's a miracle that I'm not a walking donut. I guess it helps that I live where I do, where no one knows how to make a REAL donut, and not in Turlock where the Chinese create fried pastry perfection. My favorite donut is a Bavarian cream filled. And this is how I feel:
I feel like I had been waiting all month to go to the store and get the first Bavarian of the day. I get there, and I see this beautiful, golden, glazed Bavarian-cream donut, that has then been smothered in divine chocolate frosting, and I put my money down and the bakers says "this one?" and I say "no" and he says "this one?" and I say "no" and he says "this one?" and I say "Yeah, that's it" and he takes it out with the tongues, and puts it in a little white bag and he hands it to me and I walk out of the store and I get into my car and all the way home I am driven crazy by it's "intoxicating bouquet" (to steal from Weird Al) and I get home and I go inside and I pour myself a cup a coffee and I sit down at the table and I take the donut out of it's little white house and I raise it to my lips and I open wide and I bite into . . . an empty, hollow, glorified glazed yeast ring. That's how I feel about PC the movie. And I am willing to leave it at that. For now. (*chuckles nefariously*).
One thing that I learned this last week, is that C.S. Lewis did not set out to write "Christian" literature, but rather works that were accessible to everyone, that contained Christian truths. I think that that is something that is very important to always keep in mind when reading his fictions. After all, Rosie O'Donell has claimed that the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is her favorite book.
Okay, on to what Jak commented:
I don't agree at all that PC is a recreation of LWW or a "copy." One thing we can all agree on is that C.S. Lewis is no James Patterson, who writes unoriginal and unimaginative sequels for the express purpose of making money.
I think that LWW and PC are similar in the same way that a semi truck and a corvette are similar. They both have two doors, four wheels, and a motor. The similarities end there. They both serve different purposes.
If the stories appear similar, it is because they follow a standard story structure: Protagonist; Antagonist; Conflict; Climax; Resolution. Those are the basic elements of every story.
In The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, we meet four siblings who don't get along. One discovers a portal into Narnia where a wicked witch has ensorcelled Narnia into a hundred years of winter. Another one also discovers the same portal, meets the witch, becomes one of her henchmen, and does all he can to entrap his siblings. The entirety of Narnia is peopled by creatures from the mythological past and talking animals. There are no humans anywhere. The queen, whom everyone knows is not the real queen, tries to pass herself off as human, but, again, everyone knows that she is not (I don't remember if it was Mr. Tumnus or Mr. Beaver who explained that she was really a descendant of Lilith and giants).
The plot of LWW hangs on one thing: a prophecy. The prophecy that states that when two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve come to Narnia, Narnia will be delivered. A prophesy that the witch queen scoffs at, but actually believes and fears and does everything she can to prevent from coming to pass. But we see that all of her machinations are totally pointless, even if she did succeed in killing the children, because, First, Father Christmas is able to penetrate through her barrier into Narnia, and Second, Spring is on the march.
We see the parallel of Salvation in Aslan and his willingness to sacrifice himself for the traitor. I think it's interesting that the one character that Lewis spends the most time on, is Edmund. He is really the focal point of the story, everything and everyone else is orbital. I think that he was Lewis, or rather how Lewis viewed himself. Much like Mel Gibson in the Passion of the Christ: it was his hands holding the nail and hammer. I think that this is also why he is so many people's favorite. He is the most dynamic character of the two books. He changed the most.
Then there is the climactic battle, which wasn't very climactic in the book. (It's obvious that epic battles and swashbuckling were not what interested Lewis, unlike his friend Tolkein who goes into great detail of the armed conflicts in his books.) The white witch is killed, with a mighty shake of Aslan's head, and the four children are coronated. And basically . . . The End.
In Prince Caspian, we are again introduced to our four heroes from the previous story. I don't believe that Lewis was trying to recreate anything. He was just telling the further adventures of characters that he very much liked and that everyone else also very much liked. It is no different than Max Brand's Doctor Kildare series (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) or Frank Beddor's Looking Glass War series (also recommended) or the plethora of Star Wars books that have been written about the myriad of characters created by the first three movies (and the subsequent movies) [not recommended - I must confess that I have only read a couple, years ago, and they were so bad (as in stupid) that I have not touched one since] or the Foreigner Universe created by C.J. Cherryh.
Our four heroes are once again transported back to Narnia, only they are much different than they were a year previously. They all get along. They actually LIKE each other (it's one thing to LOVE you brother and completely another to LIKE him) and they work well together. In this story we are introduced to a dwarf who tells them of Caspian, the rightful heir, and the dwarf's recognized King of Narnia. Caspian is the King of Narnia, by conquest of his ancestors, a claim that is never challenged and at the end of the story is substantiated. All of the Old Narinian have been persecuted into hiding by the humans; who have done such a good job that not only do they believe that the old Narnians are extinct, but that they never existed in the first place. It's ironic to see that this philosophy has leaked over into the Narnians in that many of them believe that Aslan never existed or if he did, he would be "such an old cat", to paraphrase. In PC, it's not that everyone is asleep, only nature (dryads and nyads etc.). In LWW, the white witch had turned those who opposed her into stone.
The Plot of Prince Caspian is that he is the King of Narnia, and his Uncle has not only usurped his throne, but is attempting to destroy him. Peter and Susan and Edmund and Lucy are called from the real world, (like a Jinn, as Lucy says) to help establish Caspian on his throne. And of course, they succeed.
It has been said that Aslan was not very evident in the movie and then also that he was not very evident in P.C. This is true, from a certain point of view. It is true that you don't actually "SEE" Aslan until page 121, but he is talked about from page 39 on when Caspian, as a little child, is telling his Uncle of the stories that is Nurse told him (this should not be thought odd as the children do not hear about Aslan in LWW until page 64). But the thing is, when we DO see Aslan in PC, it is on the second day of the story. The First Day finds the children transported back to Narnia, enjoying themselves, finding the ruins of Cair Paravel, finding their treasures, and sleeping. The Second Day, they rescue Trumpkin, hear his story of Prince Caspian and set out for Aslan's How. It is when they come to the gorge on that same day that Lucy sees Aslan and then from there on into the night, they all begin to see Aslan one by one, EVEN the dwarf.
As to Bachus. He is actually first mentioned in LWW by Mr. Tumnus who is telling Lucy about the greater days of Narnia before the White Witch, how he would come out and they would have great parties. I don't know if Lewis was up against a word constraint (certain publications can only be so many words) but obviously, Bachus was a character that he wanted to touch on, so he did, at the first opportunity, which was PC.
As to who C.S. Lewis wrote The Chronicle's of Narnia for, my opinion that he wrote them for children is substantiated by the author's own word. The dedications of LWW reads "To Lucy Barfield - My dear Lucy, I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand a word you say, but I shall still be, your affectionate Godfather, C.S. Lewis" And if this was not enough evidence, on page 148 of the same book we read "and other creatures whom I won't describe because if I did the grown-ups would probably not let you read this book-"
The reason why adults like The Chronicles of Narnia is because they first read them when they were children and they are now "old enough to start reading fairy tales again."
One last thought. I do not believe in "Agreeing to Disagree." I believe that that is a politically correct cop-out of a person who is unwilling to have their opinion changed. I am willing to have my opinion changed, if it is wrong. Present your evidence and let us reason together.
But I also don't fool myself into believing that friends should always glibly agree on everything. Blind Consensus is the graveyard of Originality and Individual Excellence. We are all different. We all have our own tastes, our own opinions, we are products of different environments. But friends, if they want more than an "I'm nice, you're nice, everyone's nice" superficial relationship must be willing to cut through the safe and cozy shells of padded self-protection and open their defenses. They must be willing to be vulnerable. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. They must strive to understand one another. Despite the pain and the discomfort. It is not pointlessly that Proverbs 27:17 says "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
-note: all excepts and notations where taken from the First Collier Books Edition 1970.
my opinion is not going to be changed. sorry, but that's it.
Then don't be sorry.
BRACE YOURSELVES!!!
hehehe :)
you may just have to respect my desire to agree to disagree, Ty.
I saw the movie again tonight and dare I say... I liked it even more this time?
I cried buckets at the end.
Yep, I liked it!
Good for you!
And sorry, I just can't bring myself to encourage my friends to embrace mediocrity.
I do however realise that it's not my job to change you just as it's not your job to change me. All we can do is ENCOURAGE change in one another.
Understanding one another is key to a healthy friendship, and I understand completely where you are coming from.
Differences of opinion are no impediment to my affection. Nor can they ever be. My love is freely given.
well, good. that would be stupid if we quit being friends because we can't agree on our taste in movies.
You're absolutely right
Post a Comment