VDLNWTWR.RVW 20051220 "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", C. S. Lewis/Ann Peacock/Andrew Adamson, 2005 %A C. S. Lewis %A Ann Peacock %C New Zealand %D 2005 %E Andrew Adamson %I Walt Disney/Walden Media/Lamp Post Productions %P 140 min. %S The Chronicles of Narnia %T "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" Somebody's been watching too much "Lord of the Rings." I have, along with lots of other people, been eagerly awaiting the new version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," C. S. Lewis' classic story. I'm the prime target audience: I've always loved Lewis' stuff, I'm a Christian, and I'm even a fan of fantasy. It's been very interesting reading the initial reaction of critics and reviewers. And I finally got to see it. I hope you will be willing, for a moment, to put up with the rather self-referential practice of reviewing what other reviewers had to say. It has been intriguing to see the number of (obviously non- Christian) critics who object that Aslan can't possibly represent Jesus Christ, since no self-respecting Christ would encourage his followers to participate in battles. I say that it is obvious that these people are non-Christian, since they plainly haven't read the Bible: it's full of bloodshed. (Those semi-familiar with Christian theology who would object that the wars were in the Old Testament and that nothing like that happened in the New, clearly have never heard of the cleansing of the temple.) A reviewer in the Vancouver Sun noted that it was ironic that the movie had no soul. I quite agree. The soul of the book is, of course, Aslan, and Aslan is introduced far too late in the movie version. I'm not talking about Aslan as an analogue of God or Jesus: I'm talking about Aslan in the story. The book notes a reaction by the children to the very mention of Aslan's name: the children in the movie merely look blank. Edmund's drawing of glasses and a moustache on the stone lion makes little sense until you know that he thinks the lion is Aslan, and is mocking him: in the movie Edmund doesn't know, at that point, the form Aslan takes. A friend stated that there was no magic in the movie. That's true as well. The special effects are a triumph--but they are *too* good. Aslan looks like any tame lion (which is ironic in itself: he's too fat and sleek to be a wild lion). The beavers look like beavers. They are even the right size for regular beavers, and any devotee of Narnia knows that talking beasts are closer to human size than the natural variety. It is strange to say, but this special effects extravaganza is much less magical than the cheaply animated Children's Television workshop version, with its 70s American children, or the BBC version with its low budget Dr-Who-esque costumes and effects. One of the stories that I read made a big deal about one particular line that was modified. That article certainly gave the impression that the book was being followed to the letter. It definitely isn't. I last read the book about 30 years ago (to my young sisters) but even I can see things that are missing. Of course any book, even one as short as this, contains too much to put into a movie. But it isn't what has been taken out that is most upsetting, but what has been added. The gratuitous bombing scenes that begin the movie, the broken window that gets the group into Narnia, the silly chase scenes (an attempt to turn Lewis' rather slow and philosophical work into an action flick?), and the extended battle scene. (Lewis spends very little time and detail on the battle itself, and rather more on the aftermath.) Tilda Swinton has been quoted as saying that she doesn't see any spiritual content to the story at all. It is therefore intriguing that she probably does the best job of any of the actors involved: she's pretty much the perfect witch. (A bit too brave for the actual story.) Jim Broadbent's Digory Kirke is somewhat too eager for the part: he should be a bit more restrained in his enthusiasm for Narnia. Yes, he knows that you won't get back to Narnia that way, but he's had many years to know it and cloak his own experiences. The actors playing the Pevensie quartet can't be expected to be great actors yet: I think we have to attribute their sometimes un-credible performances to poor direction. Given Lewis professional work in medieval literature, it is interesting to note the medieval tone and style. Even James Cosmo's Father Christmas is medieval, although the idea of Father Christmas (as opposed to Saint Nicholas) postdates the medieval period. But the style of the battle and Cair Paravel (and particularly the swoop up the slope as we see it in detail for the first time) are pure "Lord of the Rings - The Movie." Somehow the witch has gotten hold of orcs, the good guys have eagles as bombers, and one almost expects the oversized elephants to show up on the battlefield. I was very enthusiastic about this movie. Given the clear indications that this is a test run to see what the reaction is before they take on the rest of the chronicles, I'm not so anxious to see this crew do "The Magician's Nephew" and "The Horse and His Boy," although they might make a reasonable job of "Prince Caspian." And I'd hate to see what they make of "The Last Battle." copyright Robert M. Slade, 2005 VDLNWTWR.RVW 20051220