|
Published: June 14, 2008
Talk About Movies: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian”
Matthew Lickona and Ernie Grimm discuss current and classic films from a Catholic perspective
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Directed by Andrew Adamson
Starring Ben Barnes, Liam Neeson
144 minutes, UK/USA, Color, English, 2008
Bishops' rating: A-II
 Ernie: Unlike the Lord of the Rings movies, which I think fundamentally misunderstand Tolkien on a number of levels, this movie and its prequel seem to understand the main themes of the books. C.S. Lewis' Prince Caspian is a story about faith: faith in the idea of old Narnia, faith in the Deep Magic, faith in Aslan. And, as if to explain Christ's words about becoming like little children, Lewis bestows the greatest faith on Lucy, the youngest of the four siblings. It's Lucy who sees Aslan at the gorge. Edmund, chastened by his first experience in Narnia, believes her, but Peter, Susan, and Trumpkin the Dwarf do not, and they choose their own path -- to near disaster -- instead of following Lucy's path of Faith toward Aslan. That scene from the book is pretty well captured in the movie. There is a bit of dumbing down, however. Trumpkin, in the book, is pretty open about his non-belief in Aslan's existence. In the movie, he's shown to be less of an atheist, more of a skeptic.
Matthew: My 11-year-old was right with Peter, who was basically giving in to the lament of "How long, O Lord, how long?" After all, Aslan's apparent failure to intervene seems to necessitate Peter's taking matters into his own hands. Something has to be done, and Aslan is nowhere to be seen. Long ago, he was a frequent and powerful presence, not unlike the God who was regularly chatting with the Israelites (or at least the prophets) in the Old Testament, and smiting enemies with fire from heaven. Now, 1300 years later, he's all but invisible, appearing in dreams, and then only to the faithful. And even when he does appear, his goodness is still hidden from those who don't wish to see it -- the Telmarines don't trust him when he offers them a second chance. I rather liked the shape of Edmund's faith: he can't see, but he hasn't forgotten, and so he holds on. There's the plight of the weakened, modern believer for you.
Ernie: Yes, Peter fell into the "I can't see Him, so He's not here" trap, and I liked that his attempts to manage it all himself ended in disaster. He learns faith and obedience the hard way. He also learns that when he turned from Aslan/God and started doing it his own way, he opened the door to evil, evil that would increase his power; in this case, the White Witch. And he's tempted. That scene was handled well in that regard. Unfortunately, that scene also lapsed into some Peter Jacksonesque ugliness for ugliness' sake. It's clear they wanted to make this movie a lot darker than the first one.
Matthew: Well, it is darker. In the first, Edmund was seduced into evil by tasty treats. Now, the seduction is much more sophisticated -- the promise of power. Much more in the line of "You shall be like gods." In the first, the evil was purely magical -- the White Witch, eternal winter, the good guys turned to stone. Here, the evil is disturbingly human: brother killing brother for the sake of power, general killing king for the sake of power. Love and order both rebelled against. But as long as we're mentioning Jackson, I will say that the sheer extent of the battle scenes did put me in mind of the cave troll -- a long, effects-laden battle that is supposed to dazzle -- and would dazzle, if it were shorter and surrounded by more of the magic that made the story a classic. Why don't we get more of the relationship between Caspian and his tutor at the outset? Why don't we get Pan's visit to the victory celebration at the end? The drive of the story is to reawaken the magic of Narnia, not just for the sake of getting the trees to fight, but for the sake of bringing meaning and the spiritual back to a drab, nasty, material world.
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 11:50 AM By John Teresa
Ernie, Once again you unfairly and wrongly judge the LOTR movies. When you commit to bringing a vision as large as Tolkien’s to film you are on a course that is not easily changed. First the book did not lend itself to film as it was written. (Notice I say book and not books?) They made compromises they felt they were forced to make for the films’ success. The films unlike the books needed closure, as atomic units. It took 8 years to make, and a quarter of a billion dollars RISKED not to mention the careers of thousands of people. I don’t dispute that it wasn’t spot on, but you mean to tell me you cannot find any Catholicity in those films? There’s nothing in those films worth showing a group of teen boys, and then discussing what it means to be a man? LOTR the book is myth. LOTR the film is a representation of people’s actions of which a myth is then made. In a myth the king can be on a righteous quest, act kingly, and use stilted language. It’s not so easy in a film. The last 3rd of ROTK was dedicated to closure, the end of an age. Some critics whacked Jackson for having what appeared to be multiple endings. That was a risk to stay true, and they should get credit for that. I think they understood, and took risks because of their profound respect for JRRT.
|
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 12:09 PM By John Teresa
In my opinion, it is easier to bring allegory to the screen than myth. In the written medium it is easier to write myth than allegory. These stories are meant to entertain as well as teach. The stories imbue the participant with faith and Western culture. So if your intent is to work with the allegorical-visual, how do you represent evil visually from the Catholic perspective?
|
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 4:40 PM By WB
I agree with Ernie's criticism of the LOTR films. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all. He didn't have any feel for the poetic imagination of Tolkien. His visual style lacks a subtle feeling -- it's all bombast and big-money action scenes.
Beyond that, following on the success of Expelled, M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening is the biggest pro-Intelligent Design movie of the year so far. Schyamalan is a Christian and he consciously placed a pro-God theme in his film.
|
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:25 PM By WB
I haven't seen The Happening -- that wasn't an endorsement, just a stray comment.
|
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:13 PM By John L. Sillasen
Go straight to Biblical characters who were and who are to be evil. Jezebel, Herod, the Beast, the Great Harlot, the Anti-Christ, the False Prophet. But these figures can be found in literature and movies in one form or another. Perhaps evil is recognized by its acts. What about the Three Temptations of Christ? This sort of thing is found not infrequently in movies, but it often is twisted to make the temptations look good. And often such a movie will proceed with the assumptive plot that does all it can to justify the deceptive twist. What about a biographical movie of Episcopalian Bishop Robinson?
|
Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 10:11 PM By John Teresa
All, Don't want to make this a LOTR discussion, so I ask the generic question: how do you represent evil visually from the Catholic perspective? Did you like the way Mel handled satan in The Passion? Calling something Jacksonesque as a negative criticism is unfair. The first Narnia film was a bit fluffy. It had more of the feeling of the ousting of a minor junta, than the clash of good vs evil. I think the way the ring was handled was well done, and captured JRRT poetic imagination and with subtlety. In the first Narnia there was beauty for beauty's sake but not a lot of magic.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 3:27 AM By rochelle Mercadal
a comment about narnia, i think it is an amazing theme and i just love it. the way how the movie was made and the effects and all it its the best of all!!
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:36 AM By John Teresa
John L. Those are entities who behaved badly or are the source of evil. How does one represent them visually and not have it be ugly for ugly's sake? What is too much ugly, and not enough evil? Keep in mind that your fortune and career are at risk before you answer. These are not horror flicks that we are talking about. These are films about classic literature, and part of our cultural canon.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 1:29 PM By John L. Sillasen
Alas, I promise to be good. Focusing in, then, I'd first have to reckon my comparison of movies and literature. These movies do not match up to the imagination produced in the interaction between reader and the author. But, sometimes movies present their own moments of glory. I have seen only bits of these fantasy movies, here and there: So far the scene most in my mind is where the terradactyl monsters are raiding the castle where the good characters are defending themselves. I was kind of interested in the aerodynamics ... ok, pardon my wordiness here, as I try to climb on board the discussion. I'm a bit cynical out of meanspiritedness having tried for a long time to dream up a great movie script, which is long on the backburner. So, I'll try to tune in ... I can see you're digging in to this issue, and that it is good since it affects so many kids out there. "Ugly vs evil": new idea for me to ponder. Well, I saw the Lion King (forced to watch it on the job), and opine that it is not ugly but is evil. So what have I seen that I regard as not evil but ugly ... I know, the movie with the Trol who outfoxes the blond prince for the hand of his true love ... best part was where the animated Joan Rivers (sounded like her real voice) says of the approaching carriage, and says it in the most perfect Jewish accent, "It's the faihhhrie gawdmutheh!" er, was that some other film? Awright, I'm trying to get on line here: I'll have to think on this one. My OLF statue is glaring at me and averting her eyes ... tells me there is something here to be more earnest about. Later.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:15 PM By WB
To portray evil in film you first have to portray innocence and goodness. That is the most difficult challenge in our current artistic era. Innocence is not something silly or boring the way Hollywood wants to portray it. Instead, it's very attractive and draws an audience in with warmth and sympathy. Evil, of course, is the ruin of that innocence. But if you start out with uglyness without building a sympathetic or poetic world of beauty (as Peter Jackson tends to do -- not all the time, but just at his worst) then it's tiring and wearying. Hollywood tries very hard to portray evil in just about every movie. Slasher flicks and generic horror are all about that. But Tolkien's brilliance was in creating the world of innocence and beauty -- unlike just about any other in the world of fantasy literature.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:15 PM By WB
John S. -- you should just start writing your story and then improve it with revisions.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:28 PM By John Teresa
In Lion Witch . .. I think the Tumnus scene is where you capture that innocence with tea and sardines. That scene is very good and innocent. For those who lived through the war, I suspect something as simple as tea and sardines would have been quite warming. There is something very beautiful in just visiting friends for conversation and refreshment. Fellowship is very important. As I recall from memory when Lucy awoke, the fire had gone out, and the room was darker, and less inviting. When dealing with classics like these stories the director has a much harder time.
|
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:33 PM By John L. Sillasen
WB, first protraying innocence and goodness ... that's why a while ago I strayed away from my enthusiasm for TV and movies ... the actors and actresses simply didn't know what these things are. I discovered that real people are vastly more interesting that the high class con-artistry of Hollywood ... a few exceptions. For a long time prior to giving it the slip, I found "B" movies to be a whole lot better ... since the actors and actresses were not pretending to be historically significant characters ... one can look at old news reels and see the difference between Hollywood imitators and the real McCoys. Most of the superstars are not up to providing outhouse door service for real life characters. It's not in their technical competence to act, but in their vapid incomprehensibility of virtue, stemming from the almost total lack of it. The real stars used to play their roles while not trying to convince the viewers that they were doing more than that. Then they got into the pretense of trying to lord it over the heroic and virtuous characters from real life ... that is due to their hostility towards God, their vain glorious drive to feel more significant than great world leaders. All this generation of Hollywood dolts can do is show the way into perdition. And I think that's one thing this column is trying to repair.
|
Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 5:23 PM By WB
Excellent thoughts, John T. After the war, the simple things of life took on great meaning for people and they cherished those things. I think Lewis captures that very well.
John S. -- I fully agree with your portrait of the vapid stars of today. They have never really lived life so they can't portray real people. It's all glitz and irony and "cool" -- that gets boring. There are some good exceptions, fortunately, but not many. It might not be all to blame with the actors either since it's a malady of our culture and perhaps they're a good reflection of the emptyness of it (and the incomprehensibility of virtue -- which is really a big problem).
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|