The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. A title as unwieldy and long as the movie that bears it.
I caught a sneak preview of the film tonight, and I am extremely grateful not to have paid anything to see it. In truth, the film clocked in at just 2 hours, 10 minutes. But just as time passes differently within the land of Narnia, so it felt like an age elapsed inside that theater.
I vaguely recall reading the book many, many years ago. I might have been somewhere around 10 or 12 at the time. The point is, I have so little recollection of it, I was basically coming to the film new. So I'll have to leave it to those who have read the books more recently, possibly those who are fans, to tell me whether the fault lies in this film's adaptation, or whether the book is that way too.
It's going to get somewhat spoilery from here on out... but if you've read the book, you can probably safely forge ahead.
The story seemed gravely lacking any sort of connective tissue. It seemed as though about 10 characters had dialogue, and the rest were mere scenery. The motivations driving the few characters to get any play were left almost completely unexplained, and it seemed to me like they don't actually do anything to warrant having a story centered around them.
The children just have to show up in Narnia and everything starts thawing out and going right again? They don't actually have to do anything? I guess it's a good thing, because they don't do anything. They're chased around for half the story, finding Aslan only thanks to the help of others -- they do essentially nothing to help themselves. Oh... well, there's this moment where Peter kills a wolf that stupidly just jumps on his sword without a real fight.
Aslan is played up as this great and wonderful hero of the land. If he's so wonderful, then what are the kids for? Could it be because Aslan doesn't actually do anything either? Aside from his being a lion, which I guess carries some level of gravitas, we see him do nothing to explain how he's risen to be such a great leader before he simply hauls himself off to the Stone Altar to be sacrificed. He's good at dying. (Really good, since he comes back to life.) I guess that's why he's the leader.
Susan and Lucy are there to witnesses Aslan's death, but instead of going back to personally warn the army that trouble's afoot, they send some tree messenger to do it so they can stick around and cry for a while instead. (Never mind the fact that we were told earlier in the story that trees were in service of the White Witch.) These two girls themselves are supposed to be these wonderful saviors of Narnia, but they spend most of the battle crying over Aslan's body when there's a war being fought without them.
Fortunately, Aslan returns. Not that he gives the girls anything meaningful to do. Instead, he gives them a ride to the Witch's fortress, where he unfreezes all the statues the Witch has made of various citizens of Narnia. Now at least we're starting to get an answer for what makes him so special. But what the role of the children is supposed to be in all of this is foggier than ever.
Then some CG creatures crash into each other, a deus ex machina or two resolves the plot, and the story ends. Can I go home now?
NOPE! Because there's a little extra crap stuck in the credits, about a minute in. Just worthless exposition laying pipe for the sequel I now have no interest in reading. (Or seeing, should they film it too.)
It's a very pretty movie, I will at least say that. But in total, I must grade it a D. Unless you're a fan of the books, I can't fathom what might be there for you.
5 comments:
It's been awhile since I've read the books myself (The Chronicles of Prydain were my favorite books in that vein). I don't recall particulars, but it's widely accepted that the Chronicles of Narnia were a vehicle for C.S. Lewis to express his Christian beliefs. If you trust in Jesu--I mean Aslan (hence the sacrifice and subsequent resurrection) everything will be OK.
Even so, it sounds like the movie didn't hit the mark with the book. Though a thinly-veiled Bible story, the book was at least entertaining. I liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader more, but that's the 3rd or 4th book, depending on which printing of the series you're discussing. (In recent printings, the last book is moved to the front and TLTWATW is 2nd)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader was also my favorite book in the series, though I also remember liking the 7th? book that is sort of a prequel to LWAW (I actually think this book is moved up to first in order - the reprintings are now in chronological order of his world, I believe).
Anyway, I enjoyed LWAW as a child, though even at 8 or 9 I was a bit put off by some of the sexism in it. Really, I enjoyed the entire series up until the final book, The Last Battle, where he really slammed you over the head that it was all a biblical allegory. Of course, I didn't quite realize that wat 10 years old, but I did know that I found the book much less interesting than any that preceded it.
I would like to think you were not trying to draw comparisons to LOTR (as many people will do) because this truely was a children's book, written for (wait for it)..... children. It was never ment to entertain or sustain adults and our endless quest for things to make sense.
While I have not seen the movie yet, I re-read the book lately, and I wonder how I was entertained by it. It was however my first fantasy book, and that probably had a lot to do with why I enjoyed it so much.
You are correct there are only about a dozen characters that have any significant dialogue. Much of the logic escapes me why the characters did what they did. I would have hoped that they would explain that neither Aslan or the children were technically enough to return Narnia to its Eden-like state, and that both were required for either to succeed. If that point was lost in the movie, then I can understand some of the confusion you experienced.
Reguardless, I am still looking forward to this movie. =)
Speaking as another Voyage of the Dawn Treader fan (although I could quite happily have seen the end of Reepicheep) I am really looking forward to the film. It's almost part of the landscape back home.
I think to try and hold it to the standards of logic (why did these characters not do X and Y) is rather carping - apply that to many films (James Bond for example) and they would come up well short. It's a childrens' book written about children, so I think you're being somewhat unreasonable.
And coming from someone that thinks that "The second unit on Survivor totally kicks ass" - give me a break Evan.
Having finally seen the movie, I think you were a bit harsh on it. Some story was cut (which made it hard to understand some motivations) and the movie dragged in places. That said, the movie was beautiful and pretty fun. If I were 15 years younger, I would have loved this film. As is, it was an entertaining diversion - a C+ on your scale, two stars out of four on mine.
Post a Comment