Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

REVIEW: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", C. S. Lewis/Ann Peacock/Andrew Adamson

Expand Messages
  • Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Ha
    VDLNWTWR.RVW 20051220 The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe , C. S. Lewis/Ann Peacock/Andrew Adamson, 2005 %A C. S. Lewis %A Ann Peacock %C New Zealand
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 22 8:39 AM
      VDLNWTWR.RVW 20051220

      "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", C. S. Lewis/Ann Peacock/Andrew
      Adamson, 2005
      %A C. S. Lewis
      %A Ann Peacock
      %C New Zealand
      %D 2005
      %E Andrew Adamson
      %I Walt Disney/Walden Media/Lamp Post Productions
      %P 140 min.
      %S The Chronicles of Narnia
      %T "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"

      Somebody's been watching too much "Lord of the Rings."

      I have, along with lots of other people, been eagerly awaiting the new
      version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," C. S. Lewis'
      classic story. I'm the prime target audience: I've always loved
      Lewis' stuff, I'm a Christian, and I'm even a fan of fantasy. It's
      been very interesting reading the initial reaction of critics and
      reviewers. And I finally got to see it.

      I hope you will be willing, for a moment, to put up with the rather
      self-referential practice of reviewing what other reviewers had to
      say. It has been intriguing to see the number of (obviously non-
      Christian) critics who object that Aslan can't possibly represent
      Jesus Christ, since no self-respecting Christ would encourage his
      followers to participate in battles. I say that it is obvious that
      these people are non-Christian, since they plainly haven't read the
      Bible: it's full of bloodshed. (Those semi-familiar with Christian
      theology who would object that the wars were in the Old Testament and
      that nothing like that happened in the New, clearly have never heard
      of the cleansing of the temple.)

      A reviewer in the Vancouver Sun noted that it was ironic that the
      movie had no soul. I quite agree. The soul of the book is, of
      course, Aslan, and Aslan is introduced far too late in the movie
      version. I'm not talking about Aslan as an analogue of God or Jesus:
      I'm talking about Aslan in the story. The book notes a reaction by
      the children to the very mention of Aslan's name: the children in the
      movie merely look blank. Edmund's drawing of glasses and a moustache
      on the stone lion makes little sense until you know that he thinks the
      lion is Aslan, and is mocking him: in the movie Edmund doesn't know,
      at that point, the form Aslan takes.

      A friend stated that there was no magic in the movie. That's true as
      well. The special effects are a triumph--but they are *too* good.
      Aslan looks like any tame lion (which is ironic in itself: he's too
      fat and sleek to be a wild lion). The beavers look like beavers.
      They are even the right size for regular beavers, and any devotee of
      Narnia knows that talking beasts are closer to human size than the
      natural variety. It is strange to say, but this special effects
      extravaganza is much less magical than the cheaply animated Children's
      Television workshop version, with its 70s American children, or the
      BBC version with its low budget Dr-Who-esque costumes and effects.

      One of the stories that I read made a big deal about one particular
      line that was modified. That article certainly gave the impression
      that the book was being followed to the letter. It definitely isn't.
      I last read the book about 30 years ago (to my young sisters) but even
      I can see things that are missing. Of course any book, even one as
      short as this, contains too much to put into a movie. But it isn't
      what has been taken out that is most upsetting, but what has been
      added. The gratuitous bombing scenes that begin the movie, the broken
      window that gets the group into Narnia, the silly chase scenes (an
      attempt to turn Lewis' rather slow and philosophical work into an
      action flick?), and the extended battle scene. (Lewis spends very
      little time and detail on the battle itself, and rather more on the

      Tilda Swinton has been quoted as saying that she doesn't see any
      spiritual content to the story at all. It is therefore intriguing
      that she probably does the best job of any of the actors involved:
      she's pretty much the perfect witch. (A bit too brave for the actual
      story.) Jim Broadbent's Digory Kirke is somewhat too eager for the
      part: he should be a bit more restrained in his enthusiasm for Narnia.
      Yes, he knows that you won't get back to Narnia that way, but he's had
      many years to know it and cloak his own experiences. The actors
      playing the Pevensie quartet can't be expected to be great actors yet:
      I think we have to attribute their sometimes un-credible performances
      to poor direction.

      Given Lewis professional work in medieval literature, it is
      interesting to note the medieval tone and style. Even James Cosmo's
      Father Christmas is medieval, although the idea of Father Christmas
      (as opposed to Saint Nicholas) postdates the medieval period. But the
      style of the battle and Cair Paravel (and particularly the swoop up
      the slope as we see it in detail for the first time) are pure "Lord of
      the Rings - The Movie." Somehow the witch has gotten hold of orcs,
      the good guys have eagles as bombers, and one almost expects the
      oversized elephants to show up on the battlefield.

      I was very enthusiastic about this movie. Given the clear indications
      that this is a test run to see what the reaction is before they take
      on the rest of the chronicles, I'm not so anxious to see this crew do
      "The Magician's Nephew" and "The Horse and His Boy," although they
      might make a reasonable job of "Prince Caspian." And I'd hate to see
      what they make of "The Last Battle."

      copyright Robert M. Slade, 2005 VDLNWTWR.RVW 20051220

      ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
      rslade@... slade@... rslade@...
      To take a man's past and demonstrate its inherent logic is a
      fascinating pursuit--to prove to one's own satisfaction that the
      past could not have been otherwise than it was, being a necessary
      development from that which had gone before, this is gratifying
      to man, for he can thus look back upon human history and regard
      it as in a sense his own creation and can then praise its
      - Norman H. Baynes `Constantine the Great and the Christian Church'
      http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.