Narnia for the furries!!
Dec. 15th, 2005 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoForget it if you read the book and didn't like it. Forget it if you're prejudiced against the supposed Christian message. Forget it if you never read the book and don't think you like that sort of thing.
If there's an ounce, or even a dram, of furry blood in your veins, you should see The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe. No, it doesn't replicate the book faithfully, though it does pretty much stick to the storyline. No, the acting (by human actors anyway) isn't stellar (though I did really like Professor Kirk.) See it for the animals. The beavers, the wolves, the fox, the centaurs, the horses, the gryphons (!) and most of all the lion. Leave your quibbles at the door and just enjoy the pictures and the voices. It's worth every minute for that.
I went in skeptical. I consider this to be the weakest book in the series of seven, and it's my least favorite. The fundamentalist Christian right has been trumpeting the film until I was prepared to be bludgeoned with Christian drivel that isn't even in the book. Well, it didn't do that. Sure, you can give it the Christian reading if you wish, but I could just as easily read the underlying pagan storyline and be perfectly happy with it.
Oh, and don't leave the instant the credits appear. An important but brief scene is spliced into the middle of the credits, and gets missed by many theatre goers who rush for the exit the minute the word "Cast" rolls onto the screen.
A high point for me (not in the original book, I'm quite sure) is when Edmund's horse speaks to him for the first time. Edmund calls out "Whoa, horsey!" and the horse turns his head and answers "My name is Phillip."
A low point (in the book too, the scene I disliked most) came when Peter killed the wolf. Lewis did not paint the wolves quite as grimly as the film does, but he never openly allowed them redemption either. I much prefer to think of them as being more afraid of the witch than they were of Aslan. This equates to what theologians call "imperfect contrition" and is still valid. I do not believe they were beyond redemption. On the whole, Lewis depicted the Narnian animal races as unfallen. Like the original races of Malacandra in his book Out of the Silent Planet, they had never succumbed to original sin (whatever that is supposed to be anyway) and though by no means incorruptible, had a sort of natural innocence. This would include the wolves, minotaurs, and others depicted in this film as somehow inherently "evil" or "wicked".
Sin and wickedness entered Narnia at the hands of the "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" and that doesn't mean just Edmund. When Narnia was young, two human children committed a series of errors that brought Jadis the White Witch to the world from her own place, so it was through the agency of humans that she had to be expelled as well. Aslan did not, could not, expel the witch on his own. He needed the four human helpers of the prophecy. In order to gain their full assistance, he had to buy back Edmund's life, in accordance with pagan custom, by offering an equal trade. This fits with ancient pre-Christian rites and tradition just as well as it could with any Christian interpretation. There is nothing Christian about Jadis or her army.
The writers and director made too much of the battle scene, and left out other details that might better have used the time. The outcome of the battle has to be what it is. The prophecy has been fulfilled, and can go no other way. They also laundered the essentially British dialog, Americanizing it. I thought this unnecessary and an insult to audiences, but it's what you can expect from Disney. Some additions to the storyline were necessary if non-readers were to follow the plot successfully. Others were gratuitous and either pointless or just an excuse for some effect or other.
Still, the scenery is magnificent and well-photographed. The animals are very well executed in my opinion and have rich voices. I wanted to plunge my hands into Aslan's mane, and felt no inclination to bow before him in shame or worship. No doubt this will bother some of the Christian fanatics. Professor Kirk is marvelous, especially when he speaks one of my favorite lines in the entire story, "What do they teach them in these schools?"
You must see the gryphons, the centaurs, and all the rest. Just do it, and leave your prejudices and expectations at the door.
If there's an ounce, or even a dram, of furry blood in your veins, you should see The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe. No, it doesn't replicate the book faithfully, though it does pretty much stick to the storyline. No, the acting (by human actors anyway) isn't stellar (though I did really like Professor Kirk.) See it for the animals. The beavers, the wolves, the fox, the centaurs, the horses, the gryphons (!) and most of all the lion. Leave your quibbles at the door and just enjoy the pictures and the voices. It's worth every minute for that.
I went in skeptical. I consider this to be the weakest book in the series of seven, and it's my least favorite. The fundamentalist Christian right has been trumpeting the film until I was prepared to be bludgeoned with Christian drivel that isn't even in the book. Well, it didn't do that. Sure, you can give it the Christian reading if you wish, but I could just as easily read the underlying pagan storyline and be perfectly happy with it.
Oh, and don't leave the instant the credits appear. An important but brief scene is spliced into the middle of the credits, and gets missed by many theatre goers who rush for the exit the minute the word "Cast" rolls onto the screen.
A high point for me (not in the original book, I'm quite sure) is when Edmund's horse speaks to him for the first time. Edmund calls out "Whoa, horsey!" and the horse turns his head and answers "My name is Phillip."
A low point (in the book too, the scene I disliked most) came when Peter killed the wolf. Lewis did not paint the wolves quite as grimly as the film does, but he never openly allowed them redemption either. I much prefer to think of them as being more afraid of the witch than they were of Aslan. This equates to what theologians call "imperfect contrition" and is still valid. I do not believe they were beyond redemption. On the whole, Lewis depicted the Narnian animal races as unfallen. Like the original races of Malacandra in his book Out of the Silent Planet, they had never succumbed to original sin (whatever that is supposed to be anyway) and though by no means incorruptible, had a sort of natural innocence. This would include the wolves, minotaurs, and others depicted in this film as somehow inherently "evil" or "wicked".
Sin and wickedness entered Narnia at the hands of the "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" and that doesn't mean just Edmund. When Narnia was young, two human children committed a series of errors that brought Jadis the White Witch to the world from her own place, so it was through the agency of humans that she had to be expelled as well. Aslan did not, could not, expel the witch on his own. He needed the four human helpers of the prophecy. In order to gain their full assistance, he had to buy back Edmund's life, in accordance with pagan custom, by offering an equal trade. This fits with ancient pre-Christian rites and tradition just as well as it could with any Christian interpretation. There is nothing Christian about Jadis or her army.
The writers and director made too much of the battle scene, and left out other details that might better have used the time. The outcome of the battle has to be what it is. The prophecy has been fulfilled, and can go no other way. They also laundered the essentially British dialog, Americanizing it. I thought this unnecessary and an insult to audiences, but it's what you can expect from Disney. Some additions to the storyline were necessary if non-readers were to follow the plot successfully. Others were gratuitous and either pointless or just an excuse for some effect or other.
Still, the scenery is magnificent and well-photographed. The animals are very well executed in my opinion and have rich voices. I wanted to plunge my hands into Aslan's mane, and felt no inclination to bow before him in shame or worship. No doubt this will bother some of the Christian fanatics. Professor Kirk is marvelous, especially when he speaks one of my favorite lines in the entire story, "What do they teach them in these schools?"
You must see the gryphons, the centaurs, and all the rest. Just do it, and leave your prejudices and expectations at the door.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 11:05 pm (UTC)People complained that the CG wasn't perfect... but really, i thought they did a great job with the creatures, personally. They didn't seem flawed at all. There were some little things i noticed, like a few times when it was obvious the children had been spliced into a static background. But people who let little things like that ruin the movie for them are just out of luck I guess.
...I loved the centaurs... they were so well done in my opinion. All the creatures were.
I'm really hoping they meet whatever profit-turning goals they seek to meet so that they'll toss the rest of the books up onto the big screen in the coming years, I'd love to see them.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 03:38 am (UTC)The lion was superb. And though they were gratuitous additions, the two scenes where Edmund's horse spoke were so perfect that I am just dying to see them do The Horse and his Boy.
It's not that I didn't like the book...
Date: 2005-12-16 12:35 am (UTC)Re: It's not that I didn't like the book...
Date: 2005-12-16 03:41 am (UTC)I don't hate Shakespeare for all the mangling it got when I was in school. Nor Dickens, nor Eliot. Literature stands above whatever inferior teaching tries to do to it. ;)
I'm glad to know you're still around, by the way. *hug*
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 09:15 am (UTC)All this fuss is beside the point. The movie extols courage, compassion, and sacrifice as good, and betrayal, selfishness, and cruelty as bad, and regardless of what allegories you might find those are good things in and of themselves. There are plenty of elements that could be called Pagan, and plenty that could be called Christian - but in the end it's not important that they be labeled, and especially not that they be separated. I say that if Christians are using a movie that has such obvious pagan themes, not to mention themes of tolerance and acceptance, to illustrate a good Christian approach to life, more power to them! It could bridge many more gaps than a divisive approach... and we should do the same.
Hmm... now that I've written that out I think that more than a little of my own voice has crept into my memory of it, but the point is there. I wrote to that person off-list and thanked them for what they said, as I hadn't wanted to get involved in the discussion even to say it :)
There's plenty for everyone in Narnia. It's fun, it has good messages, great visuals, lovely creatures in various shapes, and a good story. It's not perfect, but it's very, very good.
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 05:09 pm (UTC)Narnia overall is right up there among my most favorite furry tales, whether I always agree with the author or not.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 05:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 10:25 pm (UTC)you have to hand it to them, they "got out the vote" so to
speak and pumped up the earnings so we can have more. And
for what its worth, the White Witch was just as cold and
heartless as I imagined her to be. The part where she
has Edmund and Tumnis in the cell together and asks Tumnis,
"Do you know why your hear?" and then ignoring his, "I belive
in a free Narnia" answer points to Edmund and says, "He sold
you out...for some sweeties..." and the dead expression in
her eyes....
*shivers*
They did goodly yes. I particularly liked the wolves.