Chronicles of Narnia: LWW

[green_amber]

Probably no spoilers.. (hmm.. well.. is it actually possible to have spoilers for Narnia anyway? Come on! Although it did turn out that Va age 15 had no idea it was a Christian allegory..)

The problem with the film of Narnia, is not that the film makers didn't make as good a fist at it as they could ; but that you simply can't make a film of Narnia in the naturalistic tradition, which is in any way faithful to the book, *and* which will appeal to the same adult audience that bought so profitably into LOTR. Lucy is far better cast than I dreaded from the trailers, Aslan's mane is rich and CGI perfect, and I genuinely wanted to bury my face in it (although that could be because he looks slightly like a giant version of my cat Java - "aw kitty!" I muttered on his first appearance.) . And Tilda Swinton is as good as anyone could ever desire as the Boadicea version of the White Witch (two handed sword play! John Woo eat your heart out!) No, the casting, acting, sets and SFX are largely fine. Even the children's E C Nesbit British upper crust accents and demeanour are, of course, absolutely justifiable, and narrowly but successfully avoid sounding like the Famous Five in the Comic Strip Presents... But..

The L, the W and the W is fundamentally a children's book encompassing an allegorised version for children of a mythic tale for adults: the death and resurrection of Christ. As it is an allegory for children, its heroes are children. LOTR on the other hand gives us a mythic tale for adults (albeit child-like adults) whose heroes are adults. As such we can engage reasonably, both emotionally and intellectally, with the passions, the fighting and the romance (such as it is) of LOTR when filmed on the big screen, becaue it looks sensible: we expect adults to be able to perform such acts of derring do and we can thrill to their nobility.



But Narnia gives us a world where we simultaneously have to believe in Father Xmas turning up to give gifts to little children, and a few days or weeks later, in those same children killing wolves and fighting hags in battles as people who will become great warriers of myth. In the later books, when Peter reminisces about finding his sword again, "with it I killed the Wolf", we remember it as an act of courage , of nobility and of passage to adulthood. On screen, it's a 14 (?)year old sticking a toy sword in an overgrown alsation while his sisters hide up a tree. More Huckleberry Finn than Aragorn, and the 15 year old next to me was stifling a laugh not a tear.

Plus the fact that the climactic battle scene, which as many people have observed could have been CGIed in from LOTR, substituting hags and centaurs for orcs and elves, is everything that matters in LOTR and justly over the top, but in LWW really doesn't matter. Once Aslan has risen again, we KNOW that good will triumph. The battle is more or less there only for Peter to prove himself and Edmund to redeem himself. Neither really works here. Peter going into Aragorn slo-mo battle fury just looks silly; and Edmund's death rattle is petulant not heart rending. Lucy's smile as she goes off to heal the sick with her cordial is not the smile of Lucy the Valiant who has become a Queen warrior of Narnia, but of a girl who's discovered her Transformers toy works after all when you put the batteries in properly. This isn't the fault of the actors. The problem is that within filmic naturalism, we can't possibly believe in children acting as adults as quickly as LWW demands.

((Which still isn't any excuse for why grown up Peter and Edmund appear to have been cast out of a 60's German porno movie. But let's skip that.))

The answer of course would be to make the film in stylised form - anime, cartoon - somewhere where children wielding swords doesn't look silly. But I suspect the main audience of 30-40somethings, who are so profitably enjoying these adaptations of their childhood reading, really wanted live action and only live action. New Zealand may have a lot to answer for.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I agree with the naturalism comment. Several people have commented that Aslan looks too much like a Lion - when you read about him in the books he has an aura around him, and if he'd been like that in the films - larger than life, and with a halo, it would have worked better. He needed sound effects when he walked, and more _oomph_.

I also find that the plot sucks. At least twice there are twists of the "You thought that one thing was going on, but because of The Deep Magic Which Has Not Been Explained, Something Else Will Now Happen" variety.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

You can't exactly blame the film for that. You can barely blame C S lewis. You have to blame NT God , or at least his rapporteurs :-)

[andrewducker]

He could have done it better than he did. It's not as if Christ was told he has to be crucified or Judas is going to get it, and then was brought back to life because Pilate failed to read the fine print.

A few words earlier on about The Witch being responsible for all betrayers would have dealt with point one, and then having the wording of the Deep Magic being something ambiguous - but told to us - would have meant that when the second 'deeper' meaning was revealed on Aslan's return, we could have said "Oh, of course!" rather than "Gosh, that was awfully allegorical, for bad storytelling."

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

No I really disagree on augmenting Aslan. I thought he was fine. A halo would have made people howl with laughter, and sound effects would have made him sound like King Kong. If anything, I'd maybe just have made him slightly larger than he already was. But the Stone Table scene really works with Aslan just as he is, as does Lucy and Susan riding on his back.

[andrewducker]

I don't mean a halo as in "a ring around his head" - I mean, make him glow slightly. Make him clearly more than a lion. All of the talking animals, in fact, are supposed to be larger than their normal equivalents, which I think is something that should have been more obvious.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

I still seem to be the only one who thought the Dawn French Mrs Beaver was incredibly clumsily done. The unneccessary comedy aspects just jarred so badly.

There were things I liked in LWW, Lucy's wide-eyed amazement when she first arrived in the wood suggested real magic to come, Tilda Swinton too. And I think, as with LOTR the landscapes l;ooked right most of the time. (Though as with LOTR the longer distance shots seemed somewhat foreshortened.)

On the other hand I agree with you about Aslan, especially post-resurrection Aslan who could surely have been made to glow somehow, be bigger, majestic even. The live-action feel with better use of the cgi would have worked.

[akicif.livejournal.com]

Aslan the White!!!

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

No, I wasn't convinced by either of the Beavers - I hate random comedy characters :( I've left my copy of the book at my parents' though so I can't check what their actual personalities were like.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I likd the beaver voices a LOT - didn't realise Mrs Beaver was Dawn French till the end at all, just sounded right ..

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

No I really disagree on augmenting Aslan. I thought he was fine. A halo would have made people howl with laughter, and sound effects would have made him sound like King Kong. If anything, I'd maybe just have made him slightly larger than he already was. But the Stone Table scene really works with Aslan just as he is, as does Lucy and Susan riding on his back

[davidcook.livejournal.com]

surliminal asks :
is it actually possible to have spoilers for Narnia anyway?

I've never read any Narnia books. I may be alone in this, but there you go ...

(obviously, haven't seen the movie yet, nor any previous adaptations)

[fringefaan.livejournal.com]

You are, of course, not alone. I haven't read them either, and was never even tempted for some reason.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

But did you still not vaguely know it was about a lion who is in some way Jesus? that was what I meant by saying i doubted anyone i the sf demi moonde could really be spoiled.

[fringefaan.livejournal.com]

I knew more than vaguely, because I've read a fair amount of discussion about the Narnia books, so you're quite right. I'm becoming less sensitive to spoilers as I get older anyway (and never was thank-you-for-destroying-all-my-pleasure-for-life sensitive anyway), and besides, you ended up throwing off suitable warning signs.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

These are the very reasons Lewis demanded that no live-action version of the books be done.

Animation was fine (though he thought Disney made things cheap, and bad, so he wanted someone else to do it), but real actors, and (though there was no CGI) some faked lion weren't going to cut it.

TK

[andrewducker]

One could argue that CGI _is_ animation, and so they at least badly done faked lions weren't in evidence. But they failed to take advantage of the possibilities and go beyond realism, which is a shame.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I would argue the reason they could convince the estate to accept the idea is that CGI is animation, and the children could be done live, and not hurt the story.

I think this is wrong, but it's arguable, and perhaps it could be directed to avoid the problems surliminal has said she saw, but such direction, esp. in the present day isn't likely to happen.

TK

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I think it could only have worked as live action if it had been far more surreal, bit like MIrrormask maybe.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

These are the very reasons Lewis demanded that no live-action version of the books be done.

Ahh that's intersting. I vaguely knew Lewis had opposed a live action movie but I hadn't realy thought about why when I wrote this response :-)

[numbat.livejournal.com]

I don't find the problem you describe as disturbing as some because my earlier self had a similar problem with the books themselves. I read a number of the Narnia books round about the same time I read many of Blyton's Secret Seven and Famous Five books and found them all much the same. (Well not quite, I definitely prefered the Secret Seven to the other two.)

The trouble was while I founf Lewis readable in a perfunctory sort of way his plots and worlds were just too bland for me to feel much excitment. Indeed, the only two clear memories I have of the Narnia books was of the coats in the cupboards shading into trees and the lamp post that took root and grew in the wilderness. Both neat ideas those.

I never did bother reading all the Narnia books because after about four or five I discovered Alan Garner and never bothered with them again.

When do we get a decent film versions of the first two Garner books then?

[frostfox.livejournal.com]

When does the old coot write the third one?
You know, when Susan realises she will become the mother then the crone herself one day and Cadellin realises that the whole mess isn't The Morrigan's fault, she's just acting her part, it's Angharad, who is stuck being The Mother for centuries, waiting for her hubby to come back. He used this theme again in The Owl Service and it stands out clear as daylight to me in these two too.

FF, also infected by Garner at an early age.

[numbat.livejournal.com]

It is a great pity that he moved on from telling those kind of tales before he could persuade himself to sit down and write that third book. And indeed such a book would surely see matters brought to a head, resulting in those who are stuck like insects in the amber of their destiny breaking free to find some sort of resolution. That he never wrote that book and because I don't find the climax of The Owl Service satisfactory leads me to suspect that this is something Garner couldn't find the right words for.

And themore I think about it the more I wish they had filmed The Weirdstone of Brisingamen. If done up to the standard of the most recent Harry Potter film it would be worth its weight in gold.

very good penguins

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

is it just me? the main spoiler of my engagement with both this and LOTR 2 and 3 (apart from the fact that they were just animated war games whereas 1 was actually a drama and a not bad film) is that the central characters are BIG CARTOONS. I mean do you guys really buy the CGI character? is there any point at which you are not thinking, "oh thats done rather well", do you genuinely go blind to the fact that it clearly doesnt inhabit the same universe (Diegetic Space in film-speak) as the rest of the movie, like a Mary Poppins penguin?

Theres that moment in LOTR 3 when we see the transformation of smeagol into gollum, we see the real andy serkis in the final stages of his decrepitude, just before he gets CGI-ed: he closes his (real) cataract-blinded eyes, looks genuinely haunted, ghoulish, opens them and hey presto hes a big ol' CARTOON, with cartoon-evil-bambi-eyes. And it is all about the eyes. Judi dench said that she really got film acting when she realised that (unlike on stage)you didnt have to ACT emotions, you just had to have them and the camera would see them in your eyes. Eyes are where the acting happens. So imagine Judi Dench with everything else intact but with glass eyes. It wouldnt work. It would be like looking at a doll, or a BIG CARTOON. So the Big Cartoon, the Witch and the Wardrobe, really? You bought it?

Re: very good penguins

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

well everything was so silly in narnia that yes, a lion as main character had as much plausibility as kids as kings, so why not?..
In LOTR I liked the first film far more than the other 2 too -- but yes, I did find Smeagol worked.