The Movie: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe--possible spoilers

Cafe Society
21

I just got back from it, and enjoyed it quite a bit. Not as good as the Lord of the Rings movies, but much more faithful, and much better, than you’d stereotypically expect a hollywood adaptation to be.
My least favorite thing: Well, some of the animation looked a bit too much like animation, but what bothered me the most (and this is pretty minor on the grand scale of it) was the kids’ conversation with Professor Kirk. I remember it from the book as him basically saying “keep an open mind, think about it logically, and evaluate the likelihood of everything. In particular, how likely is it that Lucy would have made this whole thing up, and the burst out of the wardrobe instantly?”, whereas in the movie he practically seemed to be begging the kids instantly to accept her story immediately, with no serious debate at all. Whether this was a sop to Christians, I’m not sure, but it was the only thing that kind of irked my agnostic self.

My favorite thing: I really liked the grown up kings and queens at the end, and the performances of Jadis, Aslan (both voice and facial animations), Lucy and Tumnus. Oh, and the charge of the Rhino.

A few other things I wish had made it:
-Playful Aslan after he comes back
-The Other Lion ("he said ‘us lions’ ")
-More with dryads and naiads and stuff (or were they mainly in Prince Caspian?)

22

I would guess that this is more an acknowledgement that

the Professor has been to Narnia himself, and thus knows Lucy is telling the truth.

At the time of writing TLTWATW, the author probably didn’t know this himself; it doesn’t get revealed until the next-to-last book (The Magician’s Nephew). In making the film, though, it makes sense to acknowledge the fact.

23

My own opinions:

Overall, it was OK; not wonderful, but no real bad points. In two words - “Very Disney”.

Positives:

Excellent acting all round.
Very faithful to the original text - only one “important” scene was omitted, where the witch turns the animals who are having the Christmas party to stone, but that didn’t seriously compromise the story.
CGI was reasonable on the whole - the battle scenes, especially the aerial shots with the gryphons, were excellent. The talking animal’s mouths were done fairly well, but still looked rather too artificial; “Cats & Dogs” used a much better technique for this. Animation generally was good, with no obvious discontinuties from the RL scene.
The major plot-hole in the book; the fact that Aslan cheats the Witch; was glossed over well.

Negatives
Very, very slow at the beginning. Lots of people in the cinema, myself included, were clearly getting bored - “Yes, we know what their characters are like, we know that they’re in the Professor’s house - Get To The Wardrobe!”
Background music is pure, dreadful, schmaltzy, 1960’s Disney. At least there wasn’t a song-and-dance number.
The Father Christmas character was a little confusing; he’s not identified by his costume, or verbally by any of the characters. I honestly think they should have bitten the bullet and given him his traditional Coca-Cola robes.
Rather too many formal jokes; Mr Beaver’s “Cock-er-ney” accent the most grating of them.
I appreciate they have to do it for the rating, but the fact there was no blood at all in any of the battle scenes - even after Peter kills the wolf, or when Edmund is lying on the ground, clearly at the point of death - does spoil the overall realism rather too much.

Miscellaneous

I’m sure someone is going to complain about the accuracy of the train. “Those aren’t GWR seats from 1941 - they’re LMS, from 1950! Ruined the whole movie for me.”
Not really relevant to the movie itself, but I couldn’t help being amused by an entry in the credits. There were five assistant directors. One would have thought they’d be called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth assistant director, no? In fact, they’re the:

1st assistant director
2nd assistant director
2nd 2nd assistant director
Associate 2nd 2nd assistant director
3rd assistant director.

Hmm! This line is intact in the UK release.

24

I agree with those who have said that it comes across as a “Lord of the Rings Lite.” That’s not necessarily a criticism; in fact it’s a very high complement. Narnia was written (and filmed) for a younger target audience than LOTR was.

honeydewgrrl, can you elaborate on what you thought made the Christian symbolism “more blatant” than the book? I was thinking that without the voice of the narrator, and with the changes to the professor’s speech and many of Beaver’s lines, it was made more subtle.

25

Wow. I feel completely opposite. I thought the movie was wonderful, I thought the war and battle scenes were much more powerful and stirring than in the book (where they take up one and a half pages) – I really felt that the outcome could have come out differently; something I’ve never felt reading the books. And like Max, I also thought that the Jesus allegory was considerably more subtle on the screen than on the page

The CGI was a little sketchy at times (but rarely, and not in the big scenes). And I, too, wish they’d managed to include the other lion and Aslan playing with Lucy and Susan. I thought the CGI on Aslan was great, but he wasn’t quite as majestic as he should have been – but how were they supposed to capture the aura of divinity on film? But these are all quibbles.

I really liked the fleshing out of Peter and especially Susan, who are essentially cyphers in the book, although I also think they spent a little too much time (spoilers for future books in the Chronicles) setting Susan up for what she’ll do in the future. Again, that’s a quibble. All in all, I thought this was both a great movie and a great adaptation.

–Cliffy

26

Overall I liked it, but there were a few things that bugged me. Maybe it’s because I’m old and crusty now, but it was hard for me to believe that this army of creatures would turn over control of this battle to a teenaged boy who’d never held a sword before. Some of the inspirational moments with Peter were just too smarmy.

Visually, this movie was a feast for the eyes, and I thought Tilda Swinton did an excellent job. Her costumes were weird, but it worked because it gave her a non-human quality that was very effective. Was her dwarf assistant the same actor who played the Oompa Loompa in the new Willie Wonka movie?

Anyone else notice that the only character with an American accent was Maugrim the evil wolf policeman? Hmmm.

This movie also confirms my deeply held belief that white people with dreadlocks are not to be trusted.

27

First, I’ll correct myself by saying that as a child the symbolism was not blatant. As an adult looking back, it is more blantant.

I was raised in soupy mix of agnostic atheism with a literary love of world mythology. To me, Jesus, Zues, Coyote, Mohammad, Buddha…were all interesting characters in interesting Stories (capitalized on purpose) made up by different folks at different times throughout the big amazing world.

I don’t know exactly at what young age it happened, but I was quick to pick up the line in the sand that for some people, the Stories were very different from stories (not capitalized on purpose) like Peter and the Wolf or Jack and the Beanstalk.

Cultural and moral identity were primary facets of Stories. Wars were fought over Stories. One could be either persecuted or the persecutor depending on which Stories one liked best.

When my parents read TCoN to me at bedtime, they were rich and interesting fantasy stories, not Stories. When I read the books myself a few years later, they were stories, not Stories.

Perhaps not being church-going folk, my family and I could enjoy the books for their pure entertainment value and just not notice or acknowlege the Christian symbolism that they contain.

However, my girlfriend was raised a devout German Catholic in a large devout German Catholic family, and she had a similar experience to mine when reading the books as a child and also later in life.

She did leave the Catholic Church many years ago, and has always been the “black sheep” of her family with respect to her theological compass.

We also both just attempted to watch The Passion of the Christ for the first time, a few days ago. We didn’t get through the whole thing, but when watching TCoN:TLTWaTW last night, it was impossible not to notice or acknowledge the similarities between Aslan climbing the stairs to the stone table and Jesus carrying the cross up the hill to his crucifixion.

I was seriously expecting…

the batlike creature to spit in Aslan’s face.

…but that didn’t happen.

And that’s pretty much the rub…when reading the books, free to use our own imaginations and put our own emphasis and importance on certain aspects of the story, we both felt that we were able to get much more enjoyment out of the books than reading them like a Story. Watching someone esle’s cinematic visualization that treats it very much like a Story, forces the Story into the reconciliation. The dissappointment came from too much force of interpretation and not enough freedome of interpretation.

28

Does anyone have any idea why they changed the Wolf Captain’s name from Fenris Ulf to Maugrim?

29

For the same reason that “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was renamed “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.” :wink:

30

In case you missed drewcosten’s explanation, it’s because the names were different in the British and American editions of the books. They had to go with one or the other (and “Maugrim” was the original name). Now the question is, why did the American publisher change it to Fenris Ulf? I’m not sure anyone knows.

honeydewgrrl, I can appreciate your perspective. However, it sounds like it isn’t a case of the movie’s imagery being more blatant than the book; its just that you are older now and recognized it more readily than when you read the book as a child. That happens to a lot of people, including me. Also, in the book, your imagination can downplay the scene or visualize it differently than the movie director viewed it. But honestly, I think if you re-read the scene in the book and compared it to the movie, you’d find the book an even stronger parallel to the passion of Christ.

31

I’m looking for a cite, but from what I remember of Lewis’ notes on Narnia, he changed it himself (he also changed the letters on the “fire-stones of the Secret Hill” to “deep as a spear in the trunk of the world ash-tree”). Both the changes were to give more hints of Norse mythology, but the English editor didn’t get the changes in time, so the American version (“Fenris Ulf” and “ash-tree”) are the presumably correct ones.

I will admit I don’t know if they’re changes Lewis really intended, or if they’re “sure, little boy, putting the books in chronological order isn’t such a stupid idea!” would-have-been-nice-maybe changes, but subsequent American editions have been printed with the original English version of those two. I like the changes better.

32

I saw it yesterday and I loved it.

You will be amazed at the acting of Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. Wow.

33

I saw it Friday night and I really liked it.

I thought the kids, the witch and Liam Neelson as the Lion were really great.
My nit-picks?

It seems like most of the movie is shot as a close-up or a medium shot. The effects of the creatures were great but the effect of the three kids standing in front of a green screen with a wide background landscape added behind them were really bad. (The German Bombers were cheesy too)
In the US the ‘when women fight’ is cut. With the opening sequence to show why the kids are being sent off to live with an virtual stranger, the kids keep referring to the fact that their dad is at war or there is a war on. Plus the English countryside is too beautiful. They leave war torn London but they aren’t supposed to be enjoying it. It should have looked a little drab.

The opening of the huge end battle, the head of the evil troops gets up on a high rock and give a war cry, exactly like the battle for Helms deep. Totally stolen from it.

Aslan was too small. He is supposed to be larger than a normal lion and the one in the film is smaller than a normal lion.

But overall it is really good. It is made for kids that have lower expectations of the quality of FX and such.

34

honeydergrrl, I take from your post that you haven’t read the book for some time, maybe since you were a kid. Take a look at it now – the Stone Table scene is an almost direct retelling of the points of the cross. Everything you saw in the movie that reminded you of Jesus was in the book. I don’t know of any way they could have downplayed that allegory and still remained at all faithful to the book, and i don’t know why I’d want them to. If you really found fault with that scene, then your problem isn’t with the filmmakers, it’s with the fact that Lewis wrote a book about Jesus.

–Cliffy

–Cliffy

35

Mr. Athena and I saw the movie yesterday; as much as I wanted to see it, I was almost dreading the whole thing because Narnia was and is a huge influence on me since I was a young pup.

Overall: I liked it. The scenes didn’t match the ones in my head, but really, I can’t expect that they would. Tilda was incredible as the White Witch, and they really captured the kids - especially Lucy - well. A big part of the books for me is how the kids are forced over and over to evaluate the situation and choose The Right Way even when it’s the harder way, and that came out in the movie.

As far as Christian themes, I’ve read this thread, and the gazillion other Narnia threads, and what it comes down to me is I just don’t give a shit. I’m as blatently anti-Christian as the next doper (:D) but hell, what in the world can we really bitch about in the movie? The themes of helping out the people you love? The themes about forgiving people for the bad judgements they make? The themes about overcoming your faults and realizing that you can change going forward even though you may have screwed up in the past? Give me a break. No matter what your personal beliefs are, those are general truths that play true across cultural and religious lines. It’s not like they brought up a big debate over abortion, or whether you should go to church on Saturday or Sunday or say your prayers 5 times a day, or eat meat on Fridays.

Nitpicks: Yeah, I thought the talking animals - including Aslan - should be larger. I wish they’d shown the other lion (“he said we lions.”) I wish they’d shown the tea party. But heck, I’m more than happy with what I got.

I think I’ll go see it again tomorrow.

36

Yes, this effect really struck me as being poorly done, as well. Compared to the rest of the film, this was a throwback to 1950s special effects. Very curious that they let this go.

I liked this very much; my real complaint is that it is too short (but that will doubtless be rectified in the DVD Extended Release, probably available just in time for Christmas next year, if I may be so cynical). I was just happy to see this brought to the screen in a format that was respectful of the original text. As with LOTR (such as when Aragorn went over the cliff), I was a bit surprised with changes to the text (such as the children floating down the river). It would seem to me that that extra footage from these scenes meant that original text would not be included. But in general the artistic license was well within the tone of Lewis’ work, so no complaints.

Was I hearing things, or did I hear the White Witch refer to her dwarf servant as “Nikabrik”? If she did, there will be some ‘splainin’ to do in Prince Caspian when he suddenly turns up alive and well. Unless they are setting the stage for the rift between the dwarves by having the one in PC be a descendant of this one? :dubious:

37

The name is in IMDB as Ginarrbrik.

38

Turnabout is fair play. :stuck_out_tongue:

39

Finally saw it tonight, and to be 100% honest, I was kind of disappointed. The things that bothered me:

The kids acting. It sounds mean to say it, but I just didn’t think the kids were all that good. Or maybe they were just given bad lines, but overall I think they could have been a lot better. Edmund and Susan were the best; Peter was just too earnest, and Lucy, I’m sorry to say, got on my nerves.

The death scene…or, rather, the resurrection scene. It’s probably the key scene in the book, and I wanted them to take a lot more time with it – not interrupt it halfway with a battle. Overall, they just rushed it – all of a sudden Aslan’s standing there alive, gives a brief explanation, and off they go to the battle. Isn’t there a scene in the book where he plays with the girls and everything’s incredibly joyous? Yeah, I wanted more of that.

The music. For the most part it was standard movie music, but what were they thinking in the occassional parts when they suddenly put on that terrible New Age sounding music with a woman singing in the background? Terrible. And overall, a movie like this should have a more memorable theme.

The Professor. He came across as really weird and insane, not just eccentric and wise, like in the book.

In spite of all that, I’d still give it a marginal thumbs up – about a B-. I liked the animation, and overall I was entertained. I just would have done it differently myself, is all. :smiley:

Actually, I was under the impression that Aslan had an American accent as well. I mean, I know it was Liam Neeson, but still, it sounded to me like an American who was just enunciating very well. Thought the same thing, to a slightly lesser degree, about the Witch. Neither of them had as strong a British accent as the children.

40

Just saw this yesterday with my 7 year old.

It was wonderful. We had just finished reading the book aloud, so we were up to speed.

Warning! Spoilers!

Things I liked and think were an improvement over the book:

  1. giving Edmund more depth as a character. In the book, he is almost completely unsympathetic. Here, he is seen as doing some “wrong” things, but for good reasons (running back to get his Dad’s picture).

  2. bits of humor–loved Susan’s line about the beavers not supposed to be talking.

  3. Beefed up beginning–unlike most here, I found the air raid to be scarey as hell and for once drove home to me just what Londoners were enduring during the Blitz. I couldn’t stop crying at the train station (which did resemble in a weird way Platform 9 and 3/4). Did the Nazi planes look CGI? Yep, but that didn’t matter to me.

4.More depth to Susan and Peter–Peter is not seen as all good (he is somewhat smarmy in the book) and Susan actually has a personality. Peter wavers with his sword nicely (and looks a little stupid doing so) and he admits to fear in a genuine way.

  1. Lucy was great.

  2. I liked the music, for the most part.
    Weaknesses–

not many.

  1. White Witch–look! She has no eyelashes! and she is wearing some kind of cardboard confection that makes her shoulders look the size of a linebackers! and she has ALOT of hair! Her costume and appearance did nothing for me UNTIL the battle–where she wore Aslan’s mane (nice touch).

  2. WW and Edmund’s relationship is weak. I thought Edmund was supposed to be lusting after Turkish Delight–in the movie he goes to the Queen more because he is resentful of Peter’s authority. Fine point, but it speaks to “sin” and “frailities of the flesh” a bit in the book which is not developed in the film.

  3. What was with the trees? I don’t recall the tree’s blossoms coalescing to form shadow-like people in the book.

  4. The trees–in the beginning, the woods are to be ominous and foreboding–Beaver says the very trees report back to the White Witch. It all looked like a Christmas card to me.

  5. Liked Father Christmas alot (and he doesn’t wear Coca-cola outfit in UK)–but why is his beard that nasty color? Why not a nice white beard? It looks dirty.

  6. We didn’t need the scene where the kids are shown traipsing over the rocky cliff–too LOTR for me–kept expecting Aragorn to show up…

These are all minor. Overall, we enjoyed the film quite a bit. I was caught offguard by the running of some credits and then more film–half the theater was gone and never saw that scene with the professor and Lucy!