This weekend, I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which I discussed on this site before it opened.
It was okay. Tilda Swinton as the White Witch was magnificent, and Georgie Henley as Lucy was terrific. I didn’t care for Peter and Susan much. There’s a ridiculous scene where Peter is confronting a wolf with a sword and Susan is trying to talk him into giving up because he’s not a warrior. Then, the dam above them cracks and Peter rescues them by driving his sword into the ice below them; the dam bursts, the water flows and they ride away on a small chunk of ice.
Some of the scenes I didn’t care for seemed contrived and overamped; I’m pretty sure they were changed from the book. For example, when they meet Father Christmas in the book, they just run into him. In the film, they think it’s the White Witch chasing them and hide at first. The guy playing Santa wasn’t terribly impressive.
And the whole set-up with the wardrobe is goofy. In the book, it’s just an ordinary-looking wardrobe that any kid might duck into, as an American child might hide in the back of a closet. The magic comes when you move toward the back and it keeps going and going. In the film, it’s in an empty room all by itself, covered with a cloth, as though it’s been hidden like the crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The effect is the cinematic equivalent of shouting, “Hey, everybody! It’s a magic armoire!”
Tags: Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis, Tilda Swinton
14 Responses
-
Dan Dorman Says:
This movie sucked ass. But then so does C.S. Lewis.
-
The Pop View Says:
Hey! I like the Narnia books!
-
Dan Dorman Says:
Okay, talk about writing yourself into a fucking hole: he has the fucking lion trade places with the bratty kid (in a move that would make even Jesus Christ envious) and then he kills the big fucker. Awesome. So, what happens next? The two little girls go to see the big dead lion carcass and fall asleep next to it sobbing until the sun rises. Everybody: “the sun’ll come out…tomorrow…” Then as it that’s not bad enough (Spielberg, stop reading now so you don’t get any rotten ideas) just when our heart strings have been pulled enough, but…THE FUCKING LION COMES BACK TO LIFE!!!??? A technicality and some business about ancient legend and the “fine print” on the sacrificial chopping block? We’re done. Lewis had his talking otters and Tolkien had a mythology that transcended space and time.
-
The Pop View Says:
Umm… You know it’s an allegory about Jesus, right?
“The Greatest Story Ever Told is ridiculous. This guy Jesus knows the Romans are after him. And he just stands there and gets arrested? And then they’ve got him. They hang him up, right? He’s a goner. And then, BOOM. He gets resurrected. Talk about deus ex machina. Sloppy writing.”
But seriously, I found the way that E.T. got brought back to life to be much more offensive. Where the hell did that come from?
After all, we’re talking about a story where a witch kills a talking lion and the part you find unrealistic is that he comes back to life?
Although, from a pure plotting standpoint, and ignoring the Jesus metaphor, you’re kind of right.
-
The Pop View Says:
The books do have their faults, certainly. They’re not nearly as well written as either the “Potter” or the “Dark Materials” books. And by the standards of political correctness, they commit a host of sins. They’re preachy, they’re sometimes gratuitously violent and they patronize girls. The villains, moreover – the Calormenes, who dwell in the south – are oily cartoon Muslims who wear turbans and pointy-toed slippers and talk funny.
Then there’s the unfortunate business with Susan, the second-oldest of the Pevensies, who near the end of the last volume is denied salvation merely because of her fondness for nylons and lipstick – because she has reached puberty, in other words, and has become sexualized. …you sense that among many British critics the real failure of the books is that they’re so middle class – so affirming of traditional behaviors and role models, of old-fashioned, Church of England religion and Tory politics.
…there is also an undercurrent of restlessness in the Narnia books, which manifests itself in Lewis’s obsessive borrowings and crammings – the need to include Bacchus and Silenus in the same scene as some talking animals and slow-witted giants – and in a kind of headlong narrative hastiness. Lewis seldom lingers, and the books are always rushing on to the next thing. In “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” Prince Caspian travels to the end of the world just to see what’s there, and the motto of the final volume, in which the children travel from the old Narnia to a newer and even better one, is “Further Up and Further In.”
-
Dan Dorman Says:
Of course it’s an allegory about Jesus. “Sons of Adam, daughters of Eve…” and all that horseshit.
It’s not like Lewis was the first fantasy writer to dip into the religious pool for inspiration — Herbert‘s ‘Kwisatz Haderach’ in Paul Atreides, Tolkien to a small degree with his White Wizard reanimating from the dead to help the little Middle Earthlings find their faith to defeat the great evil (and even Aragorn’s position as head martyr in the whole proceedings). I guess the point I’m trying to make is, Lewis had to beat everyone over the head with it. I don’t connect with his writing and I find him relevant only in regards to the amount of work that he turned out. One might say: quantity over quality.
Now, do I think he’s a better writer than Rowling? I think the guys and gals who come up with the jingles for Kit Kat Bars are better writers than J.K. Rowling.
Oy vey.
-
Dan Dorman Says:
Lewis and Tolkien used to meet at the local pub to discuss the books they were each independently writing at the time: Lewis’ Narnia, and Tolkien’s Rings. There are obviously similarities and allusions in each author’s works to one another. But how the fuck can you even compare the two? Even in cinematic terms, The Lord of the Rings is epic stuff. It’s Lawrence of Arabia-like stuff. Narnia is, well…it’s strictly kids stuff. More like, Teletubbies. At least Harry Potter has all that gothic wizardry going on. Dark castles, dark secrets… Narnia is all, tea with otters and worship your God like good little boys and girls. Insulting rubbish. All any good writer does is hash their demons out through story. That’s the creative process. Who the fuck has “fun” doing this kind of work? It’s a painful process even if the outcome is less than tragic. Hell, even the Van Morrison song ‘Brown Eyed Girl’ was written about a girl with tuberculosis for Christ’s sake. The point is, you can make your point, or you can push your politics. I find the only people who truly respect Lewis’ writing are people of some varying devout Christian faith. Of course. I don’t know about you — but to reference your response from above (The Greatest Story Ever Told), I like all this better the first time…
-
Dan Dorman Says:
I’ll respond to your E.T. remarks when I find the words.
-
The Pop View Says:
Well argued! I’m giving this one to you on points and style. Narnia is for kids; I remember it fondly from my childhood. Granted, I’ve read all the Narnia books and not one of Tolkien’s. My bad. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a much better movie, no question.
I haven’t seen E.T. since it came out 24 years ago, but I didn’t like the second half of the movie then. I thought it fell apart, much like Splash, with the arrival of the evil men from the government.
-
Dan Dorman Says:
Okay…you asked for it. If there’s one thing I don’t mind bashing and defending in equal parts…it’s the cinematic legacy of one of our greatest living directors: Sir Steven Spielberg. I’m gathering my thoughts now.
-
Dan Dorman Says:
But before I go into E.T. — isn’t it a bit fucked up how Mystic River lost Best Picture (and Director!?) to Return of the King?? This is clearly the reason why Eastwood‘s less-than-perfect-father-daughter-redemption-boxing-picture Million Dollar Baby sweeped up the next year. Mystic River was probably the Old Man’s best film. Period. Not counting Unforgiven.
-
The Pop View Says:
You’ve half convinced me on Saving Private Ryan and I haven’t even watched it again.
-
The Pop View Says:
Given what else was nominated that year — and the fact you hate Lost in Translation — then it is true that Mystic River should have won, even though I’m not a big fan of that film.
And I say Unforgiven is his best film, but that’s just me.
-
Dan Dorman Says:
Let’s look at what Spielberg created before E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (82) not counting his work as a television director:
- The Sugarland Express (74) – underrated gem and a brilliant first feature
- Jaws (75) – the one that started it all, THE first-ever summer blockbuster film event that set the pace for the entire industry
- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (77) – maybe the greatest film of all-time (okay, I’m just being a bit nostalgic but it is genius)
- 1941 (79) – my favorite war film ever. Period.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark (81) – forgeddaboudit
With 3 out of these 5 films in less than just 6 years, he became the most popular household name (in not just Hollywood terms but also) out of all filmmakers. The average person on the street may not know who Satyajit Ray or Jean Renoir was, but they sure as hell know Spielberg. Yet Close Encounters wasn’t even nominated for Best Film (or Director). 1941 was bashed (regrettably) by the entire English speaking world. Raiders was the birth of one of the screen’s most beloved and enduring cinematic adventure heroes – but even the public knew who created this one: George Lucas. What was the industry trying to say to its now-bastard son?
Enter E.T. I think the film has aged with time a little more than it should have. I also think it’s not nearly as polished as all of Spielberg’s work up to that time. It’s almost as if with this film, Spielberg was deciding to make his “first film” all over again. It is the work of a novice in terms of its design and simplicity (special effects aside). There certainly isn’t anything epic about it – unlike all of his previous efforts. It’s a fairy tale. The first of many to follow. I have 2 favorite scenes in the whole of the Spielberg cannon that stand out more than any other. The first is in Close Encounters when William’s turns his brilliant score for a moment into ‘When You Wish Upon a Star’ at the end when the Mother Ship is taking off and in E.T. when just before the bikes take off in that now famous bit of screen magic, Elliott, his brother Michael and their alien friend are engaging the “grown-ups” of the town in one of the most hair-raising chases I’ve ever had the pleasure to see on film. It’s funny how both scenes involve visitors from another world. I’m not even saying that Close Encounters and E.T. are Spielberg’s best films, but I am saying that they are important bookends to one very important point that this filmmaker was trying to make. To illuminate this point I shall use a line from Hamlet that I find hits the right spot:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
E.T. is a film for dreamers. It’s a film that speaks to the heart of every man and woman who’s ever felt the pain of childhood. Spielberg was showing us all a way to look back and remember things fondly. Whether we chose to or not.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes, I wrote this one fast.