Once a King or Queen in Narnia...

There are about 500 million things I want to post about, so I think I'm going to take them one at a time, and give them as rewards to myself when I finish work. So, I will start with what will probably be a fairly in depth discussion (now that I've almost finished, I'd like to amend that to read: the longest thing EVER, read only if you love my brain) of my opinions and impressions of the new Narnia movie. If you don't know the story at all, there will definitely be tons of spoilers. If you don't want to know stuff they changed, or details about the movie... spoilers of that kind too. Remember... you're not supposed to talk about Narnia unless you find others that have been there too. ;) On that note, if anybody loves Narnia even sort of as much as I do, please share your thoughts! A brief aside: I don't get font options anymore and I don't know why.

Anyway...

I think it hit me Wednesday or Thursday night as I was walking home from the bus stop. It was cold and quiet, and suddenly I thought, "I'm going to see Narnia on Friday!" It filled my heart with excitement and I literally started running for about a block. (I had taken the 21 and gotten off a bit farther away than usual, for those who are familiar with the bus routes near our apartment.) I was full of delight! The thing is, I guess, that it's mine. It's my story, that I've loved forever, that's a part of my blood... other people have had movies made of their stories, and I've been into them. But this one was like a big present from the movies just to me. The very fact that it was made, I mean. Though it sure has been strange seeing all the sudden fuss about it! I saw Narnia chapstick in the drug store! And I didn't buy it... but I sorta wanted to. But it's like, suddenly these so familiar images and names are all over the place, in everyone's displays. I certainly don't mind! It's just... surprising. Also gratifying, in some way.

But on to the movie itself. I went with Rachel and Katie, after a long evening of cleaning up in preparation for our Saturday holiday bash. (What the hell kind of name is bash for a party, anyway?) There's a state of confusion and negativity that often comes over me when I clean (why I don't do it often, I guess), and I was sort of rising out of that as we actually arrived at the theater.

I think overall I vacillated between excitement/awe at seeing it and a sort of minutely analytical/critical mindset that came from knowing it so well. So I definitely think I need to see it again to really be sure about what I think, and maybe also to enjoy it fully.

I was sort of excited to hear the music they would pick, but I have to say the old music ended up being much more striking in my head. The music from the BBC/Wonderworks version. (Editor's note: from now on, the "old version" does in fact refer to the BBC/Wonderworks production.) But it's also, of course, more familiar to me, and that's a big deal with music and the liking of it, I think.

The opening scenes were really fascinating. It started with basically the whole screen being a sea of mist, and I was entranced, especially because it related to the old version, which starts also with mist, and the mist parts to reveal the map of Narnia. But this mist opened to reveal fighter planes, and set us very firmly in context, showing us the WWII setting very clearly, and then focusing in on the Pevensies with their mother, fleeing the bombs. Now that I'm thinking about it in retrospect, there are a lot of aspects of that scene that are recalled later in the images of Narnia... like the children and their mother huddled in a shelter outside of their home, and then the children and the beavers later huddled in a little hole, that was definitely much smaller and more haphazard than in the book or the old version of the movie. The "hiding place for beavers in bad times" was definitely more of a little makeshift hollowed out bit of dirt, and I wonder if that wasn't done on purpose to harken back to the war imagery. Other people caught things like the bombs falling from the planes as compared to the birds of prey in Aslan's army later dropping big rocks on the Witch's forces. Out of all of this I was most preoccupied with the huge point they make about Edmund running back or staying too long in the house to rescue his father's picture, and Peter having to go get him out of there, and yelling at him for it afterwards. I mean, obviously it sets up tension between Edmund and Peter, but it's interesting because it seems to me that this happens in a very "no fault" way. Edmund's decision to take the picture is not out of any "bad" motivation, and Peter yelling at him is perhaps not desirable, but rather understandable in those circumstances, because he (Peter) is frightened and worked up. And it all centers around their father. Is this meant to imply that the problems Edmund is having are basically rooted in the fact that he needs a father figure, and suddenly the only older male in his life is Peter, so he both resents Peter's attempts to take authority and needs him to do so? I mean, certainly the emphasis placed on the relationship between the two boys would imply that. And also that Peter feels the need to take on a fathering position to the other children, but doesn't really know how to do that, and therefore, especially with Edmund but occasionally with Susan as well, ends up being excessively authoritative. It's an interesting dynamic, and it's developed in ways that make me question things I never questioned at all in the books. At the same time, does this tend to set up Edmund as having an "excuse" for his behavior? Maybe it's just that I felt we were supposed to be more sympathetic toward Edmund, saving the broken picture, then toward Peter, yelling at him for being stupid for saving the picture. The thing with the picture also sets Edmund up for a parallel moment when Edmund sees the paiting of Mr. Tumnus' father in Mr. Tumnus' ransacked cave. So, I wasn't sure if the picture thing was mostly to create sympathy for Edmund, or to explain Edmund's eventual sympathy for Mr. Tumnus. I think that the idea of being sort of "temporary orphans" can be applied to Susan's behavior as well, in a way I didn't quite notice before, although for some reason I had the most trouble understanding Susan's behavior/personality, out of all the children.

Anyway (this is turning out to be the most rambly review ever, but that's ok), I was really fascinated by the grounding of the whole story in its WWII context, something I hadn't thought terribly deeply about before. I think when I first read that books, I was too young to have much of my own context for WWII, if any, so I just took it for granted as part of the story, and did not think at all about the historical meaning. But this whole opening with planes and bombs made me think about it a lot, especially since I've been obsessed lately with the way that WWII has shaped our consciousness as both a small (American) and larger (world) society, and how key it is to everything, in a lot of ways. I wonder if C.S. Lewis set it then to frame it in a time of crisis, or just as a convenience? I mean, he could have had the children going off to the countryside at any time, I suppose... but probably not to strangers, and probably not without their parents, unless he orphaned them completely. So, is there a parallel between the events in/redemption of Narnia, and the events in Europe? I don't quite know what to think about it, since I never thought about Narnia in it's national/real world context really before now, except in the religious themes, of course. And then there's the fact that he was writing in the fairly immediate aftermath of the war, still, not from a perspective when it has been soaked into the culture in the way it has now, with less immediate awareness but perhaps more subtle influence. I'm really not sure what to make of it. So I guess I'll let that one sit for a bit and think about it more later.

So, the first things that struck me about the children is that they were all very dark-haired except Peter. I had assumed from the first quick previews that I saw that they were trying to make them all look very much like siblings, and Susan and Edmund and Lucy all very much did, especially Susan and Lucy, but Peter looked different. I always am interested in why in the films I've seen, Lucy rarely has blond hair, like she does in the books... but I've never pictured her with blond hair, and I like her with brown hair like me. But Susan I can see either way, I think because I did picture her clearly in the books with black hair, and then in the old version of the movies she had blond hair. Their faces in the old version are so clear to me, all of them, really, though especially Lucy with her funny buck teeth. I think I had some trouble with Peter's appearance because he looked so grown up. Susan also looked more grown up than I expected, but just generally there seemed to be such a huge gap between Susan and Edmund, and then another (but smaller) gap between Edmund and Lucy. Sometimes I thought Peter must be about 16, and that was weird. And Susan had little breasts, though I suppose it's possible she was around 12 or so. I have this little chart in a book somewhere that calculates all of their ages during each book, but I don't precisely remember now. Although I think Lucy was supposed to be 6 or 7, and I thought they were mostly a year or two apart in increments. But I don't know that for sure. And... apparently Edmund must always and forever have freckles. ;) I think I'm probably ok with that. I loved this version of Edmund, really. And Lucy definitely grew on me. But probably I should give them each their own paragraph, since this is already obscenely long.

Ok: general thoughts on Peter. He confused me by being so old, but I really liked the way his character was so developed throughout the story, especially in his relationship with Edmund. In fact, I think I might have been somewhat more personally invested in Peter here than in the book, at least the first time around. But I just wish he'd lookedlike more of a child, just a little. I also got a little tired of the many times he had to display his heroism, but maybe that's just me... and since when did Peter ride a unicorn into battle? I was like, um, hello Jewel! I mean, I guess it was fine, I didn't hate it... it just startled me. I liked that he wasn't too perfect, and I liked the way he grew into his authority. I was pretty fascinated with his relationship with Edmund, especially because he seemed to be much more beastly to him in this version than in the book. Like, I saw much more of Peter's unreasonableness, as opposed to just Edmund being sullen, or whatever. Peter seemed like he was poised on the edge of being a good leader, but before he got there he was in fact a very bad one. Maybe that's part of the reason they made him older? I missed some of his talk with Aslan... but there'll defintely be a dialogue section later.

Susan: Definitely the most confusing. I felt like they changed her character a lot because they were trying to make her less "girly" or something, and I guess that's ok in some ways, but I often feel like movies go about that the wrong way. Or, that suddenly girls have to be all snappy and make smart remarks, like that's the only way to be strong... but on the other hand, I was interested in her as a character, she seemed conflicted in a way that was never quite resolved. I wonder if this was foreshadowing, or merely if I was interpreting little things in her behavior that way, in a way I never really have in the books. I mean, I guess I've interpreted the major things that way, like the stuff in Prince Caspian about seeing Aslan, but I never really thought about the rest of her behavior in this context. And what does that mean, given that Susan is the most cautious, and the most willing to uphold the status quo? I don't mean it to sound like I hate Susan. I don't, I like Susan, but I never identified strongly with her. Maybe what they were trying to do in this version, as with Peter, is clearly show the anxiety it created in Susan to be more "in charge" and somewhat more aware of the danger involved in the war. I was interested in how this Susan seemed to go from being very reassuring that things would be all right, to being more nervous and snapping at people, particularly Peter. And even making sort of snappy remarks to Father Christmas... which was cute, actually, but it confused me then when she was suddenly "Queen Susan the Gentle." But I guess most of their King and Queen names are things they grew into over time, anyway. The one thing I absolutely loved that they did with Susan was when she and Lucy were talking by the river, and Susan said she had gotten too serious and how they used to have fun and they start playing and splashing... that seemed very... appropriate, somehow, to their characters as they are portrayed in the books, and the tension combined with closeness that works in Susan and Lucy's relationship as well as with the boys, though more subtly. The scene was just fantastic, I thought, and then ripping down the towel or whatever to reveal Fenris Ulf (or Maugrim, he was Maugrim in this version, right? One is the British text and one the American and I've never been clear about that. I think I read about Fenris Ulf first, though. Anyway) was very exciting and seemed very right, even though it had nothing to do with the original version. Also, Susan was appropriately beautiful, I think.

Edmund: I really loved this Edmund. I liked some things that they changed about what happened to him, and didn't like others, but I really loved him. I mean, Edmund has always been one of my favorite characters, and more so with time, I think, but I also very much enjoyed the way he was played. He certainly held my attention. And, as I think he is very well developed in the book, they didn't have to depart wildly from the book to try and round him out, or anything like that. He had a striking appearance, freckles and all... and I could see the internal journey that he went through, as well as the physical one. Which is really a compliment to him, because I was disappointed that they took out some of the sort of "time with Edmund" scenes... like when he's journeying to the Witch's castle and when the Witch is about to kill him. On the other hand, I approved surprisingly strongly of the added scene in the jail when Edmund meets Mr. Tumnus, and the scene later with the fabulous Fox that they added for this movie. These scenes gave Edmund a chance to make connections with people who were not the Witch, with Mr. Tumnus obviously in a poignant/personal way, since he knows it's his fault Mr. Tumnus got caught... and the Fox was an interesting substitute for the party of happy animals. More hard-core, I guess, more clear that we were in a war, or something... it definitely highlighted the Witch's cruelty in a stark way... I did miss the squirrel banging his spoon on the table, though, I must say. But all of this made Edmund's transformation very believable. I am caught by the fact that Edmund carefully doesn't tell the Witch about the others' plans to go to the Stone Table until he uses it as a bargaining chip for the Fox's life. I'm not sure what to make of it, or if I like it. I definitely didn't like that the Witch didn't say "kill whatever you find there," to Fenris/Maugrim in front of Edmund... but that has to do with the Witch's characterization, not Edmund's. I guess the only thing I would have done differently with Edmund is to make him just a tiny, tiny, half inch bit more culpable before he has his change of heart. But everything else was splendid, and I LOVED his showdown with the Witch. I always do. I had this fantasy that they were going to give that to Peter, because of the general focus on him in the battle, and I honestly think that might have ruined the movie for me. And his talk with Aslan was quite good too. Yay Edmund the Just. Oh, and this is random, but the Turkish Delight looked just the same as in the old version. Not that it would look different. And I kind of missed the part in the old version when it floats up to Edmund through the air and undoes its own bow for him. But anyway, on to

Lucy: My favorite of all the Pevensies, and the one I have always identified with the most. Which I guess makes it both hard and easy for me to be critical of her, in a way. She was so small... which is totally appropriate, it's just that I've grown a lot since my first reading, when I was about her age. So that was somehow a little surprising. And she was a lovely child, which of course was captivating, but also kind of disappointing, given the issues that come up later with Susan's beauty. Or maybe I'm just a little in love with buck-toothed chubby Lucy with the odd voice from the old version. ;) But really, this Lucy was mostly really good. She was cute, which I think is fine but sometimes distracts from the character, and there was this odd thing where she smiled every time she was trying to cry, but she got the most important thing right, I think... she had Lucy's inherent cognisance. I loved watching her when she got quiet, from time to time, and see what she was realizing, or noticing, or thinking about. And I loved the way her bond with Aslan was made so apparent... that seemed really important to me. Probably because that is one of the reasons I always loved Lucy and wanted to be like her. And her relationship with Mr. Tumnus was quite stellar. I think I'm most looking forward to seeing her as she gets a little older and grows into herself a bit.

I figured I should just keep going with comments on some of the characters. I absolutely adored Mr. Tumnus; he was perfectly wonderful. I really have no complaints on that score. The Witch's Dwarf was so creepy with his creepy voice, and I liked that a lot. The Beavers were ok, and had some really nice moments, but I had problems with some of the things they changed with them, mostly dialogue issues. Fenris Ulf (Maugrim?) sounded too American to me. Oh... and I just loved the brave, dapper little Fox they added. Loved him!

The Witch herself... I just don't know. It took me awhile to get used to the very cold, very detached way she was playing everything-- a far cry from the completely overdone (but splendid) portrayal of her in the old version, and even from the more choleric Witch of the book. There were moments where the coldness worked very well, and I started to get really into it during her killing of Aslan scene. But other times, especially at the beginning, she just wasn't scary enough.

And I guess last on my character list... the great lion Aslan! Wow, I had this complete... rush of anticipation when Aslan was about to come on the screen. He was so majestic and so beautiful. I almost felt like crying, and I was definitely leaning forward with a big smile on my face. Aslan looked just right, and, though I was worried about the voice, since I loved the purring-rumbly Aslan voice of the old movie, I liked it a lot. I love Aslan... I always have. I did have some problems with what they did with his character, making him a little less intimate than I would have liked, but I think those mostly fall into the category of dialogue problems.

Wow, there's still so much to talk about... perhaps I'll just jumble it all up together. Or make a list!

Visually: Beautiful! Really beautiful. So many lovely and interesting visuals. Except... the Witch's costumes! That one with the crazy shoulders? NOOOO. SO distracting and WEIRD. I sorta liked the outfit she had on for killing Aslan, though.

Oh, I guess maybe now I should talk about the dialogue. This was my biggest complaint, and it is a big one. They weakened the dialogue. A lot. A lot a lot a lot. And that isn't just because I'm a purist-- in fact, I liked a lot of the things that they changed, in terms of scenes, and even some dialogic moments, like the interplay with Mr. Tumnus and Lucy about who needed the handkerchief. But not really important, beautiful (or just more interesting and genuine) dialogue, please. It was seriously distracting. I kept sort of gasping or making little disappointed sounds to myself when lines didn't come that really should have come. Or when there was suddenly some sappy line that just didn't say things as deeply or as well. Like in the beginning, when Lucy said, "I thought you were my friend," to dissuade Mr. Tumnus from kidnapping her. What? It seemed so jarringly sentimental. And why didn't Aslan say, "Let the prince win his spurs," to indicate that Peter should fight the wolf, instead of this insipid, "It's Peter's fight," thing? Because young children don't know what that means? I didn't know when I read it, but it has a beauty to it, it flows... and I figured it out. In fact, I remember it because I learned it in this context, I remember the beauty of it. I missed the Professor examining the children in the beginning... I think it was a nice little glimpse into their characters. And I really thought the discussion about whether Lucy was mad or whatever had all its bewildering tightness removed when the litany about what they teach them in these schools was lessened, and the "either she is lying, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth" thing changed. I mean, some of them were just my pet lines that were cut away, but some were seriously weakened. Especially at the Beavers' house... I kept being annoyed by the additional lines/sparring of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver and I couldn't quite figure out why... I think in this case I was less annoyed by what was there as by what was missing. Most notably: "Wrong will be right when Aslan comes into sight. At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more. When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death. And when he shakes his mane, we will have Spring again." I mean, come on, why would you cut that? That's really important! And beauiful! But lots of the discussion of Aslan was cut, actually, and I thought that was really bad. They never talked about the fact that he was a lion and not a man. They never talked about his nature, and the good but not safe thing... or, they did, actually, but not till the end. They never talked about how scary he could be. I missed that. There were so many instances of this dialogue disappointment, and now I can't remember them all... oh, but this was a big deal... the whole part when Susan and Lucy are walking with Aslan was weakened a lot because Aslan just kind of kept going along, and didn't ever seem that upset, and didn't say (I think) "Children, why are you following me?" or (more importantly) "Put your hands in my mane, that I may feel that you are there." That might not be an exact quote... but I think it's very important both that they are invited to do that, instead of just doing it, because it marks a transition and new intimacy in their relationship with Aslan, and that the statement shows Aslan's loneliness and vulnerability at that moment, which makes the entire thing much more intimate and personal and meaningful. And then the lines he had at the end seemed so stiff... In the lines themselves, not in the delivery, which I highly approved. I know there were lots more, in fact, and even more of Aslan's lines... or, like when Aslan is preparing Peter for battle, and Peter says, "But you'll be there yourself, Aslan," and Aslan replies, "I can give you no promise of that." I missed that. Oh, and when the Witch had him on the table and was like, "I'm very disappointed in you," or whatever, I was displeased. That whole scene is very big, very mythic and resonant, and I like the ritualistic feeling of the Witch's words as they are written. So basically... screenwriters, you have some lovely, lovely ideas. I do like your sense of the story arc. But let Lewis keep most of the dialogue. It's good. It's mythic. It's lovely. And whatever you do, DON'T try to simplify it or modernize it. PLEASE. PLEASE! One last example: When Aslan came back, and was explaining, and was like, "The Witch didn't know the power of sacrifice," I wanted to groan. No Deeper Magic From Before the Dawn of Time? People are coming back from the dead. That's mythic and huge! It deserves mythic language. And that also eliminated the whole thing where Lucy sort of accuses him of putting them through hell for nothing, and he says it had never been tested... God, I love that.

Which I think, though it's not really dialogue related, brings me to the one thing I truly missed about Lucy: her moments of impetuousness that are too much, her moments of defiance toward Aslan, even though she loves him so deeply, maybe the most deeply. While I LOVED the special relationship they built between Peter and Edmund, and the way Peter finally embraced him when Edmund was healed by the fireflower juice, I HATED the fact that they then cut Lucy hovering over Edmund, Aslan trying to get her to move on, her snapping at him, and Aslan finally saying "Must more people die for Edmund?" It's such a great part... it's such a significant part. It establishes a lot about Lucy and Aslan in just a moment.

Oh... another interesting omission that I don't know how I feel about: The little debate between Susan and Lucy about whether Edmund knew what Aslan had done for him, and whether he ought to know. I always thought that part was sort of... puzzling, maybe because I couldn't decide whether I agreed with Susan that it would be too awful for him to know, or with Lucy that he ought to be told. I think I mostly agreed with Lucy, but it seemed to be left at the idea that it would be a horrible thing that he should be spared. However, I always assumed that he did know, in later years and whatnot. Anyway, maybe they found that bit puzzling too, and therefore left it out?

And one more thing that I liked... I was interested in how they were going to deal with Father Christmas' assertion that "battles are ugly when women fight." And changing it to "battles are ugly affairs" was neat, true, and non-sexist. :)

And the end, where they are crowned, and Aslan's departure, and the going back to England part... all very, very good.

All right, this has gone on long enough. Suffice it to say that I can't wait to see this again, despite the somewhat mixed review I have given. And I also want to see the old version again and give the books another go.

Because, at the end of the day, Narnia is Narnia, and almost anyone who's ever been there always wants to get back.

How can you tell?

Something about the eyes, I think. :) Long live the true King.