I base my judgments on really two main categories. First and foremost in my mind is whether or not the movie carries the main threads of the book. Main threads would be the key term there. What works in a book doesn't always work in a movie, and all Narnia lovers need to cut Michael Apted some slack on that point. I didn't watch the movie for what was changed, but for how well it carried the primary themes of the book. Secondly, the movie should itself be good in its own right. I don't want to see a movie that just makes C.S. Lewis fans happy. I want to see a real piece of art. I think the Lord of the Rings movies are perfect examples of what the Narnia movies ought to be. At times in Peter Jackson's films I grimace over certain changes to events, characters, dialogues, but the movies carried the day on both criteria I have given. In the end, the main themes were all there, and they were there in a trilogy of excellent art. To this point in the Narnia series, the score is 1 for 2. The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe was a good film. Prince Caspian bombed on all counts.
Main threads. On this criteria, I give the movie a B. Overall, I think Lewis' book is fairly well represented. My major complaint is that two key themes, the longing for Aslan's Country and the spirit of adventure, were present but not emphasized like they were in the book. At the end of the film, sailing on to Aslan's Country is sort of just a nice way to end the story, but Lewis' makes it the climax. Adventure loving is also somewhat lost. For instance, in the book Caspian decides to avoid Dark Island because its a terrifying place. Reepicheep then lectures Caspian for forsaking an adventure simply because what is ahead is fearful and unknown and persuades Caspian to approach the island. In the movie, they go to dark island because they have no choice. It is full of a vague, green mist monster (they don't call it a mist monster by the way) that is going to corrupt all the world. A little hokey, I know. More on that later.
But I must give credit where it is due. There are actual shockers in the movie. At one point Caspian and company are told that they can't defeat the evil (the mist monster) unless something is done about the evil inside of them. In fact, the power of the mist monster is to use the evil lurking inside of you to control and destroy you. Wow! That's not just in a Hollywood movie. That's in a Hollywood movie geared towards kids! The redemption theme with Eustace also remained in tact. In describing how he went from dragon back to boy, he says that though he tried to be free of the dragon skin he could never get it off. He had to let Aslan do it for him. And when Aslan does it, it really hurts. Only its a good hurt like a thorn coming out. Finally, and most shockingly, Aslan parts from Lucy by telling her that in her world he is known by another name, and the reason she was brought into Narnia was to know him better in her world. Thus the movie ends with the message that there actually is a real Aslan.
Good Art. On this criteria, I go with a B as well. It's a movie worth seeing, but I think they could have done better. Granted this was a difficult job. More so than the other books, in my opinion. Doug Wilson noted that the book is very episodic, which isn't easy to translate into one cohesive movie. So in the attempt to create one over-arching story, they added things like the mist monster, and human sacrifices to the mist monster, and swords being placed together to defeat the mist monster. All of it a little bizarre and thoroughly unnecessary.
And of course there are those strange glitches that we as an audience are just supposed to miss. Immediately following Eustace's transformation back into a boy, he is suddenly running on Ramadu's island ready to put the final sword in place. How he got there is not so clear. Then when he does get the sword in place and the mist monster is defeated, he is suddenly miles away from Ramadu's island and swimming next to the Dawn Treader. His movements equally baffling.
Casting was good (especially Eustace who is as annoying on screen as in the book). I'm not a real special effects guy, so I thought they were more than adequate. Dialogue could have been better. Acting could have been better. But in comparison with much of what comes out of Hollywood, it was pretty decent. So that's my take.
No comments:
Post a Comment