2006 Reading List - The Chronicles of Narnia 02: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Book Twenty-one
The Chronicles of Narnia 02: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
When The Boyfriend first saw the previews for this movie, his first reaction was, "Looks like Lord of the Rings." Hmmm... filmed in New Zealand, full of swords and horses and monstrous creatures, based on classic English fantasy, can't imagine how he got that. He was a little hesitant to see this movie, knowing the great investment of time that LotR required, but I told him this was different. He wouldn't have to wait until next year for the story to finish up, and it would probably only be two and a half hours, tops.
As an aside, when did two hours become "average" for a movie? Casablanca, one of the greatest stories ever committed to film, is 102 minutes long. Narnia was 140.
I digress. One big difference that I noticed between Narnia and LotR was that where the screenwriters had to delete whole chunks of Tolkein's text in order to make it filmable (Off to Obscurity for you, Tom Bombadil!), the writers for Narnia had to do a lot of padding. For example, the beginning.
In the book, Lewis says, "This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids." Short, simple, done. For the movie, that single sentence was expanded and mined. By the time we get to the third sentence in the book ("They were sent to the house of an old Professor...."), we have a very solid idea of the children's characters, their relationships, and the circumstances under which they were sent away from home. After that point, the screenwriters were able to give Mr. Lewis' already careful character development extra depth. So, by the time Edmund is wolfing down Turkish Delights, we can not only better understand why he might be so willing to sell out his siblings, but his torment upon realizing what he had done is all the more poignant. And so he becomes the most interesting character in the movie, whereas in the book he definitely plays second to his "good" siblings.
This might lead you to think that the movie is better than the book, but I would disagree. While the movie is certainly more visually splendid than the book, and gives some of the characters more depth, the book is still a masterpiece of storytelling. The screenwriters didn't make anything up for their film. Like Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, they stayed very faithful, and the excellent work that they did wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't been working with excellent source material.
Speaking of Lord of the Rings, people often compare these two, and with good reason. The authors were contemporaries, and their works were released at around the same time. They both deal with massive themes of love and duty and honor, and their stories have survived far longer than they might have expected. Having said that, I prefer Lewis to Tolkien.
Why? Very simple: Lewis knows when to shut up.
One of the reasons I couldn't stand Lord of the Rings the first time I read it was that it was just so damn wordy. Tolkien had to describe absolutely everything, and included all those damn songs and poems. Lewis, on the other hand.... From chapter 17, "The Hunting of the White Stag":
That night they slept where they were. How Aslan provided food for them all I don't know; but somehow or another they found themselves all sitting down on the grass for a fine high tea at about eight o'clock."
See? Economy. Cut out the unnecessary chatter and get to the point. That's why I like Lewis....
The Chronicles of Narnia 02: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
When The Boyfriend first saw the previews for this movie, his first reaction was, "Looks like Lord of the Rings." Hmmm... filmed in New Zealand, full of swords and horses and monstrous creatures, based on classic English fantasy, can't imagine how he got that. He was a little hesitant to see this movie, knowing the great investment of time that LotR required, but I told him this was different. He wouldn't have to wait until next year for the story to finish up, and it would probably only be two and a half hours, tops.
As an aside, when did two hours become "average" for a movie? Casablanca, one of the greatest stories ever committed to film, is 102 minutes long. Narnia was 140.
I digress. One big difference that I noticed between Narnia and LotR was that where the screenwriters had to delete whole chunks of Tolkein's text in order to make it filmable (Off to Obscurity for you, Tom Bombadil!), the writers for Narnia had to do a lot of padding. For example, the beginning.
In the book, Lewis says, "This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids." Short, simple, done. For the movie, that single sentence was expanded and mined. By the time we get to the third sentence in the book ("They were sent to the house of an old Professor...."), we have a very solid idea of the children's characters, their relationships, and the circumstances under which they were sent away from home. After that point, the screenwriters were able to give Mr. Lewis' already careful character development extra depth. So, by the time Edmund is wolfing down Turkish Delights, we can not only better understand why he might be so willing to sell out his siblings, but his torment upon realizing what he had done is all the more poignant. And so he becomes the most interesting character in the movie, whereas in the book he definitely plays second to his "good" siblings.
This might lead you to think that the movie is better than the book, but I would disagree. While the movie is certainly more visually splendid than the book, and gives some of the characters more depth, the book is still a masterpiece of storytelling. The screenwriters didn't make anything up for their film. Like Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, they stayed very faithful, and the excellent work that they did wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't been working with excellent source material.
Speaking of Lord of the Rings, people often compare these two, and with good reason. The authors were contemporaries, and their works were released at around the same time. They both deal with massive themes of love and duty and honor, and their stories have survived far longer than they might have expected. Having said that, I prefer Lewis to Tolkien.
Why? Very simple: Lewis knows when to shut up.
One of the reasons I couldn't stand Lord of the Rings the first time I read it was that it was just so damn wordy. Tolkien had to describe absolutely everything, and included all those damn songs and poems. Lewis, on the other hand.... From chapter 17, "The Hunting of the White Stag":
That night they slept where they were. How Aslan provided food for them all I don't know; but somehow or another they found themselves all sitting down on the grass for a fine high tea at about eight o'clock."
See? Economy. Cut out the unnecessary chatter and get to the point. That's why I like Lewis....