Here, I'm going to have to lead with the classic reader's complaint: the book is better.
Changes Made in the Transition from Book to Movie:
I'm sure every C.S. Lewis fan already knows the plot of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, so I won't reiterate it here. I will, however, note the major way in which the film-makers altered the story in their adaptation.
Apparently, Apted believed that a voyage "to the end of the world" was too sedate, shall we say, to translate to a movie screen. So he - or his screenplay writers, rather - rearranged the order in which Caspian, Lucy, Edmund, et. al. visit the islands of the Eastern Ocean and entirely changed the purpose of the trip. In the movie, the peoples of Narnia are being threatened by an evil "mist," and our heroes must collect the swords of Caspian's seven lords and place them on Aslan's table to neutralize said evil. They do reach the edge of the world at the end of the film - and Reepicheep does sail on to Aslan's Country - but this is no longer treated as the climax of the story.
Does this fundamental change work? Not entirely.
The Skinny:
I do appreciate the difficulty of making a movie from what is, in truth, a very episodic original story. Still, Apted ends up bleeding a lot of the character out of Lewis' masterpiece. The alchemical elements are only briefly touched upon, the Christianity is blunted, and a lot of great lines are omitted. We don't hear Reepicheep declare, for example, that he is determined to get to Aslan's Country even if it means he has to swim there. And we don't see the exchange between Eustace and Ramandu in which Eustace states that in his world, stars are flaming balls of gas, and Ramandu replies, "Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
Eustace's character arc is left larglely in tact, fortunately. As a matter of fact, the screenwriters make a valiant effort to include, somehow, what has to be one of the most clever opening lines in all of children's literature:
There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.
At the start, the writers preserve Eustace's fascination with entymology, his furious journal writing, and his absolute refusal to accept the magic of Narnia. And later on, Eustace does become a dragon and seems to learn something profound from the experience. I have to admit, though, that I was disappointed with the movie's rendering of Eustace's return to boyhood. In the book, after Aslan peels off Eustace's dragon skin, he tosses the boy into a well of water. In the movie, this baptismal imagery is left out.
Another example: in the book, when the Dawn Treader gets lost in the dark, Lucy prays for aid, and Aslan arrives and leads them to the light in the form of an albatross. It's a very powerful image. In the movie, on the other hand, we do see Lucy praying, and we do see the albatross, but it is not that albatross that ultimately comes to their rescue. Instead, Eustace saves the day by placing the final sword on Aslan's table. A scene in which Lucy surrenders all to God is thus transformed into a scene in which the main characters get themselves out of trouble.
Time and time again, Apted and his production team replace Lewis' messages with weaker alternatives. A third example: in the novel, when Lucy is paging through Coriakin's book of spells, she reads a spell that allows her to eavesdrop on a conversation between two of her school mates -- and what she hears damages her opinion of a good friend. Once Lucy reads the spell that makes invisible things visible and Aslan appears, the Lion tells her gravely that the consequences of her sin - i.e., her eavesdropping - can never be undone. Nice moral. But in the movie, Lucy's focus is on becoming beautiful like Susan, and Aslan's big lesson is that Lucy should learn to be comfortable in her own skin. How modern -- and how potentially wrong-headed. It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't aspire to shallow things like beauty or fame, but the exhortation to be oneself can also lead to a pernicious attitude of complacency. Hero worship does in fact have its place.
Don't get me wrong: this is a decent, family-friendly adventure story. And the writers do keep the book's most important line (in which Aslan counsels the children to learn the name by which he is known in their own world). But if you are looking to see the spirit of C.S. Lewis projected on a movie screen, you will probably leave the theater less than wholly satisfied.
Production Values: 7.0
The 3D is not really worth the extra money, truth be told. Beyond the opening scene, not much is done with that particular special effect.
Writing: 7.0
If the screenwriters had been just a little more faithful to the original story, I would've been happier.
Acting: 8.0
I can't say I noticed any major missteps with the acting.
Message: 7.0
But again, if the movie had been more faithful to the spirit of the book, I would've given it a stronger score on its message. Hollywood really needs to learn to take chances every once in a while. How much did The Passion of the Christ gross again?
No comments:
Post a Comment