Narnia

[David_Zampino]

Sandtigress:

Overall, I loved it. I knew they would have to fill out the movie some because the book is full of descriptive phrases that just don’t translate well into movies, and I was pleased with the way they did it. It was beautiful, and moving, and there were lots of loud sniffles in the audience when Aslan died.

I had one beef with it though - why did they change Fenrir’s (the captain of the secret police) name? Most of the other changes I could see as artistic license, but why that one? Just thought it was strange and unnecessary. Has anyone heard a reason why?

In older printings of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe”, the wolf-captain is named “Fenris Ulf” and Peter is dubbed “Sir Peter Fenris Bane”. In later editions, the name was changed to “Maugrim”. Why? Who knows! (Like the related issue of re-numbering the books). More Walter Hooper silliness, I suspect.

Blessings,

 

[Exalt]

SEBASTIANMARTIN:

I agree the window was accidental, but the running away from taking responsibility for it was what I was objecting too. Especially for Peter and Lucy. In the book (pg48) the kids are following the rules laid out by Mrs. Macready, “And please remember your’e to keep out of the way whenever I’m taking a party over the house.” I believe the kids could explore the house as long as they did not disturb the professor or get in the way of the tours. So they were not running from responsibility but out of obedience to Mrs. Macready…

I don’t find a problem with that. It’s not like Susan and Peter were without sin. I don’t think it messes with the allegory at all.

 

[Fidelis]

puzzleannie:

did the audience at your showing laugh when the evil dwarf, the Witch’s henchman, was killed?

No, but they cheered. They started to laugh when they showed him sneaking up because he did come across more comical than threatening. But it quickly turned to cheers when he was felled by Susan’s arrow.

Interesting note: my ten year old boy thought the the White Witch’s death was too quick–his thought was that she was so evil (he’s read the books) that she deserved worse. Too much LOR, I think.

Overall, I think the movie was great; enjoyable for all ages and sure to be a classic. And what an abubundance of Christian allegory to expound on! One I just remembered was the subdued conversation Edmund had with Aslan when he repented. Even Peter and Susan kept Lucy from running over because of the sacredness of the moment. I just thought: “What a beautiful picture of the Sacrament of Reconciliation!”

It’s an interesting fact that Lewis, though an Anglican, believed in a type of Confession and regularly confessed his sins to his pastor.

 

[Exalt]

Fidelis:

Overall, I think the movie was great; enjoyable for all ages and sure to be a classic. And what an abubundance of Christian allegory to expound on! One I just remembered was the subdued conversation Edmund had with Aslan when he repented. Even Peter and Susan kept Lucy from running over because of the sacredness of the moment. I just thought: “What a beautiful picture of the Sacrament of Reconciliation!”

I thought so too! It’s sort of like how you and a priest are having reconciliation randomly (i.e., when other people don’t know it’s going on), and they might walk in the room - but quickly realize that the sacrament is going on and leave. I felt that Susan and Peter thought the same way.

Definately the best movie ever.

 

[nucatholic]

My friend and I laughed when the dwarf was killed…not because we think death is something to laugh at in any situation, but because the noise he made was so surprising and ridiculous! It really caught us off guard. Anyway…the rest of the movie was excellent I thought. The animals are supposed to be a little bigger than non-talking animals. Lewis makes this known when talking about Reepicheep in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. It was really interesting to see another’s interpretation of the book. Ever since I read the entire series multiple times when I was a child, I have had the same images in my mind corresponding to the different aspects of the story. When you see another’s interpretation it brings a sort of freshness to it. Altogether, it was good but not as good as I had hoped.

 

[puzzleannie]

since several parents have asked me if they should take their children, I heartily recommend for school aged children, but I think all the pre-schoolers in the theater (at least 20) cried or screamed in fright at some of the killings and especially at the ghouls and monsters, especially the minotaur.

 

[Fidelis]

puzzleannie:

since several parents have asked me if they should take their children, I heartily recommend for school aged children, but I think all the pre-schoolers in the theater (at least 20) cried or screamed in fright at some of the killings and especially at the ghouls and monsters, especially the minotaur.

Hey! None of the little ones in the theater I was in cried out in fright—What are y’all raising down there in Texas: a bunch of little softies?

 

[Della]

I had one beef with it though - why did they change Fenrir’s (the captain of the secret police) name? Most of the other changes I could see as artistic license, but why that one? Just thought it was strange and unnecessary. Has anyone heard a reason why?

In older printings of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe”, the wolf-captain is named “Fenris Ulf” and Peter is dubbed “Sir Peter Fenris Bane”. In later editions, the name was changed to “Maugrim”. Why? Who knows! (Like the related issue of re-numbering the books). More Walter Hooper silliness, I suspect.

The difference in names comes from the difference in the American and English versions. Yes, they actually published separate versions for us in the “colonies” from those for the “homeland.” Goodness only knows why. After all, why should we Americans care what the wolf’s name was? It’s a puzzlement to me, but it’s true.

 

[system]

Exalt:

I don’t find a problem with that. It’s not like Susan and Peter were without sin. I don’t think it messes with the allegory at all.

This is true, they were not without sin, but they could not have entered the wardrobe from sin. This is contrary to the theology of the book. Why would Hollywood why to contradict the theology? I don’t understand. :whacky:

 

[masterjedi747]

SEBASTIANMARTIN:

I agree the window was accidental, but the running away from taking responsibility for it was what I was objecting too. Especially for Peter and Lucy. In the book (pg48) the kids are following the rules laid out by Mrs. Macready, “And please remember your’e to keep out of the way whenever I’m taking a party over the house.” I believe the kids could explore the house as long as they did not disturb the professor or get in the way of the tours. So they were not running from responsibility but out of obedience to Mrs. Macready.

You made some good points.

But I still don’t think it was a sin that they ran away when they heard someone coming. Not a mortal/serious matter, and I doubt they really had sufficient reflection…it was simply an instinctive reaction. If they had LIED to the professor about breaking the window and DENIED their own responsibility, then you would be absolutely correct. But they didn’t.

And in fact, if you really want a good excuse for what they did, you can simply assume that Mrs. Macready DID give them the instructions to not get in the way of tours. And since the children had absolutely no idea WHO it was that they heard coming toward them, it very well COULD have been a small tour group for all they knew. Because it’s not like they actually sat there to listen to the number of footsteps; they simply panicked immediately and tried to get out of the area as soon as possible. Therefore, under that (IMO highly possible) scenario (not contradicted in the film), they were still simply trying to obey Mrs. Macready’s instructions.

 

[Exalt]

This is true, they were not without sin, but they could not have entered the wardrobe from sin. This is contrary to the theology of the book. Why would Hollywood why to contradict the theology? I don’t understand. :whacky:

In the Magician’s Nephew, Digory and Polly meet the world of Narnia through someone’s sinful action. (Namely, Uncle Andrew’s)

But I think you’re basically right. I would have liked them to all get into Narnia through another way.

 

[Elzee]

www.decentfilms.com has an interesting review - some things I didn’t consider in terms of how Aslan was portrayed and the relationship between Aslan and the Witch. I think he makes some good points.

I agree that Lucy was cast perfectly - and also the man who played Tumnus. He was awesome. Did Peter’s looks remind anyone else of Prince William? !

 

[tkdnick]

I saw the movie on Saturday. I thought it was excellent! One thing I was bummed about was that it seemed they downplayed the connection of Aslan to Christ. He seemed more like a hero than a Christ figure. Otherwise I thought it was great! Hope they make more.

 

[cathgal]

tkdnick:

I saw the movie on Saturday. I thought it was excellent! One thing I was bummed about was that it seemed they downplayed the connection of Aslan to Christ. He seemed more like a hero than a Christ figure. Otherwise I thought it was great! Hope they make more.

They will. Next one will be Prince of Caspian.

 

[Jennie66]

We just got back from seeing the movie for the second time. Both my dh and I are converts to the Catholic Church (from Protestant Evangelicalism), and I have read the book as well as now seeing the film twice. Both dh and I found the “theology” of the film to be definitely much more Catholic - which for us is kind of amusing, since Lewis is such an icon to most evangelicals.

Someone mentioned above that they noticed perhaps an allegorical comparison between the character of Lucy and the VIrgin Mary, and I agree, I noticed it, too. Throughout the film (and book, as I recall), Lucy is the only one who always stands ready to assist, who never wants to turn back - like the Blessed Mother’s “yes” to God. She is also the one (in both the film and book) who assists Aslan on the battefield with bringing healing to the wounded there. Her sweetness and childlike innocence also, of course, remind one of the Blessed Mother.

We thoroughly enjoyed the film and will definitely buy it on dvd when it comes out.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Della]

My dh and I finally got to see the film Christmas Eve and enjoyed it very much. Everyone was very well cast and I have no complaints about any of the small changes from the book to the film. In a film adaptation there are bound to be such changes. We were pleasantly surprised at how few changes there were.

My only reservation was the image of Aslan. He should have been bigger and more majestic since Lewis described him as more golden than a real lion and with a thicker, curlier mane. These small details would really have helped the audience realize that he was more than the “king of the wood” but a divine figure in corporal form.

And I agree that any elements in the dialogue which indicated that the Great Lion was more than a mere king were played down, but the sacrifice scene and resurrection made up for this fault pretty well. I too look forward to owing the DVD when it comes out and hope the rest of the stories will be made.

 

[Ana]

I loved it and so did my kids and hubby!! My 3 yr old has been talking about it nonstop. BTW, I saw that Toys R Us carries a Narnia line of toys. The white witch’s wand, some action figures, and I even saw an adorable Lucy Kit, with her dagger, pouch and medicine.

 

[maryalene]

Ana, was your three year old scared at all? DH wants the whole family to go on Friday - the kids are 6,5, and 3.

 

[Elizabeth2]

I saw the movie on Monday with my husband and grown up daughter. They hadn’t read the book but all three of us thought that it was excellent. It stayed truer to the book than I expected. When Lucy entered Narnia it was a magical scene, a winter wonderland. The man sitting behind us said: “That is just how I imagined it as a child”. The actors who played Lucy, Edmund and the White Witch were well chosen and played their parts well. Aslan was very lifelike but if you hadn’t read the book you may have missed his significance. I did however think it would be too scary for young children.

 

[JGeorge]

I have seen The Chronicles of Narnia twice now and I’m beginning to think there are two levels of symbolism in the movie. The first, and the most widely accepted, symbolism has to do with Aslan being Christ, the Witch being Satan, and Edmund being the human whose betrayal forces Aslan to sacrifice himself. I’ve heard it said that Lucy, Susan and Peter represent the different apostles. I can see Lucy representing John, Peter representing Peter and Susan being the doubting Thomas.

The second level of symbolism I see deals with Edmund and his relationship with Peter. I think Peter is not just a representation of the apostle Peter, but also of the Papacy. If Peter represents the Papacy, than whom does Edmund represent? At the beginning of the movie we see Peter’s mother giving him “authority” over his brother Edmund. Throughout the movie Peter is annoyed by Edmund’s unwillingness to obey him. There are several times in the movie where Peter turns to Edmund and says, “Why won’t you listen to me?” I’m wondering if Edmund, and especially his betrayal of his family, might represent the Anglican split from the Catholic Church. Edmund betrays his brother for Turkish delight and the promise of being King of Narnia. He betrays his family for “sweeties”, as the witch puts it. This reminded me of King Henry, who left the Catholic Church because he wanted to fornicate with his mistress and divorce his wife, and later declared himself supreme head of the Church in England.

If you consider Lewis’ life I don’t think this theory is that unreasonable. I don’t know much about Lewis, but I have heard that he was very close to becoming a Catholic near the end of his life. Others have written that he had always been a ”private Catholic”. If there is any truth to either of these claims, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Lewis incorporated something about the Anglican split in his stories.

Edmund is eventually rescued by Aslan. He accepts that he was wrong for betraying his brother, and ultimately accepts his brother’s authority as King of Narnia. Together they fight the final battle against the witch (Satan). To complete my analogy, I believe Edmund’s return was symbolic of Lewis’s hope that the Anglican Church would one day be reunited with the Catholic Church.

I really loved final battle scene. As one reviewer put it, it was a wonderful depiction of the Church Militant.