May 20, 2008
Caspian is far from royal
My thoughts on the new Prince Caspian cinematic adaptation are basically that I didn't like it much. My reasons for this can't be adequately explained without some pretty big spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film, do that before proceeding.
Caspian should have killed Miraz. Actually, no, that's not it. Peter should have killed him. It was a duel to the death, and he, not Miraz, broke the rules by giving his sword to Caspian. You don't challenge someone to a duel to the death unless you plan in either killing your opponent or being killed by him. Miraz's life was his to take: the rules of the challenge were agreed upon, and the loser was to pay with his life.
But if Peter was attempting to solidify Caspian's place as rightful King in Narnia, I can forgive handing the sword over to accomplish that. But having been given the sword, Caspian should have executed him on the spot. Why? Because failing to do so establishes a precedent that one may commit fratricide and regicide with impunity. Miraz's life was arguably Peter's to take, but it was Caspian's to take: justice is granted by the sovereign, and rightful King of Narnia, justice comes from Caspian's hand. Even if--hypothetically speaking--Caspian had turned Miraz over to a judge who convicted him, the judge is dispensing the King's justice, and the fiction would be that the executioner wields the King's sword. By refusing to kill his uncle, Caspian establishes that there is no justice in Narnia, and that her laws may be broken without fear of reprisal.
What of mercy? When mercy ignores sin, it is not just. How, then, are we forgiven? God's mercy is just because our sins are not simply ignored, they are paid for. God is just to forgive us our sins because the penalty those sins have incurred has been satisfied by the sacrifice of Jesus. When Miraz killed Caspian IX, he incurred a debt which could only be satisfied by his execution. No one except Caspian X, as the sovereign in Narnia, could pay that debt, and the only way for Caspian to satisfy that debt would be for he to accept death himself. Clearly this is not a viable option.
As a bit of a digression, this is why I strongly believe in the death penalty. Though I have grave reservations about the process by which execution occurs in this country, not executing those criminals that deserve it is a grave injustice that cuts to the core of any system of law by refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of capital crimes. It essentially says that the law is without teeth, and will not punish sins as they deserve. Caspian refusing to execute Miraz reflects a growing sentiment in our culture--a sentiment already firmly established in Europe--that nothing people do is deserving of death. This sentiment is utterly incompatible with any faithful interpretation of Christianity. Lewis clearly understood that certain things can only be paid for by blood: it was part of the Deep Magic from before the dawn of time, after all, and imposing 21st-century squeamishness on his stories does him a disservice.
But back to the film, the filmmakers seem to have significantly departed from some of the most important aspects of Lewis's books. Even though I'm not as fanatical about the Narnia books as many are, I do have a tender place in my heart for them, and I was sorely disappointed at the degree to which Aslan was subject to deemphasis. Themes of faith and sight are pretty much absent, as are the related themes of doubt and belief. And though Eddie Izzard is a talented comic and voice actor, concepts of chivalry seem to be entirely lost upon him, which is too bad, considering he voices Reepicheep. Despite the fact that Aslan instructed Susan that her arrows were for defense only, here Susan is a wannabe valkyrie. Which may be why Caspian goes for her (?!?), but doesn't fit at all with her characterization in the books.
I do understand that Prince Caspian doesn't lend itself nearly as well to adaptation as earlier or later books, as much of the novel is wandering around in the woods listening to stories. But by changing the plot in the way they did, Aslan appearing at the end becomes, if you'll pardon the pun, a deus ex machina, as he seems entirely accidental to the characters and story.
Oh, and if the producers can afford to retain Weta Digital to do their VFX, there's no excuse for the river god looking as hokey as he did. Particularly as the waves are coming down the river, before the humanoid form coalesces, it looks really fake. I expected better, and there's no reason a movie with this kind of budget should have any thing less.
I give it a C-. It was reasonably entertaining at times, and though I usually don't object to movies simply if they "aren't as good as the book" (the best novels don't usually make good films anyways, though some pretty terrible books have made some amazingly good films) or alter plot points for cinematic reasons (yes, Caspian was blond in the book; no, I don't care), I do take issue when filmmakers change fundamental themes, or sacrifice good storytelling for action sequences. On balance, it's just not that good of a movie.
I think I would agree that I was disappointed in the movie a bit too for similar reasons. I can't really fault the movie for Peter not killing Miraz at the duel, though, because that was in the book, wasn't it? They did have to do some with the plot to make the movie move along, and like you, I'm okay with that. I guess I wasn't too severely disappointed that this wasn't the Best Movie Ever in part because Prince Caspian is probably my least favorite of the Narnia books to start with. Not that it's bad--it's just the least very good of a very good set of books, IMO.
Lewis seems to try to teach a different lesson about God in each book, and I guess this particular one seems fuzzy to me. Faith is good? Okay... Trust God and all your battles will be spontaneously resolved? Probably not what he was going for. I can't tell if Lucy was supposed to follow Aslan against Peter's leadership (and neither is she). That might have been important. I feel like the story should have something powerful to say about rightful leadership, but like you, I'm not sure the message is clear.
Posted by: Becca at May 20, 2008 12:01 PMNo, they changed the duel significantly. In the book, Peter and Miraz are dueling, and then all of a sudden Miraz falls forwards and doesn't rise, apparently assassinated by a lieutenant for a previous slight. The lieutenant shouts treachery, and in the resulting confusion, kills Miraz with a spear.
The book had Aslan appearing several times, until not only Lucy, but the rest of the children, plus the doubting Trumpkin, all see Aslan before the group makes contact with the Narnian army. Additionally, Lucy and Susan go with Aslan to marshal other forces while the boys meet Miraz in the duel. In terms of plot, I'm okay with the children sticking together, but as this removes Aslan as a character, I think a different choice would have been better.
Posted by: ryan at May 20, 2008 1:07 PMI agree with everything except the river god part. I didn't think that looked fake... I mean, it is a fantasy after all, and it didn't look any more fake than the centaurs or fauns or whatever. Actually I thought it was pretty cool!
Posted by: David at May 21, 2008 12:22 PMI've found the watering down of Aslan's lines to be the most frustrating thing about both films. I like a lot of things about both of them - Aslan looks and sounds magnificent, for instance - but the lines given to the character in the movie remove the sense of omnipotence in the books. The notion that goodness in its essence produces a terrified awe is downplayed, which is a shame since I'm pretty sure Lewis said elsewhere, "Many people think looking pure goodness in the face would be a lot of fun. They need to think again." Aslan isn't exactly a tame lion in the movies, but he's headed toward domestication in a way impossible in the books. Aslan's love for the children is much more powerful in the context of knowing his full power.
I did enjoy Edmund's growth in wisdom in this movie, though, and the actor often used quiet to good effect, which I think is a difficult skill. And the visual world of the Telmarine castle and the ruins of Car Paravel were compelling, at least for me.
Posted by: Hannah at May 24, 2008 10:21 PMNot sure I agree with the bulk of your analysis. The first problem with adapting Prince Caspian to film is that the book is rather spare in ways that make it difficult to adapt. But you don't have a problem with that. Your opinion on the death penalty is crisp, but fair; nevertheless, the film reflected the book and something Lewis might agree with - and one thinks of David and Saul. Unmerited grace is, after all, a mark of Christlike kingship. Ryan, I take your point about an accounting for sin by means of penalty - but that doesn't capture the whole of God's miraculous dealings with sin.
And I'm not certain what people mean by Aslan's absence; his very absence was the whole point. The fundamental plot of the movie, in my view, was folded around how the inability to see Aslan and his inaccessibility to their petulant demands on the Narnians' terms was foundation for Narnia's millennium of tragedy. And a nice interpretation to the film-makers' credit is Peter's pride, which blinds him to all wills but his own. Peter (no accident, the name) is EveryChristian, tempted by Aslan's absence.
That said, Edmund was as irritatingly smug as in the books; Caspian's emo overtones were grating, at times; Susan was a somewhat flat character; and as for that bit about Susan and Caspian randomly injected at the end - what the hell? Crappy choice for ending music as well. It's as if the film-makers decided that fine children's literature was work enough, why go to the effort of actually finding classy music (i.e. not Disneyfied)? B
Posted by: Richard at June 2, 2008 8:24 AMTrue, I set forth only part of God's dealings with sin there, but I think that any responsible explanation of God's mercy must emphasize that it isn't simply that God is ignoring sin and canceling its penalties, but that he is taking it very seriously and shifting the penalty to Christ. This is what happened in Narnia too. The White Witch was correct in her accusations--all traitors did belong to her--and it was only by paying the necessary price that Edmund, like we, could be redeemed.
Furthermore, it wasn't Aslan dealing with sin there. It was an earthly sovereign. Earthly kings can no more set aside the penalty for rebellion than God can, and the consequences for doing so are the same: a diminution of sovereignty. This can't happen with God, but every time an earthly sovereign fails to administer just punishment, it becomes just a little bit smaller. Withhold justice long enough, and the whole thing falls apart. Some of this has to do with the quote on the right: government is, in one sense, a shared construct, deviance from which leads to social breakdown. But I think it's more than that: God judges sovereigns too, and when they fail to punish sin, He punishes them.
Aslan's absence was indeed a focal point of the novel, but I'm not just objecting to Aslan not having much screen time. He appears only once in Dawn Treader, after all, and his absence is indeed a key theme of Caspian. The problem is that the filmmakers have somehow made him less important to the story, and instead of a climax, you have (if you'll pardon the expression) a deus ex machina.
I did like the addition of Peter's pride. That fit well. I wasn't thrilled about the raid on the castle, but it seemed to work. Susan was indeed flat, but she was in the novels too, and if you'll remember, she's the one that ultimately never returned to Narnia.
And I object to your characterization of Regina Spektor at the end there. She's awesome.
Posted by: ryan at June 2, 2008 8:51 PM