In Which the Author Goes to See a Movie
Jan. 19th, 2006 10:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwex... and decides he hates it. Went to see Narnia last night and left feeling vaguely disquieted. Having slept on it, I've come to realize that I really didn't like what Disney did to this story.
My problems with Narnia were similar to my problems with the first Harry Potter movie. At the time, I contrasted that movie with the first Lord of the Rings film, as follows. In HP, the film-makers were concerned with following the events of the book more or less slavishly. The entire first bit of that film, prior to going to school, were slow and painful. Ditto with Narnia - the entire bit prior to the first entry to the wardrobe could have been shortened by half with no loss to the story. I mean, who really cares that they rode up from the train to the professor's house in a horse-cart?
The one bit that could have been useful - the German bombing of London - was totally thrown away, as we later see Peter use the same tactic against the Witch's army. But we're robbed of any sense of meaning for this act - he has become that which his childhood self loathed and it's a null act. It's a momentary special effect and that's all.
Peter Jackson got slammed for leaving out certain scenes from the first LOTR film. But I left the theater after that with a strong sense of what those books were about - explorations of heroism, of dedication and loyalty, of serving a higher purpose. Tolkein's writing is infused with strong mythic and Jungian themes and Jackson's film captured that. Similarly, Lewis's writing contains important elements of family and friendship and strong savior-based mythology, all of which Ann Peacock and crew bled out of Narnia, leaving us with an insubstantial pap built around a few nice special effects.
A digression into the effects: the creatures were generally quite good and Aslan was totally believable. But the wide shots were uniformly badly focused and the bluescreening was grotesquely obvious at times. However, that's not what I came to rant about.
I was particularly irked by the way the movie was sapped of anything meaningful in the sense of why one would tell this story, leaving the actors to deliver lines or engage in actions that struck jarring chords. For example:
- Aslan tells Peter to "Clean your sword" after Maugrim jumps on the blade and dies. But, hello, there's no blood. Anywhere. In the book, I recall the blood being part of the shock that brings Peter out of his childhood denial and starts him down the road that will lead him to command Aslan's army. Peter views the blood and must come to terms with "I did that," which he has failed to do before. Aslan delivering that line over a bloodless sword is meaningless and annoying. Later Peter tries to tell Edmund to get the girls to safety, but since we haven't seen Peter growing into maturity we can't interpret this act within its proper context of him accepting responsibility.
- The vigil at the stone table is one of the most powerful scenes in the original book. The girls cry over Aslan's body and then, for some reason, stay. Around them the night grows cold and there is a strong archetypal parallel between the physical cold and the coldness of their lives left by Aslan's death. I remember as a child how much that scene affected me but again the movie bleeds it dry. Lucy just says something, at the very end, about how cold it is, but we've missed the entire vigil so the line is a throw-away. This would have been so simple to insert - a series of 5-10 second scenes tracing time, doesn't even need dialog just the actors' motions to convey what's going on - that it shows me clearly how little the filmmakers understood of the story they were handling.
- The entire friendship between Peter and the centaur (whose name is eluding me) is absent. In the book the centaur becomes sort of the older brother Peter never had, teaching him to fight and helping him through that transition into the leader he has to be. In the film, we're left with one line "Will you follow me?" that is utterly out of context and meaningless without the back-story. Somehow Peter learns to fight (BADLY, please don't start me on the craptastic fight choreography, with the one exception of Tilda Swinton, who was totally believable two-weapons fighting). But you know, I bet that line appears somewhere in the book so the filmmakers had to leave it in. How pointless.
Finally, much has been made of the fact that the writers put in a violent act for Susan. I was hoping that somehow she'd meaningfully participate, since in the book she arrives at the turning point of the battle. But no, what we get is a toy rendition of "little girl shoots dwarf." It's farcical and depressing and would have worked equally well if she'd simply stomped over and slapped him. The act is presented as if to say "see how modern and progressive we are" and again it's out of context and meaningless.
I had serious trepidations when I heard Disney was going to do this film and everything I feared was borne out. It's not that Disney uniformly makes bad films, it's they seem totally incapable of telling good filmic stories. Narnia is a regrettable continuation of that losing line.
My problems with Narnia were similar to my problems with the first Harry Potter movie. At the time, I contrasted that movie with the first Lord of the Rings film, as follows. In HP, the film-makers were concerned with following the events of the book more or less slavishly. The entire first bit of that film, prior to going to school, were slow and painful. Ditto with Narnia - the entire bit prior to the first entry to the wardrobe could have been shortened by half with no loss to the story. I mean, who really cares that they rode up from the train to the professor's house in a horse-cart?
The one bit that could have been useful - the German bombing of London - was totally thrown away, as we later see Peter use the same tactic against the Witch's army. But we're robbed of any sense of meaning for this act - he has become that which his childhood self loathed and it's a null act. It's a momentary special effect and that's all.
Peter Jackson got slammed for leaving out certain scenes from the first LOTR film. But I left the theater after that with a strong sense of what those books were about - explorations of heroism, of dedication and loyalty, of serving a higher purpose. Tolkein's writing is infused with strong mythic and Jungian themes and Jackson's film captured that. Similarly, Lewis's writing contains important elements of family and friendship and strong savior-based mythology, all of which Ann Peacock and crew bled out of Narnia, leaving us with an insubstantial pap built around a few nice special effects.
A digression into the effects: the creatures were generally quite good and Aslan was totally believable. But the wide shots were uniformly badly focused and the bluescreening was grotesquely obvious at times. However, that's not what I came to rant about.
I was particularly irked by the way the movie was sapped of anything meaningful in the sense of why one would tell this story, leaving the actors to deliver lines or engage in actions that struck jarring chords. For example:
- Aslan tells Peter to "Clean your sword" after Maugrim jumps on the blade and dies. But, hello, there's no blood. Anywhere. In the book, I recall the blood being part of the shock that brings Peter out of his childhood denial and starts him down the road that will lead him to command Aslan's army. Peter views the blood and must come to terms with "I did that," which he has failed to do before. Aslan delivering that line over a bloodless sword is meaningless and annoying. Later Peter tries to tell Edmund to get the girls to safety, but since we haven't seen Peter growing into maturity we can't interpret this act within its proper context of him accepting responsibility.
- The vigil at the stone table is one of the most powerful scenes in the original book. The girls cry over Aslan's body and then, for some reason, stay. Around them the night grows cold and there is a strong archetypal parallel between the physical cold and the coldness of their lives left by Aslan's death. I remember as a child how much that scene affected me but again the movie bleeds it dry. Lucy just says something, at the very end, about how cold it is, but we've missed the entire vigil so the line is a throw-away. This would have been so simple to insert - a series of 5-10 second scenes tracing time, doesn't even need dialog just the actors' motions to convey what's going on - that it shows me clearly how little the filmmakers understood of the story they were handling.
- The entire friendship between Peter and the centaur (whose name is eluding me) is absent. In the book the centaur becomes sort of the older brother Peter never had, teaching him to fight and helping him through that transition into the leader he has to be. In the film, we're left with one line "Will you follow me?" that is utterly out of context and meaningless without the back-story. Somehow Peter learns to fight (BADLY, please don't start me on the craptastic fight choreography, with the one exception of Tilda Swinton, who was totally believable two-weapons fighting). But you know, I bet that line appears somewhere in the book so the filmmakers had to leave it in. How pointless.
Finally, much has been made of the fact that the writers put in a violent act for Susan. I was hoping that somehow she'd meaningfully participate, since in the book she arrives at the turning point of the battle. But no, what we get is a toy rendition of "little girl shoots dwarf." It's farcical and depressing and would have worked equally well if she'd simply stomped over and slapped him. The act is presented as if to say "see how modern and progressive we are" and again it's out of context and meaningless.
I had serious trepidations when I heard Disney was going to do this film and everything I feared was borne out. It's not that Disney uniformly makes bad films, it's they seem totally incapable of telling good filmic stories. Narnia is a regrettable continuation of that losing line.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-20 01:43 am (UTC)And Edmund was a git. But Edmund was always a git.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-20 02:04 am (UTC)And Edmund was a git. But Edmund was always a git.
Yes, though that was MASSIVELY overplayed, particularly in the first part of the movie.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-20 02:56 am (UTC)Yes, but she was more than that. She was royalty from her world and she used her power to destroy that world. She was evil, yes. But not for evil's sake. Her sins were pride and thirst for power. There was something brave and noble about her too, albeit twisted.
I took a course on Lewis and Tolkein when I was an undergrad (oh, the joys of being a Lit major!) and Jadis' nobility and strength was the subject of much discussion. Not that the movie brought any of that out. Maybe 'The Magician's Nephew' will, if it's made.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-20 05:21 am (UTC)Maybe 'The Magician's Nephew' will, if it's made.
Not if it's made by these same people, sadly.