Artsculture

The Lying, The Which, and the Why God?

Tricked by 'The Chronicles of Narnia.'

By Dorothy Woodend, 16 Dec 2005, The Navigator

Narnia

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

"Holy shit." I've never really thought much about this expression before, except that upon exiting The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, it was the first thing that came to my lips. And it seemed horribly apt.

There isn't a single moment in this film, front to end, that rings true. It reminded me of the Archie comic books they used to give away at the Greyhound bus depot. It wasn't until I was happily ensconced on the bus and flipped open my brand new comic book, that I realized I'd been had. It was a Christian Archie!

A similar creeping sentiment pervades this entire film, a feeling of being lied and proselytized to at the same time. However, it isn't the Christian message that is most troubling, but the fact that the film is so shoddily put together. It's lacking in a certain something called magic. In its place is something else, called marketing. Which is just about the furthest thing from magic.

C.S. Lewis' famous story, despite its sticky allegorical center, has a dry wit that is intensely English. In the movie, that biscuity quality is entirely gone, replaced by CGI and swelling strings.

It is jolly olde England all right; WW II is at its height, and the nasty Nazis are shelling the hell out of the place. Mumsie Pevensie packs off her brood to the countryside, the better to protect the little blighters. The foursome is soon on a train, bagged, tagged and delivered to their elderly uncle.

The Pevensies are: Peter, who bares an unfortunate resemblance to John Boy Walton, minus the melanoma, but with the same mooncalf stare; Lucy, priggish and uptight, with lips swollen up like balloons; Edmund, the only realistically sullen one in the bunch, and little Lucy, who does her best acting with her enormous teeth. One can't really blame the actors for this atrocity; they are after all, only children, it's the adults around then that ought to be soundly spanked and sent to bed with no dinner.

'Lord of the Rings' hangover

Director Andrew Adamson, perhaps chosen more for his name than his directorial chops, previously helmed Shrek 1 and 2, and here, he shows little or no imagination in depicting Narnia. It's all supposed to be breathtaking and beautiful, but it looks a lot like New Zealand, a landscape already mined by Peter Jackson.

The screenwriters' decision to ditch much of Lewis' dialogue in favour of their own is also worth questioning. Perhaps, they think children couldn't possibly relate to characters whose favorite swearword is "beastly"? What happens, of course, is that everything specifically lovely about the book is lost, replaced by generic do-gooding, and the typical Disney fare of anthropomorphic talking animals. Although the Harry Potter movies could easily have suffered a similar fate, they kept their own specificity of time and place, and thus, their charm has remained intact.

But there are even more troubling problems with this film. This book inspired me to spend a great deal of my own childhood hanging out in closets, begging to be let in. I so wanted the moment that Lucy stumbles into the wardrobe and then out into Narnia to be handled exactly right. But Mr. Tumnus, the faun who greets her, reminded me more of some would-be molester than a twee pal for kiddies. The film here tries very hard for innocence and enchantment but all I got was an uneasy feeling of "Don't go with that hairy man, kid!"

'Turkish Delights'

The film also goes to some lengths to draw a connection between World War II and the Narnia skirmishes. When Edmund is convinced by WW (that's White Witch) to give up his family and friends for sweeties, he is treated somewhat like a wartime collaborator. The Geneva Convention should really be invoked here, since the idea that Turkish Delight actually tastes good is a crime against humanity.

The only person who appears to be having fun is Tilda Swinton, playing the White Witch as a combination of Martha Graham and a Hitler Youth member. Mostly, it is her various ensembles that provoke interest; evil is as evil wears and the White Witch and vogue editrix Anna Wintour seem to favour similar fashions.

I kept expecting representatives of PETA to show up and slap the witch in the face with a pie. Which witch am I referring to? I'm sure Ms. Wintour would be wearing Aslan as a coat in the final reel if she was in the movie; however, Ms. Swinton, with her pallor and her crown of ice will have to suffice. At least Ms. Swinton is confident of her character, the same cannot be said of the younger actors, who are in dire need of some direction. They spend a great deal of the film, staring blank-eyed and pouty lipped at nothing. Even the ultimate moment of noble sacrifice, Christ on a cross turns into Aslan on the stone table, provokes little more than an expression of mild distaste from little Lucy.

The only place where things get a little livelier is the big battle, the ultimate clash between the talking birdies and the snarling wolves. Here too, there is a odd undercurrent of animal racism: ugly animals are bad, and pretty animals are good. Hence the spectacle of a big black cow in full battle gear screaming "MOOOOOOO!!!" is sure to strike terror into the hearts of tiny tots everywhere. Even if the story itself was based on the New Testament, Aslan bears more of a resemblance to the wrathful God of the old, when he opens up a can of whup ass on the Witch, he doesn't just kill her, he eats her face off: shades of The Passion of the Christ, but this is a kid's film. For Christ's sake, take it easy on the wee ones.

'Whiff of mothballs'

Maybe it all matters not. While Peter Jackson may consider suing for infringement of epic LOTR territory, children everywhere will probably shrug and go back to playing video games. There is a whiff of moth balls about this film. It seems old fashioned and not in a good way; like something dug out of the attic and relentlessly repackaged. But the world has moved on, and the same old soft shoe shuffle doesn't work quite like it used to. If the movie is supposed to function as a Christian recruiting tool, it's too boring to get everyone "rah rah sis boom bah" over God, and too obvious for even the least suspicious of children. So who, exactly, is it for?

Let's ask this guy. Philip Anschutz, according to a recent article in the Economist, is "a religious billionaire whose aim is no less than to uplift American culture. Mr Anschutz has set up a studio to make moral films for families of a kind he says Hollywood neglects."

Although there has been some media coverage of the film being promoted to Christians and church groups, it is really more about money than God. Especially in Hollywood, where God is money, or as the Economist describes it, "As well as its film-making division in Los Angeles, Walden Media runs an office in Boston which tries to persuade teachers to use its films in classrooms. Hollywood is especially impressed by Walden Media's education strategy. Studio executives see it as a clever way to get children and parents to buy its products." Beware the hard sell, whether it's propaganda, or merely the props for it.

Destinies in the countryside

I couldn't help but think of another kids' film I'd seen recently, Takashi Miike's The Great Yokai War that played at the Whistler Film Festival. There are some strange similarities between the two stories. In each, children are sent to the countryside to stay with an elderly relative, and in each, a destiny is fulfilled with the help of lots of weird creatures along the way.

In The Yokai War, our hero is Tadashi, a scrawny little mite scared witless by the proceedings; he spends most of the film shrieking like a kettle on full boil. But he perseveres, with the help of his Yokai (characters from Japanese folklore) friends, most of whom are not CGI, but actors in good old-fashioned face paint and costume, especially one memorable character who appears to be constructed out of an old sock. The action intermittently freezes to offer sage advice like "Don't try this at home." Usually this involves scenes in which the characters are hanging off the wing of a jumbo jet in full freezing flight. Thanks Mr. Miike, that's very helpful.

Yokai is not a perfect film, but it's got more life in five minutes of creatures fighting and partying and drinking Kirin beer than in all of Narnia. Whether The Great Yokai War ever achieves success in North America as a children's film is highly doubtful, mostly because it is simply too weird, and in a few places the director's horror film past comes sproinging out like a boogeyman jack-in-the-box. One scene in particular, scared me silly, and after watching it you may reconsider getting up to go pee in the middle of the night ever again.

The film also has a rather complex message about environmentalism and recycling, but most critically, it assumes that children aren't idiots. In the end, the hero Tadashi must lie to spare the feelings of a friend. It is the first step on the road to adulthood, a bittersweet feeling that is given careful attention by the director. In the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the children are right back where they started: children once more. This version of Narnia would like you to stay permanently stranded in feeble-minded fake childhood, and to never put away childish things.

You should politely and firmly say thanks, but no thanks, because if there is one lesson to be learned from this film, it's that, cinematically at least, it's more interesting to feed the Christians to the lions, instead of the other way around.

Dorothy Woodend reviews films for The Tyee every Friday. [Tyee]

21 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    Comments on "The Lying, The Which, and the Why God? "

    What a lazy review.

    This was hardly a brilliant rendition of C.S. Lewis' novel, but the reviewer (Woodend) is taking exception to all the wrong things.

    Whether she likes it or not, the novel was & is a Christian allegory. For the film to attempt anything less would be a sell-out by any standard.

    And *of course* there are superficial similarities with The Lord of the Rings. Does Woodend not know that Tolkien & CS Lewis were good friends who passed each other's drafts back & forth? That they both belonged to a literary club (The Inklings) that focused on this genre of literature? Does she not know that Tolkien (deeply Catholic) converted the atheistic Lewis to Christianity?

    And Disney most certainly *did* water-down the religious messaging. There were two crucial instances inwhich the theology was yanked out from under the story's feet. Did you catch them, Woodend?

    1. Aslan's context was modified - The was no mention of 'The Emperor Beyond the Sea' (Aslan's father - i.e. God). This reference is what finally Christologizes the character of Aslan in the book & throughout the series.

    2. Aslan's Resurrection - No mention of the 'Magic from Before the Dawn of Time', which is what catalyzes the resurrection. This is, of course, a reference to a force outside of history, before Original Sin, and which is understood to be greater that the Witch's 'Magic from the Dawn of Time'. This omission is fundamental. What they inserted in its place was a flimsy sop. Instead, Aslan's resurrection is stripped of cosmological reasoning, and becomes a simple magic trick.

    If anything, the redrafting of the story for this movie demonstrates how carefully one must tip-toe around the irrate and allergic secular humanists.

    Quote:
    This version of Narnia would like you to stay permanently stranded in feeble-minded fake childhood, and to never put away childish things.

    Perhaps, - they can only accomplisy so much in two hours - but you might recall the moment in the series when Aslan tells Peter & Susan that they are too old to return to Narnia - that they must put childhood to rest & find roots in their own world.

    It was actually an okay introduction to the series - hopefully some will be intrigued enough to pick up the books. The Georgia Straight got it right, though, when it lamented the market-driven reverse order of exposure: video game, movie, book. Is there any way to turn that order on it's head?

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    ...on a less critical note, I agree with Woodend's appreciation of Tilda Swinton. This unique-looking actress will probably never get the parts or the acclaim she deserves.

    I adored her creepy, sociopathic portrayal of the angel 'Gabriel' in the movie Constantine (actually she was the only thing about that movie that makes it worthwhile).

    As for actors in 'Narnia', I thought Georgie Henley (the girl who played Lucy) carried that whole film. Each expression on her face energized the screen, contrasting with the overly-coached acting of the older children. I was reminded of the way Kirsten Dunst stole the show from Pitt & Cruise in 'Interview with the Vampire'.

    James McAvoy (beautiful!) was great as Tumnus. The "child molestation" thing flashed though my head momentarily too, Woodend, but that's only because we've been damaged by unpleasant realities. The Tumnus story line remains an important cautionary tale.

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    ...I just read the Vancouver Sun's commentary on the movie in today's paper, as well as a few others online. They don't get it either. The thirst for mythopoetic narrative is beyond them, because they don't understand the genre...they can't resist indulging their cynicism [and they bandy about all the usual -ist words - sexist, classist, racist - in response to a cultural context that does not conform to their own].

    That's why culturally neutered boobs in the media and on the liberal-Left ["Holiday Tree"????] are creating a vacuum which is easily filled by opportunists such as this one, which Woodend aptly describes:

    Quote:
    Let's ask this guy. Philip Anschutz, according to a recent article in the Economist, is "a religious billionaire whose aim is no less than to uplift American culture. Mr Anschutz has set up a studio to make moral films for families of a kind he says Hollywood neglects."

    This is equally anathema to a healthy dialogue and the genuine preservation of the content of the literature in the public mind.

    Okay - I've hogged this thread enough - Ciao

  • Gustav

    6 years ago

    I'm not surprised that C.S. Lewis's dialogue was ditched. Big studios like Disney always insist on dumbing down great literature. Jane Austen's "outdated prose" got similar treatment in the recent film version of Pride and Prejudice. Even Harry Potter failed to emerge unscathed. Recall that the title of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was changed for the North American market to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I half expected the cretins at Disney to change the name of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" to "The Lion, the Witch, and the Walk-in Closet"!

  • kurt

    6 years ago

    I thought both Narnia and Pride and Prejudice were faithful to the spirits of the books and kept the best lines intact. These things do get abridged and condensed for a two-hour movie. Certainly actors such as Donald Sutherland, Judi Dench and the delightful child who played "Lucy" did great jobs in their roles. The only knock I have is that Elizabeth Bennett's best friend, Charlotte, becomes her sister in the movie version of Austin's tale, but even that worked and would only be noticed by those who read the book.

    I don't get the need for critics to fret about the allusions to Christianity in Narnia. I loved those books when I was a kid, just as much as the Greek myths, Beowulf and other classics published in versions suitable for pre-teens, but I never noticed the Christian references in the Narnia books until I was older. I just thought they were ripping good yarns.

  • nightbloom

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    I never noticed the Christian references in the Narnia books until I was older. I just thought they were ripping good yarns.

    I agree. It's only the adults that notice & worry about this stuff...and it's not even intended for us, really.

  • Foley

    6 years ago

    Terrific commentary, nightbloom. Know that the time you put into those posts is appreciated, and gave a provided a great counterpoint to the article.

    Enjoyed the article as well, I look forward to seeing what my reaction to the film will be.

  • Umslopogaas

    6 years ago

    C.S. Lewis said long ago, that it is stupid to make childish comments about books meant to be read by adults. Maybe the converse of that is true too.

  • cuinn

    6 years ago

    This seems to be a review of neither book nor movie, but rather "The Chronicles of Dorothy Woodend."

  • Dorothy Woodend

    6 years ago

    You're right, this was a bit of a reactionary piece, too much the Chronicles of Woodend (which is actually more like the Chronicles of Riddick, than Narnia). I didn't have many preconceptions about the film, prior to seeing it, and generally most reviews have been fairly positive, but this film made me angry because in the words of our own Truman Green, by way of JD Salinger, it seemed so phoney. Made expressly to capitalize on the success of LOTR, but without one ounce of that series' creativity or heart. Venal is the word that springs to mind, something to be bought, which is why the huge sales push from Walden Media and Disney to sell books tied into films in classrooms seems so underhanded.

    Quite frankly, I loved the Narnia books, as much as the Lord of the Rings, and with a different director, and a different production company, I think it could have been a much better film. It was sore disappointment, and it made me bitter and mean.

  • kurt

    6 years ago

    Perhaps too much Freudian analysis too, Dorothy. Mr. Tumnus didn't deserve it either. Lucy is the spitting image of my wife at that age, but I dispute any contention that this makes me some kind of weirdo.

  • stevebailey

    6 years ago

    Thank you for your comments, Nightbloom. You've nicely replied to my issues with this 'review'. Dorothy - what planet are you from?

  • Marysue

    6 years ago

    I never liked Lord of the Rings--the book. Never saw the movie. I liked The Hobbit, though. When I was a kid, I avidly read fairy tales --even the Marketplace Myths of Milton Friedman. Milton did later recant his myths and moved onto reality --that part never made the press or the universities, where his earlier myths are still being expounded. Like Milton, I, too, moved on to reality--although I made an enjoyable relapse for the 3 original Star Wars series. If I want more fairy tales, I could read the Province or the Sun or watch Michael Campbell on TV. Or read some of the Capitalism Creates Wealth advocates here in thetyee opinion boxes.

  • Golden

    6 years ago

    This review reminds somewhat of the comments made by most of the girls in my grade 8 class (so long ago) about "Lord of the Flies." They found everything about it unbelievable. This left the "other half of the class" scratching their heads. We might wish it wasn't so, but.... We may marvel at the patient, indulging nature of lions with their offspring, but there is another side to the story (whether we like it or not). The name for male lion in an African dialect means "head crusher." It is the means by which he brings about a quick and merciful death. It seems inconsistent to complain about realism and the lack of it at the same time.
    C.S. Lewis had ACTUALLY been in a war, and witnessed the muscular, masculine side of a faith where one's survival is secondary to a righteous cause.

  • Golden

    6 years ago

    Sorry...didn't finish. Woodend may want to examine what a world without righteous anger would be like before getting too upset about it. She may also want to second guess her own conclusion about how bad Turkish Delight tastes, given that its makers have done quite well thankyou. Perhaps her tastebuds have been corrupted by something other than good taste.

  • kjc

    6 years ago

    Real Turkish Delight tastes great. I have not yet seen Narnia but the nasty undertext that pervades this review and others in the Aspernazi press is not puzzling in view of the on-going war on Christian icons that reared its ugly head when Mel Gibson dared to film the New Testasment. You know, the one where the recently recovened Sanhedrin, the court that condemned Christ, was not just made up of totally innocent scapegoats but "the children of the Devil" as JC himself to referred to them.

    The "new" Macleans calls Lewis as "the English-speaking world's most eminent Christian apologist' and refers to "post-Christian Britian." Post-Christian, pre-Noahide? I don't think so.

    Doesn't matter if she spits or swallows, Woodend's tastebuds have indeed been corrupted.

  • kurt

    6 years ago

    Didn't see the Macleans article but it sounds like they've aped the lines from Polly Toynbee's critique in the Guardian, especially the one about "post-Christian Britain". I can scarcely imagine why Polly would bother seeing the movie, much less review it, as she clumsily tries to clamber over her preconceived notions about Christianity and corporations (as did Dorothy Woodend) to render some almighty, flimsy logic.

    For example, Polly believes that Narnia relentlessly hammers home a hard, brutal evangelical message funded by "Christian right" corporations, which she finds nauseating, then in the next breath says few youngsters in "post-Christian Britain" will understand it. OK. If that's so, then where's the problem? Sounds like the Christian right conspiracy to indoctrinate kids has instead funded an ordinary action-adventure picture.

  • kurt

    6 years ago

    BTW, Polly Toynbee is quite the "apologist" herself, as she led the Guardian's campaign to encourage voters to wear noseplugs in the polling booths at the last election (because of the Iraq invasion) while she prompted all the good socialist Britons to vote for Tony Blair's Labour Party. Polly needs to exorcise a few devils of her own.

  • cuinn

    6 years ago

    I think C.S. Lewis was informed and educated well enough to sense how the Christian myth had intersected with his time and place. To place his interpretation in the hands of Disney 60+ years later will, of course, give you back another picture altogether.

    The themes of birth, death, resurrection, hope, sin, despair, sacrifice, forgiveness, and love have been around since at least the times of Ra and the way the sun was born and died each day in ancient Egypt. Christ was nothing new - but Disney will never be brave enough to portray his or any other non-Americanized message. That's not what Disney does.

    The message of hope and reclamation of lost souls has been here as long as we have. I think C.S. Lewis was aware of that. He just picked the current myth, but had the decency to connect it to the old ones through scholarship. Thanks to him for the great story. The hell with Disney and the plastic satyr I received from MacDonald's today in Christ's memory. An interesting artifact of the ways "faith" becomes... what? ... plastic?

    I'm going to hang the satyr on my Christmas tree and watch for the star in the winter sky now. Happy solstice one and all!

  • kjc

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    Didn't see the Macleans article but it sounds like they've aped the lines from Polly Toynbee's critique in the Guardian, especially the one about "post-Christian Britain."

    How is it they all come up with the same stuff at once these days. Almost enough to make you think there is some kind of conspiracy going on. As I recall the also very nasty National Post review referred to this film as "hardcore Christian propaganda aimed at innocent children."

    But on a happier note, Happy Solstice indeed! I am in the midst of preparing for a pagan celebration this evening out the valley.

    And Merry Christmas too!

  • Golden

    6 years ago

    Bigotry, whatever its shape, size, intellect, spirituality or language, has neither the need nor the sophistication required for a conspiracy. It's conspicuous enough to make it's point by just being what it is, blatent and self-righteous. There's always an audience for those who are hearing what they need to hear, but I'm always encouraged when opportunities are taken to challenge it.

    I'm new to this internet publication, but I'm impressed by the responses above. I will look forward to learning more from you.

    May you all experience all the best of the Christmas season and a New Year filled with joy!

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.