This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Kingship in Prince Caspian

Please don't close the door behind you.

Kingship in Prince Caspian

Postby hamlet » June 6th, 2007, 12:40 am

hamlet
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun 2007

Postby texascat » June 6th, 2007, 3:56 am

"Never judge a book by its movie." J.W. Eagan
User avatar
texascat
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 116
Joined: May 2007

Postby hamlet » June 6th, 2007, 6:51 am

Thank you texascat! Now I can stop hiding under my sheets (the last forum I joined had me drawn and quartered before my third post for my ideas- maybe I should have named myself ‘martyr’ . . .) :wink:

Yes, I’m already back the promised expansion of my post (much longer than I expected, so crying and yawns are allowed.)

Earlier I said that the majesty of Christian Kingship comes from humility and true authority, (though more from the former than the latter, since authority in most cases only follows humility,) and thought I would illustrate with an example.
To me, it seemed that the Aslan in the BBC Narnia series (a puppet) was more effective than the new movie CGI lion. Reasons: there were severe restrictions on the puppet, which could not stalk, pounce, etc. But story only needs simple tools, and despite a limited budget, they strove to be faithful to the character of Aslan. Thus, what the lion did not have in agility was made up for in dignity (with such a big lion, if you can pull off dignity, you have something impressive). In short, they turned weaknesses into strengths, which is all that is expected of anyone.

The new CGI lion, however, was the peak of technology in a large budge. To my mind, it is a given that the inner workings of Christ is something that cannot be counterfeit, though it is our goal to “copy” them in ourselves. Yet the producers of the new Aslan apparently not only assumed they could counterfeit, but also better Lewis’ portrayal by making more ‘realistic and cinematic,’ changing size as well as the nuances in Aslan’s dialogue and overall performance. In essence, they changed Him.

The majesty of both Christ and Aslan is in humility. There is something so plain, open, and unpretentious in the character of righteousness that defies the petty. Humility lacks the walls of pretense because it goes beyond mere honesty by banishing those selfish things that would color truth: such as pride, greed, and narrow-mindedness. Once these things are got rid of, only then can true glory and greatness shine through. C.S. Lewis displayed his understanding of this when he named “Mere Christianity.”

To wind down on my explanation of preference for one lion over the other, I have always found it easier to forgive and overlook faults when they are presented in an attitude of humility, and not of pride (Prov. 15:1). To recognized and be apologetic about those things we cannot change in our nature, while constantly trying to improve ourselves is the proper approach, though the world favors presenting what we flatter ourselves to believe are our better qualities, which leads to the overshadowing and eventual ignoring of faults.
The first example seems represented in the puppet Aslan, the second the CGI lion. I suppose I could say that the spirit of the first felt correct, and the other did not (though I would not be so hard were they not portraying a manifestation of Christ.)

As you can see by now, I’ve read and thought a lot (maybe too much), with few opportunities to express my understandings. But now that I’ve joined you guys, I have a captive (or none existent) audience, whose only means of communication is by writing! I’m in heaven.

hamlet
(or maybe I should have called myself 'the lecturer' . . .) :rolleyes:
hamlet
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun 2007

Postby Guest » June 6th, 2007, 2:32 pm

Guest
 

Postby Stanley Anderson » June 6th, 2007, 2:53 pm

…on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a fair green country under a swift sunrise.
User avatar
Stanley Anderson
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Southern California

Postby hamlet » June 7th, 2007, 1:33 am

Hmm . . . after skimming suggested topic, I think we are going to be good friends, Stanley. As you have notice, I also have a tendency to pursue a subject to death, and you mentioned in at least one post the idea of ‘Grace,’ which has been a major point of interest and study for me over the past few years. I look forward to discussions with you.

As for you question, Dan, all my explanations are heavy on analyst and detail because I detest the ‘I said it therefore it is so’ approach. That would say I like or dislike something, not that it is wrong. I was merely trying to distill one small part of a multidimensional idea to give as complete a picture as possible, and I’m sorry if the main point was not clear.

No, I do not have a problem with CGI itself; I did in fact thoroughly enjoy Gollum from LotR. What I meant was something much more complex, but in summery, I partly felt that Aslan failed to present the ‘presence’ of a normal charismatic leader, let alone the divine incarnate.

---A: This was mainly the fault of the CGI artists, as illustrated by the argument between (I believe it was the same crew- WETA) and the Gollum actor. They believed they could bring the spirit of a character to life by merely giving it a body. In this case their pride stopped them from bringing in an actor’s understanding, which is both trained and instinctive. They may say Aslan is not a ‘tame lion,’ but reducing him to the level of a cool looking cartoon (a body and a voice, instead of a performance,) made him tame.

---B: There are also some elements that should not have been shown- such as Aslan’s death, which is to ‘great and terrible to imagine.’ But the director/artists tried to portray something no one can fully grasp, something much more than the death of an impressive CGI lion. The ‘hide-don’t-show,’ method, allowing the audience to feel the moment for themselves, would have been more effective, and all the focus surrounding the moment he killed the White Witch seemed just excessive.

---C: As to the ‘performance and dialogue,’ Aslan in the books always seemed to ‘know’ things, and to be something more than someone reacting to situations. But in the movie he displayed surprise (and almost dismay) when receiving news about Edmund, smugness while explaining his resurrection, and many other examples unworthy of the character. His information seemed entirely grounding in human (sic) sources and perceptions, and not at all like the way Christ is in the New Testament.

---D: The actor Liam Neeson, I grant, has a good voice and talent. But he lacked understanding of the character of Aslan (and most of the time, appropriate dialogue), and so his vocal portrayal came out/across like most of his other roles- a human, somewhat flawed teacher of the hero, who takes up some semi-impressive space, but overall, does not distract from the main protagonist(s).

I could go on for pages, bringing more examples and explaining nuances, but for as long as I’ve rambled on, hope these are sufficient. If not, please clarify what exactly you feel I’m not explaining, and I’ll try to do a better job.

hamlet :read:
hamlet
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun 2007

Postby Guest » June 7th, 2007, 1:42 pm

I see what your saying, although I appreciated seeing the face of Aslan at the moment of death. It made the death real to me. I also have no problem with Aslan being surprised or dismayed, I think that is completely Christ-like. Although perhaps we have a different incarnation in Narnia than the real incarnation. After all, Christ laid aside some of his divine aspects to become fully human, but there's no indication that Aslan laid aside his "divine" aspects to become fully, um, feline.

I think the artists who created the look, personality and voice of Aslan were never going to be able to please everyone. Especially fans of the book who had taken Narnia and Aslan to heart; people like me who credit Narnia for a significant part of their spiritual growth. I would have liked to have seen a greater sense of awe around Aslan; that feeling of something being terrible and wonderful at the same time. However, I don't know how that would be best brought across on screen.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby A#minor » June 8th, 2007, 4:52 pm

I think the CGI artists did a good job with the Aslan in LWW. But I can also appreciate your comments, hamlet, and I can see how you might think that.

As for the comments on Christian kingship, I completely agree. Now I'm scared that PC will be ruined, and the ideas of honor, loyalty, integrity, chivalry, etc.. that we loved in the books will be completely absent from the movies.
I think we all learned our lesson with LWW not to expect Lewis' most deep meanings and important lessons to be transferred to the screen. I'm already disappointed, so bring it on! :brood: Stupid movie industry.
"My brain and this world don't fit each other, and there's an end of it!" - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
A#minor
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 7323
Joined: May 2005
Location: Georgia, USA

Postby Guest » June 8th, 2007, 4:55 pm

Guest
 

Postby jo » June 10th, 2007, 1:04 pm

"I saw it begin,” said the Lord Digory. “I did not think I would live to see it die"

User avatar
jo
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 5167
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: somewhere with lots of pink

Postby David Jack » June 17th, 2007, 2:26 pm

"This is and has been the Father’s work from the beginning-to bring us into the home of His heart.” George MacDonald.
User avatar
David Jack
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Postby A#minor » June 18th, 2007, 3:07 am

"My brain and this world don't fit each other, and there's an end of it!" - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
A#minor
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 7323
Joined: May 2005
Location: Georgia, USA

Postby texascat » June 18th, 2007, 3:41 am

"Never judge a book by its movie." J.W. Eagan
User avatar
texascat
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 116
Joined: May 2007

Postby Guest » June 18th, 2007, 4:12 pm

Spite is usually a reaction to something and not created ex nihilo. I actually loved the reasoning behind Edmund's spite. Edmund's father is gone and in mortal danger. Peter's attempts to replace his father (in Edmund's eyes at least) are a reminder to Edmund that his father might not return. I don't think it water's down Edmund's betrayal any more than the reasons behind sinful behavior water down any sin. And the fact that there are most often reasons behind brutish behavior is probably a good lesson to learn.

I do agree, however, that the repentence of Edmund was glossed over.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby carol » June 20th, 2007, 10:39 pm

Image
carol
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3673
Joined: Apr 1999
Location: New Zealand

Next

Return to The Chronicles of Narnia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 20 guests