![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seawaspJust got back from seeing the Narnia movie: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
YES.
This is the nearest thing to a perfect adaptation that has ever been done, as far as I can remember.
From the opening with the London Blitz -- giving us a graphic explanation for those too young to understand why these children were sent away from their parents to some stranger's home -- to the final return to the real world, this is a demonstration that it is unquestionably possible to take a book and turn it into an adaptation which loses virtually nothing from the original and brings that original to life. There are so many brilliant and touching points in this film that I won't even attempt to talk about them all. I'll just hit the high points.
ASLAN: The prime mover behind all events, Aslan is the image on which the movie will stand or fall. And it stands, and roars triumphantly to shake the theatre and say "I HAVE COME!". He is not a Tame Lion. He is THE Lion, the Lion any reader of Narnia has known, whether he was Christian to begin with or, like me, never noticed the Christian imagery until someone else pointed it out.
JADIS, the WHITE WITCH: PERFECT. It was startling, amazing, and somewhat disquieting to see how they managed to make her both beautiful and repellent, a woman who was lovely and yet had... SOMETHING wrong with her. And how they didn't pull a single punch. She is as devastating as winter gone berserk, a moving, lethal, gorgeous ballet of destruction.
The Four Children: Stunning. Lucy is brilliantly played, and so are the others -- Edward's pettiness and the price he pays for it, Peter's almost impossible transformation from British schoolboy to young king on the battlefield, Susan's thoughtfulness crossed with overcaution... Just lovely.
NARNIA: I'd spend too long babbling to even make sense. Perfect.
I haven't walked out of a theater so uplifted since, well, maybe seeing Star Wars for the first few times.
YES.
This is the nearest thing to a perfect adaptation that has ever been done, as far as I can remember.
From the opening with the London Blitz -- giving us a graphic explanation for those too young to understand why these children were sent away from their parents to some stranger's home -- to the final return to the real world, this is a demonstration that it is unquestionably possible to take a book and turn it into an adaptation which loses virtually nothing from the original and brings that original to life. There are so many brilliant and touching points in this film that I won't even attempt to talk about them all. I'll just hit the high points.
ASLAN: The prime mover behind all events, Aslan is the image on which the movie will stand or fall. And it stands, and roars triumphantly to shake the theatre and say "I HAVE COME!". He is not a Tame Lion. He is THE Lion, the Lion any reader of Narnia has known, whether he was Christian to begin with or, like me, never noticed the Christian imagery until someone else pointed it out.
JADIS, the WHITE WITCH: PERFECT. It was startling, amazing, and somewhat disquieting to see how they managed to make her both beautiful and repellent, a woman who was lovely and yet had... SOMETHING wrong with her. And how they didn't pull a single punch. She is as devastating as winter gone berserk, a moving, lethal, gorgeous ballet of destruction.
The Four Children: Stunning. Lucy is brilliantly played, and so are the others -- Edward's pettiness and the price he pays for it, Peter's almost impossible transformation from British schoolboy to young king on the battlefield, Susan's thoughtfulness crossed with overcaution... Just lovely.
NARNIA: I'd spend too long babbling to even make sense. Perfect.
I haven't walked out of a theater so uplifted since, well, maybe seeing Star Wars for the first few times.
Re: Comments on the LWW movie
Date: 2006-01-02 03:24 pm (UTC)Nitpicks are fun. But in this case, they mostly ARE nitpicks and nothing else. There's nothing in this version of Narnia to compare even with the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel in LotR, let alone the many worse things we've seen over the years.
I've seen the opinion that the proper lit-size to adapt to the screen is the short story, and I've seen the comment that LWW iseas to adapt because not all that much happens -- much of the book is narration. E.g., the movie synthesized the entire climactic battle from a few sentences of description from Lucy and Susan's POV after they arrive with Aslan & Co.
I think it's between 40k and 60k words equivalent for a 2 hour movie. I don't know the word count for the Narnia books, but they're MUCH shorter than normal novels these days and are therefore near-perfect for long movie adaptations. By contrast, I think the larger Harry Potter novels run over 200,000 words.
The audio mixing of the dialogue was inadequate in places, such that it'd be unintelligible if I weren't already familiar with what the characters were saying.
I didn't notice that in any of the scenes I can recall.
In the book the kids flee into the Wardrobe not because of an errant cricket ball, but becauseThe MacRead was leading a tour. (Although she resembles Prof.McGonagall from theHarry Potte movies, she's not -- Elizabeth Hawthorne vs. Maggie Smith.)
Yes, that's true. I think that was an attempt to shorten the preamble; they'd have needed an additional scene or scenes to establish the existence of regular tours, and the MacReady's hostlity towards encountering "children".
Did the script change the name of the Witch's wolf lieutenant? I thought it wasFenris Ul in the book, such that Peter becamePeter Fenris-Ban notMaugrim-Bane (Spelling from IMDb.com.) OTOH, it's been 15 years since I've laid eyes on a printed copy.
You are correct. However, Maugrim WAS the original British name. Fenris Ulf was the name in the American printings. It has been changed back in more recent editions. I rather like Fenris Ulf, myself, simply because my Nordic heritage makes me very familiar with its origin -- the Fenris Wolf.
Philip the horse was new. Why was Peter riding a unicorn? Traditionally, unicorns could be approached only by virgins -- female ones. And why no saddle?
Unicorns are also the most noble of all steeds, which only a King may ride, or a pure maiden. This is established in Narnia -- see The Last Battle, in which the last King of Narnia rides a Unicorn named Jewel (male despite that name, however)
And Talking Horses generally do not suffer saddle or heavy bridles. They don't need them to keep their rider on their backs. See The Horse and His Boy.
The petal-based depiction of tree-spirits was new, as was their use as messengers.
At first I found it jarring, but the more I saw of it the more I liked it. An excellent idea overall, and well executed.
No blood. I don't care if the film was rated PG, being run through with a sword (sacrificial dagger, etc.) should result ingreat big puddles of blood all around.
My only real problem with the scenes. The amount of blood should have been... impressive. But I guess they were trying to show that even nasty scenes COULD be done pretty well within the No Blood limitation. And they were. I just wish they'd relax that requirement a bit.
The Witch's use of dual swords was very impressive.
Jadis kicked MUCH ass. She was everything she should have been. I particularly liked the touch that her battle outfit had the fur ruff made from Aslan's Mane. That wasn't in the book, but it was so VERY much Jadis' style.
(damn length limits... will continue response in next message.)
Re[2]: Comments on the LWW movie
Date: 2006-01-04 02:55 am (UTC)Seawasp replied:
"Additional" meaning "even more scenes that weren't in the book," given the others the film invented to establish the Pevensie kids' characters -- the air raid, train trip, Susan's idea of rainy-day fun, etc.
Seawasp:
Aha. The one in our house was quite old, a trade paperback-sized edition, probably 1960s vintage -- it had a publisher logo that resembled the Desilu florette. But with illos!
Lexomatic:
Seawasp:
Peter hadn't been invested yet! Technicality, yes.
I bow to your obviously more recent memory of the books.
Whine, whine, complain, whinny. And human soldiers don't like carrying 50-pound packs. Don't like the strap-marks? Gonna feel really foolish when your rider overbalances when swinging, or gets dislodged by a lance.
Under normal circumstances, maybe. What I know about war-tack is derived entirely from Robin McKinley's The Hero and the Crown (and the relevant Wikipedia articles need expanding), but I get the impression that stirrups, plus a high pommel and cantle, are useful given the exertions and gyrations of combat.
Lexomatic:
Seawasp:
Kids see more blood with nosebleeds and soccer practice. If this was supposed to be "The Passion of the Christ for Kids" (as some reviewers have dubbed it), its gore-less-ness makes it the... anti-passion... something. There's a clever wordplay in there somewhere.
(For comparison, there was no blood in 2003's PG-rated "Agent Cody Banks" when the villain swallowed the nanobots -- much hemorrhaging and anime-style blood-spitting there should have been, yes, as they ate his GI tract. Instead he just turned grey and crumbled.)
Re: Re[2]: Comments on the LWW movie
Date: 2006-03-01 06:20 pm (UTC)In those cases, however, there's actually a necessity. When the books were first published, the books' assumptions that people would recognize certain references were justified. The target audience today really doesn't know ANY of that. It was hard enough for me to "get" some of the information in Narnia when I first read it -- the idea of attacking planes bombing my home town was pretty difficult by itself, but the concept that this would then lead to children being sent to live with complete strangers is utterly bizarre. And they did need to then establish the character interactions.
I think they could have done it either way; I have no trouble with the way they did choose to trigger the panic.
Edmund and horrible! injuries!
Date: 2006-03-01 01:21 pm (UTC):::Seawasp replied:
The Entertainment Weekly feature on the movie included this quote from the actor who played Edmund (Skandar Keynes, born 5 Sep 1991):
So apparently we're not the only ones dissatisfied with that scene. Of course, teens, tweens and younger tend to be a bloodthirsty lot -- haven't learned yet to sublimate their savage impulses, and all that. :) Haven't learned about anatomy either, apparently. Human guts are in your abdomen, not your thorax. ("Humans don't have an arm control nerve in the belly!")