|
|
Child-friendly? If you mean the bloodless violence, then w/e (it should have earned a PG-13 rating anyway), and the symbolism was almost more delved into here than in many of the books I've read about the Chronicles of Narnia books. I think that as far as the script goes, and the symbolism, and the interpretation of the story, this is one of the best book to movie adaption ever in terms of objectivity (the first LOTR movie still wins the book to movie title as of now). I gave it 4 Stars (the highest-- 'excellent' rating), and it's rather long, because of the notes that I took, and because of the script's excellence. C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite authors of all time. Naturally my introduction to his works began with The Chronicles of Narnia series, and while those kept me busy for a while (about a week, one book for each day) I went on to read several biographies and books about the religious symbolism that I was so fascinated by (keep in mind that I was only 9 at the time). I went on to read the Space Trilogy (a lesser known gem by Lewis), but as was noted at the beginning of the books by Lewis himself, was lacking in any allegorical characters.
Lewis was originally an atheist, but thanks to his great friend and colleague, JRR Tolkien, he was converted to Christianity. In response, Lewis began to devote much of his writings to Christianity. Among these works are the allegorical children's stories that we know to be The Chronicles of Narnia. Tolkien repaid him by expressing his distaste in the books, while Lewis faithfully praised Tolkien's works (most notably The Lord of the Rings series).
Quite simply, Narnia remains to this day as my favorite book series. I even grew up loving the TV-movies that BBC created (yep, even bought the DVDs when they came out).
This big-budget movie based on the first title in the Narnia series is not only better than the BBC version, but is also an amazing film on any level. There hasn't been a better fantasy film since the first Lord of the Rings title, a film that I consider to be near perfection.
There have been a few critics who have condemned this movie for "straying far from the source material". As a devoted fan of the book, I couldn't disagree more. Not only is the movie faithful to the book, but it expounds upon the story and events. True, some things were cut, and many events have been altered, but this is necessary for a book-to-movie adaptation. For instance, the idea that they merely want their brother back gave the characters genuine motive, versus the already present enthusiasm found in the book. Showing the air raids and the character's reactions at the beginning of the movie was a stroke of genius. Not only did it give the characters development even before the main plot started, but it provided additional insight and an alternative perspective to a newly-established character driven story, versus the event driven one as found in the book.
This is the ideal for a book-to-movie adaption. Not only do events like the ones previously mentioned help the story, but the screenplay has followed all the rules for an appealing story. The "Hero's Journey" is a centerpiece, the characters each want something but there are obstacles. Even the most important rule in screenplay writing is followed: there isn't too much dialogue. The pacing is action driven only deviating when necessary.
The most impressive aspect of this movie is how well it was written. One of the things I loved most about how it was written is how the multiple allegories were brought out. There are two I'm referring to, but it would not be surprising to me if there were more, and those are: religion and real life events. By religion, I'm referring to the way that Christ is represented through Aslan, and other Biblical events and ideas which are communicated through various aspects of the movie. By real life events, I'm referring to not only parallels to real life events (namely the war and other events throughout Lewis' life), but also the way that life is and the way that people communicate, think and feel.
The religious symbolism is the most "in your face" of the two allegories I found, and was the centerpiece. It's no secret that Aslan is supposed to be representative of Christ, although the movie clarifies a lot of events surrounding the character. The cracking of the Stone Table is now a visual of the abstract concept of what Christ did for us. The entire scene in which that event takes place was very symbolic. The cinematography was telling the story of Christ with the very framing and movement of the camera. The set and lighting of the entire scene rang symbolic to how many speculate it to have looked in Christ's last days. Even the music hinted at the location and events the scene was trying to symbolize, although parts of it sounded suspiciously identical to Harry Gregson-Williams' last bit of work, the crusade-oriented movie Kingdom of Heaven. Actual dialogue played very symbolic roles not only in that specific sequence, but also before and after, with key phrases such as "It is finished." Aslan even devotes a scene afterward to explain what a sacrifice truly means and about definitive truths.
While Aslan has always been speculated to be a Christ-like figure, a less breached idea about the White Witch symbolizing the Devil has been brought out through the movie. This is shown through dialogue she says relative to the Stone Table and a "traitor's blood", as well as a very important bit of dialogue that she whispers to Aslan as he is about to give his life. If the Devil was tempting Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane as many speculate (and even portrayed in The Passion of the Christ), it must have been something similar to what the White Witch tells Aslan.
The parallels between the story and the war and events in Lewis' life are made easier to understand with a little bit of knowledge, but especially with the sequence involving the Air Raids at the beginning of the film, as well as the whole theme of a "war", which idea is introduced in the movie version of Narnia far earlier than in the book. The idea that characters want to stay out of it, also helps the allegory along immensely.
The way that people communicate, think and feel is brought out by more characterization, which was a bit different than the book's portrayal, but most importantly, it captured the spirit of it all. Various possible political messages can be speculated by mere concepts such as the animal's ability to speak, or other nature-related things preaching against the Industrial life. Other ideas include the White Witch always making it winter in Narnia... or the Witch being White (yes, I'm joking about that one).
Needless to say, the screenplay deserves some serious recognition.
Walking into the movie, the child-actors were a worry of mine. I am pleased to announce that they all did excellent jobs. They were well-trained actors with excellent enunciation with perfection and preciseness when they spoke. They even had believable characterization with personality. And don't worry, they act 100% naturally (versus the melodramatic stage actors as seen in the BBC version). Most importantly, as these were child-actors, they were only annoying when their character was annoying, and not because of poor acting.
The supporting actors were all carefully chosen, and held up the movie's reputation well. All of them did so well, that you can't help but wonder why actors like these aren't more plentiful in modern movies.
The visual effects department, fresh from King Kong and The Lord of the Rings movies, have outdone themselves again. This time, they had the challenge of trying to make the animals talk, while yet seeming real. They succeeded in this. When the animals speak, it always looks as if it could be plausible. The animals look even better when they don't speak, and sometimes had me wondering if some of them were real. I wondered this most during a chase scene involving a pack of wolves. When they spoke, they were fake, but when they didn't, I was puzzled as to whether they might have trained some live wolves for the scene. Regardless, it all looks outstanding.
The movie features some awesome transitions, particularly toward the end. One of which involved a map somewhat reminiscent to that of The Lord of the Rings, but not to worry, it looked much better than the map transitions in those movies.
The music was simply dazzling, with a huge variety of themes for different locations, characters and events. It was all sewn together with bits of themes here and there returning to reflect the mood. This holds true particularly to the theme that Lucy and Mr. Tumnus share, especially when they first find that he is missing, and find the Beavers.
The battle scene toward the end of the movie would most likely have earned the film a PG-13 rating back in the 90s. It seems that The Lord of the Rings which showed gore normally reserved for R rated movies, has started a trend in lowering how harshly violence is rated. Naturally there is no blood or gore, but there is plenty of slashing and stabbing (still not showing any blood). The intensity level is most likely appropriate for a PG aged audience, but parents may or may not disagree with the amount of semi-intense violence in the movie.
All in all, literary savvy people will love this film. Others may or may not, but in terms of literature, an appreciation for this movie is a judge of intelligence. However, I'll be the first to admit that if you're not a Christian, or don't like concepts of theology, then you'll probably like this movie a lot less.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 06:25:31 pm by 2awesome4apossum »
Logged
|
