Kate Saunders Britton (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bonny_kate) wrote2008-05-29 05:31 pm
bonny_kate) wrote2008-05-29 05:31 pm
Entry tags:
Prince Caspian
Being my thoughts about Prince Caspian, the movie, containing some SPOILERS for those who have not yet seen it.
I will start by saying that the movie left out bits of the book, included bits of the book, and generally changed various things, which I was expecting. I'm not particularly happy about any of the changes, but I can't complain, because they are what I was expecting based on the trailer and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That said, I have two points I want to make about the movie.
There are many things I did not like about the movie, and some that I did. But to talk about the first would be merely complaining, and the second merely praising. So, I shall make two points about the movie that taught me about Narnia what I did not know before, and where I think the movie fails where the book succeeded.
First, (and I am indebted to Nathan for this thought, as it is not my own) the movie fails because it does not make you love Narnia. However much I like the children, or the Narnians, or even Aslan himself, the movie does not make me desire Narnia, except as an alternative to wartime England. But the books have always made me long for Narnia, not just to meet the characters. I think this is because the director fails to see Narnia as a character. True, Narnia does not speak, or act, but the books are the Chronicles of Narnia, not the Chronicles of the Pevensies, nor even the Chronicles of Aslan. The stories are about Narnia, and follow the development of Narnia from creation to death. Prince Caspian is about the restoration of Caspian to the his rightful throne, but it is also about the restoration of Narnia as it becomes rightly ordered (for those who have read the Republic, I am thinking that it is much like the restoration of a city to a proper republic, as a tyrant is deposed, the trees (a vital part of Narnia) are awakened, the rightful ruler is put on the throne (and note that he does not feel able to rule, as a proper philosopher king ought to feel), and the inhabitants may now live in peace instead of at war).
Narnia ought to be a fully developed character. I am not sure exactly what this would look like, or how it should be accomplished, but I think Narnia ought to be alive much as Serenity is alive. Serenity is not given a voice, or anything so obvious, but Serenity is a character in the series and the movie. Serenity is not just a ship to flee from the Alliance, and Narnia ought not just be a place to flee from England.
There are many elements which add to the character of Narnia that were skipped over in the movie, such as the romp (left out), the feast with the trees (left out), the awakening of the trees (abbreviated), and the freeing of Beruna (abbreviated, and the character of the river god unclear) and so on. All of these add to the character of Narnia. They remind us that Narnia is alive in a way that England is not, that the trees are alive, the rivers are alive, and that the mythology is alive. The difference between Narnia and England is not merely that in Narnia the animals talk, though in the movie this is the only notable difference.
Second, the movie fails because it fails to understand chivalry. There are three particular instances where chivalry fails. First, Reepicheep threatens an unarmed man with death. This is scarcely honorable. Compare this to the sorely provoked Reepicheep in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, who, when Eustace has swung him round by the tail stabs Eustace, but only in order to escape, and then demands a duel. For Reepicheep to even threaten to kill an unarmed man goes against honor, which he values highly, and against chivalry. Second, Caspian threatens his uncle Miraz while Miraz is unarmed, and Caspian seems to be on the point of killing Miraz. Caspian is sorely provoked, certainly, but it seems it would be more in character for Caspian to demand that Miraz fight in single combat. How could a prince, raised to be chivalrous and setting himself apart from the tyrant, even think of killing an unarmed man with whom he has not even crossed swords? Third and last, Peter, when he has won in single combat against Miraz, offers to let Caspian kill Miraz, who is again unarmed. And Caspian has to think about it. Miraz is surely a tyrant, a cheater, and would doubtless have killed Peter if the situation was reversed. But this does not excuse Peter nor Caspian from behaving in a chivalrous manner, and it is neither chivalrous nor honorable nor noble to consider killing Miraz in cold blood.
The movie values chivalry, but as a conscious decision, rather than a chivalry that is so ingrained that it is instinctual. It is good to choose to spare your enemies life when he is unarmed, but it is better to spare it without having to consider the question. It is good to choose virtue, but it is better to be so steeped in virtue that the virtuous action is instinctual (the habit of chivalry, to borrow from Plato). And that is something I had not thought about before the movie.
The movie, then, fails to understand Narnia, and fails to understand chivalry. In so doing, it reminded me how very much I love Narnia for it's own sake, and made me think about the importance of chivalry.
I shall conclude by saying that if you have not yet seen the movie, you ought to, because it is a good epic fantasy movie, although I think it fails as a Narnia movie.
I will start by saying that the movie left out bits of the book, included bits of the book, and generally changed various things, which I was expecting. I'm not particularly happy about any of the changes, but I can't complain, because they are what I was expecting based on the trailer and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That said, I have two points I want to make about the movie.
There are many things I did not like about the movie, and some that I did. But to talk about the first would be merely complaining, and the second merely praising. So, I shall make two points about the movie that taught me about Narnia what I did not know before, and where I think the movie fails where the book succeeded.
First, (and I am indebted to Nathan for this thought, as it is not my own) the movie fails because it does not make you love Narnia. However much I like the children, or the Narnians, or even Aslan himself, the movie does not make me desire Narnia, except as an alternative to wartime England. But the books have always made me long for Narnia, not just to meet the characters. I think this is because the director fails to see Narnia as a character. True, Narnia does not speak, or act, but the books are the Chronicles of Narnia, not the Chronicles of the Pevensies, nor even the Chronicles of Aslan. The stories are about Narnia, and follow the development of Narnia from creation to death. Prince Caspian is about the restoration of Caspian to the his rightful throne, but it is also about the restoration of Narnia as it becomes rightly ordered (for those who have read the Republic, I am thinking that it is much like the restoration of a city to a proper republic, as a tyrant is deposed, the trees (a vital part of Narnia) are awakened, the rightful ruler is put on the throne (and note that he does not feel able to rule, as a proper philosopher king ought to feel), and the inhabitants may now live in peace instead of at war).
Narnia ought to be a fully developed character. I am not sure exactly what this would look like, or how it should be accomplished, but I think Narnia ought to be alive much as Serenity is alive. Serenity is not given a voice, or anything so obvious, but Serenity is a character in the series and the movie. Serenity is not just a ship to flee from the Alliance, and Narnia ought not just be a place to flee from England.
There are many elements which add to the character of Narnia that were skipped over in the movie, such as the romp (left out), the feast with the trees (left out), the awakening of the trees (abbreviated), and the freeing of Beruna (abbreviated, and the character of the river god unclear) and so on. All of these add to the character of Narnia. They remind us that Narnia is alive in a way that England is not, that the trees are alive, the rivers are alive, and that the mythology is alive. The difference between Narnia and England is not merely that in Narnia the animals talk, though in the movie this is the only notable difference.
Second, the movie fails because it fails to understand chivalry. There are three particular instances where chivalry fails. First, Reepicheep threatens an unarmed man with death. This is scarcely honorable. Compare this to the sorely provoked Reepicheep in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, who, when Eustace has swung him round by the tail stabs Eustace, but only in order to escape, and then demands a duel. For Reepicheep to even threaten to kill an unarmed man goes against honor, which he values highly, and against chivalry. Second, Caspian threatens his uncle Miraz while Miraz is unarmed, and Caspian seems to be on the point of killing Miraz. Caspian is sorely provoked, certainly, but it seems it would be more in character for Caspian to demand that Miraz fight in single combat. How could a prince, raised to be chivalrous and setting himself apart from the tyrant, even think of killing an unarmed man with whom he has not even crossed swords? Third and last, Peter, when he has won in single combat against Miraz, offers to let Caspian kill Miraz, who is again unarmed. And Caspian has to think about it. Miraz is surely a tyrant, a cheater, and would doubtless have killed Peter if the situation was reversed. But this does not excuse Peter nor Caspian from behaving in a chivalrous manner, and it is neither chivalrous nor honorable nor noble to consider killing Miraz in cold blood.
The movie values chivalry, but as a conscious decision, rather than a chivalry that is so ingrained that it is instinctual. It is good to choose to spare your enemies life when he is unarmed, but it is better to spare it without having to consider the question. It is good to choose virtue, but it is better to be so steeped in virtue that the virtuous action is instinctual (the habit of chivalry, to borrow from Plato). And that is something I had not thought about before the movie.
The movie, then, fails to understand Narnia, and fails to understand chivalry. In so doing, it reminded me how very much I love Narnia for it's own sake, and made me think about the importance of chivalry.
I shall conclude by saying that if you have not yet seen the movie, you ought to, because it is a good epic fantasy movie, although I think it fails as a Narnia movie.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-05-30 01:39 am (UTC)(link)The Serenity comparison is perfect.
no subject
no subject
I think what made the first so annoying was that the lampost scene was *perfect*. It fit what I saw in my mind, Lucy was brilliant, and it was all round just lovely. So if they could do that bit right, why not more?
no subject
no subject
You could have much worse theology than Narnian theology. Personally, I've always found it easier to *care* about Narnia and Aslan, because I didn't feel I ought to (if that makes sense).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
One of the worst things about the books for me, growing up, was The Last Battle, because it meand that Narnia is *ended* and I can't get there.
no subject