Chronicles of Nonsense -- aka Narnia
I know this reply is quite late, given that the last post before mine was back in April. However, since I saw Narnia at the movies, and again just a couple of weeks ago, I thought it fitting that I make a reply.
knowledge_of_self said:
1. It was mentioned in the beginning of the movie, that the Ice Queen wanted all the humans dead. So we assume that humans once lived in Narnia. What happened to those humans? Where did they all go?
2. In a world where Jesus Christ does not exist, how could they have Christmas? I mean... essentially doesn't there have to be a birth by someone named Jesus Christ for there to be a Christmas??
3. In the movie, Christmas was not even portrayed as a religious holiday, celebrating the birth of Christ. When the little girl was first told that there was no Christmas in Narnia, she responded with, "Oh no! No presents???" So it is obvious that they are portraying corporate Christianity.
4. What the heck was up with Santa Clause, coming out of no where with presents??
Question 1: I believe the humans died out.
Question 2: They have Christmas simply because Narnia was
founded by Christian humans. This is all detailed in
The Magician's Nephew, I believe in the chapter entitled "The Founding of Narnia". So Narnia is inextricably tied to Earth, as are many of its traditions.
Questions 3 & 4: See answer to Question 2.
As for
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King winning all those 11 Academy Awards, well having been a fan of the books for quite some time (so I know the difficulty in the screen adaptation), and having followed the making of the films for a good five years (so I know the enormity of producing three huge films at once), I can honestly say that every last award it received was well-deserved. This is, of course, to say nothing of monarchism or the possible PTB at work. Perhaps there is some influence there. But even if monarchism wasn't a major theme of the final LOTR movie, I still believe it would have received all those awards because of the aforementioned reasons.
Now, back to Narnia.
Some people watch films mainly for the story (narrative). Some people watch films for the visual effects. Others watch them because of the underlying themes. And still others watch them from a purely aesthetic, filmic point of view. Obviously most of us watch movies because of a combination of these elements, but there is usually one element that stands out and draws us back a second time. For me,
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was a stand-out aesthetically, because the effects, musical score, and cinematography combined together so well that it was hard not to be engrossed by it. The opening scenes of this film were truly wonderful.
That said, the film was a major let-down narratively, only because at one point the thematic material (Christian theme of sacrifice) took centre-stage and sabotaged the story. The narrative prior to all this was satisfactory.
I realise that many people hated this movie because of the aforementioned thematic material of Aslan sacrificing himself to save Edmund, but as a filmmaker myself who loves beautiful music, sweeping shots of mountains and nature, I simply cannot dismiss this movie outright because to me, that is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As a filmmaker, I realise that making movies is no mean feat, and that it is a marvel when you can make a movie with four quite likeable children characters, set in a fantasy world which is quite convincing, filled with quite good special effects (not up to
Lord of the Rings standards, but in parts it came close). This alone is enough to give at least
some praise to
Narnia, even if it had highly questionable allegory contained in its narrative (which I am coming to shortly).
So in terms of musical score, cinematography and performance, I certainly wouldn't say the film was bland, but I can understand why someone might think the concept of good versus evil, as depicted, was bland, because it is rather simplistically presented. However, this could have something to do with the fact that
The Chronicles of Narnia are first and foremost stories written for children. (And this would also explain the lack of gore in the film.)
From a
narrative adaptation point of view, the story is
mostly told well, and is, from a dramatic consideration, an improvement over the original book (people forget that the main battle was described in about one or two pages, but in the film it was greatly enhanced). Thematically, the film stays true, but this is where problems begin to arise, especially if one does not subscribe to the dogma about sacrifice, which I most certainly do not. In fact, looking purely at the narrative, it is at this point that the film falls down because it is nothing more than a
deus ex machina -- a powerful "god" intervenes and then everything is fine again.
The child characters I thought were rather charming for the most part, and one huge positive is that they were (mostly) well-mannered. If there's one thing that irritates me about children in many movies it is that they speak with no manners and sound crass and rude. Not here. Unlike many old-fashioned traditions, the "old-fashioned" tradition of manners, which is fast becoming extinct, is actually extremely positive and enhances communication. (This is not to negate the need to be upfront at times, or to to call a spade a spade, and it doesn't mean one should subsribe to the "If you can't say anything nice..." dogma. I guess what I'm getting at here is that a general respect for one another is terribly lacking in society, and its cause is rooted in childhood upbringing.) The acting ability of the the four young children I thought was rather good. But I have found over the years that some people will perceive someone's acting as "bad" while another will perceive it as being admirable. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Little of this post thus far has been a commentary upon anything other than film theory and filmmaking. But the following is a comment on the more important aspect of what the underlying message of
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe actually is:
The aforementioned
deus ex machina is a flaw -- and it is indeed major, not only in terms of the narrative, but also in its greater implication upon Christianity in general. The whole concept of sacrifice is hard to stomach, in any form, but is particularly difficult to stomach in a children's movie. And I can totally understand why some people have hated this film simply based upon this one major flaw. But, as I already stated, I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because I believe that many films, no matter how abhorrent parts of them may be, have something to offer -- and Narnia for me brought to life the childhood book that I loved so much, which, in my childhood memory, contained nothing about Christianity or even sacrifice (even though I am well aware that these elements were deliberately inserted).
In conclusion, I'd like to say that I enjoyed the purely fantasy elements of the movie. I know that many people who saw this film and were totally unaware of the Christian messages embedded within, enjoyed it much more than those who knew of said messages. I myself very much read this movie in a
negotiated manner, neither accepting, nor rejecting, everything on offer. I guess from a filmmaker's point of view, I couldn't help but appreciate the visual spectacle and music -- but at the same time I did reject the sacrifice part and thought it was a shame that this couldn't have in some way been re-written. I have always thought it interesting that C.S. Lewis conceived of a children's book which explored two parallel worlds in which their time was
not the same -- hinting at the fact that time is not a constant, which in turn hints that time is simply an illusion to begin with. (Which we all know here.)
