The Obligatory Narnia Movie Post
Forgive my snotty title…but I’m sure that by now the blogosphere is just dying for yet another “first impression” post about the new Narnia movie. 
Last night Karyn and I went to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - the much-anticipated film adaptation of the first book in his Narnia series. We were pleasantly surprised when we happened upon about twenty of our Westminster classmates at the theater. Let not final exams keep any of us from important movie premiers!
I’ll cut to my bottom line: very, very good. Not perfect, but very good.
As true with any review, spoilers to follow, so caveat lector!
Let’s get some potential criticisms out of the way. The big one I’ve been hearing is the moving of the “Aslan’s not tame, but he’s good” speech from Mr. Beaver early in the story to a dialogue between Lucy and Tumnus near the end. This has some Christian viewers up in arms for some reason, ready to burn down the theater. I guess I’m more willing to let film makers do some new things with a familiar story that shake up our ingrained impressions, our “second readings” if you will, as long as the change is made with some purpose. In this case, I conjecture that the film makers might have had two purposes. One would be to keep a little more mystery around Aslan in our first encounter with him…sort of like the Synoptic approach to Jesus. Who is this guy and why does he seem to have such a grip on people? One of the criticisms of the Narnia books that I happen to agree with is Lewis is often too quick to explain things, as if he’s worried that small children can’t make it through a story with any ambiguity in it.
This “second reading” issue, by the way, is something I’ve been learning in my seminary classes that is revolutionizing the way I read my Bible. We come to the Scriptures not only with lots of cultural baggage but, if we are believers, with the knowledge of how the story ends. Thus we often read things into the story too quickly, or even read the story in a different way than its original readers would have. Now this “second reading” is called “second” because there is a “first reading,” the way the text would have originally been read. We can’t, of course, completely know how that was, but if we don’t at least try we miss so much. For example, try reading the Gospel of Mark or the book of Genesis pretending for a moment that you have no idea of who Jesus is, or of the cross or resurrection or any of that. You wouldn’t read a detective novel by skipping to the last chapter to find out who done it–that would ruin the whole story. By suspending what you already know when reading the Bible, you get a whole new take on things. Then go back with your “second reading,” armed with your knowledge of God’s completed plan in Christ. I guarantee you’ll gain many new riches by doing this.
Oh wait, this was a movie review, wasn’t it?
The second purpose for the moved dialogue might be that the film makers wanted to provide an appropriate closure for Lucy and Tumnus, who have obviously bonded despite his having come close to betraying her. The speech delivered between them at the end lets us know that Lucy has really “gotten” it; she understands Aslan. A non-narrated movie can’t tell us that without some dialogue.
Despite some of the negatives about things left out from the book (always and forever a complaint about film adaptations), I came away with many positives. As with the Potter movies, I think they found the right child actors for the job; not an easy task. I thought all four kids did a great job portraying the particular dilemma of their respective characters.
I suppose another thing that bent me in a positive direction for the film was its reminder for me of so many themes that I’ve learned through my biblical studies classes at Westminster Theological Seminary (fresh in my mind, since we had just taken the Old Testament History & Theology exam a few hours earlier!). Everyone, of course, picks up on the sacrificial theme, but I was also stunned all over again by such themes as glorification/kingship and New Humanity studded throughout the story, how the “sons of Adam/daughters of Eve” were not just recipients of personal salvation, but key players in the redemption of ALL of Narnia, including the natural creation. Powerful stuff!
Share on Facebook
December 10th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Ok, I’m completely jealous. The Marilyn and the kids (yes, and me too) are all eager to go see this, but I’ve been putting them off until after finals. A little less than a week now, and we’ll get our chance…
Thanks for sharing.
December 10th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Ah, the flexibility of being “empty nesters.” Actually, the OTHT exam was so stressful (about three hours worth of writing crammed into a two-hour time limit) that we felt we needed a night off or we were going to melt down before completing exams. Apparently at least twenty other WTS students agreed with us…so you’re outvoted, Cryder!
December 11th, 2005 at 1:38 am
I CANNOT WAIT to see it…in fact, I WOULD have been there at 12am for the opening showing, if it weren’t for that exam…but I’m taking some of my church kids tomorrow! I’ve been looking forward to it for so long…I’m glad for your positive review.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:08 am
But the ice flow, Mark. THE ICE FLOW!! And why did Maugrim (a.k.a. Fenris Ulf) sound like he was from New Jersey? And I’m still walking around the house shaking my head over what they did to the beaver scene.
Having said that, I’m planning on seeing the moive one more time in the theaters this “Holiday Season” just to see if I can be more positive. I’m 75% positive, but I SO wanted to be 98%.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Yeah…the ice flow.
The more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve thought that the comments of a friend of mine are spot on: the magic is there in the beginning and ending of the movie, but the middle is largely “Disneyfied.” Every Disney kid movie has to have a pair of adorable talking animals who insult each other but really love each other (think of any Disney kid movie–they’re there), hence the beavers. And of course, you can’t depend on the drama inherent in the story…you’ve got to have some version of a car chase scene, hence the wolves in the tunnel and the ice flow.
And having grown up in New Jersey, with classmates whose dads were made mafia guys, I happen to think that Maugrim should come from Jersey. He probably has all the numbers action within ten blocks of the lamppost and has control of all the trash disposal at Cair Paravel.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Maugrim to Peter: “Come with me or Vito and I might have to ‘arrange a little accident” which would not be fortuitous for you, my friend.”
Disneyfied….good point.
Don’t forget, the beavers do banter back and forth in the book, esp. re: the sewing machine (a precious exchange left out of the movie). That part was not exaggerated in the movie–if anything it was toned down.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Yeah, I didn’t mean that the beavers bantering per se was Disneyfication, but the extent to which they toned it down from the book, as you pointed out.
We shouldn’t sweat it to much about Maugrim. I hear he ends up under the one of the pylons of the Polaski Skyway in Newark in season 7 of Sopranos.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:35 am
And speaking of movies (I am clearly looking for ways to avoid my writing) I rented Cinderella Man last night and thought it was a nice surprise, although the NY/NJ accents were a but thick. Still, they reminded me of the good old days growing up in Bergen County NJ (”Hey, Waddevah…. I got my wawlet so let’s go tudu mawl….get ovah heeah.”) Ah the memories. I sort of begin talking like that when I’m mad at Sue or the kids—sort of like Ricky in I Love Lucy.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I didn’t move to Joisey until I was 12, but my brothers and sisters who grew up there? Think I can understand them? Fuggedaboudit!
Somewhat related, my first post on this blog, was Jersey-centric,
December 14th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Anyway, speaking of movies, if anyone comes up to you and says, “Hey, I just rented ‘The Island.’ Want to come over and watch it?” Shoot them.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Pete:
We should have you doing review of bad movies with bullets as ratings. The more bullets, the more the person who recommended the movie to you deserves to die.
December 15th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Sure. I’m game (bu-dum-bum).
5 bullets means instant death. No bullets means Oscar caliber.
The Island I’ll give 4 bullets. I rented Skeleton Key last night. 2 bullets.
Wait, that isn’t going to work. I sort of liked SK. Plus I don’t want to be negative all my life. I think a scale of 1-5 positive (beeer bottle?) and 1-5 negative (bullets) is better.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:35 am
That really just depends on what kind of beer you’re talking about. Choose the wrong kind of beer and it could still be negative. I’d much rather get 5 Sam Adams than 5 Miceleob.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Sam Adams it is.
Mark, start working on the legal ramifcations for using Sam Adams icons on your blog.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Legal ramifications? Pete…this is the Intenet; nobody worries about such things!
And after 5 bottles of Sam Adams, a lot of movies could start to look good.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
:whistle:
“The Sacred Journey penalty is to #1, Mark Traphagen, two minutes for making a horrible assumption at 6:46 of the period. That’s Traphagen, two minutes for trying to get his server admin put in jail, at 6:46. The Tyrants are on the power play!”
[My apologies to non-hockey fans and people who find my obtuse hockey humor unfunny.]
December 16th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Ok, I have Pete’s first 5 bullets movie. I just had the unfortunate experience of watching the Fantastic 4. That is two hours of my life that I will never get back! Maybe some Sam Adams could fix that.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Traphagen plays his “Sarcasm: Get Out of Jail Free” card, thus throwing a Monopoly metaphor into Morris’s hockey humor and causing the Matrix to crash.
Speaking of the Matrix crashing, Karyn and I finally saw the last two movies of the Matrix trilogy last night. Matrix II was OK (same criticisms as everyone else: yes, we were blown away by the cool fighting in M1, but nothing new here!). At least II raised some interesting questions. But then III? I may drive up to Lansdale and borrow Pete’s gun and put the five bullet rating through my own head.
December 19th, 2005 at 7:40 am
I’ll post this there, since it seems to be the more active of my two Narnia threads. Here’s an intriguingly controversial idea: Aslan is a poor allegory for Christ!
December 19th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Thanks for the link Mark. Here’s my two-cents, for what it’s worth. There seems to be no shortage of Reformed bloggers who anchor their opinions on the theological problems with Narnia. The main problem I have with some of these examinations is the expectation that Narnia is an allegory. Lewis actually stated to the contrary, that it is not an allegory, but something like an analogy. It is a children’s story, not a systematic theology. I wonder, as Reformed Christians who pride ourselves on our precise theology, if we often lose our abilities to enjoy a story like a child. BTW, I posted my “obligatory Narnia post” the day after I saw it as well…. http://digitalbrandon.blogspot.com/2005/12/riding-on-back-of-aslan.html
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
And speaking of movies, all of you please see The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Do it. Do it now.
I hate to admit it but Bewitched wasn’t too terrible. Nicole Kidman is a very gifted actress. She was amazing in Hours. Will Ferrel had some good lines. I only rented it because Sue had rented The Anchor Man for Sophie (if you knew Sue’s tame taste for kids movies, you would be as shocked as I was). Shed never saw it herself, but I told her it was a little over the top for a 12 year old and her friends. To prove it to her I made her watch it with me but not before I ran out and rented Bewitched to make a Ferrell overload night (both movies are only 90 minutes long).
Clearly I am trying to justify to complete strangers why I rented Bewtiched. How sad.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I almost want to mock you, but Mark speaks so highly of you, Pete …
[And yes ... the thought of showing Anchorman to kids scares me.]