patricks last blog post..The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Also, you probably shouldn’t take too personally any remarks I made about those who do find themselves perhaps over-invested in the question of the film’s representation of either its source or Lewis’ theology. After all, if the shoe doesn’t fit, it doesn’t fit. There are others for whom it probably does.

The Danes last blog post..20080505

Dane: FWIW, I think my modus operandi on adaptations generally falls within a reasonably consistent range, whether I’m deeply devoted to the source material or not. I generally try to judge the film for what it is, with commentary on the fidelity or deviations from the source material as a supplementary exercise.

In another forum, I recently enumerated the questions I may consider in evaluating an adaptation:

* Is the movie any good as a movie, without reference to the source material?
* Is the movie any good as an adaptation? Does it honor the source material?
* Is the source material any good? Is it worth honoring?
* Where the movie deviates from the book, do the deviations honor the source material, subvert it, or neither?
* Is the choice to honor, subvert or otherwise depart from the source material a good choice or a bad choice?
* When and where the movie deviates from the book, whether honoring or subverting, does it make the movie better, worse, or just different than not deviating would have done?

My thinking here is, for evaluative criticism, the first question overshadows all the rest, and a critic evaluating and rating a film ought to lay emphasis on that question.

Sisterlisas last blog post..The Daily Newsroom: Interviews with EXPELLED Expellers Round 2

@Carissa – I wasn’t saying that most Christians were perturbed by the Jackson films, but only the Middle-Earth geeks. When Fellowship came out, I heard several complaints about the exclusion of Tom Bombadil. When Two Towers came out, I heard from certain nerdy quarters ill-feeling regarding the fact that Shelob would be put off until the third movie. When Return came out, even I (being a Tolkein nerd-lite) was saddened that there would be no scouring of the Shire (a.k.a. The Best Thing Tolkein ever Wrote). So yeah, not a Christian-nerd thing but a Tolkein-nerd thing.

@Jeffrey and SDG – Be assured, there was no sneering going on. Just an attempt to look at the reason that such unhappiness with Disney’s Prince Caspian could be entirely expected.

There are other possible explanations for why one would care so deeply that a movie based on C.S. Lewis’s work should represent so accurately his theology, but by far the most common I think is that such a one is a nerd for Christian themes. I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that kind of fanaticism, but anytime one has such a personal investment in an aspect of a work, he or she risks losing perspective where their investment is concerned.

Rather than take the movie as a movie and evaluate it as simply that, the Lewis nerds and the Christian theme-nerds are bound by their need for the movie to be as exact a reproduction as possible (or perhaps even more exact than possible). I’m not saying that they are wrong to do so. But I think life would be kinder to them if they were able to simply view the films for what they must be rather than what they imagine them to be (i.e. faithful renditions of their beloved sources).

In the end, if it were that these two Chronicles films were created in a world in which there had been no C.S. Lewis, if they were simply their own thing, I imagine Christians would be far more receptive to the themes the films present. And might even be enamoured with them. After all, we’ve seen similar praise heaped upon the Potter franchise – which is not half as Christian as The Chronicles.

The Danes last blog post..20080505

Do I get credit for being the “annoying purist,” too? :) I am a terribly inconsistent one, though . . . really just about LOTR.

Anyway, I wasn’t confused by your words, but rather puzzled by the differences in my perceptions and yours (and many other Christian critics’) in regard to the presence of faith themes in the movie. Ken’s comment helped me put a label on what I had seen in the movie–I probably respond especially well to labels like “modernism” and “postmodernism” because I’m an academic and tend to think in terms of periods and movements . . . probably also because I’ve just spent several weeks discussing modernism and postmodernism with my literary theory students! Anyway, rest assured that my puzzlement had nothing to do with your writing.

Thanks for the insightful commentary. I, too, was struck by comments from fellow Christian critics. Most, I believe, liked the movie but others really had unrealistic expectations. If you have time, check my own comments at http://anamchara.blogs.com or the newspaper article at
http://observer.rockforddiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6EKzh6LBTyQ%3d&tabid=1235
Thanks for this intriguing thread and let’s hope the movie continues to do well.

Msgr. Eric R. Barrs last blog post..PRINCE CASPIAN: DOES THE FILM DO JUSTICE TO THE BOOK?

Sorry for the confusion, which I think is all mine. You’re right, in scrolling back and forth between the post and the combox I lost track of who wrote what, and conflated responses to your post and the Dane’s comments.

So, if I’ve got it straight now, to you go my thanks for your kind comments, and my slight confusion about why most review puzzled you until you ran across Ken’s post.

And to the Dane go my and Jeff’s disavowals of the motives proposed for Christian critics’ resistance to the Narnia films.

Like Jeffrey, I can only disavow the motive you ascribe to critics who are critical of the Narnia films. Perhaps there are snarky critics who find fault as a form of identity politics, who “need” the movies to fail. Such a mindset is, I firmly insist, the furthest thing from my own.

Nothing would please me more than to praise these films to the skies — and I’ve gone to significant lengths to make very clear that my objections are NOT those of an “annoying purist” (as you describe yourself, not me!) unwilling to countenance revision. I’m quite open to revision where appropriate and helpful; in fact, some of my most positive comments were precisely where the filmmakers diverged from the book.

I’m glad you found Ken Brown’s explanation illuminating… but a little puzzled that you found the sentence you quoted any clearer than my observation that “Worse, Trumpkin — in Lewis an archetypal lovable skeptic (compare to MacPhee in That Hideous Strength) whose heart knows better than his head — no longer shows any sign of disbelieving the old stories. This Trumpkin appears to believe that Aslan and the Pevensies were real in their day, but abandoned Narnia long ago, leaving the Narnians to fend for themselves.” Perhaps my review is simply too long, the analysis lost in too much verbiage? ;-)

At any rate, since I gave the film a B-plus / three stars, I can’t very well be accused of “hating” it.

Or maybe we just care about C.S. Lewis and his work, and we don’t want his name at the top of a movie that misrepresents his theology.

But you can sneer and put us down if you want.

What a gross, unfair generalization. I have yet to meet a Christian film critic that fits that description.

Why is it, do you suppose, that we celebrate when these films do things well?

When The Lord of the Rings was filmed, Middle-Earth geeks were horrified that Peter Jackson discluded Tom Bombadil (a.k.a. The Most Important Thing Tolkein Did). When Daredevil hit screens, the fact that Wilson Fisk was black was a more egregious blow to the comic faithful than perhaps Ben Affleck’s inclusion in the work. When Keira Knightley essayed her own interpretation of Miss Elizabeth Bennet, Austin fans winced because Ol’ Chiseljaw simply was not the Lizzie they knew and loved.

And when C.S. Lewis books get translated to film (a less cinematic fantasy series is hard to find), the Narnia nerds howl. As will the Christian nerds—those who are only so-so fans of the writing but are huge fans of Christian themes.

No matter how much a film gets right in its interpretation of its source, the geeks will become overwhelmed by what didn’t match up to their own vision of the source. A big part of this is their relationship with the source. While they can bear others loving the material truly, madly, and deeply, they cannot abide those who would love something the easy way. Loving LOTR the movie does not count as loving LOTR. One must love and be devoted to the books. A lover of the movie alone is a false lover because such a lover does not know and has not experienced the real thing.

Christian critics are almost necessarily geeks for their cause. So they need the Chronicles to fail, to be failures. They might talk about how they want there to be awesome Christian movies in theaters, but when films with vaguely overt Christian themes are made from intentionally Christian material, they cannot bear it and must find the flaws.

Of course, many of the same critics will bend over backwards, desperate to find redemptive themes in media like Evan Almighty and Harry Potter. Go figure.

Poor nerds. Life will always be rough on them because they wouldn’t have it any other way. Devotion bought without persecution is hardly devotion at all.

The Danes last blog post..20080505