Spoiler alert. Don't read further until you have seen the movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie Prince Caspian. I took the entire Dawntreader family to the matinee yesterday to watch this much anticipated film on opening day. We cheered and clapped along with the rest of the viewers in the audience. Here are some thoughts.
First, I was surprised at the enhancements to the story. The main trajectory of the story was intact, but there is considerable drift between the book and the movie. Far more than I found in Lord of The Rings, for example. For the most part, I did not mind the revisions ... all except one. Disney clearly left their mark on the story by adding a romantic element. Give me a break. I was annoyed by this unnecessary element added by High School Musical crowd of screenwriters.
Second, Reepicheep was as endearing and likable as I had hoped he would be. It is hard not to love this character. He figures prominently in the Voyage to the Dawn Treader as well. I can hardly wait. There is only one character I like more in all of the Narnia series. He shows up in the Silver Chair. I will let you guess who I am referring to.
Third, I thought the philosophies of skepticism and modernity were effectively displayed in this story. Skepticism about the fairy tales of old (about Aslan) are the norm. This skepticism is not just the standard fare of the Telmarines, either. Even some of the Narnians, the dwarves in particular, are skeptics. C.S. Lewis consistently used the dwarves to parallel modern day skeptics, particularly in the final book of the series, The Last Battle. The character of Trumpkin the dwarf reminded me of my agnostic friends. Like Trumpkin, my unbelieving friends have many redeeming qualities. Ultimately, however, their blind faith is in their reason instead of Aslan. One day they, like Trumpkin, will humbly take a knee before the real Aslan and tremble before his roar.
Fourth, I was struck by the sense of timing in this movie version. Aslan could come in at any time and save the day. He doesn't. Why? It is this mystery that we talked about in our car ride home. It is the same mystery of God's timing that we wrestle with in life too. We tend to think of victory in military terms. Ultimately, the Telmarines are defeated in the story. They get their just due. But they could have been defeated in the first 30 minutes of the story. For that matter, they could have been defeated hundreds of years earlier. Where was Aslan then? Isn't this the same basic question we all struggle with? My short answer to this is that victory was won at the stone table 1200 Narnian years earlier. Aslan's sacrificial death and resurrection defeated evil. Aslan was sovereign over all, including death. The war was won there. Everything after that is the mop up operation. The rule and reign of Aslan exists in Narnia, though it has not reached its completion in time. In other words, the inhabitants of Narnia live in the "now and not yet" of Aslan's reign. Like us, they must live by faith. I love the sense of "the fullness of time" that Aslan displays in this film. It provides a great illustration of Christ and the fullness of time to talk about with my kids.
Fifth, Prince Caspian is an excellent illustration of natural law. The objective moral order exists and functions clearly in Narnia. Even the evil king Miraz is subject to it, though he tries to cherry pick which aspects of the objective moral order he will follow. Virtues like nobility, courage, faith, mercy, forgiveness, and sacrifice are boldly displayed in the story. I love a story like that.
Sixth, Prince Caspian offers a useful case study in Just War theory. Should the Narnians fight? Should they form an army and war against the forces of Miraz? Or, is war always wrong? The ethics of war is a timely discussion in our day and age. This film will give me a helpful case study to discuss war and when it is necessary.
Those are my initial ramblings about the film. How about yours?
I too was impressed with the film. I had heard someone say they had minimized the Christian elements, but after watching it (and reading this post!) I have to disagree. Though they were not as overt as LW&W (and aren't in the book either), they are still evident.
The romance (and especially the kiss at the end) was the fly in the ointment for my son as well. I didn't mind the digressions too much because the reasoning behind them was pretty clear, but one that did bother me (minorly) was the ego-driven conflict between Caspian and Peter. In the book their interaction is much more respectful and cooperative.
On a more technical note, I felt as thought the actors were much more at ease with themselves, acting, and their characters. They are still young enough to come across as kids "in over their heads," though.
BTW . . . who knew the Telmarines were Italian? Interesting addition that fits within the framework of the book, but Miraz came across as the "Godfather" at times! ;)
Overall, a very enjoyable film I will likely see again.
Posted by: Nephos | May 17, 2008 at 09:44
I agree with your observations.
It is also worth noting that they changed Susan's role in battle.
For the most part, my family enjoyed the movie, but found that it was quite different than the book. Though, I agree with your points about about the key elements retained in the movie.
Posted by: Chris | May 17, 2008 at 10:09
Excellent thoughts. In my "two sentence review," I didn't really explore the thematic implications of the movie, but I think you're right that they did a good job. The characters themselves were a bit thin, but I think that was actually true of the book also (except for Trumpkin and Reepicheep; Prince Caspian, I always thought, was kind of a placeholder).
I think the one good thing about the romantic subplot (although it was uber-cheesy, and was super-oblique till the very end, which was awkward) was that it, in part, answers Pullman's criticism of the Lewis books as being anti-growing up, especially for girls. Here's hoping that the kids won't have to die in England to get to Narnia for The Last Battle, also.
Posted by: Evan Donovan | May 17, 2008 at 10:42
"but one that did bother me (minorly) was the ego-driven conflict between Caspian and Peter."
I noticed this too. There was kinda a testosterone thing going on in the movie between these two characters that never appears in the book. I am scratching my head at trying to understand how this added anything to the plot. I chalk it up to screen writers trying to make Lewis' characters more of a cultural fit for our time.
"On a more technical note, I felt as thought the actors were much more at ease with themselves, acting, and their characters. They are still young enough to come across as kids "in over their heads," though."
I think these English actors are superb. This was what I always thought would be the toughest challenge for bringing these books to life on the big screen. How do you make geeky English school children suddenly capable of swinging a broad sword and battling toe to toe with full grown, battle tested champions. I like how the screen writers did not dodge the obvious fact that these were kids but somehow fierce too. The whole "you were not what I expected" theme came through loud and clear. It worked.
I also liked seeing Susan emerge as the next Legolas. I thought they toned down the girls in the first film. But Susan kills quite a few Telmarines in this film, including her showdown with the charging knights. I also like seeing Lucy pull the knife out ready to kick butt. It is hard not to cheer that spirit that is willing to confront evil.
"BTW . . . who knew the Telmarines were Italian? Interesting addition that fits within the framework of the book, but Miraz came across as the "Godfather" at times! ;)"
Italians? Interesting. My boys and I came away thinking they were Spanish conquistadors ... Cortez et al ...
The Godfather thought never crossed my mind ... interesting.
Wait till the Horse and His Boy comes out. I am thinking that Arab Americans are going to be down right vitriolic about that film.
"I think the one good thing about the romantic subplot (although it was uber-cheesy, and was super-oblique till the very end, which was awkward) was that it, in part, answers Pullman's criticism of the Lewis books as being anti-growing up, especially for girls."
I never thought of that. Perhaps so. I just thought it was forced, awkward, cheesy and distracting.
I much prefer Susan answering Pullman's critique by mowing down Telmarine Nazi's with her bow. :)
Posted by: Mr. D | May 17, 2008 at 12:37
"I am scratching my head at trying to understand how this added anything to the plot."
The only thing I could think of is that it was necessary to fit in with the whole self-discovery plot-line they established for Peter. Not sure I like that depiction of Peter, but once it is in there, you almost HAVE to establish conflict with Caspian. I did like the way they resolved the conflict at the end (as he passes on his sword to Caspian).
Posted by: Nephos | May 17, 2008 at 12:55
Man, I don't know about all this sophisticated analysis, but when Lucy stepped out onto that bridge and faced the whole Telmarine army by herself, it was AWESOME. Who knew a lone third-grader could kick the butts of 200 conquistadors?
Of course, she wasn't really ALONE...
Posted by: John M. | May 17, 2008 at 22:32
"Who knew a lone third-grader could kick the butts of 200 conquistadors?
Of course, she wasn't really ALONE..."
Isn't that almost the perfect picture of the Christian life though?
She was never alone. Even in the first part of the film when nobody but Lucy can see Aslan. Not even the film audience can see Aslan, but Lucy can see him. She can see him because he is really is there. He is there guiding and waiting to pounce on anyone who would threaten the kids or their purpose ... waiting to show himself until the fullness of time when others, even skeptics will see him too.
Isn't that the eyes of faith? (Eph 1)
And when Lucy turns to stop an army with her dagger, isn't she once again seeing with the eyes of faith?
She knows Aslan is there. Knowing that, she has the resources to conquer an army ... with her dagger, but more importantly ... with her faith.
That is exactly what faith is ... it is trust acted upon. It is not blind. It is seeing things and acting on it.
Faith is being sure of things hoped for and certain of things not seen (by others).
Prince Caspian is a film about faith ... faith was a whisper in LW&W ... it is shouted through a megaphone in Prince Caspian. In some ways, this may be a more Christian film than its predecessor.
Posted by: Mr. D | May 18, 2008 at 06:57
It is an awesome movie! I just watched it. Super! Every Christian Should watch it...
Posted by: Wario clone 1 | May 18, 2008 at 17:32
I whole heartedly agree with everyones comments about the new movie. I've nothing earth shattering to add, but have a few observations. There were a few things that I missed: the boy caspian-- He was supposed to be a boy prince even in battle. Aslan's shaking Trumpkin like a kitten. I've always sort of thought that was Lewis picture of how God had dealt with him in his unbelief. I also missed Aslan's breathing on the Telmarines before they leave Narnia.
Of course there are some things I would like to have missed. They are: The return of the White Witch. While I thought seeing Peter tempted and "rescued" by a redeemed Edmund was valuable to character growth, I didn't like the idea that she was still around. I hated seeing the courtyard massacre and, really, what was that kiss about? I've always thought even when I first read the books as a young girl that there was some sort of spark there between Susan and Prince Caspian, but that kiss ruined it. I loved the long looks across the courtyard, but when Susan returned for the kiss the spell was broken and everything seemed so trite and junvenile. If she had just left it would have been so much better and, oh my, how is Caspian expected to fall for Ramandu's daughter in Dawn Treader? I mean, once you have fallen for Queen Susan of Old how could anyone else measure up?!
Posted by: i. Morris | May 18, 2008 at 18:55
Very cool movie, very deep theologically. I am going to see it again soon.
I loved the end where Aslan gives Tamarites the ability to live a new life and tells those who stepped forward first that because they stepped forward first they would find much success...it gave me chills.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 18, 2008 at 20:05
They all but removed the paw-sucking bear!! His story was valuable to the message of the book but the part about a bear's duty was never detailed in the film.
Other than that, I loved the movie.
Posted by: Pippen | May 18, 2008 at 21:52
I thought the film was excellent, and, while I agree with the critiques of it not staying as true to the book, I think ultimately it is nit-picking to call those flaws. In the same vein of nit-picking, it would have been nicer to see some more character development with the Pevensies. While I think that is what motivated the Peter-Caspian rivalry and the Susan-Caspian romance, I think the effort fell a little flat. Overall, though, it was a great film.
Posted by: Steve Clarke | May 19, 2008 at 11:46