"That was the best movie I have ever seen", said my eight year old. We saw The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe as a family yesterday. We were all impressed. With the exception of mommy, all of us are ready to go back next week and watch it again.
I thought this timeless tale would be just about impossible to adapt into a movie. I seriously did not think the big screen was big enough to hold Lewis' imagination. Turns out I was wrong … well, as far as this movie is concerned. We will have to see if they can pull off The Silver Chair and The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. Those books will stretch movie magic to the breaking point, in my opinion.
Film technology is advancing on a steep curve, and it was put on full display in this movie. Especially impressive was the epic battle scene near the end. It was exhilarating and very much in league with the Lord Of The Rings. It did not disappoint.
The film is rated PG because of the scariness of the Witch's minions, the battle scenes, and some "gotcha" moments that will make you jump. It was not even close to being as gory as The Lord of The Rings nor was it as creepy. There was no heavy bloodletting or chopped off heads or limbs etc. Still, for very young movie goers, it may be too much. It all depends. My ten year old, for instance, is squeamish. He did not have a problem with this film, but when he was five years old, he was mortified by The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Jim Carey terrified him. I asked my son if he would have liked Narnia if he were five again. He said it would have been too scary. Narnia may prove too much for very sensitive kids.
The screen writers added to the book, but not much in my opinion. Much to my relief, the story was intact. The redemptive theme comes through loud and clear. The most anticipated scene for me personally was the cracking of the Stone Table. I was not disappointed. I found the entire Stone Table sequence emotionally engaging because I know what Lewis is depicting in this scene. It will be hard for any follower of Christ to not be moved.
Astute students of Narnia will pick up on two aspects of the screenplay that were clear additions to the book. I don't want to give it away here. I would prefer to discuss these things after others have seen the movie. I will say this. One shocked me in a good way, and one bothered me. You have to know the book quite well to pick up on them.
One of the things I thought would be very difficult to pull off in the movie was the maturation of English school boys into knights capable of competing in battle. In the book, Edmund and Peter grow in stature and fighting ability and morph into warriors capable of fighting along side the likes of William Wallace at the battle of Sterling. I thought that would be impossible to do without substituting actors. Adamson (the director) somehow pulled it off in this film. I asked my kids if Edmund and Peter were believable as warriors and leaders. My kids said they were. I agree with them.
Overall, the cheesiness factor of the film was very low. There was one scene that the family unanimously agreed was not believable. Something did not look right in the way they filmed it. Other than that, Disney and Walden Media pulled off an incredible achievement.
As far as the humans in the film, the actress who portrays Lucy Pevensie delivers an astounding performance. I find it inconceivable that she had never acted a day in her life prior to this film. The White Witch was well played too, though my eight year old said she did not look "white" enough. She looked pale to me, but he thought she should have looked whiter. In the book, the White Witch is over seven feet tall. Adamson did not bother trying to make the White Witch that tall. I tell you one thing, though, this Witch can really handle some swords and kick some butt. I would hate to face her in battle.
There was a dialog between the Professor and the older Pevensie children that is particularly important from an epistemological stand point. I won't ruin it, but it was so important, that I made a point to talk to my kids about it in our debriefing. Lewis was a world class apologist and knew how to engage rationalistic thinking. It comes through nicely in that scene.
A major two thumbs up on this film. Your kids will love it. Adults will be transported back to being a kid again.
Thanks for the review! I have read reviews from one side of the net to the other! World magazine had a nice to-do and stressed some of the issues that I'm sure your family discussed.
Still debating on taking the 5 - yr olds...leaning towards "not," but others have said since they like Star Wars, LWW probably isn't too graphic for them.
I am considering getting the complete Narnia collection on audio CD for the kiddies for the long rides in the car to visit family over Christmas!
BTW, www.narniaweb.com has posted the 9-minute "supertrailer" for the movie. Pretty cool.
Later.
Posted by: BWB | December 10, 2005 at 21:44
Oh Thank goodness. You can read over at my Xanga blog my fear about how they were going to take my dear Narnia and... Hollywoodize it. *sighs sadly* But If it has your stamp of approval, Mr Dawn Treader then really I can't wait till tomarrow night when I go to see it.
I think you would find it intresting that in my search for reviews on this subject I came across one that made me laugh... He stated that the "The Christ Centered Plot was very strong, but all and all a very enjoyable yarn..." I wanted to say... Silly, that's the point. :D
In the words of my very dear friend Beth,
"Aslan Kicks some serious Butt." :D
Molly
Posted by: Molly | December 10, 2005 at 22:10
Like you, I'm looking forward to how the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and the Silver Chair are handled. Those are the two best and most complex entries in the series, and would be the two I'm most looking forward to on film.
I was extremely impressed with this film, it far exceeded my expectations. The little actress that played Lucy was beyond good.
I've read some folks talk about how Mr. & Mrs. Beaver were too Cockney, but that was the point, in the book, they are portrayed as being working-class sorts, while Mr. Tumnus is portrayed as being more upper class with his books and fine dinnerware.
Also, did you notice the name the film makers gave to the Pevensie mother, which is not in the book? Helen? That has to be a nod to Helen Joy Davidman - and I'm glad, for if Lewis is the literary father of the Pevensie children, then Helen is surely their step-mother and I think Lewis would have been pleased at that.
Posted by: J A Greer | December 11, 2005 at 23:59
Worth noting that Disney had nothing at all to do with the film, other than distribution. So the film was made and finished without Disney involvement.
Still not sure if I'll see it. Depends if my wife wants to.
Also, I was wondering what your take on the morality of the film is (not the film itself, but the fact that the film was made). During his life, C.S. Lewis was adamantly opposed to the idea of turning the work into a film.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 12, 2005 at 18:09
"During his life, C.S. Lewis was adamantly opposed to the idea of turning the work into a film."
I did not realize this. Where did you learn of his views on film?
Personally, I prefer books because they engage your mind in a deeper way and unlock your imagination. Lewis and Tolkien are most effective in stretching our imaginations, which I think gives context and meaning to truth. In other words, a rich imagination makes truth stick better.
Now, a film does provide something good. It extends the reach of Lewis' brilliant story telling from tens of millions to hundreds of millions. Some will be so excited about the film that they will want to read all the books. My children all want me to re-read The Chronicles of Narnia to them after seeing the film, for example. I assume it has that effect on others as well.
Because of this, I am not so hard on film as perhaps Lewis was.
Do yourself a favor, and go see the film with your wife. You won't regret it.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 13, 2005 at 09:12
I went last night with my wife, our assistant pastor's wife, a college student we "adopted" from church, and our 17 yr -old German exchange student.
Quite an enjoyable experience. I made the mistake of reading the book on sunday, so I picked up on all of the dialogue changes ... shame on me. The one scene that I wished that had kept the original dialogue was when Aslan resurrects and tells the children (in the book) of the "deeper magic" whereas in the film it was about how the WW read the sacrifice on the table. Still, nothing was lost in the overall grand scheme of things.
Filming was captivating, as Jeff said earlier, you can't compare it to LOTR or you will come away wanting more.
I loved the professor. Such a great picture of a grandfatherly/oddball/kind fellow!
I loved the thread of doubt in susan ... perhaps a harbinger of the fact that she "misses out" in later books?
Beavers were great! Wolves were great! WW was great! The armies were great!
Mr. Girsch, just go see it ... it's well-done!
However, I will mention that my non-Christian friends DID keep comparing it to LOTR and how it lacked the "engagement factor" of powerful music (Shore is the best!) and the myriad of fascinating characters. Tolkein didn't like Narnia anyway and oft told Lewis so...
Keep them separate!
Later.
Posted by: BWB | December 13, 2005 at 09:42
It is natural to compare LOTR and CON.
I will go on the record saying that CoN will not touch the records that LoTR set for two reasons.
1) LoTR was first. LWW was second. We are used to the special FX.
2) LWW has children as heroes and will appeal to children and to "former children" like myself. LoTR appeals to children and adults alike. I think some adults will *not* accept children going into battle.
Those are my simple reasons for thinking that LWW will end up as a financial success, but it will not get close the high water mark set by LoTR.
Another "you heard it here first" prediction from Mr. Dawntreader: The Silver Chair will be the biggest money maker.
A third prediction: The Horse and His Boy will never make it to the big screen.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 13, 2005 at 10:07
I've heard rumors to the affect that they are skipping Horse and His Boy and Prince Caspian is next.
Posted by: J A Greer | December 13, 2005 at 12:29
Jeff:
Lewis opposed Narnia film:
"I am absolutely opposed -- adamant isn't in it! -- to a TV version," he wrote to BBC producer Lance Sieveking, who had created a radio version of his book which had met Lewis' approval.
... snip ...
Although Lewis, who died in 1963, said he would have considered a cartoon version, his letter suggests he is unlikely to have approved of Disney's interpretation, particularly its computer-generated Aslan.
"Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare -- at least with photography," he wrote.
"Cartoons (if only Disney did not combine so much vulgarity with his genius!) would be another matter. A human, pantomime, Aslan would be, to me, blasphemy."
Posted by: tgirsch | December 13, 2005 at 17:51
This USA Today article offers further support to your claim that Lewis opposed using film to tell his story.
...snip...
Still, Lewis himself had a love-hate relationship with Hollywood, says Terry Lindvall, who will teach a Christian theology and film course at the College of William & Mary this fall and is author of Surprised by Laughter: The Comic World of C.S. Lewis. "He believed there was death in the camera. Meaning, when you translate word to image, the imagination dies."
...snip...
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 14, 2005 at 05:01
I am not sure Lindvall is quoting Lewis himself with the "death in the camera" comment, but it is plausible that Lewis did adamantly oppose film.
It is an interesting question to ponder; what would C.S. Lewis thought of this film?
My guess is that he would not have liked it. It probably would not have matched what he pictured in his own mind.
For example, Aslan is a large lion. In the movie, Aslan appears to be what you and I think a lion looks like. His scale is pretty much that of an ordinary lion that we might see on an African safari.
In Narnia, however, Aslan is huge. He is depicted as a gigantic lion. I am six feet tall. If I stood next to Aslan, as he is described in the books, I would be looking directly at his chin. Once you see the movie (and I hope you do), you can clearly see that a six foot tall man would be looking down at Aslan.
If you had created Aslan, you would be upset by this obvious oversight.
The books portray a much stronger view of Aslan than the movie does. The movie gives the children a more exalted role than the books do. This kind of stuff, I suspect, would have bothered C.S. Lewis.
There is a second, more philosophical reason why Lewis would oppose film. It stifles imagination. This is an undeniable fact. Once we see something, the image is implanted in our mind. It is hard to not think about it.
For example, after seeing Saving Private Ryan, it is hard for me to think about D-day and not picture images from that movie. My imagination has been handicapped, somewhat.
The same will happen with the Chronicles of Narnia. That is sad.
The way I look at it, though, the movie will whet the appetite of hundreds of millions of people who would never have darkened the doors of a Barnes and Noble or a library. It will extend the reach of the story. It will cause some to go get the entire series and read them. This has to be a good thing.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 14, 2005 at 05:14
The way I look at it, though, the movie will whet the appetite of hundreds of millions of people who would never have darkened the doors of a Barnes and Noble or a library. It will extend the reach of the story. It will cause some to go get the entire series and read them. This has to be a good thing.This sounds an awful lot like the ends justifying the means. Just sayin'. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 15, 2005 at 16:23