Theatrical Review: The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe

Darrell's Review

Of course, when you make a movie based on a long-beloved classic of children's literature, you're not going to please everyone. When that classic is the C.S. Lewis archetype, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, you're really running the risk of offending serious fans of the work. Most of the book's fans are Christians who embrace the Christian symbolism of the story and its characters, but there are those who enjoy it purely at face value, totally ignoring the allegorical elements of the novel. The best way to approach adaptation, then, is to try to film a story that's as close to the source as possible. Variations on the original story are probably a recipe for disaster. Andrew Adamson's new film adaptation, however, diverges from the source material several times. The movie's greatest surprise is that it succeeds... and not in spite of the director's creative licenses, but (at least partly) because of them. Like Peter Jackson, who adapted The Lord Of The Rings for the screen with several changes to the literary masterpiece, Adamson reveals in his film a love for his source material and an understanding of it's intentions.

I can't say with certainty that purely secular viewers of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe will enjoy it as much as our family did. I won't try to feign an objectivity that I don't have. Our family is Catholic and we attend church twice a week. I'd hope to say that, at this point, I can't remember what it is like to live without the influence of Christianity. I won't pretend otherwise, and I won't speculate about how secularists will respond to this movie. I feel safe, however, in speculating about how members of my own social sub-sect will feel about the movie; that sub-sect being Christians who love C.S. Lewis and his body of work. I'm certain that those of us who fall into that category will be delighted by the movie. I know that I was.

My main concern when I first heard that Disney was working on an adaptation was that they'd sterilize the story; remove all the religious symbolism and the Christian subtext, and turn it into something heartless and empty. Even when I found out that Walden Media was heading up the production, and when I learned that Walden was seen by many as having a Christocentric focus, I still had my doubts. I entered the theater apprehensively. It would have been impossible not to. The book means a lot to me. So much so, in fact, that I have a tattoo of one of the illustrations from its pages.

I left the theater delighted. Over the course of the movie's two-plus-hours, I saw the impossible on the screen. The novels' talking animals and mythological creatures were brought to life cinematically and with perfect clarity. They neither looked like computerized fakes, nor like real animals who'd been manipulated to suggest an anthropomorphism that wasn't really there. The talking beavers, for instance, looked perfectly "Narnian," neither the product of CGI forgery nor Earthly. Physically, they were almost exactly what you'd expect from any beaver in our world... except for their eyes and their physical behavior, which suggested all the wisdom, gentleness, and vigor of the beavers I imagined when I first read the book.

The other creatures looked exactly right, including Aslan, the lion of the book's title. Like the beavers, he looked like a real lion, only more... better... absolutely "Narnian." And when he spoke, with the voice of Liam Neeson, the deal was set in stone for me. This was him; this was the real Aslan. This was the very lion (not a tame lion, though), who'd walked off the pages of a children's novel and into my imagination long ago. Now, here he was again... before me on the screen, via the imagination of Andrew Adamson.

The rest of the cast filled their roles as well as anyone might have, especially Georgie Henley as Lucy Pevensie, and Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. Anna Popplewell, as Susan Pevensie, reminded me of a young Jennifer Connelly, and as the professor, Jim Broadbent was spot-on. James Cosmo, as Father Christmas, is perhaps the movie's best surprise. If you've read the book, you know he's coming... but his arrival is at once more magical and more real than I expected. In fact, Adamson has imagined this particular scene so wonderfully that it's improved my own appreciation of that crucial part of the book. That alone, from the standpoint of a fan, merits praise.

SPOILERS BELOW!!

In order to review the movie's plot, to elaborate on the changes the movie made from the book, and to explain why I held back half a star in my review, I'll have to get into some serious SPOILERS... both SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE and SPOILERS FOR THE NARNIA SERIES. Don't read the rest of this review UNLESS YOU'VE BOTH SEEN THE MOVIE and READ ALL SEVEN OF THE BOOKS.

When the movie varied from the book itself, it was for sound and valid cinematic reasons. In the book, for instance, the Pevensie children and the beavers make the trip from Beaverdam to the Stone Table in relative safety. In Adamson's version, the journey is plagued with danger. This, of course, makes the story more "cinematic," and I think that the movie version of the story benefited from this change. Other changes were subtler, but just as sound... such as the White Witch's "battle sleigh," the composite character of the Fox, and the World War II scenes that opened the film.

Happily, most of the movie's changes to the Christian subtext were to the inclusion of Christian themes, not the exclusion of them. Not only didn't Adamson remove the Christian symbolism from the story, he enhanced it with subtle but unavoidable additions. The best example... and one that literally brought tears to my eyes... were three words Aslan said at the end of a major battle.

The reasons I'm withholding half a star from my review are valid to me, and probably only to me... but then again, any film reviewer can only give his own opinion... and opinions about a filmed version of a piece of fiction held so dear to so many are bound to split some hairs. I won't deny that I'm splitting a few with what follows. And, I suppose the fact that I haven't split hairs about other film adaptations in the past really simply indicates that I haven't loved their source material as much as I do in this particular instance.

Having said that, on with the hair splitting:

The movie seems to set up its sequel poorly. As you might know, the original series of books, as first published, began with The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, followed by Prince Caspian. At some point, for reasons both commercial and perverse, Harper Collins (the publisher of the series) resequenced the books, bringing The Magicians Nephew to the front. This is an abomination. The Magicians Nephew was originally published as the sixth book in the seven part series, and it MUST remain so because the book gives away many secrets of Narnia. To read it too soon is to learn the secrets before you even realize that they ARE secrets. I'm afraid that, given the many hints that the movie provides, Disney and Walden Media plan to film The Magicians Nephew as the second movie in the series, rather than Prince Caspian. This is a terrible mistake, and since the buck has to stop somewhere, I have to blame Douglas Gresham, who was the stepson of C.S. Lewis and co-producer of the movie series.

Other information from the seven book series is given away too soon. We find out, for instance, that the White Witch is named Jadis... this, of course, destroys the joy of revelation that comes from putting two and two together when, later in the series (but, chronologically, earlier in the story), a witch named Jadis is terrorizing London. We are also given far too much information, far too soon, about the professor's history with the wardrobe. This is another instance where uninitiated children (and adults) who see the movie are going to be deprived of one of the delightful revelations that comes from reading the stories in their proper order.

Another complaint was the removal of the concept of "Deeper Magic." Fans of the book know that Aslan's sacrifice at the Stone Table mirrors Christ's sacrifice at the Cross of Calvary. The Witch agreed to that sacrifice because of her understanding of "Deep Magic," a set of conditions that dictates which Narnian souls are hers and which are Aslans. She didn't realize, however, that Aslan would return from the dead because, as Lewis wrote, she didn't know about the "Deeper Magic." Deeper Magic, of course, is crucial to the story of Christ. Christians believe that the devil thought he'd won when Christ died on the cross. That's because the devil didn't understand God's "Deeper Magic," that the death of his son had been planned as the redemption of mankind from the first moment of creation. In this movie, the resurrected Aslan tells the Pevensie children that the Witch simply didn't really understand the "Deep Magic," and he never mentions the "Deeper Magic." This amounts to substituting another theology for the one Lewis crafted in his book. This alternative theology isn't necessarily invalid, but it simply isn't the correct supposition for Jack's Lion to propose. Ultimately, however, I have to admit that me and maybe three other people will give a hoot about this particular matter. Most people simply won't notice it... and I have to admit that those who don't notice it are better off for it. Sometimes I think that I've read enough theology to ruin my appreciation of some things, but not enough to improve my understanding of very much at all.

All told, though, the movie was as good as I'd hoped it would be, and in some ways, it was better. Even if the next movie in the series is (incorrectly) The Magician's Nephew rather than the correct second story, Prince Caspian, I'm sure I'll cherish it if it's as faithful and vivid as this adaptation was.

---

Wendy's Review

I can't remember the last time I researched and started counting down to a movie as early as I did for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Having grown up reading C.S. Lewis' Narnia books, I was thrilled when they started working on a theatrical version of the first book in the series. With special effects at the point that they are now, I really figured that they could really pull it off. Well they did, and boy what an adventure.

From the moment the film started rolling, I started crying. Not that anything particularly sad was happening it's just that I was so overwhelmed by the fact that I was seeing one of my favorite books on the big screen. However, being that it is one of my favorite books, I found myself being pretty harsh on the final product. It's a great movie, but I do have some issues with it.

First, let me talk about the casting. I think everyone in the film was cast perfectly. My favorite castings were for Lucy, Mr. Tumnus, and the White Witch. I think the little girl who plays Lucy is just as I would have imagined her. She's really terrific. And Mr. Tumnus looks like he just walked out of one of Pauline Baynes' drawings. And Tilda Swinton is just as beautiful, menacing, and cold as the White Witch should be. I remember when they cast her how I thought that is was absolute perfect casting. I was right.

The special effects are fantastic. Aslan looks like a real lion. There were times where I forgot he wasn't. My only gripe with Aslan is that I believe he should have been bigger. Susan was taller than him in the movie, and I guess I always pictured him as being bigger than all of the four Pevensie children.

The wardrobe itself is beautiful. I remember just being awestruck when I saw it in the preview, and I was just as awestruck when I saw it on the big screen.

However, they made some changes to the story. I understand that the changes they made were only to make it more cinematic and action-packed. Every time something was different it kind of jarred me, especially the scene at the Beaver's house. In the book, they escape before the wolves get there, but in the movie they were fighting to get away from the wolves because the wolves were breaking through the dam. It's a small change, I understand, but I wish they had just left that alone. Does everything have to be more action-packed?

I didn't really like the soundtrack. I know that by saying that it makes me seem like I am nitpicking. Usually soundtracks are there to enhance the film and not to distract from it. This time I just felt like the music didn't blend in so well, and I found it rather distracting.

I also didn't like the Stone Table in the film. It looks nothing like the Stone Table from the book. Earlier in the process of making this film, the official website had downloadable wallpapers. They had one of the Stone Table, and on the wallpaper it looked right, but in the movie itself, it was all wrong.

My biggest gripe with the film is that I felt like something was lacking. There is something that comes through Lewis' writing that wasn't translated onto the screen for me. Maybe that is because I have read the book so many times. I have even written papers on the book. Maybe in essence I ruined the movie for me.

Having said all of that, I still think it is a wonderful family film. It's a glorious adventure. The allegory was still present. It's beautiful to watch. I can't wait for the next six films. However, based on many things that were present in this film I do fear that The Magician's Nephew is going to be the next film instead of Prince Caspian. That bums me out, but at least they did The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe first so as to not completely ruin the series.

  ¶ 5:01 PM