It's not that Lucy is annoying, or that Liam Neeson should stay out of movies forever, or that CGI in large amounts is dumb. Those things are true, but that's not why The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was such a disaster.
The problem was the worldview. Which is odd, considering Lewis' 7-volume series is touted nearly universally as a fine example of Christian literature. I have my own thoughts on the quality of those books, and there are elements in them that make me profoundly uncomfortable, but I would agree that they support a thoroughly Christian theology (for the most part).
None of the recent films from Walden Media based on them support anything but a humanistic postmodernism that undercuts not only Lewis' intent, but the stories themselves.
In the book version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe Aslan defeats the White Witch's Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time with Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. The implication is clear: Aslan, as Christ-figure, is raised triumphantly from Death just as Jesus was raised to Life by the hand of the Father. The Deeper Magic is stronger than the merely Deep Magic, which symbolizes Original Sin and human rebellion.
In the recent movie "adaptation," however, Aslan defeats the White Witch's Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time with....Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time. This choice on the filmmakers' part doesn't even make sense contextually, but the ramifications are truly awful. Aslan simply draws on his own power to defeat "evil," which is made of the same stuff that produces good. This distinction without a difference isn't even Manichean, it's simple relativism, stupid sappy Pelagianism wrapped up with digital effects and cute child actors.
There are many more examples I could provide from these films to show how bad they are, and how little fans of Lewis' books should care for them, but this one is pretty summary. The films weren't even very entertaining, and while they might have been higher-budget than the four BBC TV movies from the late '80s, at least the originals were faithful to Lewis' original stories.
Here's the baffling thing, though: C.S. Lewis fans are pretty diehard, and they love pointing out the symbolism in his novels. Why do so many of them love these films? Can't they see that Walden Media and whoever else has stripped all the meaning from these tales? I only hope these don't end up replacing the books for the next generation.
My guess is that those die-hard Lewis fans, who have digested the books and know them like the back of their hands have simply swallowed the movie whole with the assumption that it's the same as the book. Sure, they see a few things have been changed or added, but (perhaps) they're just enjoying the movie because of the book without giving it a little more thought.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good guess. Like they are filling in the blanks?
DeleteOur mutual friend, Eric told me that he'd heard someone describe the movies as "Lewis's words devoid of all of Lewis's meaning."
ReplyDeleteMaybe defenders just happen to like the stories? I only saw the first film, but that was enough. I love the books! (surprise, I know :-)
I like the books, too. (I've even read them more than once.) Yeah, Emily's suggestion makes sense, though I'd think the meaning is one of the things to love about the books, and its absence in the movies would make it all the more missed. I dunno. I like that succinct summation (Lewis' words without his meaning). Prince Caspian was even worse than the first, if you can believe it, and Dawn Treader was the worst of all.
ReplyDeleteI tried to give the first movie a second viewing, and I literally fell asleep. I watched the second movie and I was entertained, but not by the movie--I happened to be in Maui, and the small theater was full of Hawaiian families the fathers of which wrestled in the aisles with small children during the screening. I haven't watched the third movie, but I may the next time I'm sleepy or surrounded by amusing tropical natives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily. If I may put a pedantic term to it, I wonder if a sort of metonymic substitution takes place for fans of both the literature and the films. Consequently, the nature of the books becomes associated with the nature of the films, even when the former lacks the actual presence in the latter. Such a practice shouldn't be excused for thinking Christians, but then, "thinking Christian" is an oxymoron in the mainstream, no?