Not really, but it's not a fair fight. A typical book is probably 10 times longer than a movie. And even if they were the same length, the visual medium is just so much dumber than the verbal.
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you. When I read a book, I mentally craft a picture of the settings, characters and action. The movie version takes this away and it almost never matches my own imagination. And it isn't even that I have a great imagination (whatever that means)...but it is mine. With the movie that ceases.
Still, I do like to see movie adaptations from time-to-time. I'm not a nut about having my "imagination stolen" thing...it is just an aspect that could spoil things for me.
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you. When I read a book, I mentally craft a picture of the settings, characters and action. The movie version takes this away and it almost never matches my own imagination. And it isn't even that I have a great imagination (whatever that means)...but it is mine. With the movie that ceases.
Still, I do like to see movie adaptations from time-to-time. I'm not a nut about having my "imagination stolen" thing...it is just an aspect that could spoil things for me.
In some respects I would agree with you. But I know I never fully appreciated Tolkiens' descriptions of Middle Earth, which is the main reason I cut the movies so much slack. I love dialogue and action, but long descriptive passages tend to lose me, probably because I read too fast. So I love adaptations to see all the things I haven't filled in. Okay, maybe I'm lazy.
I watched Trainspotting once and that was all I could do. The woman finding her baby dead was just too much for me. (thread cross reference?) I have not read the short story for Bladerunner, although I would like to. But that leads to another theory of mine--that short stories make better movies. The short story and the movie seem to be more akin in the style of story telling. There is no room for rambling in a short story; every word must matter. So it is with a movie.
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you.
I agree - the first Dune movie really did this to me. My vision of Paul Atrides was much better than the movie, but whatever it was has been erased and replaced by that blank stared bufoon.
I liked the books. They are pretty good fantasy stuff. Lewis is a marvelous writer.
However, the movie is garbage. It gets a pass because it's a children's movie based off a very popular children's series, but it is terrible.
What's amazing is that the filmmakers took talking lions, wolves, a supremely evil witch and made a boring movie. The chase scene discussed earlier in the thread is irritating and anticlimactic. The whole film is anticlimactic, it is a bunch of nothing that leads to nothing.
There is no character development. Aslan is nothing more than a talking lion that everyone seems to respect/fear for some reason. They do nothing to make him feel or look majestic.
The kids are atrocious. Child actors are rarely good, but these kids are abysmal. The only interesting one is Edmund, who you hate, perhaps even more after he is redeemed.
The moral lessons of the film are what disturbed me most.
- Run away with strangers.
- Fighting solves your problems. If you fail, you redeem yourself with violence.
- You deserve to be king no matter what you do.
I left the theater baffled at what I just witnessed. It had to be one of the laziest screen adaptations from any book ever.
This movie sucked and the people who wasted this opportunity should be ashamed of themselves.
Sorry for the excessive snippage, feel free to edit. Oh boy, I don't know where to start, really, having neither seen the film, nor read the books; my only vague recollections are now of having had them read to me a long long time ago...
However, I'm not entirely convinced that those are the moral lessons, given that this is an allegory -- though I'm not informed enough about the tales now to really break down the allegory and present it fairly. If they are the moral lessons, well, they may not be so bad, as moral lessons go -- problematic American-Christian readings aside.
Running away with strangers can be a very enlightening -- it often does good things for the narrative arc of a fantasy.
Violence is at this point in history much too celebrated for anyone to generalize it as good or bad. I tend to think of it as dangerous and volatile, but not esentially moral/immoral -- that depends on the reasons and the ends.
On Kingship, I'm not sure, being basically ignorant of the material, but allegories are sometimes surprising. There's one world view where the right to kingship is absolutely not determined by ones other virtues, the right is a virtue unto itself -- and I think that a great number of people believe this on a deep pschological level, always have, likely always will, though the costumes change...
edit: I had wanted to add, that the only truly unforgivable sin for any artistic product would be to fail to entertain, either to make bad work, or as you suggest, to waste good material. I think children are more damaged by that than the moral messages contained...
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
Here's a problem. You start off with "Lewis is a marvelous writer" but the film sucks. However, it sounds like a lot of the thematic problems are pretty fundamental stuff, not so much wasted material as they are issues with the source. And if so, you have to qualify your opening remarks a bit: maybe, 'Lewis is a marvelous writer, but a bit of a shit'?
However, I wouldn't know if Lewis' writing was more delicate and more successful, was it?
I guess my question is, does this movie suck because they failed to realize Lewis' book, or because they succeeded?
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
groverat, that was really bad -- you may be approaching self-paradoy here.
A couple of notes:
Lewis wrote the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe for a little girl, Lucy Barfield, the adopted daughter of Owen Barfield, a fellow member of the Inklings (along with Christians Sayers, Tolkien, etc.), in 1950; just a couple of years after the Battle of Britian, when many children were actually sent to the countryside.
The 'nutty' professor built the Wardrobe from a tree he grew -- from a seed taken from Narnia.
If they caught the white stag, IIRC, he would grant them a wish -- something along those lines.
In The Passion, Satan is the mirror image of Mary (resemblance, etc., right down to 'the child' he is holding.)
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
I think you meant to type "...didn't 'get' the story" ...there's nothing like seeing a children's classic treated as cheap agitprop. (Except maybe seeing kittens killed with an axe.)
for groverat -->
... CC what's up with your PM? I tried to ring you back....
If you look at the messages embedded in stories, I think that it takes a lot of joy out of the world.
Just look at star wars - the message is that genetically superior people deserve to be aristocrats that can roam the galaxy killing people at will, while at the same time supporting a beaurocracy that is too stifled to make any decisions.
I read (and cherished) the whole series several times over as a kid. I got the religious imagery and viewed it as cheap propaganda despite, at that point, believing in god. And the enjoyment I gained from the books always outweighed their shortcomings. Now I'm a lapsed Catholic and contented atheist so C. S. Lewis failed abysmally when it came to brainwashing me.
I think Lewis is part of an era in children's literature that's has many books that are problematic for modern (adult) readers. Probably because we're not yet historically distanced enough from the social milieu that produced them. So we can have issues with a C. S. Lewis or Enid Blyton, while contentedly reading the kids Hansel and Gretel featuring children being locked in a cage prior to (intended) consumption.
I always found The Pied Piper to be one of the creepiest and most disturbing of stories I read or was told as a kid. In most kid's stories, when the characters go off with a stranger or to a strange place, they later return. The whole stealing the children away - all the children - is really spooky. Definitely not an "and they all lived happily ever after" ending.
Can't stand Tolkein - books or movie - but I will say that the Middle Earth of the movies was a very close reflection of my mental image thanks, obviously, to the detail in Tolkein's description. I think some books lend themselves to this. There was a TV series made of Gormenghast (sp?) that I thought was spot on both in terms of the "look" and faithfulness to the story. (And from the same period as Tolkein and Lewis. Hmm. Interesting.) I think LWW is one of those sort of books too and no matter how good the acting was, I'm sure I'd hate any movie that didn't fit my mental image of Narnia.
As far as the movie being as good as the book goes, I'm sure I could probably think of an example of the movie being better than the book if I thought hard enough. And while I think it's rare for a film to match up to a good book, I don't think accuracy is necessarily the key. Sometimes accuracy would ensure a bad movie. A faithful rendition of The French Lieutenant's Woman would require John Fowles to wander onto set and start talking to camera and the jarring juxtaposition of two different endings. Was the movie as good as the book? No but the solution to the book's non-filmic qualities was, IMO, pretty clever and worked well. I thought Clueless captured precisely what Austen was on about despite (or perhaps because of) the historically inaccurate setting and modern dialogue.
However, I wouldn't know if Lewis' writing was more delicate and more successful, was it?
A great writer can write a weak story and still make it entertaining.
Quote:
I guess my question is, does this movie suck because they failed to realize Lewis' book, or because they succeeded?
Well I think there are fundamental flaws in the story that keep it from ever being great. The pointless children are the center of it and they are meaningless. They have no inherent qualities worth noting and they rule over people for no reason.
A competent screenwriter would have seen this flaw and put a ton of make-up on it, perhaps even excising it entirely for the sake of the film; perhaps just make the kids helpers in the quest, give them some kind of unique abilities. I don't know, I'm not a screenwriter.
Whatever Lewis lacked in imagination or ability to form a coherent fantasy story he made up for in his actual writing ability. Great writers can tell poor stories.
dmz:
I was explaining the movie to Matsu, not the book. I did not write the screenplay so it is not my problem if they diverge from each other or if the movie provides absolutely no explanation of anything at all.
As far as my self-parody, have you seen the movie?
The idea of Aslan killing the White Witch by biting her head off is an interesting one to me. It's muscular, masculine Christianity; violent dominion. Might as proof of right.
You can ignore it if you like, but it is there.
As far as "getting it"... the author's intended goal isn't the only thing that exists. There are reasons people do things. That "you don't get it" and e#'s "you are just being a sour-puss" argument sound like my mother trying to shoo away any discussion of human motivation or psychology.
Lewis wrote the book to soften up young minds for the message of Christianity... I ask why children should find it so inherently distasteful that they need such preparation.
I was explaining the movie to Matsu, not the book. I did not write the screenplay so it is not my problem if they diverge from each other or if the movie provides absolutely no explanation of anything at all.
As far as my self-parody, have you seen the movie?
The idea of Aslan killing the White Witch by biting her head off is an interesting one to me. It's muscular, masculine Christianity; violent dominion. Might as proof of right.
You can ignore it if you like, but it is there.
As far as "getting it"... the author's intended goal isn't the only thing that exists. There are reasons people do things. That "you don't get it" and e#'s "you are just being a sour-puss" argument sound like my mother trying to shoo away any discussion of human motivation or psychology.
Lewis wrote the book to soften up young minds for the message of Christianity... I ask why children should find it so inherently distasteful that they need such preparation.
but you are a sour-puss
Sorry groverat for giving you grief -- you just seemed perturbed that the plot [of the book] strayed into certain theological areas. It kinda/sorta came off as an indictment of Christian theology -- not just slagging off on the story.
The plot didn't "stray" into Christian theology, it was designed with just that purpose.
I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.
It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.
In 1993 this might have been cute, when Islamic terrorism was rare and our own "counter"-terrorism was even more rare. But in 2005 it's a different animal and we live in a different time.
It's not Lewis's fault that the religious zealots on both sides have started a culture war, of course, but no man is an island.
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
Well, we've been all ears
Let's look at your premises:
Quote:
I guess the mom was bomb-proof
Quote:
Woman is a hag, man is cool
Quote:
Woman bad. Man good
Quote:
Woman kills man
Quote:
Muscular Jesus.
Quote:
Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters
Quote:
.. because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion
Quote:
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie
Quote:
We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
If there is any correspondence of your views of CS Lewis' text to the actual text, would it be unreasonable then to reference back to the text from your premises.
Can I even imagine that your series of quotes above makes me think of 'The lion, witch and the wardrobe?' The quotes are loaded with gender role argumentation, yet when looking at these premises, I find that the last thing that comes to my mind, is the work by CS Lewis. I'm wondering whether these premises are a part of your own narrative, overdetermining the text.
At times you refer to Aslan as Jesus (allegorically) and
then as man (in terms of power and role), when it suits
your views: "woman kills man" not woman kills lion". Aslan is not a man at all. Where do you get this from? Similarly, even a paradox such as 'muscular Jesus' is hard to weave sense of (for a non-American anyway: in England, I would venture that around this time of the year, most people think of 'baby Jesus' rather than your offering). In a very loose feminist critique of the text (or film), it might be plausible that both Aslan as man, and Jesus as muscular are possible, but again, and 'but' is already a sign of something wrong - dealing with either text or the film, rather than one's own presuppositions may help.
I can't say I appreciate much CS Lewis at all: this may be the only book of his I've actually ever read (I was probably 13 at the time) however I would venture that it is not unexpected that a lion in a novel or film, might bite a naughty woman, as well as growl. To bite her head off is hyperbolic and to 'bite' rather than 'serenade' a witch to death is more plausible. Why on Narnia would anyone presuppose that? Well, the qualities or essence of a lion presuppose its actions. Lions do bite - children associate this with lions, and hence the expectation of a drama. After all, we are not dealing in comedy.
Quote:
The pointless children are the center of it and they are meaningless.
If your premise is that the children are pointless then it is to no surprise that your conclusion is that they, the children, are meaningless. The conclusion is trivial, because the premise is pointless. Come on - this is really lazy logic and a lack of application of reason as a critique.....for a lowly children's story. If there is anything sensible to say in a critique of this film, it will be more than skin deep than showing contempt for children and the general role of children in most films. What would we prefer? A 'muscular Jesus' in the form of Luke Skywalker? Or perhaps as Darth Vader junior?
A lot of adults seem to enjoy sneering and condescending on childrens writers lately; also belittling the targeted audience. As such, it becomes harder to take adults seriously. Children are gripped through identifying with characters; adults may balk; I don't disagree that I find the text disinteresting.
I think I really don't like CS Lewis: his work fails to move me. But to offer one's own narrative as a critique of a piece of work isn't helping me to enjoy hating his work!
err...pardon my ignorance. Was Satan a woman in Judaic literature, or Christian writings?
Anyone?
She only seems that way.
Seriously, since Satan is an Angelic being, it's probably 'offically' not much more descriptive than God being 'Male'. IIRC, Satan gets the male pronoun, though.
I think a movie about Lewis and Empson would likely be better. They could do a split screen?two men at their typewriters, calling one another names in scholarly journals!
The plot didn't "stray" into Christian theology, it was designed with just that purpose.
I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.
It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.
In 1993 this might have been cute, when Islamic terrorism was rare and our own "counter"-terrorism was even more rare. But in 2005 it's a different animal and we live in a different time.
It's not Lewis's fault that the religious zealots on both sides have started a culture war, of course, but no man is an island.
Oh, I don't know, in The Last Battle the Telmarines [an obvious Arabic culture] are saved as well.
But back to why you find this problematic -- IF you look at the last 200 years of human progress, or even the last 75, or maybe even just the 20th century -- you see a great deal of trouble caused by man looking to scientism/materialism as salvific. I don't think it's justifiable to single out 'Christian propaganda,' or by comparison be concerned that people becoming Christian could be a problem. The tie-in to 'holy war' is getting pretty tired. I don't understand how it is possible to constantly hark back to the 16th century (and even further) to cite the 'terrors of Christianity,' but somehow miss what happened in living memory, and caused by various purified forms of materialism.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Not really, but it's not a fair fight. A typical book is probably 10 times longer than a movie. And even if they were the same length, the visual medium is just so much dumber than the verbal.
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you. When I read a book, I mentally craft a picture of the settings, characters and action. The movie version takes this away and it almost never matches my own imagination. And it isn't even that I have a great imagination (whatever that means)...but it is mine. With the movie that ceases.
Still, I do like to see movie adaptations from time-to-time. I'm not a nut about having my "imagination stolen" thing...it is just an aspect that could spoil things for me.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you. When I read a book, I mentally craft a picture of the settings, characters and action. The movie version takes this away and it almost never matches my own imagination. And it isn't even that I have a great imagination (whatever that means)...but it is mine. With the movie that ceases.
Still, I do like to see movie adaptations from time-to-time. I'm not a nut about having my "imagination stolen" thing...it is just an aspect that could spoil things for me.
In some respects I would agree with you. But I know I never fully appreciated Tolkiens' descriptions of Middle Earth, which is the main reason I cut the movies so much slack. I love dialogue and action, but long descriptive passages tend to lose me, probably because I read too fast. So I love adaptations to see all the things I haven't filled in. Okay, maybe I'm lazy.
I watched Trainspotting once and that was all I could do. The woman finding her baby dead was just too much for me. (thread cross reference?) I have not read the short story for Bladerunner, although I would like to. But that leads to another theory of mine--that short stories make better movies. The short story and the movie seem to be more akin in the style of story telling. There is no room for rambling in a short story; every word must matter. So it is with a movie.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The other problem I have with the book-to-movie thing is that it "steals your imagination" from you.
I agree - the first Dune movie really did this to me. My vision of Paul Atrides was much better than the movie, but whatever it was has been erased and replaced by that blank stared bufoon.
Originally posted by groverat
I liked the books. They are pretty good fantasy stuff. Lewis is a marvelous writer.
However, the movie is garbage. It gets a pass because it's a children's movie based off a very popular children's series, but it is terrible.
What's amazing is that the filmmakers took talking lions, wolves, a supremely evil witch and made a boring movie. The chase scene discussed earlier in the thread is irritating and anticlimactic. The whole film is anticlimactic, it is a bunch of nothing that leads to nothing.
There is no character development. Aslan is nothing more than a talking lion that everyone seems to respect/fear for some reason. They do nothing to make him feel or look majestic.
The kids are atrocious. Child actors are rarely good, but these kids are abysmal. The only interesting one is Edmund, who you hate, perhaps even more after he is redeemed.
The moral lessons of the film are what disturbed me most.
- Run away with strangers.
- Fighting solves your problems. If you fail, you redeem yourself with violence.
- You deserve to be king no matter what you do.
I left the theater baffled at what I just witnessed. It had to be one of the laziest screen adaptations from any book ever.
This movie sucked and the people who wasted this opportunity should be ashamed of themselves.
Sorry for the excessive snippage, feel free to edit. Oh boy, I don't know where to start, really, having neither seen the film, nor read the books; my only vague recollections are now of having had them read to me a long long time ago...
However, I'm not entirely convinced that those are the moral lessons, given that this is an allegory -- though I'm not informed enough about the tales now to really break down the allegory and present it fairly. If they are the moral lessons, well, they may not be so bad, as moral lessons go -- problematic American-Christian readings aside.
Running away with strangers can be a very enlightening -- it often does good things for the narrative arc of a fantasy.
Violence is at this point in history much too celebrated for anyone to generalize it as good or bad. I tend to think of it as dangerous and volatile, but not esentially moral/immoral -- that depends on the reasons and the ends.
On Kingship, I'm not sure, being basically ignorant of the material, but allegories are sometimes surprising. There's one world view where the right to kingship is absolutely not determined by ones other virtues, the right is a virtue unto itself -- and I think that a great number of people believe this on a deep pschological level, always have, likely always will, though the costumes change...
edit: I had wanted to add, that the only truly unforgivable sin for any artistic product would be to fail to entertain, either to make bad work, or as you suggest, to waste good material. I think children are more damaged by that than the moral messages contained...
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
However, I wouldn't know if Lewis' writing was more delicate and more successful, was it?
I guess my question is, does this movie suck because they failed to realize Lewis' book, or because they succeeded?
Originally posted by groverat
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
groverat, that was really bad -- you may be approaching self-paradoy here.
A couple of notes:
Lewis wrote the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe for a little girl, Lucy Barfield, the adopted daughter of Owen Barfield, a fellow member of the Inklings (along with Christians Sayers, Tolkien, etc.), in 1950; just a couple of years after the Battle of Britian, when many children were actually sent to the countryside.
The 'nutty' professor built the Wardrobe from a tree he grew -- from a seed taken from Narnia.
If they caught the white stag, IIRC, he would grant them a wish -- something along those lines.
In The Passion, Satan is the mirror image of Mary (resemblance, etc., right down to 'the child' he is holding.)
Originally posted by groverat
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
These kids leave their mom in London during WWII for safety from bombs. But I guess the mom was bomb-proof so she didn't go with them... or something. (Woman abandons children while dad fights evil.)
They shack up with this bitch woman and the nutty professor she serves. (Woman is a hag, man is cool.)
Blah blah blah, they all end up in Narnia and the White Witch is after them. Aslan is the good guy. (Woman bad. Man good.)
Now, there's a prophecy that says 4 humans (children of Adam and Eve!) will come out of nowhere and rule the land. Ability? Worthiness? Efficacy? NO! A prophecy says it! (Peter is HIGH KING! The high queen (never actually called that but one would hope) is called "the gentle").)
So Aslan sacrifices himself for the shitty younger brother who betrays them over and over again. And the sacrificial alter breaks like the temple. (Woman kills man.)
Aslan comes back during the big good/evil battle and bites the White Witch's face off. (YAY!)
Now what purpose did the children serve? None. Aslan kills the White Witch. The kids run around and do nothing. They are pointless. Lucy heals Edward, Peter kills a wolf on accident and I don't think the oldest girl ever shoots anything with her bow. Aslan kills the witch. (Muscular Jesus.)
Leading up to the big battle scene Peter looks over at this hero centaur guy and asks, "Are you with me?". I actually laughed loudly in the theater at this point. This shitnose kid comes out of nowhere and asks this warrior if he's got the nuts to fight. And we're supposed to believe it because he's a beautiful blonde boy who transformed himself from ineffectual big brother to mighty warrior king in 10 seconds. (Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters.)
So these varied races who have existed for who-knows-how-long are now ruled by these human kids who have no knowledge about the world at all... because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion.
So the movie ends with them chasing this white stag through the forest... why are they chasing a stag? Are they going to kill it? Catch it? Is the stag a willing participant in this game?
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man). We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
So, more succintly...
You didn't like the story.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You didn't like the story.
I think you meant to type "...didn't 'get' the story" ...there's nothing like seeing a children's classic treated as cheap agitprop. (Except maybe seeing kittens killed with an axe.)
for groverat -->
... CC what's up with your PM? I tried to ring you back....
Just look at star wars - the message is that genetically superior people deserve to be aristocrats that can roam the galaxy killing people at will, while at the same time supporting a beaurocracy that is too stifled to make any decisions.
I think Lewis is part of an era in children's literature that's has many books that are problematic for modern (adult) readers. Probably because we're not yet historically distanced enough from the social milieu that produced them. So we can have issues with a C. S. Lewis or Enid Blyton, while contentedly reading the kids Hansel and Gretel featuring children being locked in a cage prior to (intended) consumption.
I always found The Pied Piper to be one of the creepiest and most disturbing of stories I read or was told as a kid. In most kid's stories, when the characters go off with a stranger or to a strange place, they later return. The whole stealing the children away - all the children - is really spooky. Definitely not an "and they all lived happily ever after" ending.
Can't stand Tolkein - books or movie - but I will say that the Middle Earth of the movies was a very close reflection of my mental image thanks, obviously, to the detail in Tolkein's description. I think some books lend themselves to this. There was a TV series made of Gormenghast (sp?) that I thought was spot on both in terms of the "look" and faithfulness to the story. (And from the same period as Tolkein and Lewis. Hmm. Interesting.) I think LWW is one of those sort of books too and no matter how good the acting was, I'm sure I'd hate any movie that didn't fit my mental image of Narnia.
As far as the movie being as good as the book goes, I'm sure I could probably think of an example of the movie being better than the book if I thought hard enough.
Originally posted by Matsu
However, I wouldn't know if Lewis' writing was more delicate and more successful, was it?
A great writer can write a weak story and still make it entertaining.
I guess my question is, does this movie suck because they failed to realize Lewis' book, or because they succeeded?
Well I think there are fundamental flaws in the story that keep it from ever being great. The pointless children are the center of it and they are meaningless. They have no inherent qualities worth noting and they rule over people for no reason.
A competent screenwriter would have seen this flaw and put a ton of make-up on it, perhaps even excising it entirely for the sake of the film; perhaps just make the kids helpers in the quest, give them some kind of unique abilities. I don't know, I'm not a screenwriter.
Whatever Lewis lacked in imagination or ability to form a coherent fantasy story he made up for in his actual writing ability. Great writers can tell poor stories.
dmz:
I was explaining the movie to Matsu, not the book. I did not write the screenplay so it is not my problem if they diverge from each other or if the movie provides absolutely no explanation of anything at all.
As far as my self-parody, have you seen the movie?
The idea of Aslan killing the White Witch by biting her head off is an interesting one to me. It's muscular, masculine Christianity; violent dominion. Might as proof of right.
You can ignore it if you like, but it is there.
As far as "getting it"... the author's intended goal isn't the only thing that exists. There are reasons people do things. That "you don't get it" and e#'s "you are just being a sour-puss" argument sound like my mother trying to shoo away any discussion of human motivation or psychology.
Lewis wrote the book to soften up young minds for the message of Christianity... I ask why children should find it so inherently distasteful that they need such preparation.
Originally posted by groverat
dmz:
I was explaining the movie to Matsu, not the book. I did not write the screenplay so it is not my problem if they diverge from each other or if the movie provides absolutely no explanation of anything at all.
As far as my self-parody, have you seen the movie?
The idea of Aslan killing the White Witch by biting her head off is an interesting one to me. It's muscular, masculine Christianity; violent dominion. Might as proof of right.
You can ignore it if you like, but it is there.
As far as "getting it"... the author's intended goal isn't the only thing that exists. There are reasons people do things. That "you don't get it" and e#'s "you are just being a sour-puss" argument sound like my mother trying to shoo away any discussion of human motivation or psychology.
Lewis wrote the book to soften up young minds for the message of Christianity... I ask why children should find it so inherently distasteful that they need such preparation.
but you are a sour-puss
Sorry groverat for giving you grief -- you just seemed perturbed that the plot [of the book] strayed into certain theological areas. It kinda/sorta came off as an indictment of Christian theology -- not just slagging off on the story.
I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.
It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.
In 1993 this might have been cute, when Islamic terrorism was rare and our own "counter"-terrorism was even more rare. But in 2005 it's a different animal and we live in a different time.
It's not Lewis's fault that the religious zealots on both sides have started a culture war, of course, but no man is an island.
Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
Well, we've been all ears
Let's look at your premises:
I guess the mom was bomb-proof
Woman is a hag, man is cool
Woman bad. Man good
Woman kills man
Muscular Jesus.
Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters
.. because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie
We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
If there is any correspondence of your views of CS Lewis' text to the actual text, would it be unreasonable then to reference back to the text from your premises.
Can I even imagine that your series of quotes above makes me think of 'The lion, witch and the wardrobe?' The quotes are loaded with gender role argumentation, yet when looking at these premises, I find that the last thing that comes to my mind, is the work by CS Lewis. I'm wondering whether these premises are a part of your own narrative, overdetermining the text.
At times you refer to Aslan as Jesus (allegorically) and
then as man (in terms of power and role), when it suits
your views: "woman kills man" not woman kills lion". Aslan is not a man at all. Where do you get this from? Similarly, even a paradox such as 'muscular Jesus' is hard to weave sense of (for a non-American anyway: in England, I would venture that around this time of the year, most people think of 'baby Jesus' rather than your offering). In a very loose feminist critique of the text (or film), it might be plausible that both Aslan as man, and Jesus as muscular are possible, but again, and 'but' is already a sign of something wrong - dealing with either text or the film, rather than one's own presuppositions may help.
I can't say I appreciate much CS Lewis at all: this may be the only book of his I've actually ever read (I was probably 13 at the time) however I would venture that it is not unexpected that a lion in a novel or film, might bite a naughty woman, as well as growl. To bite her head off is hyperbolic and to 'bite' rather than 'serenade' a witch to death is more plausible. Why on Narnia would anyone presuppose that? Well, the qualities or essence of a lion presuppose its actions. Lions do bite - children associate this with lions, and hence the expectation of a drama. After all, we are not dealing in comedy.
The pointless children are the center of it and they are meaningless.
If your premise is that the children are pointless then it is to no surprise that your conclusion is that they, the children, are meaningless. The conclusion is trivial, because the premise is pointless. Come on - this is really lazy logic and a lack of application of reason as a critique.....for a lowly children's story. If there is anything sensible to say in a critique of this film, it will be more than skin deep than showing contempt for children and the general role of children in most films. What would we prefer? A 'muscular Jesus' in the form of Luke Skywalker? Or perhaps as Darth Vader junior?
A lot of adults seem to enjoy sneering and condescending on childrens writers lately; also belittling the targeted audience. As such, it becomes harder to take adults seriously. Children are gripped through identifying with characters; adults may balk; I don't disagree that I find the text disinteresting.
I think I really don't like CS Lewis: his work fails to move me. But to offer one's own narrative as a critique of a piece of work isn't helping me to enjoy hating his work!
No offence intended either.
Best wishes
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie and it reminded me of the Passion (Satan was a woman, Jesus was a man).
err...pardon my ignorance. Was Satan a woman in Judaic literature, or Christian writings?
Anyone?
Originally posted by Justin
err...pardon my ignorance. Was Satan a woman in Judaic literature, or Christian writings?
Anyone?
She only seems that way.
Seriously, since Satan is an Angelic being, it's probably 'offically' not much more descriptive than God being 'Male'. IIRC, Satan gets the male pronoun, though.
Originally posted by groverat
The plot didn't "stray" into Christian theology, it was designed with just that purpose.
I find it interesting that it is accepted as reasonable for Lewis to write blatant Christian propaganda designed to be appealing to children but it is not accepted as reasonable to be critical of the very motivation?
Am I being a sour-puss about it? Sure. I don't think it's cute. Every day we lose people to a new holy war fueled by the religious on both sides.
It irritates and disturbs me that while thousands of young people are dying in a crusade we have a children's movie celebrating death, violence and domination all justified by vague religious prophecies. The children's crusade of the 21st century.
In 1993 this might have been cute, when Islamic terrorism was rare and our own "counter"-terrorism was even more rare. But in 2005 it's a different animal and we live in a different time.
It's not Lewis's fault that the religious zealots on both sides have started a culture war, of course, but no man is an island.
Oh, I don't know, in The Last Battle the Telmarines [an obvious Arabic culture] are saved as well.
But back to why you find this problematic -- IF you look at the last 200 years of human progress, or even the last 75, or maybe even just the 20th century -- you see a great deal of trouble caused by man looking to scientism/materialism as salvific. I don't think it's justifiable to single out 'Christian propaganda,' or by comparison be concerned that people becoming Christian could be a problem. The tie-in to 'holy war' is getting pretty tired. I don't understand how it is possible to constantly hark back to the 16th century (and even further) to cite the 'terrors of Christianity,' but somehow miss what happened in living memory, and caused by various purified forms of materialism.