Comments on: Review: “Prince Caspian” Doesn’t Sell It’s Soul

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:18:01 +0000

Hushico,
I believe I may have read the Lewis quote you’re referring to, but I’m not sure. Could you give a direct, exact quote and reference? I know that Tolkien definitely said something like this, but I want to make sure you’re taking the Lewis quote in context. If I remember the quote correctly (which I may not), it seemed to me that he didn’t necessarily want children to immediately recognize the meaning, but to have those images in mind when they came across Christianity later in life. I’ll try to look for that quote, too.
Whatever the case, as far as I’m concerned, there’s no doubt about what the allegory of Aslan on the Stone Table is referring to. You can’t tell me that it was accidental, or that Prince Caspian and The Silver Chair don’t have allegories about the nature of faith, or that The Magician’s Nephew wasn’t about the creation of the world, or that the dragon episode in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader doesn’t refer to repentance, baptism and the Grace of Christ. I agree that on one level, they can be enjoyed as mere fantasy adventure stories– but what makes them beautiful and meaningful is that there are other levels, yes, ALLEGORICAL levels. Lewis was a master of allegory, which was evident from his first major work of fiction “Pilgrim’s Regress” to his last major work of fiction “Till We Have Faces.” The allegory is not hidden. He wore his faith on his sleeve, and was derided by many people for it, but I think they were bold and beautiful choices he made, which is why he is so remembered and loved. No one had cause to doubt what cause he advocated.
As a side note, I think “The Last Battle” ranks up there with “The Horse and His Boy” as the best of the Narnian books. I don’t see anything problematic about it, it’s a graceful, beautiful book.

By: Hushicho

Hushicho — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:11:25 +0000

Actually Lewis said several times that the Narnia books were not meant as allegory and, up until ‘The Last Battle’ it’s not really anything that’s clearly supposed to be allegorical. Any reading into it is done by the reader or the viewer, not intended by the author. Although his sometimes gushing personal beliefs bled into his works, he did not create the Narnia series as any sort of intentional ‘Christian fairy story’ for others to read.

The closest that he came was admitting at one point that the Narnia books may make children who read them at a young age more agreeable to religion (specifically Christianity in his idea) when they grew older. However, outside of ‘The Last Battle’, which was problematic for many reasons (and often, in my opinion deservedly, criticised for his apparent bowing to more fanatical Christians’ pressures to include overt imagery), there was little that could really be seen as completely, blatantly, overtly a Christian message.

In short, whatever you’re reading into it, you’re doing yourself. Lewis did not intend for it to be read that way and on multiple occasions said so. I can understand why people are put off by the insistence that one must somehow derive it from the Narnia films; they can be seen very easily as simply fantasy fare, which is how many people enjoy them. They need not be Christian morality tales, and in fact the values taught by these stories could just as easily apply to nearly any spiritual path in the history of the world.

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:24:53 +0000

the makers of Prince Caspian kept to the original story surprisingly well, all thinks considered… i heard they were going to make it into a silly pure-action flick, but thankfully this was not the case

By: Anneke Majors

Anneke Majors — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:11:48 +0000

Cristy, regarding your question about the ending:

Aslan tells Peter and Susan that they won’t be able to return to Narnia – they won’t have any future adventures. But all of the children are supposed to return home as the end of the current adventure.

I finally saw Prince Caspian last night and I did think it was very well done. It did an excellent job of bringing to life my least favorite of the books (Not that I dislike it, it’s just the book I’m least fanatically enamored of.)

I’m trying to figure out how much of the Telmarines-as-Spaniards was intentional in Lewis’s book and how much was expanded on by the film. I’m curious to see how the future films will treat the Muslim/Calormen similarities.

And am I the only one who kept waiting for Caspian to say “My name is Prince Caspian. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”? ;)

By: ET

ET — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:37:35 +0000

When the first movie came out, I was working at Disney in the product development department, so my opinions of the first film are somewhat skewed since I’m familiar with how much of the story was altered “because of the numbers.”

My feeling about the first film is that it was so close yet so far away… and it had everything to do with the portrayal of Aslan as Christ. Forget that when he shows up, all I kept thinking was, “huh, Aslan sounds a lot like Liam Neeson.” Forget that the CGI was miserably bad. No, the problem with the first film was that Aslan represented the Christ that sells rather than the one believed in by Lewis. Aslan was a kind and merciful kitty, a big, furry friend. And certainly this aspect of Christ, which even we as Mormons tend to oversell a bit (in my opinion), is true. But Aslan was also a king. And the film failed abysmally to capture the majesty. The film threw us a bone. “Okay, Christians, allegorically speaking, you can have your heavenly friend, but we’re not giving you a god.” We were given Jesus without Jehovah.

The purest example of this is when Mr. Beaver tells the children that Aslan is on the move. In the books, the very name of Aslan is majestic, causing the children to react even though the have no idea who Aslan is. But in the movie, the majesty of the moment is exchanged for stupified looks of “huh?”. Even the witch doesn’t fear really fear Aslan to the degree that she does in the books (see the negotiation scene). When Aslan finally shows some teeth, as it were, and kills the witch, it’s more a scene about a lion killing a woman than good defeating evil.

To my friends and associates who like their cinematic Christianity pureed for easy digestion, I honestly have no problem with it. In fact, I didn’t need an Aslan-as-Christ connection in the film. Like any good parable, it’s there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. But I did need an Aslan-as-Aslan connection. Now, I hesitate to see the sequel for fear of seeing a mythology steeped in whether or not the people of an alternate world believe in a big, friendly cat who sounds a heck of a lot like Liam Neeson.

By: Cristy

Cristy — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:06:35 +0000

My 14-year-old daughter and I saw the movie last night and I did have mixed feelings about it, most of which folks have already spoken about. I did not think that it had quite the magical quality of the first film, however, I thought the Christian theme was a little clearer (for me, Okay, I am REALLY concrete!) in this film. I might have to see it again to remember everything, but Lucy saw Aslan because she was the only non-doubter. Aslan even made reference to the other siblings as having to be “woken up” which brought to mind the sleeping disciples of Jesus.

Could someone please elaborate for me the ending – I thought that ony two of the four were going to leave Narnia, then all four ended up leaving. What did I miss???

Thanks!!

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:18 +0000

Michael, this is C.S. Lewis we’re talking about.

If you want to get away from “overbearing Christian imagery,” don’t bother with C.S. Lewis. It’s that simple. Christian symbolism is what the guy was all about. To call for toned-down, or absence of, Christian symbolism in a film based on his books is more than a little strange.

By: Kent Larsen

Kent Larsen — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:44:50 +0000

Michael wrote:

“My faith and that of my family is excersised in church and in our daily lives ( at least I hope so ) …it does not have to fill every waking moment of my existence.”

I agree. When I want light entertainment that doesn’t involve religion, I choose entertainment that doesn’t include those things. I don’t choose a film in which the author of the underlying work was Christian and who made it clear that the work was about being Christian.

In this case, all the Narnia books are about Christianity and being Christian. Leaving that out, IMO, makes the film less than what the author intended.

So, Michael, why did you expect otherwise?

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:29:13 +0000

Interesting reactions.
In principle I agree with Anneke and Kent, although I don’t think that it applies as much to the Narnian movies as Kent does. I actually was surprised at how much of the faith elements they kept in and don’t feel that they were particularly downplayed. I don’t see how any observant person could get through the first movie without realizing that Aslan is a Christ figure, and the spiritual undertones in the second film I thought were crystal clear (although I would have liked the reference that Reepicheep was a descendent of the mice who cut Asland free from the stone table). It’s been interesting to see the reactions of some of the national reviewers. There was a reviewer from either Boston or Chicago (can’t remember which, but I believe it was Chicago) who seemed absolutely offended that the message implied that we should rely on God in times of need, instead of ourselves. He thought it led to a “holy war” mindset. So it’s interesting, if you add any religious material certain people will be upset, and if you tone any of it down, others will be upset (and the same goes for movies like “The Golden Compass” which had the opposite intent). Personally, I found both Narnian films very spiritual.

By: Anneke Majors

Anneke Majors — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:29:09 +0000

Michael, I’ll have to disagree with you. Divorcing art and entertainment from the underlying morality of the author always seems to compromise the quality of the art. In the case of Narnia, we’re not force-feeding morality into an otherwise intact fantasy story; the story itself is built of very firm and intentional Christian principles. That is the beauty of C.S. Lewis’s writing, and that is part of what makes the Narnia books so alive where so many other fantasy stories amount to nothing more than ephemeral fluff.

I have never understood the opinion that we should downplay something that was the original intent of the author in order to appease a wider audience. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted Sheldon Harnick & Jerry Bock to downplay the Jewishness of Fiddler on the Roof so that Christians could enjoy it more; Jewishness is the essence of the story and is what makes the art alive. Even on a lighter note – I wouldn’t want to watch Bollywood movies divorced from the Hindu culture that created them. It happened in Bride and Prejudice and the result was a mediocre replica of the genre.

I think any attempt to re-write the themes of beautiful literature in its transition to film is not only incredibly fraught with hubris but also generally tends to produce disappointed, watered-down art.