Thoughts on Narnia
I went with my mother and sisters to see Prince Caspian on Friday night. It was a kind of a girls' night out, since my brothers and dad were out camping. I found the movie to be rather enjoyable, if a little long (about 2.5-3 hours). I have a horrible time sitting still unless I'm doing something. Anyway, as I was saying, I liked the movie, but then again,
I haven't read the book in about 10 years . . .
Seriously, do not read the book right before going to see the movie. The characters in the book are so . . . British. Like, "cheerio, old chap!" kind of British. The characters in the movie are much more modern--which makes sense, because I really don't think that a child could relate to actors speaking that way. It was endearing to read them that way, but I can see my child self scoffing at similar syntax coming out of a child's mouth on screen. The written word can sometimes get away with more, and sometime less. It's funny like that.
There are also some plot points that are glaringly different. Only a couple of them really stuck out to me or confused me. The biggest one to stick out was the budding romance between Susan and Caspian. The actor was pretty hot, but . . . it just was not there in the book. At the end, they even kiss before the children walk through the Door in the Air back to England. My little sister was very confused at this point, saying that the kiss "came out of nowhere." Well, I don't entirely agree. I think it came out of the fact that the actors (especially Susan) are just a little more grown up than they were supposed to be. There was one scene in particular in which the brothers are asleep, and the sisters are lying on the forest floor, talking. My first observation was "Holy *&^%, Susan has cleavage!" 0.0 They did a pretty good job of hiding it throughout the rest of the movie. So, it seems as though the screenwriters saw a grown up Susan alongside a very handsome Caspian, and drew it to its "logical" conclusion. Though, the resulting romantic love was just completely out of place in Lewis's world. None of the Narnia books ever explored romantic feelings, and I'm very glad that they didn't. I really don't see Lewis as someone who was up to writing romantic love in a satisfying way (much like Rowling, but that's another rant altogether . . .).
The other major change that disrupted my viewing happened during the last battle. The good guys are holed up at Aslan's How, waiting for the Telmarines to attack. Caspian suggests that they challenge Mizar (his uncle and the head-hancho badguy) to a one-on-one duel, and let the battle be decided by that. He thinks it will be enough to buy them some time while Lucy goes . . . to search for Aslan. Now, I was really confused that they were sending her off on her own (Susan goes with her at first, then jumps off the horse to fight off the Telmarines that have spotted her). Now, they attempted to explain this in the movie by having one of the dwarfs question the wisdom and getting it explained to him, but I just didn't buy it. I think the problem lies in the fact that at this point in the book, the dwarf and all four children have seen Aslan. They see him on the first night after not taking Lucy's advice on which direction to go. In fact, Susan and Lucy stay with Aslan while the boys continue on to meet up with Caspian. Which further discredits the love story, btw.
Of course, not meeting Aslan that night leads to other changes. For example, in the movie, they actually storm Miraz's castle against Lucy's advice. Several Narnians end up getting killed due to the fact that Caspian learns that Miraz murdered his father, and so goes to attack him rather than opening the gate.
Which leads to the next major change--the large amount of angst the movie had. In the beginning, Peter is upset that he's back in England, that he's back to being a kid, that he's no longer in a position of power. Edmund is upset that Peter appears to be ignoring him. He helps Peter out in a fist fight, and then manages to stop the ceremony for summoning the White Witch when Peter couldn't--both times appearing to feel rather put out that Peter does not recognize his value. Btw, I was really excited when he did so; I thought it showed real growth of character. Ed knows how she can twist people, and he's not letting it happen to anyone else. ^_^
Susan is upset with Narnia in general, saying that "it's alright while you're there." I think she's implying that you might as well never go if you're just going to be pulled out of Narnia again. In the book, no one but Lucy could see Aslan at first, but they had slightly different attitudes. Susan was not so bitter about Narnia in general.
One more major change was at the end, when Peter and Susan say they can no longer come back to Narnia. In the movie, they say that Aslan has said that they have learned all that they can from the place. In the book, Aslan's words are that they are too old. Though, I really don't think that he means "too old" in the sense of years--looking at the series as a kind of Christian allegory, I can see a different meaning in those words that actually contradicts movie-Aslan's assurance that Peter and Susan are not being punished by not be allowed back into Narnia.
Don't get me wrong, though. I really did enjoy the movie. It's just that to do so, it's best not to come in with an idea of how the story should play out--it's a story in and of itself. I think it's probably best to think of most movies like this, provided that they don't cut out so much that it is impossible to follow the plot without having read the book beforehand. The part when Lucy goes to find Aslan almost commits this error. I once watched an anime movie (Kai Doh Maru) with an incomprehensible plot. If I hadn't read the DVD case summary, I would have been completely confused. I imagine that it probably had a lot of basis in feudal Japanese history, which I know next to nothing about.
Thinking about some of the character and thematic changes that they make, though, makes me wonder if they are planning to continue the movies on to the end, and if so, if they are preparing to circumvent some of the major criticisms of the last book. Looking at Susan's more bitter outlook towards Narnia in the movie, I couldn't help but think that it was a set-up for the decision she makes (or we hear about her making) in The Last Battle. I have heard that decision interpreted in several negative ways. Some people say that it's very anti-feminist. She no longer can go to Narnia because she is interested in feminine pursuits. Others see it as anti-adult. Gasp! Susan is having sex now, so she can't go?! How dare you, C.S. Lewis! Not everyone can stay childlike and innocent like baby Lu forever! *scoff*
The best interpretation I've seen is one of faith. Susan no longer believes, so she can't go. The person behind this theory, however, was still disappointed with the outcome, because it reminded her of some of the flaws she perceives in Christianity. I don't agree completely,
but I think she's close to the mark . . .
Let me just preface this by saying that C.S. Lewis' ideas of Christianity are very close to my own. He is often quoted in Sunday meetings, even though he was not a member of our church (I believe he was Anglican). Kind of ironic, but it's something that I've always noticed.
First, let me go and fetch Susan's fate from my sister's giant copy of all the books . . .
When all of the children (who are really more like young adults at this point) arrive in Narnia, crowned in riches, the leader of the last believers, Tirian, comments that Queen Susan is missing. The following conversation ensues.
" 'My sister Susan,' answered Peter shortly and gravely, 'is no longer a friend of Narnia.'
'Yes,' said Eustace, 'and whenever you've tried to get her to come and talk about Narnia or do anything about Narnia, she says "What wonderful memories you have! Fancy your still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children."'
'Oh, Susan!' said Jill. 'She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She was always a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up.'"
Taken by themselves, these words and the punishment seem rather harsh. But the seeds of Susan's fate were already sown in Prince Caspian. Like Peter, she couldn't see Aslan at first. Edmund could not either, but he still had faith in what could not be seen. Due to their lack of faith, Peter and Susan were exiled from Narnia until it was time for the world to end. That is the meaning behind Aslan telling them that they are "too old." It is not because Peter's voice is starting to crack or Susan needs a training bra. It is because they have proven that they lack faith "like a little child." I do believe that it is in Matthew of the New Testament that perfect faith is described as being that of a little child. Christianity encourages adults to regain a child's level of faith, which is rather hard to do. When you grow up, you learn a lot, and what you learn can sometimes get in the way of what you feel.
But if both Peter and Susan had lost this faith and been exiled from Narnia for a time, why is it that Susan's infraction is so much worse? Why is her choice so damning? I'd argue that it is because she has denied her witness of Aslan--Christ. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has the simplest and most basic symbols of Christianity. Aslan gives up his life, his pride, his innocence for Edmund. They shave him bald and cut off his head on the stone tablet so that he can pay the price for Ed's mistakes. But because Aslan himself was innocent of all wrong-doing whatsoever, he is able to live again, and thus can both lives be spared. Also, his sacrifice saves Narnia as well as Edmund. It is only after his resurrection that the ice starts to melt and the plants begin growing again. This type of sacrifice is the root of all Christian belief, and also the root of these stories. In The Magician's Nephew, written after TLTWATW but occurring before it in the time line of the universe, reveals that Aslan is the creator of Narnia and other universes, solidifying him as a Christ symbol. But it is the sacrifice and resurrection that are more important.
Susan was a literal witness--and thus, metaphorically a religious witness--to both of these events. That is why her disbelief, her lack of faith, her "growing up" was such a betrayal. In my faith, denying a witness is the most serious sin you can commit. It is also a very difficult sin to commit. Denying Christ involves climbing as far as you can, and then throwing it all away, saying it never existed. There were many people in the early days of my church that ended up rejecting a lot of the teachings and falling away from it, but they never denied the things they had seen because they still believed in this one most grevious sin. Susan and Lucy saw what Aslan did for her with their own eyes; Peter and Edmund merely heard about it. They believed just as firmly, I think, but they could not be held accountable to the same level that Susan and Lucy could. Susan completely and totally denies that Aslan ever existed, never mind that he saved her brother, Narnia, and, indirectly, the rest of her family through his sacrifice and resurrection.
Anyway, that's how I see it. I found it interesting to see how the movie made Susan a little more bitter about Narnia in general; she seemed less like she wanted to go back than Peter did. I couldn't help but notice this change and think of her eventual eternal exile.
I haven't read the book in about 10 years . . .
Seriously, do not read the book right before going to see the movie. The characters in the book are so . . . British. Like, "cheerio, old chap!" kind of British. The characters in the movie are much more modern--which makes sense, because I really don't think that a child could relate to actors speaking that way. It was endearing to read them that way, but I can see my child self scoffing at similar syntax coming out of a child's mouth on screen. The written word can sometimes get away with more, and sometime less. It's funny like that.
There are also some plot points that are glaringly different. Only a couple of them really stuck out to me or confused me. The biggest one to stick out was the budding romance between Susan and Caspian. The actor was pretty hot, but . . . it just was not there in the book. At the end, they even kiss before the children walk through the Door in the Air back to England. My little sister was very confused at this point, saying that the kiss "came out of nowhere." Well, I don't entirely agree. I think it came out of the fact that the actors (especially Susan) are just a little more grown up than they were supposed to be. There was one scene in particular in which the brothers are asleep, and the sisters are lying on the forest floor, talking. My first observation was "Holy *&^%, Susan has cleavage!" 0.0 They did a pretty good job of hiding it throughout the rest of the movie. So, it seems as though the screenwriters saw a grown up Susan alongside a very handsome Caspian, and drew it to its "logical" conclusion. Though, the resulting romantic love was just completely out of place in Lewis's world. None of the Narnia books ever explored romantic feelings, and I'm very glad that they didn't. I really don't see Lewis as someone who was up to writing romantic love in a satisfying way (much like Rowling, but that's another rant altogether . . .).
The other major change that disrupted my viewing happened during the last battle. The good guys are holed up at Aslan's How, waiting for the Telmarines to attack. Caspian suggests that they challenge Mizar (his uncle and the head-hancho badguy) to a one-on-one duel, and let the battle be decided by that. He thinks it will be enough to buy them some time while Lucy goes . . . to search for Aslan. Now, I was really confused that they were sending her off on her own (Susan goes with her at first, then jumps off the horse to fight off the Telmarines that have spotted her). Now, they attempted to explain this in the movie by having one of the dwarfs question the wisdom and getting it explained to him, but I just didn't buy it. I think the problem lies in the fact that at this point in the book, the dwarf and all four children have seen Aslan. They see him on the first night after not taking Lucy's advice on which direction to go. In fact, Susan and Lucy stay with Aslan while the boys continue on to meet up with Caspian. Which further discredits the love story, btw.
Of course, not meeting Aslan that night leads to other changes. For example, in the movie, they actually storm Miraz's castle against Lucy's advice. Several Narnians end up getting killed due to the fact that Caspian learns that Miraz murdered his father, and so goes to attack him rather than opening the gate.
Which leads to the next major change--the large amount of angst the movie had. In the beginning, Peter is upset that he's back in England, that he's back to being a kid, that he's no longer in a position of power. Edmund is upset that Peter appears to be ignoring him. He helps Peter out in a fist fight, and then manages to stop the ceremony for summoning the White Witch when Peter couldn't--both times appearing to feel rather put out that Peter does not recognize his value. Btw, I was really excited when he did so; I thought it showed real growth of character. Ed knows how she can twist people, and he's not letting it happen to anyone else. ^_^
Susan is upset with Narnia in general, saying that "it's alright while you're there." I think she's implying that you might as well never go if you're just going to be pulled out of Narnia again. In the book, no one but Lucy could see Aslan at first, but they had slightly different attitudes. Susan was not so bitter about Narnia in general.
One more major change was at the end, when Peter and Susan say they can no longer come back to Narnia. In the movie, they say that Aslan has said that they have learned all that they can from the place. In the book, Aslan's words are that they are too old. Though, I really don't think that he means "too old" in the sense of years--looking at the series as a kind of Christian allegory, I can see a different meaning in those words that actually contradicts movie-Aslan's assurance that Peter and Susan are not being punished by not be allowed back into Narnia.
Don't get me wrong, though. I really did enjoy the movie. It's just that to do so, it's best not to come in with an idea of how the story should play out--it's a story in and of itself. I think it's probably best to think of most movies like this, provided that they don't cut out so much that it is impossible to follow the plot without having read the book beforehand. The part when Lucy goes to find Aslan almost commits this error. I once watched an anime movie (Kai Doh Maru) with an incomprehensible plot. If I hadn't read the DVD case summary, I would have been completely confused. I imagine that it probably had a lot of basis in feudal Japanese history, which I know next to nothing about.
Thinking about some of the character and thematic changes that they make, though, makes me wonder if they are planning to continue the movies on to the end, and if so, if they are preparing to circumvent some of the major criticisms of the last book. Looking at Susan's more bitter outlook towards Narnia in the movie, I couldn't help but think that it was a set-up for the decision she makes (or we hear about her making) in The Last Battle. I have heard that decision interpreted in several negative ways. Some people say that it's very anti-feminist. She no longer can go to Narnia because she is interested in feminine pursuits. Others see it as anti-adult. Gasp! Susan is having sex now, so she can't go?! How dare you, C.S. Lewis! Not everyone can stay childlike and innocent like baby Lu forever! *scoff*
The best interpretation I've seen is one of faith. Susan no longer believes, so she can't go. The person behind this theory, however, was still disappointed with the outcome, because it reminded her of some of the flaws she perceives in Christianity. I don't agree completely,
but I think she's close to the mark . . .
Let me just preface this by saying that C.S. Lewis' ideas of Christianity are very close to my own. He is often quoted in Sunday meetings, even though he was not a member of our church (I believe he was Anglican). Kind of ironic, but it's something that I've always noticed.
First, let me go and fetch Susan's fate from my sister's giant copy of all the books . . .
When all of the children (who are really more like young adults at this point) arrive in Narnia, crowned in riches, the leader of the last believers, Tirian, comments that Queen Susan is missing. The following conversation ensues.
" 'My sister Susan,' answered Peter shortly and gravely, 'is no longer a friend of Narnia.'
'Yes,' said Eustace, 'and whenever you've tried to get her to come and talk about Narnia or do anything about Narnia, she says "What wonderful memories you have! Fancy your still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children."'
'Oh, Susan!' said Jill. 'She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She was always a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up.'"
Taken by themselves, these words and the punishment seem rather harsh. But the seeds of Susan's fate were already sown in Prince Caspian. Like Peter, she couldn't see Aslan at first. Edmund could not either, but he still had faith in what could not be seen. Due to their lack of faith, Peter and Susan were exiled from Narnia until it was time for the world to end. That is the meaning behind Aslan telling them that they are "too old." It is not because Peter's voice is starting to crack or Susan needs a training bra. It is because they have proven that they lack faith "like a little child." I do believe that it is in Matthew of the New Testament that perfect faith is described as being that of a little child. Christianity encourages adults to regain a child's level of faith, which is rather hard to do. When you grow up, you learn a lot, and what you learn can sometimes get in the way of what you feel.
But if both Peter and Susan had lost this faith and been exiled from Narnia for a time, why is it that Susan's infraction is so much worse? Why is her choice so damning? I'd argue that it is because she has denied her witness of Aslan--Christ. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has the simplest and most basic symbols of Christianity. Aslan gives up his life, his pride, his innocence for Edmund. They shave him bald and cut off his head on the stone tablet so that he can pay the price for Ed's mistakes. But because Aslan himself was innocent of all wrong-doing whatsoever, he is able to live again, and thus can both lives be spared. Also, his sacrifice saves Narnia as well as Edmund. It is only after his resurrection that the ice starts to melt and the plants begin growing again. This type of sacrifice is the root of all Christian belief, and also the root of these stories. In The Magician's Nephew, written after TLTWATW but occurring before it in the time line of the universe, reveals that Aslan is the creator of Narnia and other universes, solidifying him as a Christ symbol. But it is the sacrifice and resurrection that are more important.
Susan was a literal witness--and thus, metaphorically a religious witness--to both of these events. That is why her disbelief, her lack of faith, her "growing up" was such a betrayal. In my faith, denying a witness is the most serious sin you can commit. It is also a very difficult sin to commit. Denying Christ involves climbing as far as you can, and then throwing it all away, saying it never existed. There were many people in the early days of my church that ended up rejecting a lot of the teachings and falling away from it, but they never denied the things they had seen because they still believed in this one most grevious sin. Susan and Lucy saw what Aslan did for her with their own eyes; Peter and Edmund merely heard about it. They believed just as firmly, I think, but they could not be held accountable to the same level that Susan and Lucy could. Susan completely and totally denies that Aslan ever existed, never mind that he saved her brother, Narnia, and, indirectly, the rest of her family through his sacrifice and resurrection.
Anyway, that's how I see it. I found it interesting to see how the movie made Susan a little more bitter about Narnia in general; she seemed less like she wanted to go back than Peter did. I couldn't help but notice this change and think of her eventual eternal exile.