The Narnicles of Chronia: Prince Capsicum

The reviewer didn't read the books. Now don't you think that a good editor - this was on Roger Ebert's site after all - would have found someone that had read the books?

Great review. But I guess it would be too much to ask of you to stop politicking, and making cheap digs at anti-democratic, monarchy-loving European sons of Adam. You centaurista, you...

JE: As my t-shirt with the chimp in the beret says: "Viva la Evolucion!"

Great review, Jim. By the way, the reason that the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve have to play a part in saving (and leading) Narnia is because they were part of its original downfall (as will be revealed in an upcoming story). Their leadership comes out of writing a wrong they created, not some inherent supremacy over the animals and fantasy creatures of Narnia.

All of that is clearer in the book. But if you couldn't tell that from watching the movie, then your criticism is still perfectly valid. I can certainly see how ethnocentrism could be inferred from the story, though I don't think that was the intent.

Thanks again for some thought-provoking discussion!

In response to Ebert's opinion that the movie has characters that are too easily designated "good" or "bad", why should it always be necessary to show that "good" people have "bad" sides & vice versa? Most of the time we will never know a person beyond what their actions are. Sometimes, a LOT of times, all that matters is how we respond to those actions. Maybe it's because that, as people, we are not always good or always bad, and showing characters that have both sides gives us hope that the world might understand us a little more.

Jim: If you are wondering why the 'oppressive' euros have sometimes ruled Narnia then you need to read the first book of the Chronicles of Narnia, The Magician's Nephew. In this book you would discover that humans stumble upon Narnia whilst it was being created by Aslan and therefore share an unexpected destiny within it. I find it interesting that you place your biased political spin in the review without knowing/researching the depth of the author's intent... Why does an American get to review the movie instead of a talking/writing beaver or the studly Narnian-native centaur?

Yes, the morality is simplistic as it was written in WWII era for junior-aged children who hopefully in current day still see the world in black and white.

And in response to your last paragraph there is a beauty in living in the tension in the midst of freewill and destiny. It is not either/or but it is both/and. Freewill and destiny coexist and weave together to make the fabric of life... the Divine and humanity touching which I believe gives us all true meaning.

jim, i love your essays. your reviews. but i have learned how to read your movie reviews. through a lens. i greatly respect your keen insight into thematic elements and the craft itself in particular.

but you bring a lot of political and philosophical subjectivity to a film review. you didn't do this as much as i feared you would in this Prince Caspian review, but i've seen it before.

does your opinion of a film's political or religious perspective color your final assessment of the film? should it?

i don't mind seeing it in your essays, where you can pick apart these things all you want.

but in a review, with a star rating... do you allow such things to affect your rating? should it?

am i making sense?

C'mon, Jim. There's a monarchy because this is a fairy tale/fable. That means there are certain conventions to uphold. A choice has to be made between honoring the convention or turning it on its head (as in Shrek). Once the choice is made, the film should be judged on how well it honors that choice.

Liked the review, and the issue raised is legitimate. If you've read C.S. Lewis' other books, you'd see that Lewis doesn't have any qualms tackling thorny issues like Calvinism, predestination, grief, or likewise. So it's certainly his clear intention to push deus ex machina, hard.

He gets better about it in the later books, particularly, I think, in book 5 (Voyage of the Dawn Treader). But I lean more towards the fact that, this plot device being intentional, he was just simplifying the story line so that even a kid could understand choices. (More than one child has had the Chronicles of Narnia read to them at night while not noticing any of the Christian elements within.)

There's a part of this book in particular that I liked especially and hope is in the movie. Not to give it away, but it has to do with Aslan only being partially visible.

I may also be mistaken on this count, but to my best knowledge Aslan doesn't ever actually do anything with regards to the plot. (except show up, and on one occasion, die on a table.) He does a lot of enabling (gifts-giving and whatnot), but it's a stretch to say that he removes free will from the Pevensies entirely.

Disappointed: I'm torn on this issue. As a movie critic, I think films should be judged on how they work on their own. Sometimes if you've read the book (and I imagine a large percentage of the "Narnia" audience hasn't), your memory and imagination creates preconceptions and fills in information and emotions that aren't necessarily from the movie itself. On the other hand, if you want to talk about how "faithful" the film adaptation is to the book, you need to have read the book. But that's of minor interest: movies are an entirely different form, and they have to stand on their own. If a movie critic wants to include the book in a review, I recommend reading it after seeing the movie, so the book doesn't color one's critical perceptions of the movie.

Linda: Yeah, I know. I was (somewhat facetiously -- but not entirely) attempting to tie it back to my opening paragraph and look at it from the perspective of WW II (and post-war) Britain, and from the world in which the movies are being made and released. I'm showing my own anti-blueblood bias, I guess.

Rob: I'm thinking of Aslan's breath bringing the (selected) dead back to life in the first movie. And the big cheat of his resurrection -- explained/justified by belatedly revealing a previously withheld "rule" (that the White Queen never looked up?) about the way things work in Narnia. For a fantasy world to cohere, it has to operate within the laws of its own universe. You can't just make up new laws (or reveal unmentioned ones) whenever it's convenient or the whole thing collapses and meaning evaporates.

Jim,

I can't say whether or not I agree or disagree with the review, as I haven't seen the film, but there is a statement you wrote that I found interesting:

"With all the dramatis personae Lewis has crammed into his filagreed fantasies, few of the players have the opportunity to leave much of an impression, or acquire significance, beyond what the tale demands of them."

Both that sentence, and to a large extent your last paragraph, are critical of Lewis, despite the fact that you admit to not having read the Narnia novels. In voicing those criticisms, you seem to be making the assumption that the film is an accurate/literal adaptation of Lewis' novel, and that it is Lewis, not Adamson, Markus and McFeely, who is to blame for stuffing the film with underdeveloped characters. Why?

Steven Greydanus, editor of the website DecentFilms.com, goes so far as to call Caspian "more inspired by the book than adapting it." Isn't it possible that the screenwriters are more responsible for the pitfalls of the film than Lewis?

JE: Yes, it is. If it sounds like I'm blaming Lewis, that wasn't my intention (as you say, I haven't read the novels, so how could I?). What I mean is that Lewis invented all these characters, and it feels to me like the movies are trying to give nods to them all, without developing them much. Some of the characters received entrance applause at the screening I attended, even though they never wound up making much of an impression in the movie. That reminds me: There's a squirrel named Patterwig, voiced by the film's composer, who makes a brief cameo. Is this a significant character in the novel? Also, Glenstorm's sons and wife are identified in the end credits, but they don't have anything to do -- at least, not in the current movie. Maybe in the next one?

"There's an obvious candidate for the job here -- a towering black centaur named Glenstorm (Cornell S. John), possessed of a noble bearing unsurpassed in Narnia. [...] Now this charismatic fellow is a natural leader, a prophet, and a mesmerizing public speaker to boot. When he talks, you listen."

Hmm... might this be a subtle companion to your not-so-subtle dig at George W. Bush in your Iron Man review?

And speaking of perhaps reading too much into things, this works as a fantastic characterization of the never-fricken-ending Democratic primary process:

"For a fantasy world to cohere, it has to operate within the laws of its own universe. You can't just make up new laws (or reveal unmentioned ones) whenever it's convenient or the whole thing collapses and meaning evaporates."

JE: I realized how those things might sound, too, but not until I was in the process of writing them. Really what I meant is that in ancient fairy tales about messianic prophecies and royalty, they do not necessarily promote from within. Even in some fairy tales written in postwar England!

Tom: Thanks for that tip! I figured these references to Adam and Eve had something to do with an "original sin," but that hadn't been addressed in the movies so far. And I'm glad I'm able to see the movies without preconceptions. After all, I'm reviewing them, not reviewing the books.

The thing about Roger Ebert's review is that if he had read the books, a lot of the things he is questioning would be easily answered. You dont NEED to read the books to enjoy the movies, but until all of the books are made into movies there will be a few things that wont make sense to those who havent read the book.

And about Glenstorm, just because a person is a good speaker and a good group leader doesnt neccesarily mean they would make a good king. Narnia was brought about by man, so men must rule it. Thats just the way it is.

I don't think that Jim is wrong to chide the story for being conventional... though the fault, as he points out, lies largely with C. S. Lewis and not with the filmmakers.

At first blush, I'd say that the on-rails morality is a natural consequence of the blatant Christian message... but on the other hand, Tolkien wrote high fantasy that drew heavily on his Catholicism, and it didn't come out nearly this dull.

Eric Raymond wrote something on the topic that I think is relevant. "Lewis [...] cheats his readers. His secondary world lacks causal depth — one way or another Aslan is at the back of everything." The whole essay is worth reading; it's not very long.

But, sadly, moral ambiguity doesn't fill seats the same way didactic tales so anvilicious nobody could miss the point do. (Why, yes, I am still bitter that they won't be making The Subtle Knife.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is one part in long story that is not being told in chronological order. It's kind of like watching The Two Towers without having seen Fellowship of the Ring. The story in this film may stand on its own, but there is backstory you don't know about and won't until 2 or 3 movies from now.

Quick shoutout for Elimu and Becka - Roger Ebert didn't write the review. Jim did.

Jim, the reason why Narnia begs for something resembling a monarchy is because these books were written by a veritable Anglican theologian who took a very British sense of Christianity and juxtaposed it on a helping of wildly fantastic characters. But those characters don't really have much personality; neither, for those who actually read the series, did the characters in Lewis's friend JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series, which was similarly Christian-influenced (though from the Catholic side of things).

If you want to understand these books more, you don't have to read all of them; just borrow Lewis's "Mere Christianity" from your local public library. That'll explain to you exactly what you need to understand about Lewis's version of Christianity.

Jim--

First, thank you for you to writing such an inquisitive and self-reflective review of a movie devoted to 'plot and effects.'

Second, my immediate reaction to your review was 'Stop bashing Lewis.' Upon further reflection, it appears you have accurately described the movie--but connected it to Lewis far too many times.

Since the first movie trailer I have known to expect nothing nearly resembling its artistry or intentions; to point, if the movies continue in their current direction, they will become progressively MORE unfaithful to the books--and for shame. For example, if the creation sequence of The Magician's Nephew were well-represented the movie would approach the mystery and weirdness of 2001: A Space Odyssey. You are right to accuse the business conglomerates (and audiences by proxy) for these creations. I like to judge artworks on their own terms, and for what they're worth the Narnia movies have not been worth watching. The greater injury now is that cost to the original art and stories, which could have made fantastic (albeit more 'art-house') movies.

Prince Caspian is my personal favorite of the Narnia books. It is by no means the best in a literary sense, but Lewis's personal interests are very well-expressed within. He was a medievalist, and the book's major thematic interest is Christ's redemption of Western culture. Certainly this would require a much quieter and more artful movie. The battle sequences comprise maybe five pages of the entire book. The last battle is a small duel told entirely from the perspective of a distant crowd--the actions of hero and villain are barely discernable. A bit more interesting and modern, no? Also, the political intrigues are dark and insightful to the dangers of power, especially in the hands of the grounded elite.

Now, would a wider audience or critics enjoy that movie? Maybe not, but it is a far superior story.

Jim, another fine review. I don't think anyone can review a anything without bringing one's personal context into the picture. And it's not much of a film if you have to read the book to get it.

Interesting, though, that many of your problems can be addressed (though not answered) by a couple of things: first, Narnia is an allegory, there are one-to-one correspondences between figure (the story) and ground (what the story is supposed to represent). Although I don't know who or what the beavers are ...).

The second thing is that it's Christian allegory, even though the filmmakers prefer to play it down, and Aslan represents you-know-who. So of course there's a deus ex machina, and that deus, as you point out, is the Lion. I would think that a review might acknowledge that, even one that pretended to know nothing about the novels.

Third, the stories are written for children, as are the films. Neither are intended to have the emotional depth or moral complexity of (say) Pan's Labyrinth or The Fellowship of the Rings. As a matter of fact, comparing the Narnia novels to Tolkien's work or Del Toro's is comparing apples to oranges.

Finally--forgive the long post--you touch on enduring problems in the Christian theological enterprise. If God is truly in charge, if everything really is predestined (good old calvinism, again), what's the point? Where is our free will? The existence of free will was hotly debated in the early centuries of Christian theology. Interestingly, it's being debated anew in scientific circles as well.

And if there is a deus in that machina, where is it when it's people have bad things happen to them? When innocents die? This "problem of evil" is ancient, and is helping drive the current debate betwen evangelicals and neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins.

A meaty review which brings up interesting debate.

The second thing is that it's Christian allegory, even though the filmmakers prefer to play it down, and Aslan represents you-know-who. So of course there's a deus ex machina, and that deus, as you point out, is the Lion. I would think that a review might acknowledge that, even one that pretended to know nothing about the novels.

If The Chronicles of Narnia is a Christian allegory, I think it would be much truer to the Christian experience if Aslan didn't come back in Prince Caspian. It would be perfect: The Narnians originally expected Aslan to come back soon after his resurrection, as the early church expected of Jesus. But eventually, Christians realized that they would have to live by faith. Jesus doesn't come around every few hundred years to fight your battles and heal the sick.

So no, as a Christian I don't think the deus ex machina in Prince Caspian is proper for a Christian allegory. Perhaps it would be appropriate if Aslan came back in The Last Battle, assuming that's an allegory for the end times (I haven't read the books past the first one), but if that's the case then The Last Battle should take place long after all of Aslan's original followers (including the Pevensies) are long past dead.

I like Emerson okay, but that was a horrid review. Some of his pseudo-complaints are answered as the story develops, which is one of many reasons that people who haven't read the books should stick to reviewing the actual film, rather than spend half their word allotment critiquing the basics of the film's reality.

Emerson must not have been watching the same film I was, either, if he talks about a lack of free will. Perhaps he missed the characters wrangling with the degree to which they're supposed to take charge of their situation, as opposed to simply reply on a last-minute savior. They grapple with the very issue he complains about, and they do it in a completely applicable, real-world way. They openly debate and discuss the validity of the old saying that "God helps those who help themselves."

The problem here isn't that this film lacks depth, but that people EXPECT it to, and so they never look beyond the surface. If they did, they'd see many plot points mirroring theological concepts. In other words, there's plenty here for people who are actually bothering to look...which is also a message in the film, by the by.

And all this is coming from someone who's read the books AND been underwhelmed by the two films thus far, I might add.

I was puzzled by this review. Much of the commentary doesn't hold up after a viewing of the movie. At times, reading this, I doubted the reviewer had actually seen the movie.

The origin of the Telmarines is explained by Aslan at the end of the movie, before he sends some of them home. As far as who the Narnians are, they are creatures who live in Narnia, whether they sided with the witch or Aslan in the first movie. The Telmarines are people who invaded Narnia. Not real complicated.

"What could be simpler? A child could do it. And what kind of lesson does that communicate to the child who can? That it's easy to tell right from wrong? Not a wise maxim."

When Peter arrogantly led an army into predictable defeat, was he having an easy time telling right from wrong? When Caspian deiberately failed to follow the plan and pursued his own quest for revenge instead, contributing to the defeat, was he having an easy time telling right from wrong?

"What responsibilities do the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve (how does that work?) bear for their own decisions, and the consequences of their actions, if everything can eventually be set right by some deus ex machina -- the healing properties of supernatural potions, or the corrective powers of magic lion's breath? What becomes of free will, of meaning itself?"

After reading this I think you might have walked into the wrong theater, because you didn't watch Prince Caspian. The characters do exercise free will, with disastrous consequences. They get hundreds of Narnians killed, and they nearly bring Jadis out of her icy tomb. It is only when they exercise their free will in the right way that things turn around.

The books are short and simple, having been written for children in a different era. This film did a fairly good job of getting across some of the major themes of Prince Caspian: Arrogance of those with power, faith and doubt. Aslan doesn't come to help through most of the movie because nobody believes he's still around, except Lucy who sort of believes but doesn't obey his command to follow. Only when they believe, and send Lucy to find him, does he come to help. I will agree that this storyline didn't get enough emphasis, not nearly as much as in the book. But it was there.

"They do what is asked of them -- in the story and by the story. " And so does every character in the history of fiction.

The interesting thing about the Narnia books is that even though they are short and written in simple prose, they pack in a lot of meaning - of course, expressed in terms children can understand. The movies are only loose interpretations and therefore don't retain everything the novels contained -- but they do what they can in two hours.

Regarding the brave charismatic centaur, perhaps the reviewer has never heard of Saul or the anointing of David.

Steve: Did you read the review, or just the excerpt? I address all the things you say in the review. The next paragraph after this excerpt is:

""Prince Caspian" represents a slight moral advancement over its predecessor in that hubris does have catastrophic consequences -- though mostly for extras and bad guys. Hundreds die needlessly because their reputed leaders put too much stock in their own invincible status, but the price paid is never too dear, at least not for anybody you become accustomed to seeing onscreen."

Still, the magical potion and lion's breath DO solve major problems and undo mortal wounds in the movie.

As for the Narnians: My question is why are some species (say, leopards) on one side and another (say, tigers) on another? If the Narnians were just those who lived in Narnia, you would expect creatures of all kinds to be Narnian and non- (or even anti-) Narnian.

You're right about this, though: I don't recall Aslan explaining who the Telmarines are at the end of the movie, but at that point it's too little too late. For the character of Caspian himself to mean anything, we need to know from the beginning what kind of a king he expects to be, so that his big decision about the throne has some dramatic/thematic heft.

I appreciate what you say about the books being simply written and aimed at children. But the movie wasn't so easy for kids to follow in the audience with which I saw the movie (and some were pretty vocal about it). As you say, the novels no doubt provide a lot more information -- not all of it apparent in the movies. Still, as I said, I enjoyed quite a bit of it. I just question the wisdom of some of the moral lessons it provides for children.

Just saw the film today and really enjoyed it. (For the record, I read and loved the books as a kid, but don't remember them as well as, say, "The Hobbit.")

I'm not so sure you're correct when you say the message the film offers up to kids is that it's easy to tell right from wrong.

What struck me while watching was the amount of second-guessing the Pevensies and Caspian engage in, and the bad choices they make, leading up to the botched castle raid, and then to the bit with the White Queen. Even Lucy wonders if she could have helped save some people if she'd gone along on the raid.

If there's a message for kids there, I think, it has something more to do with the difficulty of figuring out the right way to do the right thing. Something like that.

Couple that with the need to do the right thing yourself rather than waiting for someone else to do it (by the time Aslan shows up, the Pevensies & co. have done most of the heavy lifting), and I dunno, seems like a decent message for a big old fantasy adventure film.

Jim said: "What responsibilities do the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve (how does that work?) bear for their own decisions, and the consequences of their actions, if everything can eventually be set right by some deus ex machina -- the healing properties of supernatural potions, or the corrective powers of magic lion's breath? What becomes of free will, of meaning itself?"

I know what you're saying, and I can see why you might look at things this way. There is in fact a line in one of the Narnia stories where Lewis writes, "You just have to make a choice." Sure free will exists in the stories, and there are consequences to be paid for improper choices. But you still have the feeling that everything will come right eventually, in another world after death, if not in this one. And this is precisely what Lewis thought about real life. His point, in my opinion, was that your choices are not nearly so important as why you make them. He would have told you that the most important part of the human experience is concerned with your core desires--not the surface ones. And of course you can do something right for all the wrong reasons and vise versa. He looked at life in this world as a sort of training grounds and a murky phantasm compared to the afterlife. He was quite willing to allow the children their bad choices and the growth that comes from them. But right from the very first book he gave the hint that there was a brighter Narnia somewhere, and that this other world was a source of all hope. What you're really criticizing in my opinion is hope. Aslan often saves the day, but by the story's end there is always plenty of room for doubt. The children will always wonder now and then if these other worlds truly even exist. They have strong reason to believe that they do, and that there is a better world somewhere, the place where Aslan's father lives. But Lewis is always careful to leave them elbow room for doubt, much the way our religious beliefs will always have a certain degree of doubt mixed in. It's not until the children reach the more real Narnia in the final book that their doubts are erased forever. The children until then don't know* that things will always come right somehow in this world or another. What they have is hope.

Dude, read the books if you don't understand the story.

JE: Good point. You've articulated the thing I like least about the movie: It feels like an audio-visual aid to the novel, not like a movie that can stand on its own. Should people read Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" first if they want to understand the story of the movie?

Jim,

I'm trying to decide whether I want to see this movie after being somewhat disappointed in the first one, and I thought your review was very interesting. I've been curious what someone not familiar with the books would think of the story.

The first ten or so commenters who point out that some of your questions will be answered in the other Narnia stories are correct, but that's not relevant to your review -- you're right, it's not clear at this point why the Narnians are sure that they need a human to lead them. I think Lewis does a good enough job in the books of putting the reader in the Pevensies' shoes - in particular in Lucy's shoes - that a lot of the rules of the world are absorbed without being questioned. The questions, and the answers, are brought up more in the later and more morally complex stories. (I suspect, though I don't know, that Lewis deliberately started with a simple story for younger readers and then made each story more complex for a successively older audience. People who read the books in the order of the Narnian timeline, as opposed to the order in which they were written, start with "The Magician's Nephew", which is more subtle and less accessible than "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe," and introduces the reader to the creation of a world that they aren't familiar with and therefore aren't inclined to care about. If the movies had been made in that order, they might have delivered more factual clarity but lost their audience.)

One of the reasons I was disappointed in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was that I felt I didn't get as far inside the heads of the Pevensies as I did in the books. From your review it sounds like "Prince Caspian" has the same problem. I suppose that's a limitation of the medium, especially because so much of what Lewis describes in the books are not simply emotional experiences, but spiritual experiences as well. This is a problem that only gets thornier with each successive book. While I think that movies should stand and fall on their own, if there's ever a movie of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and you review it, I hope you read the book after seeing the movie, if only because I'd like to hear your comments on the hellishly complicated problem of adapting that text. If the first movie suffers (in my opinion) from insufficient internality, what to make of a book in which the creepiest sequence is a main character thinking to herself as she walks down a hallway?

One last thing -- and sorry for the long & muddled post! You posit that:

"For a fantasy world to cohere, it has to operate within the laws of its own universe. You can't just make up new laws (or reveal unmentioned ones) whenever it's convenient or the whole thing collapses and meaning evaporates."

I agree, but I also think it's absolutely fair game to have a villain who is defeated because of his or her fundamental misinterpretation of the rules. The White Queen fails because she doesn't factor in the power of love. This is also Voldemort's problem, and, IIRC, one of Lucifer's failings.

"The larger question remains: Why, really, do the Narnians need some anti-democratic, monarchy-loving European Son of Adam to lead them, to protect them, to fulfill their prophecies? ... Why can't the Narnians just lead themselves?"

As others correctly stated, the question of why the Narnians need a human leader (to pare down your statement) is answered in another book. Regardless, that is irrelevant when it comes to a movie review. My question is more of, why does it matter why the Narnians don't want to lead themselves, unless it is a point that distracts the viewer? Yes, Prince Caspian is the rightful king because he is the only son of his father, King Caspian. But Prince Caspian did not go to Narnia to make himself King. He fled to Narnia because his evil uncle was trying to murder him in Telmar. The movie portrayed Miraz and the Narnians as enemies. If your enemy's enemy is your friend, then doesn't that make Prince Caspian the Narnians' friend? One of the centaurs stated that he would follow if Prince Caspian would lead. The badger made the comment that things were always better in Narnia when a human was ruling them. Clearly this was something that the Narnians themselves wanted.

"It is never quite clear, though, who exactly the Narnians are. They're definitely not a species or a race because they include leopards, badgers, dwarves (they're called "dwarves" in the credits, not "little people"), giants, rhinoceroses, unicorns and mice (many of whom are conversant in English) -- but not, as you may recall from the first film, tigers, wolves, cyclopses, miniature Huns or two-legged yaks, all of whom are unaccountably but virulently anti-Narnian." "Prince Caspian ... [is] a Son of Adam (human), he's not a Narnian, he's a Telmarine. And we don't really know what that is, either."

"As for the Narnians: My question is why are some species (say, leopards) on one side and another (say, tigers) on another? If the Narnians were just those who lived in Narnia, you would expect creatures of all kinds to be Narnian and non- (or even anti-) Narnian."

The sides are not evenly split upon species lines. In the second movie, at least one person comments on how Nikabrik (the "bad" dwarf) comes from a line of people who have historically been on the White Witch's side. This comment is never made about Trumpkin (the "good" dwarf), and it is either stated or implied that his ancestors were on Aslan's side. They're both dwarves, but they come from different sides. One character in the second movie talks about how he isn't sure which side certain species will fight on. This implies that which side they are on is a choice, and not set in stone.

I have been speaking of "sides" and avoiding the term Narnian. I was just pointing out that dwarves (as an example) have not all chosen the same side to fight on. The same is true of other species that were only portrayed as minor characters in the movie, such as the giants. What Narnia and Telmar are is an entirely different matter.

In the first movie, Lucy asks Mr. Tumnus what Narnia is. He gives a geographical description in which Narnia extends from the lamp-post to the eastern sea. Surely the world doesn't just abruptly end where the lamp-post is, therefore we can assume that Narnia is either a region or nation of some sort. I won't bother trying to rectify this description with the events of the book The Magician's Nephew, since I'm trying to stick with the movies here. Towards the beginning of the second movie, the Professor (Doctor Cornelius) gives Prince Caspian directions for getting to Narnia. I think he even says something like "head east, past the woods" but perhaps I am remembering it wrong after only seeing the movie once. Prince Caspian also later makes some comment about how he will be on friendly terms with the Narnians if he becomes King, unlike Miraz.

"You're right about this, though: I don't recall Aslan explaining who the Telmarines are at the end of the movie, but at that point it's too little too late. For the character of Caspian himself to mean anything, we need to know from the beginning what kind of a king he expects to be, so that his big decision about the throne has some dramatic/thematic heft."

Aslan's explanation is mainly a history lesson about how the Telmarines came to that world in the first place. As you correctly stated, it is important that the viewer know early on whether Prince Caspian would make a good king. I don't feel that knowing the history of Telmar really helps answer this question, however. Yes he is a Telmarine, but he's not exactly following in the footsteps of his forefathers. He is now an exile from Telmar. Clearly the Professor (who seems to be for the Narnians) trusted Caspian enough to give him a special relic of the Narnians (Susan's horn). The badger and centaur trusted him too.

"That reminds me: There's a squirrel named Patterwig, voiced by the film's composer, who makes a brief cameo. Is this a significant character in the novel?"

While this is probably rhetorical, I'm going to answer it. Patterwig was the key squirrel in the book, and was frequently used as a messenger. He and Trumpkin were both assigned to find the Pevensies and bring them back to Aslan's How, but the movie altered the story so that instead Trumpkin was caught by the Telmarines after Prince Caspian falls off his horse. Patterwig is a less significant character in the book than a lot of other characters who didn't even get a speaking line in the movie. One such character is the giant Wimbleweather, who is only seen in the background in the movie. He was singlehandedly responsible for a big defeat in one of the battles.

Narnia is a strange bird, isn't it? It's thought-provoking fluff, as you show in your review. Somehow I filter out the magical happy endings as just a Disney-style overlay of two very harsh stories -- like someone is not telling us what really happened. In the first, the kid is seduced by totalitarian power. But we're not going to tell you how it really turned out, we'll slap on a magical happy ending, which is like waking up out of a nightmare. Like those dreams where you're walking the Green Mile and you tell yourself to wake up just before they throw the switch. The happy ending to your nightmare is that it was just a dream. But for some people it's not a dream. I mean, that kid turned his family in to the Secret Police. That's not kid stuff.

And in Caspian, King Peter is a benign megalomaniac. He shows up, proclaims himself the savior, he doesn't want to share his glory with Aslan. They swear allegiance to him and he leads them into a massacre. That's not kid stuff. It's prophesied that everything will work out by magic, but again, that's like waking up out of your directed nightmare.

I found the battle scenes more affecting than The Lord of The Rings (sorry if that's blasphemy) because of the diversity of the Narnians. For me, their diversity registers as true goodness, more than just the stock movie conventions of the 'good guys.' It's not like the cross-species coalitions in LOTR. Narnia is not a coalition. It's many different species sharing a heritage, and that clicked with me - especially since 'Peter the Magnificent' is such a jingoist: "For Narnia!"

C.S. Lewis required rather little from his characters in the way of moral courage. His description of the morally ideal human is provided (perhaps unintentionally) in a quote from another novel of his, "That Hideous Strength": when asked what the protagonists have done correctly, a major character replies "they waited, and they obeyed."

Waiting and obeying are major themes in all of Lewis' works that I've read. I find it fascinating that Mr. Ebert noticed almost exactly this trait in his review of the film, even though he's never read the books.

Perhaps the screenwriters have correctly captured Lewis' message after all...even if that message is a bit disappointing.

My apologies for not being more specific in my references to "That Hideous Strength"; I last read it 20 years ago, and honestly I did not enjoy it much.

On the other hand, why was Dorothy required to overthrow the wicked witch of the west? Couldn't all the henchmen have accomplished this themselves. No, like anything else you require a central figure, or in most cases, an instigator of some sort.

JE: Because the Wicked Witch was Miss Gulch (Margaret Hamilton) in Dorothy's dream -- and she stole her dog Toto, that's why! Dorothy was not regarded as the rightful Queen of Oz, out to overthrow the evil Wizard. And the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good Witch were just... witches, not monarchs. Yes, leaders are necessary -- but if you live in Oz they don't have to come from Kansas.

Jim, thanks for the thoughtful review.

I think it's a testament to the film that we're having a discussion at all about the moral messages. How many films for children are worth going back and forth on the message?

Most people have already said what I'd like to say in their comments, but I'd like to repeat (or clarify) a few things.

1. It's definitely not easy to tell right and wrong for the heroes in this story. Peter struggles until almost the very end to know what he's supposed to do. (I believe he even asks out loud once, "What I am I supposed to do?"

Peter makes what seems like a good decision (to cut off the enemy by seizing their leader and castle), and it turns out to be a terrible one. In a sense, he makes that decision by overthinking the situation.

Caspian has to decide whether he will follow the ingrained traditions of his people (vengence and violence), or the the kinder, gentler teachings of his tutor. His mistake in the castle raid comes from following his emotions. So, there's not a simple answer. Following your head can lead to disaster, and so can following your heart.

On a more personal, less epic, level, Susan also struggles with the head/heart issue. Her heart is telling her to give into the magic of Narnia, but her head is telling her that it's temporary and she'll only break her heart again if she gives in.

And, even though Lucy is the purest of the children, she realizes she might have prevented the slaughter of the Narnians (in the castle raid), if she had followed her faith when she first "saw" Aslan, instead of taking the safer course of waiting of staying with the group. Even the most faithful followers can mess up.

2. The two-legged yaks you mention as being on the side of the Witch in the first film are called minotaurs. In this film, they join with the centaurs and the fauns, siding with Aslan's troops. This is dealt with within the film, as Trufflehunter (the badger) comments that having a common enemy in the Telmarines has united old foes. (Kudos to you for remembering, though. I didn't recall who was on what side before and I kept wondering why the camera was lingering on the big cat during that meeting. I was flashing on the Jungle Book and saying, "Bagheera!" in my head.)

And, while you're right that no one dies in the castle raid that we really know, it was still emotionally wrenching to watch. I don't know what the name of that minotaur was who held up the gate, but I immediately fell in love with him and cried when he died. Likewise the centaur who nodded and, realizing he would be dead in a few minutes, turned back to fight as long as he could.

Nobody we really care about dies in the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan, either. But does it matter? It's still horrific.

3. While it's really annoying when a film raises logistical questions like: Who are these Telmarines anyway? and refuses to answer them, I believe it's great if you're left with questions that make you want to seek out the source material. Questions like: Why did that pesky Lion take so long to show up? If all it took to save the day was Him, what was the point of the kids, anyway?

Because a film can't show the entirety of a book. I agree that a film has to stand on its own, but the best adaptations leave us hungry for the original--where our questions might be answered, and the gaps filled in.

Usually, having previously read the book ruins the film for me, because never matches my imagination. In this case, the film exceeded my imagination, mainly by upping the emotional stakes of the characters. In the book, the struggle with faith comes over the decision to hike up a river or down it. The consequence of making the wrong decision there was having to spend several hours walking before having breakfast--or having in it within the hour.

4. As for the potion that takes magically saves people, I agree with you that it's a terrible cheat. Unfortunately, the filmmakers are pretty much stuck with it. It's a huge deal in the books. But every time Lucy uses it in the film, I can't help thinking about the dozens of other characters who get killed because she's sitting the fort, playing with the bottle, instead of handing it to her brothers or sister to use where its needed. It's less annoying in the books, where she heals more than one person per battle.

I felt the article had some interesting and reasonable points, but never really jelled or came up with a single cohesive view of the film. Several little nitpicks but no real substance.

The movies are written and produced by and for fanboys. Important to remember that.

The movie is produced for children. The moral ambiguity of growing up, becoming independent of being saved every 2 seconds by a higher power (whether it be parents, God, or magical lions), making mistakes, and doing wrong even when you are fighting for right are quite challenging enough for an 8 year old. Especially one just looking to be entertained. Add much more moral ambiguity and they become bored or confused.

As a reader and enjoyer of the books, I felt they did a good job editing Lewis without removing the delightful detail that make him so beloved.

"The moral options, as set forth in the movies so far, are fairly clear-cut: believe the beautiful lion and the friendly beavers; don't trust the sepulchral ice queen bearing Turkish Delight or the hideous dark demons extolling the forces of hate. What could be simpler? A child could do it. And what kind of lesson does that communicate to the child who can? That it's easy to tell right from wrong? Not a wise maxim."

Many times in life we face the problem not of distinguishing between right and wrong, but of choosing to do the right thing when it's so much easier and/or appealing to do the wrong thing. In "Prince Caspian", Susan chooses to lie to the boy at the train station, telling him her name is Phillis. If she didn't want to tell him her name, she could have just said so. She chooses to lie, when she knows it is wrong, because it's easier. She won't be branded as "rude" for saying she doesn't want to tell him, and he won't be asking questions about why she doesn't want to tell him. In "Wardrobe", Edmund decides to help the White Witch because he likes the idea of being a king and having his brother and sisters as his servants. He knows that it would be wrong to put his brother and sisters into a slave-like condition under him, just as he also knows (later, but before he acts) that the White Witch is "bad". Yet the idea of his siblings being under him is so appealing that he helps the White Witch anyhow. So is the message really that it's easy to tell right from wrong? Maybe, but it's also that it's not always easy to choose to do the right thing.

Maybe this has been said already, but I believe Jim Emerson missed the biggest point of the movie: faith. It's an allegory of faith, about falling away from our first love, and then finding our way back. Of course, the allegory is about the faith of Christianity. The next movie (in pre-production) will make that clear (if they following the book)... When asked by Edmund whether or not Aslan exists in their world he replies:

"I am... but there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

JE: I deliberately avoided discussing any explicitly Christian parallels (which the studio says have been downplayed in the movies) -- because, of course, there are also so many pre-Christian and pagan mythologies in Narnia. Because people tend to be touchy about Christianity, I thought I'd concentrate on other aspects that kids and/or non-Christians might appreciate. The first movie was so widely analyzed for Christian symbolism I thought I'd try another angle this time.

I was enjoying the movie and it's themes of age and real world experience killing faith as one gets older (or ego and pride making us feel like we don't faith in something else) until the anachronistic pop song started playing over them while they were still in Narnia! Killed the whole fantastical feel and World War feel immediately. With a creative decision like this who needs critics?

overall, a good review of the movie. However, couldn't the review have used more commentary on the overall quality and characters than a long tangent about the effects that this movie's line of thinking might have on children? For a child, right or wrong is often as simple as it sounds, "Go with stranger? Yes or no? no...?" or "steal cookie? yes or no? no..." or possibly, "help old woman carry her groceries to the car? yes or no? yes..." After all, grand moral dilemnas don't really become issues until one is older. You also take quite a stab at the films overall "fulfill your destiny" theme. You said, "They do what is asked of them -- in the story and by the story. And once we realize that even the leads are predestined to play their parts in fulfilling prophecies, and that all they have to do to meet the requirements is to abide by (or guess) whatever certain mystical authority figures want them to do, the tension deflates a bit." Yet, isn't that what people often do in real life. I never see the firemen unless my house is burning. I never meet the policemen unless I've been mugged. Why then should the fact that these characters fulfill their roles and nothing more be of any surprise to any of us? And yet, after all, we can wave all the comments and arguements goodbye by simply remembering that, it's just a fairy tale.

You could have just that you didn't really get it. Besides, there is really no excuse for not reading the books. They were meant for kids; i.e. short and easy to read. Heck, I burned through two of them just today (PC and Dawn Treader).

I just have a simple question about the movie itself. Who shot Prince Caspian?
I've seen the movie twice & still haven't been able to figure it out. The night Caspian entered the castle to rescue his old "Professor," & he was in Miraz' bedchamber, was Caspian wounded by his aunt? Remember, she was holding a crossbow. And did she shoot him deliberately, or was it unintentional? She seemed shocked to learn that Miraz had been responsible for his brother the king's death & despite her ambitions for her son, she must have also felt some affection for "our beloved Caspian." Somehow, I just couldn't follow the chain of events that took place in that room.
Can anyone enlighten me?

My wife and I have read the books numerous times, and love them, but we walked out of the movie this afternoon. Just wasn't that good a movie.

Greetings:

I would like to address the part of the review in which Aslan's death and subsequent resurrection was labeled as a "cheat." It all comes down to reading the books and knowing the author's intentions. I understand the point that was made in this blog that you shouldn't have to read a book to be able to enjoy/critique a film. That is certainly a valid point. There have been movies I've seen that were made based on books that I've never read. However, I think that this point regarding Aslan could be addressed by knowing C.S. Lewis's intention that Aslan is to mirror Jesus Christ and is, in fact, a symbolic character. For Christians watching the film, the death/resurrection in the first film is a pivotal point and not a cheat. The stone table cracking in two is a reference to the curtain being torn in two that is found in the bible. The witch is symbolic of Satan and Edmund stands for human kind. Once Jesus rises from the dead, death is defeated. I respect your review and your opinion. I just wanted to make this point to hopefully spark a dialogue about the symbolism that is in the movie. For someone who may not be a Christian who may not see the value and significance of true sacrifice, this part of the story may, in fact, appear like some sort of cheat.

I agree with many previous comments in that I a) have read the Narnia series, and b) deeply disliked Prince Caspian. Jim Emerson's argument that movie does not stand on its own was confirmed by the entire row of teenagers sitting in front of me who repeatedly and loudly asked each other "What the f*** is going on?" throughout the whole film. What bothered me was how the moviemakers sacrificed key conflicts in the book on the altar of over-the-top special effects. Lucy being the only one who could see Aslan was a central conflict in the novel (Can one believe in things not personally witnessed? Do Lucy's siblings take her vision on faith? ) and it was dispatched in about a minute and a half of screen time. The tension between Caspian and Peter was similarly ignored so that the film could race on to battle scenes.

My greatest concern is larger than this movie, yet exemplified by it. Prince Caspian was in theory made for children and garnered a PG rating. I ask, how many beheadings does it take to earn a PG-13 rating? If adults see the death of a minotaur and cry (see Theresa's review above), how does such an intense scene affect children? Do we really want our young kids to get used to this level of violence just because we have the technology to present it?

Isn't it fantastic that "Prince Caspian," a Son of Adam, is directed by an Adamson?

So much has been said in this thread, that I figure it is best not to repeat things...which leaves me with really one particular point. First off, I have both read all the books, many of Lewis' nonfiction where he explains his theology, and have seen the movies. But my point:

You sensibly state:

"The moral options, as set forth in the movies so far, are fairly clear-cut: believe the beautiful lion and the friendly beavers..."

I'll focus on the story's emphasis on believing Aslan absolutely, which is something the book emphasizes even more. The movie merely accepts this and moves on, without addressing the obvious objection that arises: Is Aslan worth following? This, to me, is crucial, and I think Lewis would agree. If Aslan is shown to be not just moral and noble, not just wise and loving, but actually perfect and unerring, then would it not make sense - in such a world as Narnia where this is true - to follow him always? If he always steers them right, is it not wisdom to always believe him?

This next part is where more people are likely to disagree with me, but it is at least worth thinking deeply on. It is not hard to establish the existence of some absolute morality, and thus many things are truly "right" or "wrong," however complex their circumstances. But nobody should pretend human logic and intuition is good enough to discern it perfectly and consistently. No one can know completely what is Right and Wrong, unless there was perhaps someone who wrote those moral laws in the first place. Tolkien knew the rules that govern his fantasy world better than any "Tolkien scholar," and the same is with Lewis. The same is also within Lewis' world. It is revealed in "The Magician's Nephew" that Aslan created Narnia, and laid down all its rules. Thus, he knows what is exactly Right and Wrong, and True and False, in it, and it is good to always follow him. You may say (and essentially did) that this seems to apply either weakly or deplorably to the real world. Does it really? Some things might objectively said to be Wrong (genocide, racism, dishonor, etc.) while others to be virtuous and Right (integrity, honor, wisdom and wise love). There is an absolute moral code -- even many atheists and agnostics admit to this (French atheist Andre Compte-Sponville wrote an excellent book arguing for it, "A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues"). So the least you can do is allow the possibility that there may be a God who wrote those. If there is a God, He would have to embody the moral code that we know - by common human experience - to exist. And if so, it would be simply practical to obey Him, because He would know how best this world works...or should work (and thus how we should act to get the most out of it and out of ourselves).

I understand why you decided to avoid tackling Christianity in your review, and that's fine with me, as it gets tiring with all the misunderstanding that flies around. On the other hand, Lewis' fiction was informed completely from his Christianity (even the pagan aspects of his mythology are from a Christian viewpoint - Dionysus appears in the book "Prince Caspian" as respecting Aslan's supremacy). It cannot be separated from his story or characters, which the filmmaker's made use of. Thus, to try to analyze the story apart from the Christian themes is really pointless. Without them, the story doesn't make so much sense, for many reasons you pointed out. But with them, it becomes a powerful challenge to the complacency with which so many people view this Moral Code, and its rather apparent Author, which they encounter and feel deeply in every moral choice they make, but reject simply because their 5 senses can't perceive Him the way they expect.

Forgive my long-windedness. This is much more in-depth than I'd originally planned. However, I hope I've brought something more to this very interesting and, I think, worthwhile discussion.

Thank you for continuing to provide informative, thoughtful reviews, and for helping Roger Ebert as he recovered. That's much appreciated.

God bless.