The Chronicles of Narnia: A Purist's Review

Once Upon a Time in a land called Narnia...

When Nazi Germany was in its death throes, an Irish-born Professor of Literature at Oxford began writing a fairytale to his Goddaughter, Lucy. From the opening, the reader understood that this would be a tale in the vein of the great works of old:

"Once there were four children whose names were Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids."

The language was simple, straightforward, and invited all children to escape this world's wars and travel to a wonderful 'other' land: A place in which good triumphed over evil, and children reigned. Their rule was just and they "saved good trees from being unnecessarily cut down, and liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school, and generally stopped busybodies and interferers and encouraged ordinary people who wanted to live and let live" (180). Ever since its first publication, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, as well as the other volumes in the series, has been providing great escapes for children (and at least one adult) during the past 55 years.

Reservations

Given my affection for the book, you might be surprised to learn that I was not pleased that this book was being turned into a motion picture. Rarely does a movie 'do justice' to a book, especially children's literature. In some cases, the results are so bad they should be decried as fraud, as in the hatchet job Disney did to Lloyd Alexander's 'The Black Cauldron". (For crying out loud, the man won a Newberry Award for one of the books in the series…couldn’t Disney have shown him at least a little respect?)

I also was concerned about how any film would deal with the messianic symbolism which Lewis used. Contrary to popular Christian belief, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a direct analogy of the New Testament Jesus. Rather, Lewis was trying to present both Christian and moral truth in such a way that would not be hindered by existing prejudices. He was being creative in the vein of Edmund Spencer's "The Fairie Queen": An independent story with an allegorical core. If the screenwriter and director ignored the very clear moral and religious symbolism, it would be a travesty. If overplayed, it could violate Lewis' goal of "stealing past the watchful dragons" which block us from understanding our undeserved opportunity of redemption.* An overhyped stone table scene might also provoke public ridicule: I could easily see some derisively calling the film 'The Passion of the Big Cat'.

My final reservation regarded the public's special effects expectations. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a classic good vs. evil children's book. Yet I had read and heard some expectation of it being in the same vein as 'The Lord of the Rings' series of films, which are mostly dark and foreboding. Furthermore, the Tolkien series were not childrens books, making a comparison completely unfair. I worried that the director might try to make Narnia more disturbing than originally intended by Lewis. Thus, I held my breath, expecting the worst.

Reality

I am pleased to report that my fears were completely unfounded on all counts. The screenplay by Ann Peacock is amazingly accurate to the book. There are some differences between the book and the film, but they are inconsequential. For instance, the movie opens with a German bombing run over London. The Pevensie children and their mother rush for a bomb shelter amidst chaos. Suddenly Edmund leaves the shelter and runs back to the house to get a photograph of their father who is in the military. Peter dashes after him, and both are nearly killed by a Luftwaffe bomb. This scene is not in the book, but is perfectly acceptable. It visually establishes the need for the children to be sent into the country, as well as the tense interrelationships among the siblings. Other differences will be discussed later.

Director Andrew Adamson (of 'Shrek' fame) helps keep the Narnia world magical for this purist through his keen attention to detail. For example, when Lucy first enters Narnia she meets a faun by the name of Mr. Tumnus. Adamson faithfully depicts this meeting by matching the film to the book in even the smallest of details: Tumnus (James MacAvoy) is carrying brown paper parcels and drops them in surprise when he meets Lucy. After meeting one another, Mr. Tumnus offers Lucy a roaring fire, toast, and sardines at his house. When they arrived at his house, Lucy examines his bookshelf. One of the books is entitled "Is Man a Myth". All of these events are exactly as described in the book.

I was particularly impressed with the inclusion of this last item , even though the viewer must be alert to catch it, because it goes to the director's determination to capture the mind of Lewis. This book on the faun's shelf represents Lewis' wit on two levels: First, Fauns are mythological characters, and man once wondered if they were real.  Second, Lewis was an avowed atheist for 33 years of his life. He tried to convince people that God was a myth. Kudos to Adamson for capturing this seemingly small point and including the book on the shelf.

Casting 'Narnia'

The four Pevensie children are immensely believable as Lewis' Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. William Moseley turns in a faithful performance as Peter: He is cautious and protective, yet ultimately valiant. Initially I was not fond of his battle scene performances: He seemed too timid, and flailed around with his sword. But upon reexamination of the text, I believe Adamson directed him perfectly:

"Peter did not feel very brave; indeed he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do. He rushed straight up to the monster and aimed a slash of his sword at its side. That stroke never reached the wolf" (127).

Lewis' Peter did not posses greatness by might of sword, or by confidence in armies. Rather it was in the indefatigable confidence he had in Aslan. So too is the Peter of Adamson's film.

Skandar Keynes turns in a fine performance as Edmund, and Susan is correctly portrayed as gentle and graceful by Anna Popplewell.

However, the real star -and grand larcenist of the show- is Lucy, played by Georgie Henley, who was 8 years old during most of the filming.

It's not merely that she is cute which makes her so captivating. Rather it's the enthusiasm with with which she plays the part.   As with the book, the film's Lucy whole heartedly believes that people, including Mr. Tumnus, are good. She is mortified when she finds out someone has been bad, yet somehow never becomes jaded. She is always forgiving and loving, and ultimately represents the healing power of the Christian faith. All of these qualities are part of Lewis' Lucy, and radiate throughout Henley's portrayal.

While Lucy may ultimately steal the show, a very close second in the category is the hauntingly beautiful White Witch:

"But behind him (the dwarf)... sat a very different person- a great lady, taller than any woman than Edmund had ever seen. She also was covered in white fur up to her throat and held a long straight golden wand in her right hand and wore a golden grown on her head. Her face was white- not merely pale, but white like snow or paper or icing sugar, except for her very red mouth. It was a beautiful face in other respects, but proud and cold and stern” (27).

Once again, Adamson 'gets it right' (crown aside) by casting Tilda Swinton in this role. She delivers lines with verve; transfixes her subjects with a stare that can only be described as 'icy', and her Nordic features make her appear as if she truly belongs in near-tundra environs.

In wonderful contrast to Swinton is Liam Neeson, as the voice of Aslan. His smooth baritone gives no hint of worry or alarm of the events as they unfold.  He is the sovereign ruler, and like God, is never surprised when events turn out as they do. This is consistent with Lewis' work.

Notable Differences

While the film is quite faithful to the original book, there are some inconsequential, yet notable differences. Mr. Fox is one such difference. In the movie, he is presented as a cunning representative of Aslan, however in the book he is merely the spokesman of a party who are enjoying presents delivered by Father Christmas (111). The children's encounter with Father Christmas is another digression from Lewis' narrative.

The Story's Climax: Film vs. Book

The most significant divergence, however, comes toward the end of the film in the climatic battle scene. While I did not time it, I believe it ran at least 20 minutes. Interestingly enough, however, Lewis’ account of the battle runs three paragraphs. The book devotes an entire chapter to Aslan ransoming creatures that had been turned to stone by the White Witch; the movie gives the subject a mere few moments. It is on this point that I take exception with the screenwriter and director. Lewis was a very purposeful author. It is not by accident that he devoted nearly a tenth of the book to the freeing of the statues, and only 1% to the final battle scene.

In chapter sixteen, "What Happened About the Statues", we meet some wonderful characters that are not in the movie: Giant Rumblebuffin is noticeably absent. Also missing from the movie is the unnamed 'other lion' who provides a great deal of comic relief in the book by excitedly declaring to Susan and Lucy:

"Did you hear what he said? Us lions. That means him and me. Us lions. That's what I like about Aslan. No side, no stand-off-ishness. Us lions. That meant him and me." (172).

There is more at stake than the mere loss of humor, however. The 'other' lion presents a key element of Lewis' view of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ: There is now no ‘stand-off-ishness’ with God; He is man's brother as well as King. It’s a shame the movie missed this.

For Lewis, the climax of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe occurred at the stone table, and was juxtaposed with the apparent triumph of the White Witch. The subsequent freeing of the captives by Aslan was undoubtedly more important to Lewis than the battle scene of the Free Narnians vs. the ghoulish army of the White Witch. For Lewis, the victorious battle had already occured at the stone stable. The battle against the White Witch's army was a mere formality.

With these complaints registered, however, I have no choice but to say that I understand why the director chose to emphasize the battle scene. This is a movie, not a book. What 'works' on paper often fails visually. If Peacock (the scriptwriter) and Adamson went strictly 'by the book', this would be a mediocre film at the very best. The director switched emphasis for the sake of making a good film. As such, switching content emphasis from the freeing of the stone statues to the climatic battle scene is completely justified, in my opinion. There was very little decay from Lewis' intentions as best as I can divine it. In the movie, Aslan still frees the captives, keeping all of the important elements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this is a 'must see' movie for anyone who is a fan of Lewis' work, children's literature, or of great filmmaking. It is not a dark fantasy epic a la 'The Lord of the Rings', and presents a classic good triumphs over evil theme. It contains the rich sybolism of the Christian faith without being overbearing, just the way Lewis would have wanted it.

It is my understanding that the script for Prince Caspian has already been approved by the estate of C.S. Lewis. Now, if they would only make a movie of Lewis' Ransom Trilogy, I’d be ecstatic.
-----

* For a greater understanding of Lewis' 'watchful dragons' analogy, see his essay entitled "Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's to Be Said"

Quotes taken from Lewis, C.S. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. New York: Collier Books, 21st ed, 1976.

Photographs from http://www.imdb.com.

.