Narnia: brace for the unpopular opinion

[dangermousie]

Sorry katranna, but Husband wanted to see it, so we went to see Narnia.

Meh.

Mind you, I've never read the books. Basically, if I was 8, it would be my favorite movie ever. It's an excellent children's movie (unlike Harry Potter) but unfortunately, I am not a child. So, I found it simplistic and over-long. Lord of the Rings it isn't, even though it invites the comparison because it's a fantasy and because the TPTB take a lot of things from LOTR: certain styles of armor, certain shots of armies, etc etc.

The world-building is quite bad. Why would a non-Christian world have Christmas? Why would all the different species speak the same language, and that language be English? Why is all the food the same?

This world is a children's world. It's safe, unreal in its clean simplicity. Nothing truly horrible can happen, and even the baddies aren't powerful at all (Aragorn would make mincemeat of the White Witch and her minions in record time). White Witch is pretty lame as far as evilness or scariness goes. Also, in LOTR, when characters get acclaimed as heroes (e.g. Frodo), it is because they did these amazingly heroic feats, that did cost them, and that you really feel are amazing. Here, yeah they aren't bad children. But heroes? Come on. I was rolling my eyes. What did they do? Escaped from wolves and fought in a battle (not very well). The acclamation was out of all bounds for their actions. Moreover, there is no sense of their dangers being well...dangerous. Or even uncomfortable. Moreover, their "royal nicknames?" Why are they applicable again? And because most characters are so simplistic, I feel nothing for them. Why should I care about Aslan? He is as interesting as cardboard. Noble cardboard, but still... I liked Mr. Tumnus precisely because he was conflicting and you got the sense he was in trouble.

Basically, I am entirely too old for this movie.

Comments

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Awww. Now you had to go and get all disappointed without me.

But yeah, I kind of expected that. Children's movie.

Though bad things can and do happen in Narnia. I heard the movie was cleaned up a bit, considering it is for kids and all. Though of course, there's still always Aslan and Lucy with her healing elixir to set things right, which I did find comforting reading these way back when.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I can see it again with you if you like. I didn't loathe it or anything.

I think I'd like it if I were either younger or had childhood connections. But I didn't.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Nah, I wouldn't make you waste your money like that. :-)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I don't mind :P

[grace-om.livejournal.com]

You know, I was never that enthused. I remember the books...good, sure, but definitely kids' books. My OH is really keen to see it though, as are the kids, so I imagine we'll all go. It looks like it ought to be pretty at any rate.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's very very pretty. Not my cup of tea at all (talking animals are a deal breaker I am afraid) but very nice to look at.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

You've got to understand that the world building is the way it is because Narnia is directly tied to Earth. The portal is through a wardrobe, for heaven's sake. Narnia isn't Middle Earth. Narnia is more a spiritual place than a real one.

They have Christmas because it technically IS a Christian world. Also, Lewis said that the only way he ever knew to get across to children how horrible a 100 year winter would be would be to make it a 100 year winter without Christmas.

I've taken two seperate classes over C.S. Lewis in college and I grew up on the books. A lot of Chronicles coolness comes from it's blending of theology with an actual fantasy story. Lewis was a master of that. Tolkien hated it, but you can't deny that Lewis didn't get his point across. This is also what makes it a challenge to put on the screen the same way LOTR was.

I honestly loved it. I found it more watchable than LOTR actually because it moved so fast. Granted, LOTR is a better movie, but that doesn't mean I'm going to want to sit down and watch it all the time. Narnia has that quality to me. They did an incredible job taking the book and making it into something epic on a smaller scale. Harry Potter has disappointed me in that aspect. LWW did not.

That being said, if you like it you like it, if you hate it you hate it. What's great to one person won't appeal to another.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I found it more watchable than LOTR actually because it moved so fast.

It's interesting, because I ended up looking at my watch a few times and the movie is only a bit over two hours long while I never feel that way with LOTR and something that I rewatched ad nauseam.

I guess I didn't find the theology blend innovative but rather simplistic and mildly irritating (once again, po-tay-to v. po-tah-to). I am not Christian though and I've never liked allegory.

But yes, it's an excellent children's movie, unlike HP. I just am not as fond of children's movies as I thought I'd be.

[ewanspotter.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen it yet, but all of what you said is my fear...

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I don't know if yu are a fan of the books. Because if you are, by all accounts it's a very good adaptation. I guess the type of the material just doesn't appeal to me.

[ewanspotter.livejournal.com]

Haven't read the books either. It just... looks like it's trying to hard to be LOTR, but can't.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if you are expecting LOTR, or even LOTR lite, you'll be disappointed.

[danceswithwords.livejournal.com]

Given that the books are designed for children (and not the way the Harry Potter books are, with the sly winks to adult readers--the books are really intended for young children) and the fact that it's a Disney movie with a PG rating, why yes, it is a children's movie. It's a children's story.

(And as for the food, hobbits sure drank a lot of tea, enjoyed their toast, and ate seed cake, and Middle Earth was crawling with ale and wine, so I'm not sure that's really a legitimate criticism, or at least a consistent one.)

I thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation of the book overall, though I do think they whitewashed Edmund a little. But, yes, children's movie. If you were looking for moral ambiguity and complex situations, this was not the place to find them. I had the advantage of knowing that going in, having read the books as a child.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

not sure that's really a legitimate criticism, or at least a consistent one.)

I think it bothered me more because of everything else that stuck out. I'd be willing to buy Narnia (or Middle Earth) having toast or tea because hey, not everything has to be entirely different, but when it was a part of everything else that felt inconsistent, it rather grated.

If you were looking for moral ambiguity and complex situations, this was not the place to find them.

Oh, I knew it was a children's movie. I couldn't help but want ambiguity and complexity though. A lot of adult reviewers obviously liked it, so I thought I could too. And I thought it was very pretty and had some scenes I loved (Mr. Tumnus and Lucy's first meeting is a delight) but unfortunately, overall, it left me rather flat.

[kitsah.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm a children's lit enthusiast overall, so I was pretty much guaranteed to like it if it was good (which it was). I was kind of wondering how you would view it since I don't get the impression you are much of a children's lit person...correct me if I'm wrong of course! :)

Actually if you, take it from the allegory which it was intended to be, there is quite a lot of moral complexity to the story - perhaps not as much over the top angst as we moderners are used to, but definite moral complexity.

A kid who feels neglected learns what true suffering is and risks his life to stop it - for one. A king (of whatever species) who sacrifices himself to save his subjects and in the process reverses death itself - magic and mysticism, religion, compassion, and love - LOL yay Narnia! (sorry, got carried away there)

I did disagree a bit with your contention that their actions aren't heroic. These children are fighting a war against magic and evil. While their actions aren't as riddled with suffering as in LOTR, they are imho more realistic for all of that. The Pevensies are very brave.
Lewis' point was that you can't do anything without God (Aslan). There are quite a few arguments for proof of Christianity buried in there when you read the book. They don't always come out through the movie because you drop the narrator.

So anyway, my two cents - LOL but half of what I read is children's lit these days!

Curiously, I found myself watch-checking through LOTR but I think a lot of that is because it is a 9 hour movie in three parts. So the intro seems to well, intro a bit too much, if you follow, when you view them individually. Of course I always liked The HObbit best of all and it was written for 9 year olds! I guess I just never grew up! :P

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I agree the key is liking children's lit. And I don't. Harry Potter is actually the only exception to the rule.

Case in point: I enjoy The Hobbit but it's nowhere near in the same universe to my liking of LOTR.

Re: Narnia. I must admit that when animals start to talk, a large part of me tunes out :P

[kitsah.livejournal.com]

LOL, and I'm all over it!

Curious - have you ever read George RR Martin's series A song of Ice and Fire? I'd be interested in your take on it. It is NOT children's lit...

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I read a few pages in. It's something I plan to pick up one of those days. I do think it has too many main characters. I like having one or two at most :P Not an ensemble girl.

[thekatebeyond.livejournal.com]

It does lose something without the context. This is actually based on the second book in the series. The first king and queen of Narnia - the ones appointed at the world's beginnings - were a Cockney hansom cab driver and his wife. (Philip the horse was the work horse for the cab.) The White Witch has also been to Earth. So there was a solid foundation for the Earth traditions. And as for the languages, Aslan gave all the creatures the ability to understand one another at the world's beginning.

I enjoyed it thoroughly, but then, I went into it with a full grasp of the context and the concept.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I think I basically missed the boat on Narnia. If I read the books when I was a kid, even if I outgrew them, I'd have a good association with them that would enable me to enjoy the movie. But as it is...

But then, I don't like the Wizard of Oz movie either.

[ch1pper.livejournal.com]

The Christmas bit always grates me. I know that Lewis and Tolkien almost ended their friendship over that.

Awwww, being too old is not fair.

I, being eternally 12, lapped up the movie. Ever since I read the books back when I was 9 7 10 can't remember exactly when (just like the hazy line when you first learn to read and suddenly can't remember not reading everything) imagined it just that way.

*happy sigh that disney did not screw it up immeasurably*

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

My very first book was the Russian version of Wizard of Oz when I was 6. Boy, did I love those books.

But yeah, I think it's one of those movies that works if you still like child lit or have fond memories of the book and I am not in either of the categories. I am glad the fans like the adaptation though, because that's the most important part.

[ch1pper.livejournal.com]

Wizard of Oz! I loved how there was like 30 books! So hard to find them. I remember desperately searching the library for them and my gramma giving such a look "kid's books?" I was all of 15 then I think. heh. She was used to me devouring her Six Wives of Henry the Eighth.

I guess I'm in both categories. *slides complete volumes of Narnia under the bed*

[jesus-freak1234.livejournal.com]

Darn. I love the books and haven't seen the movie yet, but...darn. :(

[winterspel.livejournal.com]

Why darn? It seems like most of the folks who are less than enthusiastic haven't read the books, so therefore don't have the same context (world, rules, characters, plot, etc.) as those that have read them. dangermousie didn't say the movie was terrible, just that it wasn't her cup of tea. She wrote: "I don't know if yu are a fan of the books. Because if you are, by all accounts it's a very good adaptation. I guess the type of the material just doesn't appeal to me."

I say if you are interested in it, you should see it and decide for yourself. :)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Exactly. What winterspel said. By all accounts it's a very good adaptation of the source material. It's just the source material isn't my cup of tea.

[ange-louise.livejournal.com]

I saw the trailer the other day and it looked very good, but definitely marketed towards children. It's very clean, almost sterile.

IRT the world-building, it's already been pointed out that it's an extension of Earth, a spiritual place. But I have read that Tolkien was a friend of CS Lewis, and even Tolkien thought LWW was a bit silly.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

It's very clean, almost sterile.


Exactly. All the armor is sniny and undenty and the colors are almost technicolor bright. Not my thing but obviously for a lot of people it's what they love and YMMV.

[elvensapphire.livejournal.com]

I found it simplistic and over-long. This is interesting to me because I felt this way, too but I thought it was just because I was about ready to exterminate half the audience (in case you missed the lengthy rant on my LJ, we dealt with screaming kids, kids running up and down stairs, and ringing cell phones through the whole movie and I was veeeery annoyed). I just never got into the story. It wasn't interesting to me, I couldn't fall into it and lose myself completely like I can with LOTR and SW. So instead, I found myself only paying attention to the little details (props, music, scenery, etc) and not feeling involved at all with the characters. My mother felt this way, too, but like I said, we weren't sure if it was the movie's fault or the audience's. And both of us have read the book, so we knew what was going to happen.

...it is because they did these amazingly heroic feats, that did cost them, and that you really feel are amazing. Here, yeah they aren't bad children. But heroes? Come on. What did they do? YES! I have always felt this way about the Pevensie children. They're darling and have good hearts, but they don't sacrifice anything, don't suffer the trials that usually earn a hero acclaim. In fact, generally speaking, heroes don't even want to be such, or don't even realize that they are, and the kids...well, they get recognized simply because they fulfilled a prophecy and not much else. If it hadn't been for Aslan, the White Witch would have wiped the battlefield with all four of them. Also I never understood the WTF?stonetableresurrection plotline. It makes no sense. And I'm not one to be overly critical of children's stories and miraculous happenings in books, but this one always catches me as being waaaay underdeveloped. Look at what Harry undergoes (think novel since you don't like the film) in Sorcerer's Stone alone. He is constantly tested and suffers plenty, even in the first, most "childlike" of the adventures, and he is always the reluctant hero. He says himself - he doesn't want eternal glory. He wants to just be normal. But the Pevensie children almost seem to acclimate immediately to it, and that bugs me.

Why should I care about Aslan? He is as interesting as cardboard. Noble cardboard, but still Well, I couldn't have really said that better. I was highly disappointed in Aslan. There was nothing interesting about him, and when he "died" I didn't really even care - which for a sap like me was a bit of a shock. When I really get into a film and its characters, I connect to them, and a huge event like that would usually catch my emotion somehow, but it didn't. When he came back to life, I actually turned to my mom and said, "And we care that he's back why?" and she had to stop herself from snorting at me. It actually made me feel a little guilty because I really was looking forward to this movie and it failed my expectations. Maybe I'm just too spoiled by LOTR and other fantasy stories, with their amazing character development, complicated plotlines, and in movie form, beautiful scenery and special effects, to be able to embrace a film that is admittedly simple, but it lost its charm on me. Narnia is too clean and unmagical - it doesn't look or feel lived in, and there is a detachment with all the characters. And sure, you can argue that it's a children's film, but I have seen a number of children's films that have more character development and spunk than this did, and that's unfortunate. Plus, it's hard when you sit through a movie and are thinking every other minute about the special effects. This is not a good thing, as the special effects are supposed to enhance a story, not detract. In ROTK, I remember being blown away when Gandalf and Pippin rode over the ridge where Minas Tirith came into view. Everything was real in those films. But in Narnia all I could think was how strange all the talking animals looked, and how I didn't believe any of it. Aslan ruined it for me, because he didn't look real at all, and knowing he was a CG lion eliminated his majesty. *sigh*

I am entirely too old for this movie. And then there's that. Maybe that's my problem.

[elvensapphire.livejournal.com]

PS: You're going to hate me, but I just got the whole batch of your RENT comments from two weeks ago (ah, LJ, how I loathe thee sometimes), so I will answer them as soon as I can. :)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yay! :)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I agree with your write-up (get out of my brain, woman! :P)

It just felt way way to clean and simple. Not real at all.