In watching Narnia, I never got the sense that the kids had any concept of the epic story they'd been plunked down into, let alone that they had any kind of responsibilities in their new land. Their reaction was more of a "heh. I got a crown. Sweet." No matter what kind of danger they were in, or what feats they had to do, it looked like they were still pretending a game in make-believe-land, where mom is going to call them to lunch in a sec, so better get this horrific battle overwith so they can get to the good part, which of course is riding around on a horse with a totally awesome crown.

In contrast, 13-year-old Harry Potter finds out that he'll eventually have to face Voldemort and one of them will have to die, and you can tell that he understands what that means. He's got..."a sense of the epic"...is the only way I can think of to describe it.

It was worse than "blah." The first movie sucked. That last kid in particular was not only ugly, which is, let's face it, a mortal sin in movies, as it should be, but also yet another bad child actor. I couldn't tell if that weird grimace she put on in (what I assume were intended as) moments of emotional intensity was laughing, crying, or her having a seizure. Don't get me started on the lame music, or utterly bloodless battle, or the fact that in that battle small children throw back goddam minotaurs like feather pillows.

(Well, it is fantasy aimed at kids, but I mean, come on.)

I have to agree. The first Narnia movie (I don't know if the book explains things better) had a certain disconnect to it.

These children come out of nowhere into a land of magic and creatures they don't understand with a history they can't grasp and are suddenly expected to save everyone. I found it troubling that these adult, warrior centaurs (and others who know battle tactics) just give over command of an army to ignorant children. All of this is based on the say-so of an old prophesy that is probably half forgotten. It's no wonder that the big battle would have been easily lost if it weren't for the deus-ex-machina of Aslan appearing and slaying the Queen.

This reminds me of those stories where the native people are oppressed until the Great White Hero (in this case 4 of them) shows up to save the day and do what the backward natives cannot. Hooray for the English! Where would the world be without them?

-Doughdee222

"I am a realist, not a pessimist. The real world is pessimistic by nature."

Well, dag-nab it, I liked the first movie. A lot. What puzzled me when I watched the first movie with a certain amount of jewish dread, was that "Aslan" was suppose to represent "Jesus." I didn't need to worry. If CS Lewis was writing Christian Theology into that, than I either never understood what the "Sacrificial Atonement" was supposed to mean, OR, CS Lewis needed to go back and retake "Christian Thought 101." It's clear in the first film that Aslan came back to life by MAGIC. So, then, is that how Jesus came back? By Magic? Wow. And here I thought Christians were supposed to think all "magic" was of the Devil. That just means, that he never really "died." So, then, all the "miracles" were just performed by a Wizard from Nazareth. Makes for an interesting twist, doesn't it? Jews needn't fear this strange new cult at all. Jesus isn't the Messiah of God; He's the wise and good Sorcerer who uses his occult powers for 'freedom, justice, and the delight of children everywhere." Mozel tov

doctortee07:

Well, dag-nab it, I liked the first movie. A lot. What puzzled me when I watched the first movie with a certain amount of jewish dread, was that "Aslan" was suppose to represent "Jesus." I didn't need to worry. If CS Lewis was writing Christian Theology into that, than I either never understood what the "Sacrificial Atonement" was supposed to mean, OR, CS Lewis needed to go back and retake "Christian Thought 101." It's clear in the first film that Aslan came back to life by MAGIC. So, then, is that how Jesus came back? By Magic? Wow. And here I thought Christians were supposed to think all "magic" was of the Devil. That just means, that he never really "died." So, then, all the "miracles" were just performed by a Wizard from Nazareth. Makes for an interesting twist, doesn't it? Jews needn't fear this strange new cult at all. Jesus isn't the Messiah of God; He's the wise and good Sorcerer who uses his occult powers for 'freedom, justice, and the delight of children everywhere." Mozel tov

Wow. You missed the point and managed to be grossly offensive at the same time. Well done.

Oh, BTW, the story was a parable.

doctortee07:

It's clear in the first film that Aslan came back to life by MAGIC. So, then, is that how Jesus came back? By Magic? Wow. And here I thought Christians were supposed to think all "magic" was of the Devil. That just means, that he never really "died." So, then, all the "miracles" were just performed by a Wizard from Nazareth. Makes for an interesting twist, doesn't it? Jews needn't fear this strange new cult at all. Jesus isn't the Messiah of God; He's the wise and good Sorcerer who uses his occult powers for 'freedom, justice, and the delight of children everywhere." Mozel tov

I've only seen the movie a couple of times, and those were at least two years ago, so I'm not remembering the clear reference to resurrection magic to which you refer in the resurrection of Aslan.

If the movie did emphasize magic playing a key component in the resurrection, as in, someone cast a spell on Aslan to bring him back to life, then that is the fault of the screenwriters who adapted the books and was not a part of Lewis' books.

If I recall correctly, the only conventional magic that Lewis mentions in the series is that performed by Jadis, in The Magician's Nephew, by the White Witch, in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, by the Lady of the Green Kirtle, in The Silver Chair, and then the cursed bracelet that turns Eustace into a dragon in Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Then there is also the Deep Magic that is mentioned by Aslan, but I believe it is made clear that this is not a type of conventional magic that involves the casting of spells, but rather is a set of immutable laws set down by Aslan's father, the Emperor-Over-Sea.

As you can see, the antagonists in the series practice the conventional sort of magic, the casting of spells, which is consistent with Christian theology.

Faelar

P.S. I almost forgot Lucy's cordial of elixir and Susan's hunting horn.

So go read some of the existentialist trash or deconstructionist garbage which you evidently favor. You can then delude yourself into thinking that you are wiser and a deeper thinker than people who enjoy Narnia and Middle Earth.

In other words, f*** off...

On what basis did you assume the author of the post to which you respond objects to Middle Earth?

I, for one, would hold up The Lord of the Rings--the entire cinematic trilogy--as a positive example of how to do an adaptation of a beloved literary institution, how to do fantasy film, how to engage in novelistic, essentially "square" filmmaking without sacrificing the genuinely cinematic.

I could be said, also, to enjoy my art films, horror films, deconstructionist garbage or existentialist trash, kung-fu flicks, and whatever else you see fit to disdain. I also enjoyed Iron Man, am looking forward to Indiana Jones, and am practically wetting myself in anticipation of The Dark Knight.

Even regarding kids' fantasy cinema, distinctions can be made between artistry, craftsmanship, and hackery (a made up word, so far as I know; you like?). The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a perfect example of the last.

Agreed in full, the actors didn't convey much of the responsibility they were supposted to gain from their thrust into Narnia. The string of fake British accents in mainstream media is becomming terribly dry; Caspian's accent was just bogus. The blind following of the natives is a lot more understandabIe in the novel. Regardless of this adaptation I found the series a very enjoyable introduction into classic fantasty. As a Christian parable I think Lewis' works are at best...interpretable. Narnia, on the other hand, serving as a a mental escape for war-time confused children of the early century is quite clear, as an adult. Really, this epic remains a children's story intended for a child audience with a purely fantastical theme.