Comments on: THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA PART 2: PRINCE CASPIAN or WHOS’ GOT THE HORN?

By: Pete Baran

Pete Baran — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:58:40 +0000

Also needs to be remembered that war is seen by ver kids in a very different way to how it is seen now. Fighting in a war was a heroic thing to do in the fifties because daddy had done it (and or died in it - though that way Roger Watersism lies - BUILD A GIANT WALL AROUND NARNIA TOO).

The modern morality of killing only by accident, in action, faceless peons is a fascinating piece of Hollywood morality which I blame on Batman (though he generally doesn’t even use the “self defence” defence in his non-killing lack of utilitarianism).

By: a logged out p^nk s lord sukråt wötsit

a logged out p^nk s lord sukråt wötsit — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:52 +0000

i wasn’t being very clear there: by “amping up” i’m referring to a pressure that the film-makers here seem to feel, rather than a general aesthetical law:

my basic line on PC is that the makers have identified a series of difficulties with the original, as regards a exciting film that will appeal to kids and get them in sync w.a particular kind of christianity — where “exciting” is judged my a mix of currently effective technique (”the quick edits go like THiS bam bam bam” and currently wobbly panic (”oh noes if we don’t have THIS it will look lame and ploddy”)

anyway, these difficulties are variously addressed — what hasn’t been given much thought or logic to is the cumulative effect of the changes

viz in particular: yes, i think yr right that the frontal assault pitch battle element is a huge weakness in this film (where it actually wasn’t, say, in “return of the king”); but sidestepping it into artful evasion — battle going on offscreen — would not suit the particular kind of cheerful muscular xtian sensibility they feel they need

By: xyzzzz__

xyzzzz__ — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:21:45 +0000

“The problem of war: is the problem of the story. War is, like, horrible: and to be remotely exciting on film today it has to be amped UP not tamped down.”

Depends on the story. Maybe a Narnia adaptation needs amping up and would not work otherwise, but generally I find it iffy when war is re-created and people declare how ‘realistic’ it is. I find it better when some other aspect of this very extreme situation is portrayed on film (unfortunately I can’t think of an example right now).

By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør

pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:32:33 +0000

and plus also sopespian, who gets his head “walloped off” by peter while glozelle is doing for miraz

haha the chief centaur is called glenstorm

euan euan eu-oi-oi-oi <— riot grrrl yell

By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør

pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:05:37 +0000

in the book, very few people indeed killed “on-screen”: in the forays before the children arrive, the worst that’s stated to occur is the “terribly wounded” centaur; then nikabrik and the other members of CAMRON; then miraz (handily stabbed by the lord glozelle); then unnamed telmarines — numbers unknown, but it doesn’t sound very many — finished off by the mice if they fell, or by someone else as they hopped around on one foot if they didn’t… and THAT’S IT

peter’s and caspian’s decision NOT to follow through the logic of the single combat between kings not only dooms hundred or telmarine baddies, but also hundreds of narnians — it’s a weird bit of plotting, bcz it allows the royals to be so mimsily self-indulgent at the expense of their subjects

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:47:43 +0000

What I really noticed this time is the clash between the old school courtly/Christian storytelling tropes Lewis threads through the books (sometimes gentle mocking them) and the demands of the modern fantasy epic. viz. the fight between Peter and Miraz: P. spare Miraz’ life, and then so does Caspian, because that’s what chivalrous Xtian heroes do… but having spared the big villain’s life he then goes on to slaughter 1000x Jose Telmarine because the film needs its big battle.

By: Pete Baran

Pete Baran — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:07:00 +0000

When you see the white witch for a second, you do get a yearning for a PROPER villain. Of course Edmund wins the day in that battle, and its one of the few moments his character gets to shine.

The intro with peter having a fight in the tube is all understated “how do you get to live as a king for five years and then go back and be a schoolkid?” But then Lewis never really deals with that issue anyway.

By: RickyT

RickyT — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:42:06 +0000

Haha, ‘Aslan is a knob’! Too bleddy right!

By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør

pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:42:52 +0000

haha i kinda liked the lack of empathy for the characters — it was like something by neil labute!

the bigger problem is the even-more-of-a-lack of empathy for aslan or (worse still) narnia: apart from nice views and weird populace, least magical land evah! UNDITCH THE WITCH!

By: Pete Baran

Pete Baran — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:18:19 +0000

My problem with the film was an absolulte lack of empathy for any of the Pevensies, Prince Caspian or indeed th Narnian’s (who are both surly and thick). Peter in particular is a knob, whose character arc goes from pompous to insufferable via idiocy.

The only way it could have worked was if Reepicheep had been the lead character really. That said it was immensely funny, including the Tree Vagina Of Teleportation, and Susan getting The Horn.

By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør

pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:26:08 +0000

(oops i wrote this a bit quick and careless! i shall tidy up later)

THINGS I FORGOT: circular crossbow firing squad for assassinating caspian!; uselessness of the size-does-matter banter — the “dear little friend” exchange is actually not bad in the book, where trumpkin is first to patronise the children; fair-to-middling excellence of reepicheep’s first arrival