epiphany

Narnia Revisited

I've just returned from my second screening of The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Despite the desire with Corpse Bride, I haven't actually gone back to watch a movie by myself in years. So if seeing it two times opening weekend doesn't tell you my opinion of the film, nothing will.

This is a wonderful, wonderful children's movie. I am, of course, partial to children's and animated films, so let that bias marr your opinion of my thoughts, if you must. Children's literature allows us to explore the goodness grownups forget. Kings, princesses, monsters, magic--all are the stuff of legends. All are the realities of childhood. All are important, far more important, than adults give credit. Children's literature allows us to reopen the annals of imagination, all too quickly dusty and stiff from disuse. Well done children's movies practically split the seams as we relive the dreams.

Let me open by saying two things. First, though wonderful, this is not a perfect movie. Overall the pace is good, but an occasional scene runs slowly. The music generally fits but sometimes sticks out and has few memorable themes. The really difficult special effects, like live actor's upper bodies combined with digital lower halves, come off brilliantly, but what should be simpler matters, such as compositing green screened actors or fully digital characters against a plate background, stand out pretty badly. It's like they worked very hard to make the difficult effects work but slapped together the simpler ones. One may argue that the simpler effects actually look exactly as they would in reality (not that I think they do). However, modern filmmakers need to take a lesson from traditional animation: squash and stretch. Realism is stiff and often looks fake on the screen. It often lacks flow and beauty. Pushing reality, even a little, feels more real to the viewer. It's like looking at a Monet painting. Does the image look real? No. If you saw lily pads looking like that in real life, you'd head straight to the doctor. But the painting captures the essence of the lily pads. I would argue that it captures the memory of the lily pads, combined with the glitter of the water, the heat of the air--the emotion of the event. That feeling is what the filmmaker should aim to capture, and he often needs to do a little dismembering of reality to achieve it.

But enough with the philosophy.

My second comment is that I'm actually not a huge fan of the books. They're ok, and I remember enjoying our Vacation Bible School romps through Narnia as a child. But overt allegory really tends to kill a story for me. Frankly, I think it insults the audience. As an adult, I'm enjoying the books more, but I still don't think they're fantastic. The teaching aspects have become more thought provoking for me, but the teaching does overwhelm the story. And readers read for story, not lessons. We've had enough lessons in school, thank you very much. Also, Lewis' worlds tend to be flat, especially compared to Middle Earth, and the characters come off much like the world--more plump caricacture than full bodied character. The movie characters suffer a bit as a result.

That is, of course, my opinion. Feel free to disagree. Now, on to the review itself and why the movie is significantly better than the book.

Having written the books within fresh memory of World War II, Lewis never really explain why exactly the children are living in the countryside with a professor they obviously don't know. Children sent to the countryside. Passing references to a war. But it's a grand holiday! Apart from the boredom. The movie, however, starts on a very active note: the bombing of London. We quickly discover the characters of the two boys, as well as the reason the children are whisked off to the countryside. They are refugees. Well mannered, well kempt refugees, but refugees nonetheless.

The film follows the discovery of Narnia quite well, with some basic liberties. Peter's hard on Edmund, even cruel--in an elder brotherly way. Edmund is trying to assert his independence under the fist of Peter. Susan's assumes the role and manners of a surrogate parent. And poor Lucy's gone mad under the strain. Or that's what the rest think.

But I hardly need to tell you the story.

I thought the children did a fine job acting. Edmund was quite good as a surly boy. When he cleans up later on, he lost a bit of his fire. Lucy was just a cute little girl and quite a good actress for her age. Although no Freddie Highmore, she seemed quite natural, responding as an imaginative and friendly little girl would. I loved the Beavers, despite some of the aforementioned compositing problems. I never pictured them being quite so common in their manners and speech. They were a treat. Aslan came across well--very solid and powerful. He looked much better on the large screen than he did on the computer previews I saw. (One of my friends complained that they should have had James Earl Jones do the lion's voice. I reminded him that Mr. Jones already voiced Mufasa in The Lion King. The similarities--both Disney films, and both lions--wouldn't have worked very well.)

But the witch!

The White Witch stole the show. A mixture of Professor Trelawney's kinder moments and Satan, she was perfectly evil. The books never made her quite malevolent enough. Cruel, yes. Powerful, yes. But not gritty and real. She always seemed quite above any sort of work. Even turning people to stone read as something of a yawn for her. But this White Witch is no fairy princess gone bad. Cruel. Powerful. Demanding. Forceful. She commands fear not only through her significant powers but through her person. Her minions would serve, and serve well, strictly from terror. She doesn't wander the battlefield languidly waving her wand and breezily petrifying her would-be foes. She walks with more command than Sauron. She is absolutely sure of herself. She is the conqueror. Confronting the fiercest of warriors is a game to her, and a game she relishes. You could almost see her licking blood from her lips. To the end, she is powerful, fearless, and in command. She is the bitter fierceness of ice and winter made flesh.

The film was visually imaginative as well. Griffins, centaurs, vampires--and even a phoenix--filled this world with more life than Lewis' descriptions ever did. I love it when a film outdoes my imagination, and this movie had several imagination busters to it in the creature department. I also loved Aslan's breath upon the petrified. I wouldn't have thought of stone rippling in the wind. I never considered the fierceness of an armored centaur's charge. I never before saw feathers on a griffin's tail.

But the best thing about the movie is the hope it inspires through the story. While I still feel that Lewis' basic descriptive storytelling is lacking, the story itself is wonderful, and the filmmakers have opened up a world of beauty and imagination through it. The weakness of the book becomes the strength of the movie as hundreds of people fill Lewis' lines with colors and shading. Their work, creativity, and dedication have made the movie something greater than the book.

The tale is every child's dream. Talking animals, magic, becoming princesses or warrior kings, overcoming the forces of evil--it is, simply and plainly, a dream--everything you've ever wanted rolled into one. It is the child's version of Lord of the Rings. Like The Hobbit book, The Chronicles of Narnia movie is delightful, charming, and fun. Yes, fun is a legitimate purpose for a movie, and "fun" is high praise.

As I said earlier, it is not a perfect film, but it is wonderful. Forget the troubles of a grownup reality for a few hours. Go and enjoy childhood again. Go and see this film.

Posted by jonhanneman at December 10, 2005 11:20 PM | TrackBack