Everything That's On My Mind

Monday, December 12, 2005

And the Oscar for longest movie title of the year goes to...

My extra-brief review: Thumbs Up! (I hope I don't get a nasty call from Roger Ebert's lawyers for that.) The movie is a faithful and effective adaptation of the book. It is a thrilling adventure that can be enjoyed and appreciated by the entire family, and that kind of movie is a rare thing these days. All the important themes and symbolic elements have been retained, and some have possibly been enhanced. Given the box office results ($67+ million in the first weekend), I expect filming to start soon on the next Chronicle...which reportedly will be Prince Caspian. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to film a couple Chronicles simultaneously, just to make sure the young actors don't age too much.

The rest of my "review" will be formatted as "spoiler text" so I don't ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. To view it, use your mouse to select the text below.

First off, the kids. Georgie Henley (Lucy) is wonderful. Anna Popplewell (Susan) makes the most of her role, but doesn't have too many opportunities to shine. Skandar Keynes (Peter) and William Mosely (Edmund) are OK. As for the rest of the cast, Tilda Swinton was magnificent as Jadis. She brought just the right aire of menace without going over the top. Liam Neeson's voice work as Aslan was fine, but I would have picked someone else. I'm not sure who, but his voice just didn't work for me. Ditto on Michael Madsen as Maugrim...just didn't work for me. But I'm just picking nits at this point.

The CGI was simply amazing. I never would have believed they could rendered such a realistic lion, let alone the other fascinating characters of Narnia. I can't imagine C.S. Lewis having any problems with these anthropomorphic animals, despite his well-publicized letter to the contrary.

As far as the story goes, there are always necessary changes when a book is adapted to film. It is possible to argue the propriety of those changes ad infinitum, as any Tolkien fan will tell you. The changes here are generally more subtle, therefore less controversial. I can't imagine anyone making a big deal about most of them. Aslan's explanation of the "deeper magic" was changed, but I don't think it was diluted significantly. I liked the additional backstory elements, particularly the way they tied into the story later. For example, the way Edmund goes back for the broken picture of his father, then later sees a broken picture of Mr. Tumnus' father. It added depth to Edmund's character. I also liked the way Peter began his battle with the White Witch in the same way he had observed battles beginning in England...via an aerial bombardment. It just made sense to me.

So much for my first attempt at a movie review, or at least a movie comment.

Christmas | Movies

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 02:24 PM Eastern Standard Time

Comments [2]

Monday, December 12, 2005 8:20:26 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I'm going to assume that anyone who has followed the "comments" link isn't worried about spoilers.

If

I'm

wrong

you

can

click

this

box

off

now!

Okay. I was also delighted with the movie. My only quibble theologically was that Jadis's speech at the stone table was altered in a way that made it, to me, less dramatic rather than more. The only point I can see to the alteration (other than to break it up into a few separate short speeches rather than one longer one) was to place major point on a line not in Lewis's original: "So much for love."

The reason why this is a quibble is that when Hollywood deals with Christian themes at all, it generally wants to substitute generic "love" for the power and Divine Love of God. On the old TV show "Soap," there was a storyline in which a baby was possessed (as a spoof on the Rosemary's Baby/Exorcist-type movies that were then in vogue), and the power of the devil was thwarted in the end by the family claiming to have "love." (Never mind that this was the most wierdly dysfunctional, at-each-other's-throats family you could imagine.) Something that only God's power could do was relegated to the purview of "love." I'm sure other peopel could come up with better, more appropriate examples.

What Jesus did for us, and what Lewis was portraying Aslan as doing on the Stone Table, wasn't just an act of "love," as Hollywood understands the term. It was Divine Love, and the power of a perfect sacrifice, and the mercy of God. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Keith Schooley

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:50:10 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Wholeheartedly agree with that comment. I had forgotten that change when I wrote the blog entry. That change ties in with the dropped "deeper magic" discussion. The other thing I forgot about was the fact that they totally eliminated any reference to the "Emperor Beyond the Sea", which dilutes the theological implications as well. In both cases, I don't think these decisions were made to intentionally dilute the spiritual content, but simply to streamline the story and dialog. Then again, I may be being naive. :-/

Pastor Bob

Name
E-mail	(will show your gravatar icon)
Home page

	Remember Me
Comment (Some html is allowed: `a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u`) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.
Enter the code shown (prevents robots):
Live Comment Preview

On this page...

January 2009

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Everything That's On My Mind

On this page...

Categories