Prince Caspian movie review (Aka: C.S Lewis is turning over in his grave)

Spoiler alert, if you care.

There’s good, and then there’s the bad. Here’s the good:

Repicheep. YES, they did him perfectly! It brought me joy.

Caspian’s hair. It was gorgeous…I could not stop looking at it. Wow.

The sea-god at the end. Very well done and impressive.

And the costumes somehow seemed a bit better this time around…especially Susan’s. They looked more real, whereas in the last movie it just looked like expensive dress-up.

Unfortunately, that’s really it. I can count the amount of things I liked about this movie on one hand. In my previous post I quoted eight parts from the book that I hope they kept in the movie. Well, I only saw three. Weak, very weak.

First off…lack of Aslan. He’s like, in two scenes! And that’s it! I can understand cutting out Bacchus and Silenus…but why couldn’t the frolicking scene go on without them?

Also, PETER. Peter’s character in the movie is the exact opposite of Peter in the book. This quote sums it up:

“”I haven’t come to take your place, you know [Caspian], but to put you into it.”

In the movie Peter has this complex where he has to do things his way and always be in charge, and he and Caspian butt heads over this. Whereas in the book, everyone gets along quite amiably right off the bat. Also, in the book, Peter, along with Susan, doesn’t believe at first that Lucy saw Aslan , but soon he’s right back to his kingly self when he says: “We don’t know when [Aslan] will act. In his time, no doubt, not ours.”

That’s one thing I noticed, actually…modern movies like to introduce these complexes into characters to make them more “real.” Is it too far fetched for someone to actually have a noble character? Like Beowulf succumbing to lust for treasure and glory, like Superman having a freaking child out of wedlock…like Peter having this major ego and practically despising Caspian.

Also, it was not established just how scared of the forest the Telemarines really were. I mean, the forest freaks them out. That’s how all the tree nymphs and dryads scare the everlivin’s out of them and they run back to the bridge. In the movie they’re just slightly superstitious about the forest, and they don’t seem very phased at all when the trees showed up.

Um…what else. Oh yeah, the whole “let’s summon the White Witch scene” happened closer to the beginning, and Caspian was outraged at the very idea, not cooperative. And they never got around to actually summoning her before Caspian and Trufflehunter killed Nikabrik, the hag and the werewolf.

UM. Man, there are a billion things more. Oh, they never stormed the castle either.

Oh, and was it necessary for Caspian to have that annoying accent? I could hardly understand him sometimes. Blah.

Seriously…I didn’t like the first movie very much, but that might as well have been word-for-word compared to Prince Caspian. I had hope for it…actually. I thought there might be a chance… I give it 1 star out of 5, mainly for Repicheep and Caspian’s hair.

Update: As a commenter pointed out, and I agree: as a movie Prince Caspian isn’t all that terrible. If you haven’t read the book you might actually enjoy it a fair bit. However, as an adaptation of the book it is horrendous – which is mainly all I care about – and that’s why it lost 4 stars. =P

Prince Caspian by C.S Lewis

I’m seeing the movie tomorrow, so I figured I would read the book beforehand so I would readily be able to complain.

I’m sorry, it’s how I roll. I really don’t know what to expect…

Anyways, I’ve read the Narnia series twice before, the last time being about three years ago. Prince Caspian never quite made it onto my favorites…and now that I read it again, some things just seem odd. Maybe because I’m older and am reading too much into things I shouldn’t? Most likely.

I would mainly like to know what’s up with everyone gallivanting around with Bacchus and Silenus all the time. Edmund says something like, “That Bacchus seems like a chap who might do anything. I wouldn’t want to run into him and his girls without Aslan around.” Hmm.

Bacchus is the Roman god of wine and Silenus is one of his followers, and one of them is usually riding a donkey, I think (Fantasia, anyone?). And then some “wild girls” are with them, frolicking about.

I don’t quite understand…I think Lewis might saying that if we drink wine while God is far from our hearts or minds, anything could happen. But wine is also a reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice, and a gift for celebration – so if enjoyed within these bounds then it’s all good? Basically what Edmund said: don’t meet Bacchus without Aslan?

It just seems strange to be referenced at all in a children’s book.

Anyways, these are my favorite parts…I doubt half of them will show up on film. I remember the main thing I disliked about The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe movie was all the little lines they changed and left out – the “deep magic” and “emperor’s magic” completely disappeared! And they replaced it with something retarded like “true sacrifice.” Uh huh.

Yeah. Anyways – here’s what I hope doesn’t end up on the cutting room floor:

“And we beasts remember, even if dwarfs forget, that Narnia was never right except when a son of Adam was king.”
-Trufflehunter, the badger

“I don’t like the idea of running away.” said Caspian.
“Hear him! Hear him!” said the Bulgy Bears. “Whatever we do, don’t let’s have any running. Especially not before supper; and not too soon after it either.”

Circle Trilogy = fin

Yes, it’s finally over. The famous Circle Trilogy. Sheesh.

So, White wrapped things up well enough, though I saw the ending coming a mile away. Apparently I wasn’t supposed to. There were a few unexplained loopholes too…but I can’t say without majorly giving away the ending.

Oh, and Justin. Okay, so he’s supposed to represent Jesus…but every time I heard “Justin’s bride” in reference to the “bride of Christ” I nearly shot myself. It just…didn’t sound right at all. I mean, if you’re gonna use a random common name, might as well go all the way…it doesn’t have to start with a “J.” “Elyon” being the word for “God” was a good choice…but “Justin?” I mean, it’s purely aesthetics, but it just irked me.

The main thing you come away with at the end of reading this trilogy, however, is a rather refreshing perspective on romance. The whole story is about God’s love for his creation and how he gave us romance as a picture of that love on earth. Usually, we hear of marriage as a picture of Christ’s love for his bride, but hardly “romance.” So it was nice, it gave a less frivolous perspective of truly falling in love. This quote from the first book, Black, summed it up well:

“What if I don’t want to be in love?”
“Stop that nonsense!” Michal ordered, “Of course you want to be in love! You’re human!”

Man, I loved the Roussh.

Oh, and Joshua! He could have used “Joshua” instead of “Justin” and it would have sounded way better. Why? Cause Jesus’ name in Hebrew is “Yeshua”, which basically is “Joshua.” See, that wasn’t hard at all.

Justin. Seriously.

So… it’s a pretty good story and all, but it’s not on my Top Favs. I’d definitely recommend the trilogy as ideal for 10-16 year-olds, or older if you’re like me and want to see what the big fuss over Ted Dekker is all about. I’ve gotta say I still prefer the classic Frank Peretti when it comes to Christian thriller fiction…

Some Dekker stuff

So earlier I said I wasn’t a huge fan of Ted Dekker’s writing style, which still stands, but there were still a few lines from Red I deemed worthy to write down in the Notebook of Bookdom. They’re the exact opposite of subtle, which I absolutely loved.

“These zombies floated through life as if nothing would ever matter in the end.”

“The smell of rotting flesh was more a scent of wholesome humanity than a stench.”

The first quote is when Thomas, the main character, is in traffic looking around at the other drivers. He just tells it like it is – our current culture in a nutshell.

The second quote to me was brilliant. Basically it’s set in the alternate world where the effects of sin and atonement are physically seen. In this instance, sin and rebellion are evidenced by dry and diseased skin, while healthy skin, resulting from bathing in the lakes given by Elyon (God), represents atonement…or something like that.

Anyways, so if you just substitute “rotting flesh” with “sin” you get this:

“The smell of sin was more a scent of wholesome humanity than a stench.”

…which, to me, I see is the exact attitude so many people have today. People scoff at those who hold any specific moral standards and say you’re “closed-minded” or something ridiculous, while they experience all the desires humanity offers and creates.

Oh! It’s just like Vronsky and his friends from Anna Karenina:

“But there was another sort of people, the real ones, to which they all belonged, and for whom one had, above all, to be elegant, handsome, magnanimous, bold, gay, to give oneself to every passion without blushing and laugh at everything else.”

[emphasis added]

“Wholesome humanity.” What a contradictory statement! It’s so un-subtle and brilliant. I love it.

Red by Ted Dekker

So I was pretty impressed with myself for finishing this book in a week, I haven’t done that in awhile. Some people could read this in a matter of hours, but I’m a somewhat slow reader.

Anyways, this book is the second in Ted Dekker’s Circle Trilogy, with the first installment being Black, which I read back in October. Obviously after reading the first I wasn’t in a huge hurry to find out what happened next. Dekker’s story is very interesting, verging on really cool, but I just am not a fan of his writing style and I can’t quite say why. I think it’s because if I were to write a book I could see myself writing in a similar way.

Anyways, Black was pretty good, but I’ve got a few problems with Red. First of all, it never says what specifically is wrong with the Forest People’s way of conducting the “Great Romance.” It did say a few things like, “Sometimes the Great Romance felt more like a set of rules than actual romance,” which implies that the Great Romance had become more of an outward ritual for some, instead of an actual condition of the heart. However, I felt that not enough time was devoted to talking about what had gone wrong with the it, so when Justin comes along the reader is unsure if he’s good or bad.

So Justin comes along and starts preaching against the Great Romance and speaking of peace with the Horde. Maybe Dekker wants the reader to be unsure about Justin up until the end, just like Thomas and Rachelle, but I wasn’t impressed with the method. I understood what Ted was trying to convey because I’m a Christian and know what he’s alluding to, but I don’t know how a non-Christian could even make sense of what was going on. The history and theology of the Great Romance and Justin’s teachings just weren’t given enough face time for the whole thing to read smoothly. For me, anyways.

Then again, I have one more book to go; maybe more will be explained in White.

About Lewis’ Space Trilogy

All Scripture is inspired by God. I believe that. However, Christ preached plainly but also in parables. So is it wrong to create works of fiction to better interpret truth, just as a theologian might write a commentary? No, I don’t believe so. I guess you would call it an allegory, like Pilgrim’s Progress; like Piers Plowman; like Everyman.

Thus what would be so wrong about Narnia, Lewis’ Space Trilogy, or even Dekker’s Circle Trilogy? Providing the theology is sound, I mean.

There’s one things I feel I must explain, if to myself. The “gods” in Lewis’ Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) were not worshipped. They weren’t exactly ‘gods’ either, but Lewis used that term to best explain them. I think he meant that they are beings separate from humans, a bit above angels, but certainly not anywhere on par with the only true omnipotent God.

I doubt that there are really any of these ‘god’ entities – unlike angels. It doesn’t quite line up with good theology. The point is that Lewis took the belief of planets being entities or ‘gods’ from the pagans and reinterpreted them into entities that existed but were subservant to God, like all creation.

Lewis actually looks at things from different perspectives, instead of twisting the things to fit into those certain perspectives. As much as there are solid ideas and beliefs presented in The Space Trilogy, I find there is just as much theological speculation - questions as much for the author as well as the reader - rather than ideas and beliefs that Lewis truly believed in and was trying to convince you to believe in as well.

So…what is the verdict? There are some characters and situations that are allegorical to the “truth,” what we know, Christian theology…and then some characters and situations delve into the mysteries God has not revealed to us, such as space, entities and life on other planets. Hence, there is speculation, because that is all Lewis really could do. As far as I know, he didn’t contradict anything known about space at the time, and as far as I know, he didn’t contradict anything the Bible says about space and the entities God created (After all, vague references to “principalities and powers” leave room for discussion). Thus, if we have extremely limited knowledge on the subject, who is to say what speculation is right or wrong? Lewis merely takes advantage of this and fills with color where there is no black and white.

Character sketch: Mark Studdock

A brief character sketch of Mark Studdock, one of the main characters in That Hideous Strength by C.S Lewis.

Mark, a young sociologist employed by Bracton College, had always sacrificed whatever made him truly happy for position and the “inner circle.” He always sought praise and strategic association with those more prestigous than he. Psychologically speaking, you could say he was not very confident. Always needing association, position and recognition was what let him be so easily influenced and used by the fellows at Bracton and eventually the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E).

Mark’s character began to change in the prison cell with periodic visits to the Objective Room. The twisted and distorted nature of the room made him aware of its opposite – the “normal.” He began to regret sacrificing the things and people he truly enjoyed for the “inner circle” – his wife, Jane, and his friend, Arthur Denniston.

The climax in this change would be when he was called to “trample and insult” an almost life-size wooden crucifix. Mark realized that regardless of faith and religious implications this man (Jesus) actually existed and had been killed in this manner. The crucifix was a picture of what happened “when the Straight met the Crooked, a picture of what the Crooked did to the Straight – what it would do to him if he remained straight.”

He realized that perhaps it would always be that way, the crooked dashing the straight to peices, but he didn’t quite care anymore. His heart had been turned to embrace the Straight and the “normal” and he refused to disfigure the carving.

Then I decided to ramble on a bit more and try to peice together some main points of the trilogy…except it’s been a long time since I read the first two, so it’s probably not the best.