# Just watched Narnia (Possible spoilers)



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

As some of you know, I work part-time as a projectionist.  As part of my duties, I often have to watch movies we have put together to insure there are no bad splices or other problems.  Tonight, I once again sacrificed my time to watch Chronicles of Narnia. 

First of all, go see this movie.  It's smarter and better done than 95% of what's out there and a welcome respite from some very bad movie seasons.  It is simply a well made film, with excellent acting, production values, excellent special effects (that never "show-off" or detract from the plot!), and a very satisfying, well-paced, character-driven story. Worth every bit of your money. Go see it, you won't be sorry.

Some thoughts:

A.) It's not "just a kid movie". Even though the animals talk. Children will love it, mind you, but adults can buy tickets without a prerequisite niece, nephew, son, daughter, street urchin, or other minor accompanying them.   This is an intelligent movie that is done very well.  All children's movies should treat their audience in such a manner.

B.) It's very true to the original, I could follow the text in my head and match it to the screen.  Conversely, there are numerous additions, expansions, and some omissions to the text.  For the purists among us, rejoice.  You will have plenty of material to gripe and kvetch about for weeks on these and other boards.  There will be plenty of opportunity for you to show how smart you are in your maticulous knowledge of C.S. Lewis.  Don't pretend you don't like it. 

Most changes seem to be of the cinemagraphic kind, the make the movie flow well or increase drama.  Lewis' text is very realistic, with events happening over time.  These gaps are usually eliminated for the movie. Other events are rearranged or added to give more drama and emotional tension. The beaver's house is fled while the wolves attack, there is an icy river action scene, etc.  These scenes seem fine for what they are. 

There are many little omissions.  There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas.  Which brings me to my next point.

C.) I feel the Christian allegory of the movie has been minimized.  There is not much you can do in this regard (Aslan's death is so central to the text) but what can be has been.  There is no mention that I heard of the Emperor-beyond-the-sea (Narniaspeak for God) of that Aslan is his son or the witch his former executioner.  Father Christmas is still in there (no, he doesn't look like a Coca-cola ad Santa) but his impact in minimized with the deletion of the animals celebrating Christmas scene.  The director doesn't seem too keen on the whole Christian allegory thing from interviews.  I think that's a mistake.  This book, more than any other text, made me under salvation.  "Edward, Aslan, Witch, got it," is what happened when I read it.  It's not obvious to the casual observer, just very well written allegory.  Honestly, Gandalf's resurrection is more obvious biblical allegory (although Tolkien swears it isn't, what do authors know?) than Narnia is.

D.) The kids are really kids, not pretend grown-ups.  For so long movies have "today's kids" who talk like sarcastic, wise-cracking,immature adults.  I hate that, as a teacher kids simply are not that way.  These kids are really kids, and well-acted at that.  It's so refreshing to have children that are truly believeable as children.  Sadly, we are guarenteed posts to the oppostie, by posters whose vision of kids have been shaped by years of Hollywood convincing us that kids really are little smart-mouth adults.

There is also, refreshingly, no hint of sexuality in the movie.  The white witch is fierce and beautiful, but not sexualized. This will jar some viewers I'm sure, but I found it quite refreshing for a change.  (Hypocrite alert: I'm also the same guy who really liked Charlize Theron in Aeon Flux and Catherine Zeta-Jones in Legend of Zorro.)

I hope I haven't ruined anything for you.


----------



## Seravin (Dec 8, 2005)

Well, ruining it would telling us that the witch killed the lion, with a knife, on the stone table; or something like that.    

thanks for the opinion.  It was already on my must-see list, now I feel better about it.


----------



## Zappo (Dec 8, 2005)

I like what you write. It dispels my greatest worries over the film.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> There is also, refreshingly, no hint of sexuality in the movie.  The white witch is fierce and beautiful, but not sexualized.




What? No lion-on-witch action? Oh, the humanity!

Kidding aside, thanks for the review.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> C.) I feel the Christian allegory of the movie has been minimized.  There is not much you can do in this regard (Aslan's death is so central to the text) but what can be has been.  There is no mention that I heard of the Emperor-beyond-the-sea (Narniaspeak for God) of that Aslan is his son or the witch his former executioner.  Father Christmas is still in there (no, he doesn't look like a Coca-cola ad Santa) but his impact in minimized with the deletion of the animals celebrating Christmas scene.  The director doesn't seem too keen on the whole Christian allegory thing from interviews.  I think that's a mistake.  This book, more than any other text, made me under salvation.  "Edward, Aslan, Witch, got it," is what happened when I read it.  It's not obvious to the casual observer, just very well written allegory.  Honestly, Gandalf's resurrection is more obvious biblical allegory (although Tolkien swears it isn't, what do authors know?) than Narnia is.




Okay, so how do you reconcile "There is not much you can do in this regard (Aslan's death is so central to the text)..." with "It's not obvious to the casual observer, just very well written allegory"?  Those two seem rather contradictory.  If it is so central and blatant that you can't remove it, how is it no obvious?

And I have to disagree Gandalf.  But that's for another thread


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> There are many little omissions.  There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas.  Which brings me to my next point.




No stone knife? How does the central scene between Aslan and the wicth work then?


----------



## Rykion (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> C.) I feel the Christian allegory of the movie has been minimized... *snip* ... Honestly, Gandalf's resurrection is more obvious biblical allegory (although Tolkien swears it isn't, what do authors know?) than Narnia is.




I find this disconcerting as the entire basis for the Chronicles of Narnia is Christian allegory.  Each book is thick with allegory, and the final book comes out and tells you what is going on.  It would be like filming LotR movies and trying to minimize any fantasy in it.  The events around Aslan in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" are a far closer allegory than anything that happens to Gandalf.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> There is also, refreshingly, no hint of sexuality in the movie.



While I understand that's true to the source material, and the source, seeing as there was no hint of sexuality in C.S. Lewis, it saddens me to think of the sexiness being drained out of Tilda Swinton.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> While I understand that's true to the source material, and the source, seeing as there was no hint of sexuality in C.S. Lewis, it saddens me to think of the sexiness being drained out of Tilda Swinton.




Apparently the intelligence was drained out of her as well. She has maintained in interviews that the Narnia books aren't a Christian allegory at all, but instead are about the holocaust, and the White Witch is a white supremacist.

I'm sure C.S. Lewis would have been very surprised to hear that, since he made no secret of the fact that the books were an explicit Christian allegory.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> <snip>.




My experiences with it are limited to the cartoon a lot of years back and reading synopsis on Wikipedia but this sounds cool.  I for one am glad they are minimizing the religious allagory apparently and not having the kids spouting hip snappy dialogue as you said.  Should be cool.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> I find this disconcerting as the entire basis for the Chronicles of Narnia is Christian allegory.  Each book is thick with allegory, and the final book comes out and tells you what is going on.  It would be like filming LotR movies and trying to minimize any fantasy in it.  The events around Aslan in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" are a far closer allegory than anything that happens to Gandalf.




I said obvious, not closer.  Gandalf, a wizard (angel-like immortal creature placed by the powers that be, he even has ragged robes, long hair, and a beard like Christ) fights the Balrog (demon like creature from the beginning of the world) who weilds a whip (like Christ's tormentors) and is plunged to his apparent death in the bowels of Morder (as Christ goes to hell after the crucifixtion).  Gandalf returns (as per resurrection) clad in glowing white to smite the renegade wizard Saramon (Hello? Lucifer?)  Eventually he leaves Middle Earth forever going to the Grey Havens (like Christ ascending to Heaven.) I thought it very obvious.

Narnia's allegory is not obvious. It is far removed from biblical context and Lewis, a brillant theologian, understands the story at a base level.  The allegory, though central, is not obvious to the uninformed observer. You can read the whole Narnia series, or watch this movie, without being aware of the allegory component, such is the genius of Lewis.  People are afraid they're going to be beaten with a bible about the head and shoulders here, that's not the case.  It never has been with Narnia.

Having said that, not establishing Aslan as the son of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea and the witch his former executioner (merely comments in the book, mind you) and not emphasizing the event of Christmas in Narnia seems like a mistake.  However, plenty of Christians (we have many church groups renting the theater to see it) will find satisfaction in the movie.

Other notes:

The soundtrack, unlike Harry, is not heavily orchestral.  It has lots of light, airy music in the same vein of, say, Enya.  It's a find match, and I think I'll pick the soundtrack up.  Certainly better than that piece of crap song at the end of the Potter credits. Speaking of credits.

When they start, sit down.  It's not over, there's a whole scene with the Professor and Lucy.


----------



## Old One (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> The soundtrack, unlike Harry, is not heavily orchestral.  It has lots of light, airy music in the same vein of, say, Enya.  It's a find match, and I think I'll pick the soundtrack up.  Certainly better than that piece of crap song at the end of the Potter credits. Speaking of credits.
> 
> When they start, sit down.  It's not over, there's a whole scene with the Professor and Lucy.




FB,

Is the music in the 9-minute trailer from the movie??  I really like that score, but don't know if it is "filler" music or from the actual movie.

~ OO


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Narnia's allegory is not obvious. It is far removed from biblical context and Lewis, a brillant theologian, understands the story at a base level.  The allegory, though central, is not obvious to the uninformed observer. You can read the whole Narnia series, or watch this movie, without being aware of the allegory component, such is the genius of Lewis.  People are afraid they're going to be beaten with a bible about the head and shoulders here, that's not the case.  It never has been with Narnia.
> 
> Having said that, not establishing Aslan as the son of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea and the witch his former executioner (merely comments in the book, mind you) and not emphasizing the event of Christmas in Narnia seems like a mistake.  However, plenty of Christians (we have many church groups renting the theater to see it) will find satisfaction in the movie.




Umm, the allegory is not obvious? What books did you read?

Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The Sea, redeems Edmund from his sins by offering himself up in exchange as a willing sacrifice. Aslan is humiliated, tortured, and eventually killed, but returns from the dead, renewed and saves those lost to the power of evil and conquers the devil incarnate.

The Narnia books practically beat you over the head with their allegory. If the movie contains the Aslan sacrifice sequence where he buys Edmund's life with his own, then the Christian allegory is alive and well. If it doesn't, then the story is so mangled that it isn't really _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ any more.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Gandalf, a wizard (angel-like immortal creature placed by the powers that be, he even has ragged robes, long hair, and a beard like Christ)




Um, note that Gandalf's nature as an angelic immortal, placed by the powers that be is not established withitn the LotR itself.  You must read outside the trilogy to have that information.

And, I'm not at all sure that the Bible ever mentions Christ has a beard.  



> ...fights the Balrog (demon like creature from the beginning of the world) who weilds a whip (like Christ's tormentors) and is plunged to his apparent death in the bowels of Morder (as Christ goes to hell after the crucifixtion).




Yeah, this is a more obvious allegory, because Christ went to the cross kicking and screaming and resisting against manifested demons?  Sorry, no.  



> Gandalf returns (as per resurrection) clad in glowing white to smite the renegade wizard Saramon (Hello? Lucifer?)




Yeah, and note how Christ never smites anyone, Lucifer included?  How is it a more obvious Christian allegory when it is a less clear and accurate retelling of the Christian myth?



> Narnia's allegory is not obvious. It is far removed from biblical context and Lewis, a brillant theologian, understands the story at a base level.




Right, the savior character has a quiet last few moments with his disciples, and then willingly goes off to be sacrificed, only to be reborn (found alive, just as Christ, by two females).  That's not obvious at all! 



> The allegory, though central, is not obvious to the uninformed observer.




No allegory is every obvious to an uninformed observer.  How would an observer uninformed on Christian mythology get all the points you make about Gandalf?


----------



## Rykion (Dec 8, 2005)

It really is impossible to get into too much discussion without breaking the no politics/religion rules.  I have seen many discussions of allegory in Tolkien's writings, and have found that some people will see it one way and others another.  The Chronicles of Narnia are indisputably stories written as parallels to some of the books of the Bible.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 8, 2005)

I just find it amusing that despite J.R.R. Tolkien repeatedly stating that LotR was not allegorical or topical in any way, people _still_ insist on claiming that it's a Christian allegory, or an allegory on World War II, or that the One Ring represents nuclear weapons, et cetera.

One more thing...



			
				Firebeetle said:
			
		

> and is plunged to his apparent death in the bowels of Morder (as Christ goes to hell after the crucifixtion).




Now I've been a Christian my whole life, but I've never heard once about Christ going to Hell after being crucified.  May I ask which translation of the New Testament that's from?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> It really is impossible to get into too much discussion without breaking the no politics/religion rules.  I have seen many discussions of allegory in Tolkien's writings, and have found that some people will see it one way and others another.  The Chronicles of Narnia are indisputably stories written in parralel to the books of the Bible.




The parallel is made even more obvious by the fact that C.S. Lewis stated explicitly that this was what he intended to do. You don't have to guess as to the author's intent with respect to the Chronicles of Narnia - he flat out said what his intent was.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 8, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Now I've been a Christian my whole life, but I've never heard once about Christ going to Hell after being crucified.  May I ask which translation of the New Testament that's from?




A version of the Apostle's Creed mention's that Christ descended into hell.  It is usually noted to mean he was with the dead, not that he was actually in hell.  Obviously, different Christian faiths have different interpretations, or don't use the Apostle's Creed at all.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 8, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> A version of the Apostle's Creed mention's that Christ descended into hell.  It is usually noted to mean he was with the dead, not that he was actually in hell.  Obviously, different Christian faiths have different interpretations, or don't use the Apostle's Creed at all.



 Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me!


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, the allegory is not obvious? What books did you read?
> 
> Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The Sea, redeems Edmund from his sins by offering himself up in exchange as a willing sacrifice. Aslan is humiliated, tortured, and eventually killed, but returns from the dead, renewed and saves those lost to the power of evil and conquers the devil incarnate.
> 
> The Narnia books practically beat you over the head with their allegory. If the movie contains the Aslan sacrifice sequence where he buys Edmund's life with his own, then the Christian allegory is alive and well. If it doesn't, then the story is so mangled that it isn't really _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ any more.




I won't dispute that the allegory is obvious (to those who look for it), but when I read the series as a child (aged around 8-10 IIRC) I never once made the connections between the Chronicles and anything in the Bible.  Of course, there is the bit about referring to humans as 'Sons of Adam' and 'Daughters of Eve', but I understood that as a simple epithet with no deep religious significance.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I won't dispute that the allegory is obvious (to those who look for it), but when I read the series as a child (aged around 8-10 IIRC) I never once made the connections between the Chronicles and anything in the Bible.  Of course, there is the bit about referring to humans as 'Sons of Adam' and 'Daughters of Eve', but I understood that as a simple epithet with no deep religious significance.




It is pretty obvious even if you don't look for it. Really, how hard is it to make the leap from Aslan's sacrifice to save the sinner Edmund and subsequent rebirth to the story of the crucifixtion? I could see how an 8-10 year old might miss it (especially if said 8-10 year old was not raised in a religious environment, I don't know if you were or not), but it should be immediately obvious to any adult who reads the books - whether they are looking for the allegory or not.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

*What do the author's know?*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I just find it amusing that despite J.R.R. Tolkien repeatedly stating that LotR was not allegorical or topical in any way, people _still_ insist on claiming that it's a Christian allegory, or an allegory on World War II, or that the One Ring represents nuclear weapons, et cetera.




As any English major will tell you, what do the author's know?  An allegory need not be intentional to be an allegory.  Shakespeare's works are the best example, he would have had no idea of the ways his work has been interpreted over the years.




			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> One more thing...
> 
> Now I've been a Christian my whole life, but I've never heard once about Christ going to Hell after being crucified.  May I ask which translation of the New Testament that's from?




It's a frequent and common interpretation.  Obviously held by C.S. Lewis himself, as Aslan goes to the Witch's castle and frees the statues there.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> My experiences with it are limited to the cartoon a lot of years back and reading synopsis on Wikipedia but this sounds cool.  I for one am glad they are minimizing the religious allagory apparently and not having the kids spouting hip snappy dialogue as you said.  Should be cool.




Yes, I had the constant triade of drivel that usually comes out of kids mouths after a movie.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

*Allegory does not mean literal match.*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Um, note that Gandalf's nature as an angelic immortal, placed by the powers that be is not established withitn the LotR itself.  You must read outside the trilogy to have that information.




You got me there, and yet the statement is still true.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is a more obvious allegory, because Christ went to the cross kicking and screaming and resisting against manifested demons?  Sorry, no.




I wouldn't call our allegorical Narnian pussy cat a pacifist either.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Yeah, and note how Christ never smites anyone, Lucifer included?  How is it a more obvious Christian allegory when it is a less clear and accurate retelling of the Christian myth?




Unfair comparison.  Christ is a man in the gospel.  Satan is more than that.  They don't exist on the same level in the gospels.  Further, the use of fighting in allegory shows conflict.  Christ overcomes without violence of any sort, but to make that conflict accessible, you probably need to show some fighting.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Right, the savior character has a quiet last few moments with his disciples, and then willingly goes off to be sacrificed, only to be reborn (found alive, just as Christ, by two females).  That's not obvious at all!




On the contrary, Gandalf spends quite a bit of time with his discipiles in quiet contemplation before the end.  There are no women though, that doesn't defeat the allegory.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> No allegory is every obvious to an uninformed observer.  How would an observer uninformed on Christian mythology get all the points you make about Gandalf?




He fights a demon, suppousedly dies, then comes back to set things right.  That's the passion and resurrection in a nutshell.  Many of the uninformed get it.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

*We are about to find out*



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is pretty obvious even if you don't look for it. Really, how hard is it to make the leap from Aslan's sacrifice to save the sinner Edmund and subsequent rebirth to the story of the crucifixtion? I could see how an 8-10 year old might miss it (especially if said 8-10 year old was not raised in a religious environment, I don't know if you were or not), but it should be immediately obvious to any adult who reads the books - whether they are looking for the allegory or not.




I don't find it a hard leap at all.  Like I said, it made salvation plain to me. However, the comparison was explained to me as well.

I've been talking about this book for a long time (my first exposure was a performance by an acting troupe at age 8 in my church) and it's been my experience that virtually everyone needs it explained to them. Adults especially. In fact, the pastor at a local church has asked  us to cut the sound when the credits roll so he can explain it to his congregation after they see it.  Must be his experience too.

However, my hypothesis (and yours) are about to be tested.  I'll bet my dice bag that lots of people leave the theater saying, "where was the bible bit?"


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 8, 2005)

But Gandalf didn't come back and defeat Sauron.  He was just a helper.  I find that whole mess to be an allegory of the Christian mythology in a very loose sense only.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call our allegorical Narnian pussy cat a pacifist either.




But he goes to the sacrifice willingly, and without a fight. That's a big difference from the Gandalf situation.



> _Unfair comparison.  Christ is a man in the gospel.  Satan is more than that.  They don't exist on the same level in the gospels.  Further, the use of fighting in allegory shows conflict.  Christ overcomes without violence of any sort, but to make that conflict accessible, you probably need to show some fighting._





Christ is more than a man in the gospel as well (remember his time in the desert being tempted for days on end)? Aslan manages to go to his sacrifice without any fighting. In point of fact, Aslan only fights after he has returned from death.



> _He fights a demon, suppousedly dies, then comes back to set things right.  That's the passion and resurrection in a nutshell.  Many of the uninformed get it._



_

Jesus never fights a demon._


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 8, 2005)

*Stone Knife IS there*



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No stone knife? How does the central scene between Aslan and the witch work then?




I, er, checked the sound today (it's a snow day, and there was a problem with the digital sound not kicking in until reel two, problem is solved now).  Naturally, I was forced to watch the movie again, sacrifice for job quality.

For a moment ( I must of blinked or been checking the projector, or something) the stone knife is shown directly.  I thought she had just some ordinary blade.

The shears to shave Aslan are absent.  He is shaved by the weapons of the monster army instead.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> As some of you know, I work part-time as a projectionist.  As part of my duties, I often have to watch movies we have put together to insure there are no bad splices or other problems.  Tonight, I once again sacrificed my time to watch Chronicles of Narnia.




You have my sympathies. That's really a tough duty. But someone has to do it, I guess. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Jesus never fights a demon.




Maybe not a physical one.  Heck, you said it yourself in this very post:



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> (remember his time in the desert being tempted for days on end)




Is temptation not a "demon"?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 8, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> As any English major will tell you, what do the author's know?  An allegory need not be intentional to be an allegory.  Shakespeare's works are the best example, he would have had no idea of the ways his work has been interpreted over the years.




Yes, I'm sure all those english majors knew Tolkien's intentions better than he did.

Allegory and personal interpretation are two seperate things.  In particular, I find the claim that Gandalf is allegory of Christ to have more holes than an old fence.  So unless some kind of note or journal written by Tolkien claiming that anything in LotR is an allegory is found, I'm going to have a hard time thinking any claims of allegory to be valid.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 8, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I won't dispute that the allegory is obvious (to those who look for it), but when I read the series as a child (aged around 8-10 IIRC) I never once made the connections between the Chronicles and anything in the Bible.  Of course, there is the bit about referring to humans as 'Sons of Adam' and 'Daughters of Eve', but I understood that as a simple epithet with no deep religious significance.




I took that just to mean "humans".

I read the book and watched the cartoon when younger and it wasn't until seeing a play version in college that the Aslan = Jesus thing hit me. Of course once it did, it was like with one of those magic pictures where the young woman is hidden in the old crones hair and after an hour of staring you say "Duh! how the heck did I miss *that*?!?"


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Maybe not a physical one.  Heck, you said it yourself in this very post:




His temptation in the desert is not the contest that leads him to the sacrifice. His sacrifice is entirely willing - that's the point of the excercise. For your analogy to work, Jesus would have to fight a demon, and die in the process. Jesus triumphs over temptation in the desert and then goes on to his ministry, and later is killed at the hands of men, without a fight.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 8, 2005)

_As some of you know, I work part-time as a projectionist. As part of my duties, I often have to watch movies we have put together to insure there are no bad splices or other problems. Tonight, I once again sacrificed my time to watch Chronicles of Narnia. _ 

On the one hand, I envy you, as you get to see a lot of good movies.  OTOH, I pity you... how much drek do you have to watch as well?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 8, 2005)

Glad to hear the news about _Narnia_.  I'm looking forward to seeing it!


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> I've been talking about this book for a long time (my first exposure was a performance by an acting troupe at age 8 in my church) and it's been my experience that virtually everyone needs it explained to them. Adults especially. In fact, the pastor at a local church has asked  us to cut the sound when the credits roll so he can explain it to his congregation after they see it.  Must be his experience too.




_"In our world too, a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world."_  -- Lucy.

I guess I'm an aberration then, because quotes like this hammered into my head again and again that the Chronicles of Narnia are an extremely obvious Christian allegory, spelled out very plainly by Lewis. Still very good books though.


----------



## spacemonkey (Dec 9, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> On the one hand, I envy you, as you get to see a lot of good movies.  OTOH, I pity you... how much drek do you have to watch as well?




[shudder] ...  "Runaway Bride".  Twice.  (regular and open-cap).  /[shudder]

But you have to understand, once you climb the ladder a bit, then you just shove the crap movies onto the newbs, and watch what looks good 

.. least that's how it worked when I was a projectionist.


Having said that, Narnia looks pretty cool


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 9, 2005)

Seravin said:
			
		

> Well, ruining it would telling us that the witch killed the lion, with a knife, on the stone table; or something like that.
> 
> thanks for the opinion.  It was already on my must-see list, now I feel better about it.




No, it was Col. Mustard, with the monkey wrench, in the conservatory.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 9, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> No, it was Col. Mustard, with the monkey wrench, in the conservatory.
> 
> The Auld Grump





I'll get you Col Mustard, if it's the last thing I doooo


----------



## Cabled (Dec 9, 2005)

*or perhaps...*

it was Col Playdoh, with a pit trap, at the first intersection in the kobold lair...


----------



## TheNovaLord (Dec 9, 2005)

Back to the movie.....

My 7 year old son thought it was excellent (wicked i believe) and loads better than HP and The GoF.
I thought it was very very good. Very nicely acted by the children. Just enough action. Nice fairly scarey bits, but not too much for my son. He didnt know the story at all so nice plot events for him to go Wow etc.
Favourite for me as a rpg-er was just the huge range of monsters all brought to life, i guess more 'beasts' on screen than in LOTR etc even though large battle on a smaller screen. The dryads where also very 'cool' in how thye work from an rpg prospective.
Maybe just me but i still thought the white witch was kinda sexy!!

Enjoy
JohnD, aged 39
I am definitely off to see it again.


----------



## Xath (Dec 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The parallel is made even more obvious by the fact that C.S. Lewis stated explicitly that this was what he intended to do. You don't have to guess as to the author's intent with respect to the Chronicles of Narnia - he flat out said what his intent was.




Where do you see that?

Lewis' estate maintains that that is not the case.  Instead, Lewis wrote the story using his own ideals in life.  Remember, C.S. Lewis was an athiest from childhood until college.  He converted to Catholicism after he and Tolkien became good friends while at Oxford.  Both Lewis and Tolkien claimed that their works are not allegories for anything, but are rather stories they made that happened to be influenced by their life experiences.  



			
				C.S. Lewis said:
			
		

> "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 9, 2005)

> *Did C.S. Lewis Create Narnia as an Allegory?*
> Adapted From: C.S. Lewis & Narnia For Dummies
> 
> Perhaps the single most common question about The Chronicles of Narnia asks whether Lewis wrote the series as an allegory. After all, even if your biblical knowledge is limited to a few Sunday school classes in third grade, you probably notice that Aslan has many similarities to Jesus Christ. If Lewis added that symbolism on purpose, does that mean that everything in Narnia represents something in the Bible?
> ...




Either way, it's pretty clear the Christian elements in the Narnia books when you take them all into account. Aslan as Jesus is especially obvious.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 9, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Where do you see that?
> 
> Lewis' estate maintains that that is not the case.  Instead, Lewis wrote the story using his own ideals in life.  Remember, C.S. Lewis was an athiest from childhood until college.  He converted to Catholicism after he and Tolkien became good friends while at Oxford.



odd, I thought he was anglican. Also his own descriptions of his preconversion attitude is not one of atheism (nor do I recal him claiming a non-religious childhood.) More he was in a phase of "sticking it to the Man" and identified God as the biggest "the man" one could possibly stick it to.   

As for the differences between allegory and suppository (er, supposal) and all the other dissection of what we have to mean in order to be wrong about him, all I can say is: wow, he was born too early! That man missed his calling as an internet pedant!    

A work doesn't have to be planned propaganda to be allegorical, nor does every person and event in the book have to map exactly to something else. Aslan = jesus and it wasn't an accident, beyond that it seems a bit of hair splitting.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 9, 2005)

*Of course we do, we're English majors!*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm sure all those english majors knew Tolkien's intentions better than he did.




Absolutely! There are people who devote their entire lives to knowing the writing of a single author who know far about it than the author ever could.  You see, literature is a seperate entity of it's creator.  Like a child, after you've given birth, that book will be read and seen in thousands of different ways by different readers.  There was once a school of thought that there were "correct readings" of books by polling readers and finding out what they thought it meant.  Not only did these results differ from the author's intent, but differ from year to year and certainly generation by generation.  




			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Allegory and personal interpretation are two seperate things.  In particular, I find the claim that Gandalf is allegory of Christ to have more holes than an old fence.  So unless some kind of note or journal written by Tolkien claiming that anything in LotR is an allegory is found, I'm going to have a hard time thinking any claims of allegory to be valid.




Forgive me while I laugh heartily, Professor Jezter, but I've been in plenty of classes were we've discussed allegory, symbolism, nuance, and other things without having any idea about the intentions of the author.  That's what you are talking about, author's intent.  What did the author state he or she intended to write.  A.) Most author's don't, often delibritely being obscure on the subject. B.) Any creative product belongs as much, if not more, to the readers than the writer.  Did Harriet Beecher Stowe MEAN to fuel the Civil War with "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Probably not, but Lincoln credited her with doing so.  Was Twain being racist or equitible when he wrote "Huckleberry Finn"?  That debate has raged for decades.

You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one.  Allegory exists regardless of whether the author states it does.  As I've said before, "What does the author know?"  If you have further questions or comments, please refer to your local literature professor.

I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 9, 2005)

*Narnian bestiary*



			
				TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> Back to the movie.....
> 
> My 7 year old son thought it was excellent (wicked i believe) and loads better than HP and The GoF.
> I thought it was very very good. Very nicely acted by the children. Just enough action. Nice fairly scarey bits, but not too much for my son. He didnt know the story at all so nice plot events for him to go Wow etc.




My kids (who I took yesterday, can't be a neglectful father while I'm watching all these movies, can I?) loved it too.  My 8-year old roared like a lion for hours.



			
				TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> Favourite for me as a rpg-er was just the huge range of monsters all brought to life, i guess more 'beasts' on screen than in LOTR etc even though large battle on a smaller screen. The dryads where also very 'cool' in how thye work from an rpg prospective.




Yes, there are terrific images and a wide diversity of creatures.  I can remember griffons, giants, minotaurs, dwarfs, centaurs, fauns, ibixians, orcs/goblins, harpies, werewolves, along with many animals (all talking, of course.)



			
				TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> Maybe just me but i still thought the white witch was kinda sexy!!




Yes, in a Sleeping Beauty wicked stepmother sort of way.  But there are no curves to her, no plunging necklines or clinging gowns. The original illustrations show a "sexier" outfit than the one in the movie.  My point is that most movies have some sort of sexuality to them.  In Her Shoes had Cameron Diaz constantly in a state of being halfway undressed, Legend of Zorro has Catherine Zeta-Jones in a plunging neckline in each scene.  I'm not complaining, mind you, but it is cheesy and I'm glad they didn't do it here.



			
				TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> I am definitely off to see it again.




Amen, brother. I saw the end again last night (employee showing), and I'll probably see it again.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 9, 2005)

*White Witch did it.*



			
				Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I'll get you Col Mustard, if it's the last thing I doooo




It was the White Witch with the stone knife at the stone table, yah goofs. . .

Wonder if there will be the usual board game adaptations, Clue, Risk might be cool, Narnian Monopoly? (groan)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back.



I tend to think that Lewis made it up on the spot to argue he wasn't being allegorical.   He's a lovely writer but his argument skill tend to be lacking.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> I have to say, I've never heard of suppousal being used before. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just not familiar with that point of view. I don't know what school of thought suppousal comes from, but it wasn't in my literary criticism book. I SUPPOUSE I should go to my alma mater and ask for my money back.




The problem with Lewis' argument that his work is "supposal" and not "allegorical" is that his definition of what a "supposal" is cuts so close to what "allegory" is that you really cannot distinguish the two in any meaningful manner.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Of course we do, we're english majors!




It will take more than that to convince me.  I've known a fair share of english majors who were insufferable gits who thought that every time a sword was mentioned in a novel it was a "phallic symbol" and every time a good guy died it was a "Christ figure."  And, of course, many of them have very high opinions of their intelligence and usefulness, even after graduation when they find themselves working the register at their nearest Barnes & Noble store.



> Absolutely! There are people who devote their entire lives to knowing the writing of a single author who know far about it than the author ever could.  You see, literature is a seperate entity of it's creator.  Like a child, after you've given birth, that book will be read and seen in thousands of different ways by different readers.  There was once a school of thought that there were "correct readings" of books by polling readers and finding out what they thought it meant.  Not only did these results differ from the author's intent, but differ from year to year and certainly generation by generation.




Once again, you're talking about personal interpretation.



> Forgive me while I laugh heartily, Professor Jezter, but I've been in plenty of classes were we've discussed allegory, symbolism, nuance, and other things without having any idea about the intentions of the author.  That's what you are talking about, author's intent.  What did the author state he or she intended to write.  A.) Most author's don't, often delibritely being obscure on the subject. B.) Any creative product belongs as much, if not more, to the readers than the writer.  Did Harriet Beecher Stowe MEAN to fuel the Civil War with "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Probably not, but Lincoln credited her with doing so.  Was Twain being racist or equitible when he wrote "Huckleberry Finn"?  That debate has raged for decades.




Don't be an ass, Firebeetle.  There's no need to start tossing insults because I find your theory about Gandalf being a Christ Figure to be unconvincing.

Besides, I thought we were talking about allegory here, not what effects authors intended their books to have on popular culture or whether or not a book is racist.



> You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one.  Allegory exists regardless of whether the author states it does.  As I've said before, "What does the author know?"  If you have further questions or comments, please refer to your local literature professor.




As Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."  Just because literary enthusiasts choose to interpret a book as something other than what the author intended does not automatically make it an allegory.

But I'm through arguing semantics.  If you want to say that Gandalf represents Christ and that the Literary Establishment believes that "The Little Engine that Could" is allegory about the Roe vs Wade descision, go right ahead.  You won't hear any more from me on this subject.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Narnian Monopoly? (groan)




Park Place = the Stone Table
Boardwalk = Cair Parvail (sp?)

Instead of Jail, you get turned to stone.  
Get out of Jail Free cards are "Aslan's Breath"

Income Tax space = Enjoy some Turkish Delight


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 9, 2005)

I will ignore this thread...not to be spoiled. See movie this weekend.


----------



## Fenris (Dec 9, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Allegory exists regardless of whether the author states it does.




Evil is in the eye of the beholder huh? 
Well then YOU can find allegory in anything and another cannot. Does mean it exists, just exists for you and your perception of reality.

Because really Narnia is an allegory for Ahura-Mazda and Mitra whether the author stated it or not.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 9, 2005)

*Gandalf as Christ*

Didn't think I was dotty in this, there is plenty of thinking in this direction.  Some relate to the book, some to the movie:

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/wood-classic.html

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/art_overrated_2003_1.html

http://www.frimmin.com/movies/lotr.html

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/pkreeft_christlotr_nov05.asp

According to much of this, there is a threefold Christ in LotR.  

Frodo= Christ the Redeemer
Gandalf= Christ the Prophet
Aragon= Christ the King

Interesting take on things.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 9, 2005)

I just came back from the theater.  I'd rate it a solid 9/10.  It was absolutely amazing, though it did drag a bit in a few parts.  But it could improve over multiple viewings.

The four child actors were all excellent, and the battle scenes were much more intense than I thought they would be.   The lead centaur who fought with two swords was very cool, and the fight involving Peter vs. The White Witch was quite good.

The Christian imagery was clearly there, but it didn't beat you over the head with it.  I was a bit disappointed that there was no  "Emperor-beyond-the-sea" reference, though it has been so long since I read the book that I can't remember exactly where and when it was mentioned in the story.

I beleive that the Narnia trailers had a few scenes that weren't in the final film, so bring on the DVD!  I'll be buying it for sure.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 9, 2005)

Regarding the whole allegory thing...

If an author is trying to get a message through in his book, he's trying to communicate with you. If you get something out of the book other than what he wanted you too, you misinterpreted it. If the message the author was trying to get to you is, "hey look, I wrote a cool story!" and you get something else out of it, like an allegory or a book of sexual innuendo and symbolism, you interpreted it wrong. It's just like any other form of communication, if you don't get the message the sender is trying to give you, either the sender failed to communicate well or you failed to interpret it well. Either way, the message is the same, even if that message is, "here is my cool story, why not read it and buy more of my books?"

The idea that everything has a purpose and symbolism is foolhardy. The idea that you know more about what an author wrote than he or she does is arrogant. The fact that a majority of the establishment may agree matters not one whit. 

IMHO and all that, of course. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 10, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> According to much of this, there is a threefold Christ in LotR.




Bah. Everyone knows that Smeagol died for our sins.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 10, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Regarding the whole allegory thing...
> 
> If an author is trying to get a message through in his book, he's trying to communicate with you. If you get something out of the book other than what he wanted you too, you misinterpreted it. If the message the author was trying to get to you is, "hey look, I wrote a cool story!" and you get something else out of it, like an allegory or a book of sexual innuendo and symbolism, you interpreted it wrong. It's just like any other form of communication, if you don't get the message the sender is trying to give you, either the sender failed to communicate well or you failed to interpret it well. Either way, the message is the same, even if that message is, "here is my cool story, why not read it and buy more of my books?"
> 
> ...




why thank you, I think I will.   

First of all authors may be influenced by and present ideas that they would honestly claim weren't meant to be part of their story. To give an extreme example, suppose Bob the writer has a story in which two male supporting characters live together, show up at "family" events together, etc. Folks reading the book decide the characters are gay. Bob the writer is insulted at the very idea, the characters are composites of his brother (and said brother's good friend) and a couple of fellows he knew in college. Now if, in reality, both of those examples are in fact gay, who is right? The author who envisions them as confirmed bachelors, or the readers who see a gay couple as supporting characters?

Second of all, allegory can just being a way to say that one story maps well to another. It doesn't (imho) have the same strict meaning of intentional message as say a parable or a homage does. A story could be an allegory for something that doesn't happen until after the story is written if it maps well and is evokative of the same themes.

And third of all sometimes authors really aren't honest about their creative process. I don't know why, I think some want to be super mysterious and get annoyed when the raw craft behind their beautiful art is examined. JMS for instance was known to spin a elaborate line of BS on how B5 turned out *exactly* as he had planned the five year arc when practical concerns threw monkey wrenches in things on several occasions. He also either gave out misinformation or changd his mind on background details. 

While statements of intent may be helpful, a work of fiction stands alone, and what is taken from it is the perogative of the reader. If thats not what the author meant, too bad, thats what he created. (I think there is a Penny Arcade on this subject.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 10, 2005)

Your reasons are convincing, Kahuna Burger. Allow me to change my opinion to one more moderate: I'll trust the auther's view over that of someone else, especially a pompous chap who disregards the author's statements (not referring to anyone in particular here).

I still feel that if the author is trying to say something in particular, and the reader doesn't get it, it's a failure of the reader or the author, and not equally valid to the author's intent.


----------



## KenM (Dec 10, 2005)

I just got back from seeing it. I give it a 7.5 out of 10. Pros: Really good acting. Cool to see the fantasy monsters brought to life. Decent battle/ action scenes. 
Cons: it drags in places. I also thought it ended really fast after they go back through the wardrobe at the end. IIRC, in the book there is more with the professor and stuff at the end.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 10, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Your reasons are convincing, Kahuna Burger. Allow me to change my opinion to one more moderate: I'll trust the auther's view over that of someone else, especially a pompous chap who disregards the author's statements (not referring to anyone in particular here).
> 
> I still feel that if the author is trying to say something in particular, and the reader doesn't get it, it's a failure of the reader or the author, and not equally valid to the author's intent.



 A small addendum - remember that an author's stated opinions about his own work are not necessarily true.


----------



## KenM (Dec 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> JMS for instance was known to spin a elaborate line of BS on how B5 turned out *exactly* as he had planned the five year arc when practical concerns threw monkey wrenches in things on several occasions. He also either gave out misinformation or changd his mind on background details.





  I read an interview with him a little while ago where he said he was very happy that about 85% of his orginal plan stuck.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> JMS for instance was known to spin a elaborate line of BS on how B5 turned out *exactly* as he had planned the five year arc when practical concerns threw monkey wrenches in things on several occasions. He also either gave out misinformation or changd his mind on background details.




I don't think that is what JMS has said. What he has said is that he told the story he intended to tell with B5. The specific actors and the names of some of the characters may have changed, but the story itself came through intact in the way he had wanted it to. There is a difference there. In point of fact, if you listen to the DVD commentary on several episodes, he discusses some of the changes that were made in the details of the story. Those details, however, didn't really change the story overall.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 10, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> There are many little omissions.  There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas.




[sblock]Yeah - the Christmas feast (He _has_, he _has_, he _has_!) is one of my favourite scenes.

Several of my favourite lines got lost as well - when we're first about to encounter Tumnus, I leaned over to my girlfriend and said "Goodness gracious me!"... and Tumnus didn't say it!  And "Yes - it is more magic!" 

Someone mentioned a watered-down Aslan.  I have to agree - he didn't feel like he had the _stern_ side as well as the kindly side to a great enough degree.  And the witch's reaction after she asks how she can be sure he'll keep his promise, and he roars... in the book, she flees in terror.  In the film, she flinches a little, and then her ogres pick up her litter, and she makes a dignified exit.

On the other hand, there were some additions I enjoyed.  Much of the beavers' dialogue (love Ray Winstone!)... especially Mr Beaver's first line   Philip the horse.  Rhinos!  Griffin bombers.

Weakest new addition - after the ice encounter, where the ice-body-board surfaces, and Lucy has vanished... only to reappear mere seconds later.  Cliche, unnecessary, added nothing to the film or the story.  Bleh.

Despite any negative comments in the above, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the film.  8/10.  Might go see it again before it finished its run.[/sblock]

-Hyp.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 10, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one.




Have you consulted the entire literary establishment on this?  I doubt it.  Academic issues, like political issues, tend to have multiple camps.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 10, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> A small addendum - remember that an author's stated opinions about his own work are not necessarily true.




I didn't consider it necessary to say that


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 10, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> I read an interview with him a little while ago where he said he was very happy that about 85% of his orginal plan stuck.




I'm mostly thinking of the stuff coming out of the message boards which he would occasionally post to during the show's run. I'm open to the idea that he may have relaxed since the successful conclusion to the series.    And the bit where at one point he responded to a fan's question saying that Valen had never fathered any children, then later had Delenn be a decendant of Valen. Its not a JMS bash-fest, just the one solid example I could think of where a writer was not completely honest in his official pronouncements on his work.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 10, 2005)

I went into the movie about as excited as every child in the audience.  I've been giddy with excitement to see this film for a year and it did not disappoint.  As a Christian, I felt the allegory was as strong as it could have been while still making it a film that a non-Christian would enjoy - in fact, I even picked up on some things that I hadn't in the book.  

For example, the breaking of the stone table with the deep magic written on it as the breaking of the stone tablets that the Old Law was written on.  I also picked up on the women following Aslan as the women followed Christ.

Highlight of the night:  The Universe, while on the way to the parking garage, gasps and says, "Hey! Peter's name is Peter!"  *chuckles*

However - I do appreciate the fact that you can watch the movie without feeling beaten over the head with the story of Christ... I feel that's sort of a necessary thing.

This morning, I was reading EW's review and was astonished to see that they were complaining about the special effects... something along the lines of "you can see all the digital seems" and "all of the fauns look like they have just stepped out of the make up chair."  Maybe it was my child-like sense of awe and wonder, but I never for even a second thought "wow - these special effects could use some work," and that's usually something I do pick up on rather quickly.

Lucy - cutest little girl I have ever seen.  Throughout the entire movie, I just wanted to squeeze her - she's SO adorable.

In the end, my largest complaint is that we lost the narrator.  In all of the books, he has some of the best lines and, because he was lost, many of his lines were missing.

I go 9.5/10 - loved it, can't wait to own it...


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 10, 2005)

*Go read "Invisible Man"*



			
				John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Regarding the whole allegory thing...
> 
> If an author is trying to get a message through in his book, he's trying to communicate with you. If you get something out of the book other than what he wanted you too, you misinterpreted it. If the message the author was trying to get to you is, "hey look, I wrote a cool story!" and you get something else out of it, like an allegory or a book of sexual innuendo and symbolism, you interpreted it wrong. It's just like any other form of communication, if you don't get the message the sender is trying to give you, either the sender failed to communicate well or you failed to interpret it well. Either way, the message is the same, even if that message is, "here is my cool story, why not read it and buy more of my books?"
> 
> ...




Go read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man", frequently one of the top ten reads of the 20th Century (so you're not wasting your time.) It would be impossible to read that book without making dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations when you have no clue regarding the author's intentions. Furthermore, it is OK to say whatever you have to say about the book.  You don't have to get the author's permission to do so (difficult, since he's dead.)  There are people who read it over and over and see different things every time.  There are reams and reams of well thought out literary criticism (which is not personal interpretation, the same critic can look at the same book using different types of literary criticism and will come up with very different results.) That's the damn point of literature, reading and interpretation.  Author's intent is important, but does not deny any amount of allegory, symbolism, theme, or other factor of literary criticism.  Misinterpretation would be an outrageous or unsupported opinion.

If this, John Q. and Jezter, makes me a pompous ass so be it. It's far better than being ignorant and dogmatic.  When you question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature, I would argue I am not the one being pompous.  Further, if I am being an ass for laughing heartily, then was are you being when you are "amused", a butt cheek?

Ralph Ellison is the inspiration (at least in part) for the Forrester character in "Finding Forrester" BTW.  Sure, Forrester is a scotsman and Ellison was black, but the ALLEGORY is still there.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 10, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> When you question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature, I would argue I am not the one being pompous.




I do not question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature. I question the idea that author's intent is irrelevant (or less-relevant than a reader's) and that a critic or any other reader knows more about said intent than the author. I question the idea that the "entire establishment" believing something makes it true (this one is obviously false). I question the idea that all interpretations are equally valid. 

Without knowing the author's intent, the long discussion and alternate interpretations are all you have, and I find it _great_ fun to debate and consider such things with my friends, fellow students, and teachers. However, the point stands that if the author _was_ trying to say something, and you don't get it, one of you has failed, and whatever different thing you got is not the real message of the book. It's just like Ozymandias, IMO; a mistranslation of...Ramses II, right? And Ozymandias is a fine name and one I particularly like, but it's not the _right_ name. It was misinterpreted.

EDIT: It might be worth noting that a great deal of my scorn for some of these ideas is from an article I had to write about in my first year of college. The author of the article was writing about a story, the name of which I don't recall, which was about a family who met an escaped criminal who ended up killing them all. At the end of the story, the grandmother says something about the killer being her own son; the author of the story later stated that this encounter started the killer towards eventual salvation. The writer of the article was openly scornful of the author's statements about her story, and claimed that what the author said happened after the story didn't, and basically that the author was an ignoramus who didn't know what she was writing. It really made me angry, and I think that my view of the "establishment's" practice is to some degree tainted by my association of it with fools like that and their idiotic scorn for authors.


----------



## Jonas Grumby (Dec 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Jesus never fights a demon.




Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 10, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I do not question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature. I question the idea that author's intent is irrelevant (or less-relevant than a reader's) and that a critic or any other reader knows more about said intent than the author. I question the idea that the "entire establishment" believing something makes it true (this one is obviously false). I question the idea that all interpretations are equally valid.




It's a long way from "the author's intent isn't the only thing that matters" to "all interpretations are equally valid", because they aren't. If somebody argued that Narnia was an allegory for mud wrestling, that person would have a hard time to get others to agree.




			
				John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Without knowing the author's intent, the long discussion and alternate interpretations are all you have, and I find it _great_ fun to debate and consider such things with my friends, fellow students, and teachers. However, the point stands that if the author _was_ trying to say something, and you don't get it, one of you has failed, and whatever different thing you got is not the real message of the book. It's just like Ozymandias, IMO; a mistranslation of...Ramses II, right? And Ozymandias is a fine name and one I particularly like, but it's not the _right_ name. It was misinterpreted.




Nobody would argue that you can read Christian alegory into Narnia if that's what you want. But whether the author said this was his intent or not doesn't matter, really.

What this boils down to is a definition of what's literature. I wonder... if literature can be compared to the translation of a name, why do authors write narrative books featuring a more or less obscured version of their intent? Why don't they just say what they have to say?

And what exactly was Lewis' intent? Did he want to demonstrate that Jesus, while being a peacful guy most of the time, can be a true lion when faced with great evil? Or did he want to demonstrate that there's always a time and place for mud wrestling? Or what?




			
				John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> EDIT: It might be worth noting that a great deal of my scorn for some of these ideas is from an article I had to write about in my first year of college. The author of the article was writing about a story, the name of which I don't recall, which was about a family who met an escaped criminal who ended up killing them all. At the end of the story, the grandmother says something about the killer being her own son; the author of the story later stated that this encounter started the killer towards eventual salvation. The writer of the article was openly scornful of the author's statements about her story, and claimed that what the author said happened after the story didn't, and basically that the author was an ignoramus who didn't know what she was writing. It really made me angry, and I think that my view of the "establishment's" practice is to some degree tainted by my association of it with fools like that and their idiotic scorn for authors.




Who in this thread made you think they have an "idiotic scorn for authors"?


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 10, 2005)

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting a thread on the merits of literary criticism. As for that, I paraphrase: "Those who cannot write, teach."

I loved the movie, completely. I've read all the books (and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold) though - oddly - after the first one I couldn't tell you one single thing about them. I should go back and read the series again.

The actors were all very good, especially little Lucy. She was completely beleivable to me, and watching Peter realize what an ass he'd been.. wonderful. 

EW is on crack. The special effects were wonderful, and if they can see 'seams' then they're just looking for something to blab meaninglessly about. Somehow I doubt that ILM would have bad shots like that. I remember back when Jaws had come out and the director had both live sharks and the famous mechanical shark - he said inevitably reviewers would point to shots of live sharks and say 'look at how fake that looks'. Really, it's just looking for a thing to complain about.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 10, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Have you consulted the entire literary establishment on this?  I doubt it.  Academic issues, like political issues, tend to have multiple camps.



 A very good point.  Claiming that any "establishment" is fully behind you is really stretching credibility unless it's something that has been proven as fact (such as "the sky is blue"), as acedemics are constantly disagreeing with each others' theories and opinions.  If by some weird twist of fate I were able to go on national TV and say "Star Wars is the most important movie of the 20th century, and the entire cinematic establishment is behind me on this one", I'd probably get a few phone calls from film professors and movie industry professionals who agree, and a _lot_ from ones who disagreed and were annoyed that I presumed to speak for them.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 11, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Who in this thread made you think they have an "idiotic scorn for authors"?




Nobody, I was talking about the author of the article I was talking about  I'm just saying that his foolishness poisoned the school of thought he was coming from for me, and recognizing that it might have skewed my perspective.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 11, 2005)

Jonas Grumby said:
			
		

> Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39




Let me rephrase. Jesus does not fight a demon as part of the passion.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 11, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> (and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold)



I dunno. A good being who does not deserve punishment voluntarily takes the place of one who has screwed up. He is humiliated, beated and executed. He comes back from the dead and his sacrifice frees an entire world and destroys the power of evil, not to mention bringing life whereever he goes. And you think christian allegory in this case is comparable to a christian rorshac result....

Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 11, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...




Yeah, I see you on the allegory thing, but that West Side idea is just ridiculous. Bah, humans are too good at seeing what they want to see.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Dec 11, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Did you notice any similarities between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliette? Cause some wacky folks try to push a comparison there too...




OMG!!!  I thought I was the _only_ one!


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 11, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I loved the movie, completely. I've read all the books (and it was some years afterwards that someone explained the Christian allegory thing - I never noticed it, and really it still seems a big push. Kind of like people who see Jesus in refrigerator mold) though - oddly - after the first one I couldn't tell you one single thing about them. I should go back and read the series again.




Given that the symbolism practially beats you about the head and shoulders in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ this is an almost amazing statement.

Edmund, the sinner whose life is forfeit to evil is redeemed by Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea who made Narnia. Aslan, though without sin himself, willingly sacrifices himself to redeem Edmund, and is abused, humilated, and ritualistically killed on the stone table. He conquers death, breaks the stone table, and returns, to be found by two women, and then frees those bound by evil, and defeats the devil incarnate.

You cannot really get more obvious without inserting "mankind" for "Edmund", "Jesus" for "Aslan", "cross" for "stone table", and "Satan" for "White Witch".


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 11, 2005)

If anyone finds some good Narnia wallpapers at 1280x1024, especially any showing Peter in his armor, let me know. Finding stuff like that has become an exercise in frustration and spyware.


----------



## Micah (Dec 11, 2005)

For those of you who have seen it - how would you rate the violence aspect and intensity of the movie?

I have just finished reading the book to my children and am considering taking them to see the movie. They are 3,4, and 5 years old and have seen PG movies like Treasure Planet and Star Wars. I wouldn't let them watch LOTR though. 

Thanks in advance. . . .


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 11, 2005)

Micah said:
			
		

> For those of you who have seen it - how would you rate the violence aspect and intensity of the movie?
> 
> I have just finished reading the book to my children and am considering taking them to see the movie. They are 3,4, and 5 years old and have seen PG movies like Treasure Planet and Star Wars. I wouldn't let them watch LOTR though.
> 
> Thanks in advance. . . .




The violence in Narnia was more intense than I thought it would be.  It's not quite at the LOTR level, but it's not too far from it, without showing gore or limbs falling off.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 11, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase. Jesus does not fight a demon as part of the passion.




You're not rephrasing, you're changing the parameters to fit your argument.



Edit:  Oops, did I forget to mention that I agree with most of your points though?


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 11, 2005)

Saw the movie today and quite enjoyed it.  The audience was really into the movie which helped as well.  I'll probably see it again in a few days, the last movies I liked that much was the LotR movies.

I'm on the side of it being an allegory but that doesn't bother me.  It's a good allegory and the values highlighted in it are pretty universal.

For basically a kids movie, the violence was surprisingly intense.  No blood, but lances shattering on bodies, Edmund stabbed and left dying, animals tearing into each other, etc.

And despite the total lack of anything like sex, Tilda Swinton still managed to look pretty darn good, though cold.  Her appearence toward the end of the movie in the chariot was impressive.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 11, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that the symbolism practially beats you about the head and shoulders in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ this is an almost amazing statement.
> 
> Edmund, the sinner whose life is forfeit to evil is redeemed by Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea who made Narnia. Aslan, though without sin himself, willingly sacrifices himself to redeem Edmund, and is abused, humilated, and ritualistically killed on the stone table. He conquers death, breaks the stone table, and returns, to be found by two women, and then frees those bound by evil, and defeats the devil incarnate.
> 
> You cannot really get more obvious without inserting "mankind" for "Edmund", "Jesus" for "Aslan", "cross" for "stone table", and "Satan" for "White Witch".




Note that Jesus didn't willingly sacrifice himself to save Barabas (who in fact was a "sinner"), nor did Jesus try to redeem Barabas in any way. And Jesus didn't came back from the dead to defeat the "devil incarnate", Satan (and neither did he break his cross, for that matter).
There's an allegory, but it ain't _that_ obvious.

But now we're hip-deep in a religious discussion... although you might call it historical


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 11, 2005)

*But it DOESN'T beat you on the head and shoulders*



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that the symbolism practially beats you about the head and shoulders in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ this is an almost amazing statement.
> 
> Edmund, the sinner whose life is forfeit to evil is redeemed by Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea who made Narnia. Aslan, though without sin himself, willingly sacrifices himself to redeem Edmund, and is abused, humilated, and ritualistically killed on the stone table. He conquers death, breaks the stone table, and returns, to be found by two women, and then frees those bound by evil, and defeats the devil incarnate.
> 
> You cannot really get more obvious without inserting "mankind" for "Edmund", "Jesus" for "Aslan", "cross" for "stone table", and "Satan" for "White Witch".




Very well done summary of it, thank you.

We all get the comparison, yet it is not immediately obvious to the uninformed reader.  The whole literary merit thing started with me saying that this allegory is not obvious to everyone, in fact, most people don't see it initially.  Yes, it is certainly there, but most don't realize until it is explained to them at which point they say, "Duh, I didn't notice that."  I feel this is due to the craft of Lewis' writing.  It is the essence of the passion out of biblical context.  If you think back to your initial experience with the work, you will probably find that you had some forewarning about the nature of the book and read it in that context. (gritting teeth for the inevitable, "I'm so smart I got it without anyone telling me it was about Jesus and stuff" response) Those who don't often need a cue to get the connection, which they agree is obvious on retrospect.

We churchies get all excited about this sort of thing.  Anything that explains the gospel in new and exciting ways.  For me personally, I didn't get the concept of salvation until I read this book. That is when it clicked.  Speaking of which, it's time for church.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 11, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> (gritting teeth for the inevitable, "I'm so smart I got it without anyone telling me it was about Jesus and stuff" response)



well, I did get it on my own, but only after exposure to the story in three different presentations over 9 years or more to percolate.   So it doesn't particularly give me an "I'm so smart" feeling.   

I'm sure age and religious exposure at first reading/watching will effect how easily people "get it" as well.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 11, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Note that Jesus didn't willingly sacrifice himself to save Barabas (who in fact was a "sinner"), nor did Jesus try to redeem Barabas in any way.




Edmund isn't a stand in for Barabas. He is a stand in for mankind.



> _And Jesus didn't came back from the dead to defeat the "devil incarnate", Satan (and neither did he break his cross, for that matter)._





Jesus' descent into hell and defeat of death and the devil is part of the tradition of many Christian sects. His breaking the cross is symbolic, and also included in many traditions.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 11, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> If you think back to your initial experience with the work, you will probably find that you had some forewarning about the nature of the book and read it in that context. (gritting teeth for the inevitable, "I'm so smart I got it without anyone telling me it was about Jesus and stuff" response) Those who don't often need a cue to get the connection, which they agree is obvious on retrospect.




I got it without anyone telling me it was a biblical allegory. But not until I had read several books in the series and matched up what was going on in Narnia in a larger sense with the stories in the Bible. Once you get to _The Magician's Nephew_ it gets really hard to miss. If you read _The Last Battle_ without figuring it out, you probably have had no exposure to the Bible to begin with.


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 11, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Okay, so how do you reconcile "There is not much you can do in this regard (Aslan's death is so central to the text)..." with "It's not obvious to the casual observer, just very well written allegory"?  Those two seem rather contradictory.  If it is so central and blatant that you can't remove it, how is it no obvious?
> 
> And I have to disagree Gandalf.  But that's for another thread



 Irrevocably "central" and "blatant" are not synonymous. Trying to reconcile the two different concepts is not difficult, at least linguistically.


----------



## The_Universe (Dec 11, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that the symbolism practially beats you about the head and shoulders in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ this is an almost amazing statement.
> 
> Edmund, the sinner whose life is forfeit to evil is redeemed by Aslan, the son of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea who made Narnia. Aslan, though without sin himself, willingly sacrifices himself to redeem Edmund, and is abused, humilated, and ritualistically killed on the stone table. He conquers death, breaks the stone table, and returns, to be found by two women, and then frees those bound by evil, and defeats the devil incarnate.
> 
> You cannot really get more obvious without inserting "mankind" for "Edmund", "Jesus" for "Aslan", "cross" for "stone table", and "Satan" for "White Witch".



 Agreed. One does not have to be searching for religious comparison points to find them here. They were more than welcome to this viewer, however, and may the movie an ever more pleasing experience. Lewis himself may have admitted that he started writing a simple fairy tale, but he goes on to note that the Christian symbolism pushed itself into the work. When he says he didn't do it on purpose, he - typically in the same breath - will attribute the inclusion to the hand and intention of the Divine, Himself. His arguments do not tend to be that the comparison is not valid - he's just crediting someone else for the work.


----------



## talmar (Dec 11, 2005)

Well, as a cristian I don't go see movies for the benefit of my faith, I go to church.  I make every attempt to leave religion in my life and go to see movies for pleasure, relaxation, childlike enjoyment and escape from reality.

As to the movie, it was wonderful.  I loved it, my wife loved it and my 9 year old loved it.  We all want to go see it again.  I found myself smiling throughout the whole movie.  This movie is the 2nd best movie I've ever seen, and I'm a movie junkie.  First best remains LotR (all 3 = 1 movie).  I saw the first XMen every showing on opening day.  I prebuy all my tickets as soon as I can.  I am a movie junkie, I love going to the movies and go once every week and I will reiterate, this is one of the best movies I have seen.  I will easily see this another 3 or 4 times.  I know at least twice as I'm going again today and Tuesday.

A must see movie and already on my family's list to buy the DVD when it's released.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 12, 2005)

I watched the movie friday night and enjoyed it quite a bit.  While some of the original Christian aspects aren't in it, I believe the cuts were mostly to get the movie down to the desired running time.  The cast of kids did a very good job for performers their age.  I give it a 9/10.



			
				Micah said:
			
		

> For those of you who have seen it - how would you rate the violence aspect and intensity of the movie?




There is a good deal of violence, but no blood or gore.  There are a few intense scenes.  The death of Aslan is obviously very intense.  I was with a 4 year old and a 7 year old that both loved it, but their parents have let them watch LotR, so they've seen more violent movies.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 12, 2005)

I'm not a parent, but I personally don't think any child under age 8 ought to see this movie unless the child is very mature for his/her age. I was with a couple who brought their 7-year-old son, and he got restless by the end, although I'm not sure what he thought of the violence. He isn't usually allowed to see anything violent. I thought the battle scenes were quite visceral, even though there is no blood. And seeing another child risk injury might disturb some children I suppose.

As to the religious allegory argument, I've never really bought that one. I read the book for the first time a couple of weeks ago, being fully aware of all the discussion, and really didn't find the religious aspect at all obvious. But every reader gets out of a book what he/she puts into it; naturally our own beliefs color what we perceive.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 12, 2005)

*Into the Wardrobe link*

http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/

A link to some interesting literary criticism and general history of the Narnia books.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 12, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I'm not a parent, but I personally don't think any child under age 8 ought to see this movie unless the child is very mature for his/her age. I was with a couple who brought their 7-year-old son, and he got restless by the end, although I'm not sure what he thought of the violence. He isn't usually allowed to see anything violent. I thought the battle scenes were quite visceral, even though there is no blood. And seeing another child risk injury might disturb some children I suppose.




The young girl that sat next to The Universe, AIM and I was probably somewhere around 10-13.  She was asleep by 30 minutes in and (literally) snored through the rest of the film.


----------



## Fiery James (Dec 13, 2005)

I liked it alot.  I think I brought a lot of my own "baggage" to the movie which resulted in a big payoff.  I loved the books as a kid, bought the series for my wife when we first started dating (her gateway into fantasy lit), and have been reading them to my daughter for the past few months.

My kids, 3 and 5, love the movie.  They love going to the theatre, were familiar with the story, and had seen the animated film several times.

My only regret for them is that now they expect movies to be this good.  They didn't have to wait 30 years for a decent version of TLTW&TW or the LOTR -- they'll just assume that everything's been made into a great movie!  When they're older, I'll make them go back and watch the animated film again and let them know, "THAT'S what I had when I was a kid!  You have no idea how good life is for you!!" 

Of course, much like my wife, this is the gateway into fantasy for them.  I'm looking forward to starting the Potter books with my oldest in a few years, and when she's ready, the Lord of the Rings!!  

And then GAMING! 

- JB


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 13, 2005)

> As to the religious allegory argument, I've never really bought that one. I read the book for the first time a couple of weeks ago, being fully aware of all the discussion, and really didn't find the religious aspect at all obvious. But every reader gets out of a book what he/she puts into it; naturally our own beliefs color what we perceive.




Even disregarding the six other books, there're plenty in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. The constant references to "Sons of Adam" and "Daughters of Eve", Edmund betraying them for Turkish Delight (Or 30 pieces of silver, although he, fortunately, met a better end then Judas), Aslan sacrificing himself for the sins of Edmund (Willingly, which was preceeded by them beating him), and then rising again (And being found by two women, like Jesus), the White Witch playing the role of the Devil to the Emperor Beyond the Sea (Aslan's father), and the fact that Aslan is a lion. Jesus is most often depicted in the Bible as the Lamb of God, but he's also depicted on occasion as the Lion of Judah. 

And then when you get into the other books, well... 1) Aslan sings Narnia into creation (Creating it with a Word, one could say), 2) Aslan appears as a Lamb to the children, 3) He tells the children that he does exist in their world, but that they'll have to come to know him by another name (And I doubt that name is Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, or Elton John), and 4) The "Anti-Aslan" in The Last Battle. Just a couple of examples. Somebody else who's read the books more recently could probably give a more detailed accounting.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 13, 2005)

Okay. I said in the non-spoiler thread that I'd mention here things I noticed the second viewing around. At the moment, only two things really stand out for me as being noticably different the second time around.

1) During the "chase" scene where they think the White Witch is chasing them, there are clues early on that it's actually Father Christmas. The close up scene of the reindeer shows them to be the White Witch's crystal ones, but when the shot pans out to include Peter and the rest, the reindeer can be seen to be brown. I didn't notice it at first, but the whole scene is spliced together shots of two different locations at once. So I thought that was pretty cool.

2) The second thing I really noticed was because of a debate over at the Hero game forums. Someone had complained about how the children were nice throuogh the film to all the animals, but were hunting the stag at the end. Only problem was none of us could remember for sure if the siblings were armed when chasing the stag. On a second viewing, I noticed that none of them even carried any weapon, much less had their weapon prepared to use on the stag.

If I think of anything else I noticed the second time around I'll be back.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> 2) The second thing I really noticed was because of a debate over at the Hero game forums. Someone had complained about how the children were nice throuogh the film to all the animals, but were hunting the stag at the end. Only problem was none of us could remember for sure if the siblings were armed when chasing the stag. On a second viewing, I noticed that none of them even carried any weapon, much less had their weapon prepared to use on the stag.




And, if you look outside the movie (specifically, at Lewis' _The Magician's Nephew_), we are clearly told that some animals in Narnia are just animals.  The talking ones are special, and are not supposed to go around behaving like their speechless cousins.  

Which makes sense - otherwise we'd have any carnivore in Narnia having to eat another sentient, which isnt' so nice.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 13, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> And, if you look outside the movie (specifically, at Lewis' _The Magician's Nephew_), we are clearly told that some animals in Narnia are just animals.  The talking ones are special, and are not supposed to go around behaving like their speechless cousins.
> 
> Which makes sense - otherwise we'd have any carnivore in Narnia having to eat another sentient, which isnt' so nice.





That was also covered over there as well. And the fact that the mice who freed Aslan weren't sentient, but were granted sentience later on.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 13, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I'm not a parent, but I personally don't think any child under age 8 ought to see this movie unless the child is very mature for his/her age. I was with a couple who brought their 7-year-old son, and he got restless by the end, although I'm not sure what he thought of the violence. He isn't usually allowed to see anything violent. I thought the battle scenes were quite visceral, even though there is no blood. And seeing another child risk injury might disturb some children I suppose.




My kids, aged 6 and 7, loved the movie.



> _As to the religious allegory argument, I've never really bought that one. I read the book for the first time a couple of weeks ago, being fully aware of all the discussion, and really didn't find the religious aspect at all obvious. But every reader gets out of a book what he/she puts into it; naturally our own beliefs color what we perceive.  _





You don't have to "buy it". The religious message in the books is intentional - C.S. lewis intended for Aslan to be a Jesus figure, and the sacrifice on the Stone Table to parallel the sacrifice on the cross and so on. As has been said before, the fact that humans are referred to as "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve", and that the White Witch's rule over Narnia is illegitimate because she is descended from Lillth and a giant (Narnia needs humans to rule over it, just as humans are given dominion over all living things in Genesis). The book is so dripping with religious symbolism that it is hard to go more than a page or two without something cropping up.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 13, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> 2) The second thing I really noticed was because of a debate over at the Hero game forums. Someone had complained about how the children were nice throuogh the film to all the animals, but were hunting the stag at the end. Only problem was none of us could remember for sure if the siblings were armed when chasing the stag. On a second viewing, I noticed that none of them even carried any weapon, much less had their weapon prepared to use on the stag.
> 
> If I think of anything else I noticed the second time around I'll be back.




In the book Tumnus informs them that the White Stag will grant you wishes if you catch it and they decide to do so. Hence the lack of weapons.  This is not explained in the movie at all.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 13, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> In the book Tumnus informs them that the White Stag will grant you wishes if you catch it and they decide to do so. Hence the lack of weapons.  This is not explained in the movie at all.





True. But again we were debating what happened in the film. A couple people thought they remembered Susan having her bow with an arrow ready in that scene.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 13, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If anyone finds some good Narnia wallpapers at 1280x1024, especially any showing Peter in his armor, let me know. Finding stuff like that has become an exercise in frustration and spyware.




Sure. Are these close to what you're looking for? I could only find 1024 x 768 screen resolution.

http://www.freewallpapers.to/movies/narnia1b.htm
http://www.cheathappens.com/showwp.asp?wp=1633&n=3


----------



## Damon Griffin (Dec 14, 2005)

*The harrowing of Hell (w/Narnia spoilers)*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> INow I've been a Christian my whole life, but I've never heard once about Christ going to Hell after being crucified.  May I ask which translation of the New Testament that's from?




This would be a reference to the "harrowing of Hell", the Catholic notion that in between His death and resurrection, Christ descended to rescue souls held captive in Hell since the beginning of the world -- a proposed answer to the question "If believing in Christ is the only path to salvation, what about everyone who died before He came?"

There is no good consensus, AFAIK, regarding the origin of the notion of the Harrowing.  The _word_ harrowing was apparently first used on that context around 1000 AD, but the story can be traced back to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate or Gospel of Nicodemus, written between the 2nd and 4th Centuries AD.

We now return you to our discussion of Narnia... 

I loved this movie.  Very little was changed or left out, in comparison to, say, The Lord of the Rings films (but of course LWW is a much shorter book than any of Tolkein's trilogy.)  I was a bit miffed at the change of Fenris Ulf's name, for no reason I could see; and I was disappointed that Aslan's rescue of the petrified creatures at Jadis's castle was (visually) limited to Tumnus.  Not only is Rumblebuffin not properly introduced (as has been previously noted here), but we miss out on the other lion -- the one Edmund drew spectacles and a moustache on.  That lion is _seen_ later on, but never heard; in the book Aslan makes an offhand reference to "us lions" and the rescued lion is running around exclaiming "_Did you hear that?  He said *us* lions!  Us lions!  Aslan and me!_"  and the poor fellow is no help at all getting the creatures organized to move out.  Fortunately there's a sheepdog.

I very much approved of the use of the dryad to send a message from Susan and Lucy at the Stone Table to Peter and the Narnian army.  It clarified the earlier statement that "_even some of the trees are on [the White Witch's] side_."

Like some others here, I missed the Christmas party with the animals; and I had mixed feelings about the characterization of the fox, and of the revisionist meeting between Edmund and Tumnus in captivity.  I thought both worked very well, but I always have reservations about any revision of text that might have been unnecessary, and I'm still making up my mind about whether these revisions were.

Inward and upward!


----------



## Damon Griffin (Dec 14, 2005)

*Silly Narnia merchandising*



			
				Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Wonder if there will be the usual board game adaptations, Clue, Risk might be cool, Narnian Monopoly? (groan)




I kid you not, I have already seen an ad for Narnia Stratego.  Bleah!


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 14, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Sure. Are these close to what you're looking for? I could only find 1024 x 768 screen resolution.
> 
> http://www.freewallpapers.to/movies/narnia1b.htm
> http://www.cheathappens.com/showwp.asp?wp=1633&n=3




Thank you! Those will do very well


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 14, 2005)

Damon Griffin said:
			
		

> I was a bit miffed at the change of Fenris Ulf's name, for no reason I could see




Eh? What'd they call him in the movie?


----------



## D.Shaffer (Dec 14, 2005)

Damon Griffin said:
			
		

> we miss out on the other lion -- the one Edmund drew spectacles and a moustache on.  That lion is _seen_ later on, but never heard;!



Actually, I'm pretty sure you DO see Edmund 'draw' on it in the witches 'statue garden' but it's a bit unclear what exactly he's doing with it.  You definitely see him doing something to the face of a big cat, in any case.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

I saw the movie last night, pretty good, I rate it a 7.

I would have liked Aslan to be more fierce.  And the witch to be more cowardly.

I liked the books better.


----------



## Raloc (Dec 15, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> C.) I feel the Christian allegory of the movie has been minimized.



Might actually go see it.  I dislike most books that exist solely as allegory (which is why I rather disliked the book...).



> Honestly, Gandalf's resurrection is more obvious biblical allegory (although Tolkien swears it isn't, what do authors know?) than Narnia is.



 I'm much more inclined to agree with Tolkien on this one.


----------



## Damon Griffin (Dec 15, 2005)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm pretty sure you DO see Edmund 'draw' on it in the witches 'statue garden' but it's a bit unclear what exactly he's doing with it.  You definitely see him doing something to the face of a big cat, in any case.




I did see him draw on the cat.

What I missed was Aslan "thawing" that lion (among all the others there) and that lion's subsequent prancing about gleefully because he felt Aslan was singling him out for inclusion ("us lions".)


----------



## Damon Griffin (Dec 15, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Eh? What'd they call him in the movie?




Maugrim..and I withdraw my objection:  I just discovered that was his original name in the British editions of the books.  It was apparently changed to Fenris Ulf in the early American editions.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maugrim


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 15, 2005)

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/675/675387p1.html

Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go.  I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 15, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go.  I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...




According to Entertainment Weekly, Walden Media paid $70 mil for books rights to all seven.  I really think they'll make all seven.  The response we've at the theater really took the owner by surprise, and I've never seen so many church and school groups renting the theater out before.

That church-going "Passion" crowd is hard to beat.  Here in rural MO, "Passion" is in a class by itself as highest grossing film of all time in our local box office.  At one time we had multiple copies of the film to play in different theaters (a rarity here.) If LWW is getting that church support, it will make money.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 15, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> According to Entertainment Weekly, Walden Media paid $70 mil for books rights to all seven.  I really think they'll make all seven.  The response we've at the theater really took the owner by surprise, and I've never seen so many church and school groups renting the theater out before.
> 
> That church-going "Passion" crowd is hard to beat.  Here in rural MO, "Passion" is in a class by itself as highest grossing film of all time in our local box office.  At one time we had multiple copies of the film to play in different theaters (a rarity here.) If LWW is getting that church support, it will make money.



 This one cost ~ $180 to makle in all and Walden has the rights but they'll still need Disney's (or someone else's) backing to get the films made.  Either way, looks good to me if someone is going to continue the saga.  If church groups get involved (in a good and supportive way) more power to 'em but I don't usually pay attention to that kind of thing.  This movie can appeal to anyone looking to get entertained.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 18, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go.  I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...




I sure hope so. Those four kids are a treasure, and it will be great to see them return to Narnia. (I just read PRINCE CASPIAN for the first time yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind!)

I admit I had the "vote with my wallet" thing on my mind, too. I made sure I saw it opening weekend, going so far as leaving my four-day-old son home with my wife (with her permission, of course!) to see a late showing with my brother. I'm very glad it's doing well, and I thought it was a fine successor to having the LotR movies to look forward to at Christmastime.

Not sure if I would take my 4-year old daughter to see it. The battle sequence is a little too intense, but would be fine for a five or six-year-old, methinks. I'm sure I'm being a little too overprotective, though...


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 21, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> B.) It's very true to the original, I could follow the text in my head and match it to the screen.  Conversely, there are numerous additions, expansions, and some omissions to the text.  For the purists among us, rejoice.  You will have plenty of material to gripe and kvetch about for weeks on these and other boards.  There will be plenty of opportunity for you to show how smart you are in your maticulous knowledge of C.S. Lewis.  Don't pretend you don't like it.
> 
> Most changes seem to be of the cinemagraphic kind, the make the movie flow well or increase drama.  Lewis' text is very realistic, with events happening over time.  These gaps are usually eliminated for the movie. Other events are rearranged or added to give more drama and emotional tension. The beaver's house is fled while the wolves attack, there is an icy river action scene, etc.  These scenes seem fine for what they are.
> 
> There are many little omissions.  There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas.  Which brings me to my next point.



the beavers and childern run in the the celbration after they have been turned into stone.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 21, 2005)

TanisFrey said:
			
		

> the beavers and childern run in the the celebration after they have been turned into stone.




Yes, they are there.  But that happens well before the coming of Christmas


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 21, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Yes, they are there.  But that happens well before the coming of Christmas




Well, it happens before the children see Father Christmas.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 21, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Well, it happens before the children see Father Christmas.




*Sigh*, regardless, the scene from the book is not there. That scene is the Christmas merry makers being confronted by the witch who is chasing the children. Nor is there any indication that Christmas was involved beforehand, nor indication that the white witch was out and about in the neighborhood when she's in her castle in the next scene.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 21, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> *Sigh*, regardless, the scene from the book is not there. That scene is the Christmas merry makers being confronted by the witch who is chasing the children. Nor is there any indication that Christmas was involved beforehand, nor indication that the white witch was out and about in the neighborhood when she's in her castle in the next scene.




Well, no indication other than the fact that the animals have all been turned to stone.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 21, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, no indication other than the fact that the animals have all been turned to stone.




Yes, but _when_ did that happen? No indication that the queen has been made aware of the coming of Christmas yet in the following scenes.  So did it _just_ happen (no reason to believe so, could have been days ago) and is their being stone related to Christmas? No indication which means we should not presume what it means.  They are simply a family of animals the witch has petrified for no apparent reason than being really, really mean (which she is, mind you.)


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 21, 2005)

Hmmmm...now that I think about it, I believe the Fox mentions something about them trying to help Tumnus, and that he couldn't reach them in time to warn them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 21, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Yes, but _when_ did that happen? No indication that the queen has been made aware of the coming of Christmas yet in the following scenes.  So did it _just_ happen (no reason to believe so, could have been days ago) and is their being stone related to Christmas? No indication which means we should not presume what it means.  They are simply a family of animals the witch has petrified for no apparent reason than being really, really mean (which she is, mind you.)




I believe Mr. Beaver mentions something about having spoken with Badger quite recently.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 21, 2005)

I'm hoping the DVD will have an extended scene in the Professor's office and the Christmas scene.


----------



## TanisFrey (Dec 21, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> *Sigh*, regardless, the scene from the book is not there. That scene is the Christmas merry makers being confronted by the witch who is chasing the children. Nor is there any indication that Christmas was involved beforehand, nor indication that the white witch was out and about in the neighborhood when she's in her castle in the next scene.



However if you look carefully at the criters that are stone in that scene are sitting around a table looking like they got it in the middle of a celbration of some sort.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 22, 2005)

well, I never did read the book, but I did see the movie yesterday... it's simply great... how could any D&D fan not like this movie, with it's minotaurs, giants, griffins, centaurs, etc... and Qui Gon Jin as Aslan...


----------



## Damon Griffin (Dec 22, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> and Qui Gon Jin as Aslan...




OTOH, the thought of Ras al Ghul as Aslan was vaguely disturbing.  But the incredible makeup job on Liam Neeson quickly made me forget.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 22, 2005)

It kind of amused me that he went from playing Dr. Kinsey to playing a Christ-figure.


----------



## Digital M@ (Dec 23, 2005)

Much much better than the book.  The movie adds a ton of detail and action and suspense, all of which are missing in the book.  The book might have been a great children's book in its day, but children's literature has grown in leaps and bounds.  THere were a few cheesy scenes that did not fit into the mood of the story, but over all this is an excelllent movie.  I was impressed with the death of Aslan, I figured that Disney would minimize the scene, but it is brutal without being graphic and IMO, very well done.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 23, 2005)

I went to see it again last night, and was so impressed I changed my avatar 

I will also be looking into the legality in my state of carrying a stun gun. There was a guy that sat behind me and over about three seat that talked the entire time the movie was running, providing his own DVD commentary to his (I guess) wife and daughter. I looked at them pointedly as they left. He did not appear in any way to not have full control of his faculties, but you never can tell.

Anytime anything remotely funny happened, he was right in there as if it were the absolute funniest thing he'd ever seen in his entire life, A really loud braying laugh that went on and on and on. We're not talking 'Oh he did this once or twice and Wayne is just generalizing it to make a point or exaggerating for effect.' I literally mean _every single _ funny thing. The word game. "Gatroinestinal." _"AHAHAHAHA!" _ "Is it Latin?" _"AHAHAHAHAHA!" _ The ball through the window._ "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now you're in for it!"_ "It's the McReady!" _"'The McReady'?! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!" _ 

Despite two glares and two pointed 'Shut Up's from me, he was not persuaded to stop this. By the end of the movie, the image of him twitching on the floor and losing control of his bodily functions as sparks went off between his teeth was a very compelling one. I'm sure I could make a case to the cops that he went nuts and attacked me. I don't see anyone sitting around us telling them different.

Failing the sun gun, I'll start carrying a small plant sprayer. If I ever run into someone like that again, I'll squirt them and say 'No! No! Bad!'.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2005)

If I had seen this thread one page ago it would have been closed for the persistant religious talk - going far beyond the essential allegorical content of the film.

Since that has died down, it can be left open... but no more religious digressions.

Regards,


----------

