Review: The Chronicles of Narnia
Unlike most of my friends, I had not read the Narnia books before this year. I began reading them only this summer, in preparation for seeing the film. I’ve read as far as the fourth book, Prince Caspian, which I am reading now, and like best so far. I was not impressed with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, upon which the film is based.
I liked the second book—The Horse and His Boy—but I found it disappointing that Lewis seemed to be telling tales of Narnia disconnected from any overarching story. Perhaps this is unfair, but I was comparing Lewis unfavorably with his pal Tolkien. Lewis’s Narnia simply seems so much smaller, less expansive than Tolkien’s Middle Earth. The difference is one between fairy tale (Lewis) and mythology (Tolkien), so yes, perhaps it is unfair to judge Lewis’s work against Tolkien’s massive achievement. But I cannot help my preference for myth.
Now, in beginning to review the film based on Lewis’s book that left me so cold, let me say first off I think the movie is better than the book. It is better because of rather than in spite of alterations to Lewis’s story, and the film gives me a greater appreciation for the story itself.
Unless a film director has unaccountably departed from a good story, and thus ruined his own film, I am not the kind of person who always unfavorably compares a film based on a book to its print counterpart. Whether or not an alteration to the text is destructive or improving is the criteria I use to judge a film based upon a book. Andrew Adamson’s departures from Lewis are minimal and always an improvement upon the original.
For example, in the book, Lewis spares barely a sentence to explain the reason why the Pevensies come to the Professor’s country manor where they discover the wardrobe. The story is set in Britain in 1940, and the children have been sent to the country to escape the blitz.
Adamson (an appropriate name for a director of a film retelling Biblical myth) devotes the first minutes of his film to establishing this element of the story which seems to me so essential: the war against the White Witch is analogous to the war against Hitler’s fascism. As the film opens, we see German bombers flying above London, dropping their payload while masked and anonymous German pilots and bombardiers mutter in their terrible, guttural language.
The scene that ensues, with bombs falling on the Pevensie house, also establishes the relationship between Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy. Edmund is shown to be defiant of authority and jealous of his older brother, but essentially good since he defies Peter in order to rescue a picture of his father from the destroyed house.
Many of the rest of the changes to Lewis’s story are essentially of this same order: expansions on what is a pretty sparsely written original story. For example, Lewis skips over the battle at the end without spilling much ink over it; Adamson necessarily has to devote more of his film to it than Lewis’s text allows.
The only time I felt that Adamson was flirting with making an alteration for the worse to the story comes when Aslan’s centaurs rescue Edmund from the White Witch. If I recall, in the book no such rescue happened. The White Witch brought Edmund to the summit with Aslan, and Aslan offered himself in exchange for the undeserving boy.
As Lewis tells it, Aslan’s sacrifice is so much more apparent in this scene because Edmund has done absolutely nothing to deserve Aslan’s gift. In the film, having been rescued by the Centaurs, Edmund is brought back to camp where he is forgiven by Aslan and reconciled to his siblings. Thus later, when Aslan offers himself up to the Witch, his sacrifice is depicted as more of a sacrifice for someone he loves, rather than a sacrifice for a completely undeserving sinner who has betrayed Aslan. It’s a small point.
Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for us because he loved us and even though we did not deserve it. Adamson chose to emphasize Aslan’s love for Edmund rather than the fact that Edmund did not deserve that love, let alone the sacrifice.
Overall, the film is faithful to Lewis’s original, and improves upon it with expansions of what Lewis wrote. Adamson even kept some of the most important lines in the book, such as when Tumnus comments to Lucy that Aslan is a good lion, but not a “tame” lion.
It is a point Lewis himself would have emphasized. Too often as humans we make God into our own image; in other words we “tame” him in order to minimize our own sinfulness, or else we use him as a prop for our pet ideas and causes. It is a lesson we who think and write about politics and culture would do well to learn. Liberals and Conservatives alike too often think of the Word as merely words to be wielded like a sword in rhetorical battle. Yet the sword cuts both ways.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 11:13
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’m not sure I agree with you. I prefer the book. The film was good but, to me, it felt like it was torn between being an adult and a children’s film. It was a hybrid product, somehow. Certainly, there were plenty of moments which alluded to LoTR (both musical and one particular shot from above). To put this more concretely, somehow talking beavers and actual killing don’t seem to sit well, ie coherently, in a movie for me.
At the time, I also expect that everyone knew why the children were leaving London. There was no point in being expansive on that point. We postmodern readers need our history lesson however. What I like about the book is that it seems to be escapist, but does not, really, allow a simple escape. The children who read this book simply fought the war on another level.
Also, is Narnia a fairy tale? I guess I don’t know what that means. Both Lewis and Tolkien are telling the story of sin and salvation. I would have a hard time making such a distinction myself.
Comment by Todd — Thursday, 29 December 2005 @ 3:53 pm
By fairy tale I meant that it is a simpler story with basic elements or symbols and a plot that is “plottable” to a moralistic end. It is allegory, the one thing Tolkien said he most disliked and tried to steer away from.
I think Lewis wasn’t expansive because he was aware he was writing a children’s book. Tolkien’s LOTR is not for children, so this again is a distinction I would relate to my “fairy tale” and “myth” categorization. Fairy tales are for children. Myths are for adults.
I see your point about the film being caught between an adult movie and a children’s movie, but I don’t really agree. I think you’re trying to explain why the movie didn’t appeal to you much, and if that helps you understand why you didn’t like it, that’s fine. I think it struck a pretty good balance between being a children’s film and an adult film, in a way the book can’t because Lewis wrote it for children specifically. There were scenes that I thought might be too intense for Brendan (the killing of Aslan), but I think he will probably watch it on DVD and be OK. I’ve told the story to him as a bedtime story, and he knows it well by this point.
Comment by Matthew — Thursday, 29 December 2005 @ 9:55 pm
I have yet to go. An interesting discussion.
I think maybe enjoyment of the book versus movie for me will boil down to the love I had of the book as a child. Matt, you come to it from a far different perspective than many. I know The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe was required reading in my school.
It was many years, however, before I would understand the underlying parallels to Christianity. Perhaps that’s why I loved the book so much. The first one, anyway. The rest of the series, since it is not that connected to the familiar characters as I recall, disappointed me as a child.
I have a beautiful omnibus edition of the Chronicles, illustrated and colorized. It’s about time to dust it off again; I’ve read the Chronicles maybe four times now, and each time, I get a different level of enjoyment.
I suspect the movie version will be full of eye candy, but there’s nothing to compare with the imagination’s view originally formed as a child.
Comment by Mel B. — Friday, 30 December 2005 @ 2:31 am
“Fairy tales are for children. Myths are for adults.”
Ah, Matt, that’s where you are wrong…Fairy tales these days (e.g., Disney) may be mostly intended for children, but that hasn’t always been so, and still isn’t as far as the best fairy tales are concerned. FTs may, on the whole, be simpler in structure than myths, but they aren’t necessarily tamer (just read “The Juniper Tree,” my personal favorite).
Haven’t seen Narnia yet. I may get around to seeing it in the theater, I may not. I like your reading of the story, though, particularly the change with Edmund’s rescue in the end. I seem to recall the line in the book about Aslan saying something like “he’s not tame, but he is good,” a striking distinction, I’ve always thought.
Comment by Dawn — Friday, 30 December 2005 @ 8:06 am
I was oversimplifying with the fairy tale/myth dichotomy to get my point across. Maybe in general it isn’t such a dichotomy, but in the particular case of Lewis and Tolkien I believe it is.
I don’t want to stray in the unappealling direction of arguing about authorial intention here. So let’s take this back a step and say that “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (henceforth known as LWW for brevity’s sake) is allegory rather than fairy tale or purely a “children’s book.”
I don’t dislike allegory. Obviously my blog title is a play on the most well-known allegory of all time The Pilgrim’s Progress; and The Pilgrim’s Progress is also a favorite of mine. But with allegory, there is never anything but authorial intention with which to interpret it. Allegory offers a straight, narrow path through which to discover the author’s “point.” In allegory, the symbols are stark and the theme or moral of the story becomes obvious. LWW is an allegory paralleling the story of Christ and man’s fall and redemption. What more can be done with it? Not much, I’d venture.
The book is for children to learn the story of Christ in allegory format. The movie is better than the book, from an adult perspective, because it completes portions of the story that Lewis only touched upon. As Mel seemed to say as well, the other books in the series don’t connect with the others except that they are set in the land of Narnia, thus there is no extensible plot that plays out over the course of the other books. Even in Prince Caspian, in which the four children return to Narnia, the book seems almost like a Hollywood sequel; as if Lewis, like a movie director, said to himself, “I had great luck with that “Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe” book, so let’s see if I can invent another Narnia story with those four children.” It’s disappointing to me that the books aren’t any better, but they are what they are.
Maybe my problem is I haven’t read any fantasy besides Tolkien and Rowling, so I’ve come to Lewis with prejudiced expectations. Maybe I’d feel differently if I’d read Lewis as a child (I read Tolkien as an adult as well, however).
And on the flip side, maybe my feelings will change with time and growth. Maybe seeing the film again on DVD will facilitate that change. Right now, I am more impressed by the film than by Lewis’s little allegory.
Comment by Matthew — Friday, 30 December 2005 @ 9:52 am
I have owned and read all 7 installments of the Chronicles several times. While I agree with your point about the film setting the scene better by explaining why the children end up at the Professor’s house in the first place, I have to say I enjoyed the book more than the movie. I was pleased that so much of Lewis’ dialogue and prose was in the movie. But while I almost always read the book before seeing the film, this sometimes hurts my movie critique. You see, when I read a book (like most people, I’m sure) my mind’s eye has created the visionary tale. To see my mind’s eye of a tale interpreted in a different way onscreen is sometimes very disappointing. Other than the White Witch, my imagination had created much different characters for this story. Maybe I should reverse my habits. Perhaps I should see the movie and then read the book. Nah. Will never happen. But I had better start reading Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings soon. I still have yet to see any of those films!
Comment by shel — Friday, 30 December 2005 @ 3:16 pm
You’re really missing something if you haven’t seen any of those films, Shel. I usually have read the book before seeing the film. I don’t find that it interferes too much with my impression of a film. I will say, I like my imaginative recreation of LOTR better than the films (and I love the films). I imagined significant parts of those books differently than they were portrayed on film. I haven’t read the books since seeing the films, so it will be interesting to see if I can still imagine the action as I read the books, or if the film is just playing over in my mind.
Comment by Matthew — Saturday, 31 December 2005 @ 12:13 am
Matt, you should tell the crowd about how SLOWLY you came to enjoy the LOTR books. I’d actually be curious to know how you rationalize your ultimate acceptance and enjoyment of the books and movies…I guess I am still trying to figure out what makes you go after all of these years.
Comment by Todd — Saturday, 31 December 2005 @ 10:39 am
I don’t really think that Tolkien is far off from allegory either. Think about it: Mankind has fallen into sin by not throwing away the ring. Then the most unlikely person imaginable picks up the ring and destroys it which is precisely what happens in the person of Jesus. Isaiah 53:
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Jesus was an unlikely savior, as was Frodo. And when Frodo accomplished his task, ie, went down into the earth (died and descended into hell, figuratively) and returned he continued to bear the marks of his adventure. Jesus returned and his wounds were not healed. The scars remained, just like with Frodo.
I really don’t see Tolkien’s story as any less obvious. Any less allegorical.
Comment by Dawn — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 7:08 am
Tolkien’s story doesn’t have to be interpreted as Christian allegory, however. Lewis can’t be interpreted as anything else. It goes back to the old “ambiguity and richness” formula for great literature. There is richness in Lewis, but not much ambiguity. On the other hand, there are many ways to read Tolkien.
Comment by Matthew — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 8:11 am
That was me, Todd, again making comment 9
I guess I would be more convinced if you listed those other ways of reading Tolkien. Clearly, there must be more than one way of reading Lewis or Melissa, our resident atheist, would never have touched the books! (or so she implies….)
Comment by Dawn — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 12:43 pm
I think what happened with Lewis was that I was taken in as a kid, before I was old enough to be able to read Chronicles on another level, smartass.
But I guess I wouldn’t be able to read much of anything if I turned up my nose at things I didn’t believe in. Pretty much the same way I’m able to read fantasy or science fiction. I don’t believe in dragons either.
Comment by Mel B. — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 1:21 pm
With Tolkien, you can read LOTR in terms of race, colonialism, myth (generally speaking, not tied to Christianity); you can trace Tolkien’s sources in ancient literature. There is even a gay reading of LOTR. Can the same be said for Lewis?
Geez, you’re forcing me into attacking an author I like. Lewis is good. I enjoy his books, or else I wouldn’t continue reading them. There’s just nothing spectacularly great about his work, and the “Narnia” books have been especially disappointing to me. I just don’t feel strongly about these books, as you folks apparently do.
I know, Todd will argue that “feeling” is just another of my cockamamy Romantic notions about literature. If I don’t feel strongly about a work, it’s worthless (that’s an exaggeration of Todd’s point of view towards me, so don’t tear me apart).
Anyway, I can’t help it. These books don’t strike me as anything special. Fun to read, but not moving or especially important.
Comment by Matthew — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Sorry, if I am being nitpicky. Its just what I do best. And, yes, I am a smartass. I deserve that entirely, Melissa.
I think you, Matt, do a pretty good job responding, but I think one could at least make a case for race in the film (all those ugly dark faces). Unlike LOTR, these books beg to be read against events of their day: the real world and the fantasy (?) world are both there in front of us. And that may be the truly new element in Lewis. In a way, his book is postmodern. It does not assume that there is just one world, but dabbles in multiple worlds much like THE MATRIX.
Slow down, Todd. OK, the very fact that the Germans are so much a part of this story–the white witch is a metaphor for the Nazis, right?–means that just about any reading (mythic, pagan, racist, colonialist, technologist) that has to do with Germany could be applied to the world of Narnia.
If this continues, I might have to dig out my copy of TLTWTW. Wouldn’t that be fun.
Comment by Todd — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 5:13 pm
OK. I may be be slow, but I am not stupid (I, Todd, wrote the last comment). I keep on changing my name and email address and the browser is ignoring me. Seriously, I’m stumped on this–Todd
Comment by Todd — Tuesday, 3 January 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Log out? That helps me. I log out, and then log in as me and then change my e-mail address, etc. Just changing them doesn’t work.
Comment by Mel B. — Wednesday, 4 January 2006 @ 2:11 am
Yes, you have to logout, then login as yourself. Apparently Dawn has logged in at some point and you’re still logged in as her. Does the “edit comments” function not work? For thirty minutes after you write a comment, you should have a link to edit your comment following your post. I’ll change your name for you.
I admit I was the one who originally brought up the subject of the Nazi/White Witch connection, so I also have to admit that there is an opening there for more varied interpretation of LWW (that’s a shorter acronym I’ve seen used elsewhere).
I don’t think it’s necessarily an opening for an in-depth interpretation of the story in terms of race, however. “Dark faces” are a more pronounced feature of the bad guy in the LOTR books, and race is more prominent generally as a theme. In LWW, the bad guys are mythical monsters. On the other hand, the Witch is “white” and she is trying to create Narnia in her own white (that is, icy and snowy) image.
I remember in the chronologically first book, “The Magician’s Nephew,” the White Witch comes to Narnia from a world she has destroyed not by ice, but by desiccating it. It is a dry, desert land of stone and dust. There is more than a hint that homogeneity would not be so desirable if we knew what it truly meant.
This connects up to the Nazi theme as well, in obvious ways I suppose. It should be remarked however that Lewis made little of the historical context in which his book was written, same as Tolkien who disclaimed any connection between LOTR and World War II or the nuclear age. Doesn’t mean anything except that the author didn’t care for that line of interpretation. Also, as I noted elsewhere, in the novel itself Lewis devotes one sentence to establishing the historical context of the work: “This story is about something that happened to [Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy] when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids.” I don’t think there’s enough there for a conference paper, but I could be wrong. I’m no academic.
Comment by Matthew — Wednesday, 4 January 2006 @ 7:13 am
By the way, everything is post-modern. That’s hardly a selling point, these days.
Comment by Matthew — Wednesday, 4 January 2006 @ 7:17 am
I’ve picked my beautiful edition of Narnia back up. The trouble is that it’s so beautiful and expensive that I don’t like to take it out of the house or eat with it, or do any of the normal things I do when reading. So I don’t read as much of it. Maybe I should get a less nice version, since the marketing machine is in full Harry Potter/LOTR force.
I still haven’t seen the movie yet… and because I’m obsessive enough, I don’t like reading out of order, so my volume has The Magician’s Nephew first, so I’m not even reading the right book.
But I’ll go soon. Sooon.
Comment by Mel B. — Saturday, 7 January 2006 @ 1:37 pm