Prince Caspian

[steepholm]

Of course, some changes were inevitable. It made sense for Caspian to blow Queen Susan’s horn early, rather than well into the siege at Aslan’s Howe, for example. Putting half the story in a flashback, as Lewis did (yes, yes, I know he had Homer and Virgil to justify him) probably wouldn’t work well on the big screen.

But they left out many of my favourite scenes! They ditched the numinous and the light of touch, in favour of catapults and hoplites! The children realised far too quickly that they were in Cair Paravel, for a start. The growing mystery, the slow understanding, was concertinaed (sp?) into the space of a few minutes. Susan never got to show off her archery skills against Trumpkin. And Trumpkin himself wholly lacked the gruff good humour of the character in the book, being merely sour and sarcastic. Oddly, in fact, Nik-a-Brik was far more attractive. The whole business about who gets to see Aslan and when as they make their way along the River Rush was truncated to the point of being pointless and confusing. And, while I can see why the filmmakers might not be quite as interested as I am in CSL’s attempt to harmonize Christianity and pagan myth a la Jean Seznec, omitting Bacchus and Silenus and their followers made the moving trees at the final battle seem like Ent knock-offs rather than dryads, and the appearance of the river god a mere Arwenesque deus ex – er, river. In fact, as in LWW, it was hard not to see the shade of Jackson’s LOTR hovering over this film at times. The siege of Aslan’s Howe, in particular, evoked Helm’s Deep to a degree just this side embarrassment, and Edmund’s trick of falling backwards off a tower only to land on a griffin was clearly learned at Gandalf’s knee.

On the other hand, Prince Caspian was channelling Inigo Montoya at times.

Then there was the stuff they added. Most of it I was fine with. Susan getting a bit sick of being jerked between worlds without notice for indefinite periods, for example, didn’t run counter to the person we see in the book, and it’s good preparation for what’s to come. It's quite understandable, too. The main addition was the attempt to storm Miraz’s castle – King Peter’s Dieppe. It took up too much of the film, and bent it out of shape, rather, but at least in acknowledging that war isn’t unremittingly heroic it had the potential to complicate the story interestingly. That aspect wasn’t really carried through, though, and by the time Caspian and Peter stopped bickering those wasted lives had been pretty much forgotten.

The effects were very good, particularly the segue from “The Strand” underground station to the strand around Cair Paravel as an express train thunders past. (Of course, we must forget that the London underground has no express trains and no station called “The Strand”. [ETA: But it did have a station called "Strand" in the 1940s, it turns out! My bad.] But I can forgive a lot for a good segue.) The White-Witch-summoning was very effective too. Less so was Edmund’s ironic remark to Peter afterwards (“Don’t tell me, you had it sorted”), which seems unlikely from the lips of a 1940s English schoolboy.

But oh - the lighting arrangements at Aslan’s Howe, which involved setting fire to a thirty-yard long trough of burning oil (?), won’t be winning the Narnians any energy conservation awards. It’s probably not the best choice anyway for an enclosed underground cavern filled with people expecting to sit out a months-long siege, but think of the bills! And where was the ‘Off’ switch?

Comments

[fjm.livejournal.com]

All true. Still loved it.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I thought Inigo Montoya too! (There used to be a Strand station.)

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

There used to be a Strand station.

Ooh, thanks for the correction! I shall de-snarkify the offending passage.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Well, I liked Nikabrik better than Trumpkin in the book! For one thing he was a non-smoker, which with CSL stands for "antisocial prig" but for me, growing up in a smoking household and desperate for some oxygen, made him a definite goodie. (Looking back, I do wonder if I had a touch of unsuspected asthma or hay fever as a child; I never felt entirely well until I had my own flat and forbade anyone to smoke in it.) Also I think I was, even then, practising to be the trade union militant I later became... CSL's right-wing views did, even as a child, bother me more in this book than in TLTWTW, and continued to do so at the beginning and end of TDT, when we learn that co-ed schools and female headteachers are a Bad Thing... I've heard several Narnia fans say that in their view PC is the least interesting of the books. I tend to think The Horse and his Boy and The Silver Chair are the best, give or take the ever-increasing misogyny.

Don’t tell me, you had it sorted

EEK! That is SO WRONG......

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I always think of it as my least favourite too - well, along with the first half of The Last Battle - but it did have some aspects I liked a lot, and they were mostly what got squished in this adaptation.

As for the politics, I have to grit my teeth through the monarchism, but reading fantasy has given me a lot of practice at that particular type of teeth gritting.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason to bless Terry Pratchett, the only overtly antimonarchist fantasy writer I can think of offhand....

[hafren.livejournal.com]

along with the first half of The Last Battle

It's only just dawned on me that this implies there might be something to like in the second half..... What the hell could that possibly be?

Students think up some pretty lousy, unconvincing endings, but I've never seen one to touch "oh yippee, we're all dead! Well, except my sister and she's still alive because she likes make-up and having fun, so she doesn't deserve the enormous happiness of being killed in a train crash...."

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I wondered if you'd pick up on that! Yes, I have to admit to a liking for the final chapters of LB, and I don't at all buy the Philip Pullman line that it's all about loving death and rejecting life, etc. It's only that if you insist on reading it as a materialist, but to do that to this book is perverse, as indeed it would be with many other religious texts.

Also, at a writerly level I think it's an amazing coup de theatre. Throughout the book Lewis entices you to believe that there will be some last-minute rescue or escape, whether or not involving Aslan. But no, he kills off not only all his major characters but the entire world of the series - and unlike Doctor Who he sees it through: there is no reset button. He also, like the born teacher he is, gives a very effective lesson on the Theory of Forms (for those who missed the Cave Allegory in The Silver Chair).

As for Susan, I think she's a bit of a red herring - or has becomes so. I agree that she is too casually dismissed in the cause of making a doctrinal point, and I share your dislike of Lewis's rather complacent display of his various prejudices throughout the series. But that passage has been represented (not by you, but again notably by Pullman) into "Susan is sent to hell for wearing lipstick", which is clearly not the case.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Ugh - that last paragraph has too many typos! Oh for a paid account, that I could correct them!

please can I go round again

[hafren.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with Susan being victimised, because I think she gets the best deal out of it, on account of she's still alive at the end of the book, which I tend to think a Good Thing. I don't see how you can interpret that end as other than rejecting life. New Narnia=heaven, that's undeniable; you don't go to heaven (supposing there were such a place) until you're dead, and everyone seems delighted to find themselves there. Does anyone say "well actually I was pretty young, I was quite enjoying being alive on earth and I'd have liked a bit more of it, please?" Do Jill and Eustace spare a thought for their bereaved parents? No, they don't give it a second thought, and what is that but rejecting life? I don't think it's necessarily my atheism that is a problem when reading it; I have no probs with accepting religious allegory as a fairytale narrative, but this one doesn't add up to anything reasonable in narrative, emotional or any other terms.

I don't make a habit of quoting Benny Hill (who was a surprise in some ways, including financing the Australian Communist Party to please his sister, who was its leading light) but he had a routine involving a merry-go-round and a country song whose refrain went

You give damn short rides on this merry-go-round, Lord,
Please can I go round again?

Sounds healthier to me....

Re: please can I go round again

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yeeas, but the whole point about the way CSL portrays heaven is that earthly life is contrasted not with death, but to even more life. Everything that was enjoyable and fun and exhilarating on earth is still there, only more so. The reversal of perspective means that (within the terms of the book) it's clinging to 'life' (soi-disant) that becomes morbid, a kind of spiritual necrophilia. Of course, you can dismiss the story as nonsensical, but that's the story the book tells, and it's not about rejecting life at all.

I do have a problem with the grieving relatives, though. And more generally (this is the doctrinal point I was alluding to earlier) I can't quite reconcile myself to the easy acceptance of the fate of those don't make it to heaven at all - whether or not that will prove to include Susan. This is something CSL addressed directly in The Great Divorce, where the narrator asks: how can we be truly happy in heaven, knowing that some of those we love don't share our bliss? The answer he gives (through the voice of George MacDonald!) is that no one should be allowed to become a 'dog in a manger' to prevent others from reaching heaven by refusing their own happiness. Which is logical, but doesn't answer the question.

Re: please can I go round again

[hafren.livejournal.com]

but doesn't answer the question.

Indeed I don't see how anything could (it would be mischievous to say it's a good job it isn't going to arise, though I'm tempted....:)

Everything that was enjoyable and fun and exhilarating on earth is still there, only more so.

- except certain people's parents and siblings, and presumably their aunties, uncles, boyfriends/girlfriends and pet cats if any. That's the nub of it really, because the nature of love is that "everything that was enjoyable and fun and exhilarating on earth" could still be there, in spades, and it still wouldn't be any good if certain people, or even one certain person, were not. What, by the way, is the Christian take these days on animals having souls? I was told as a child that animals didn't go to heaven, which makes it sound a dreary place indeed!

Re: please can I go round again

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I'm not a Christian myself, and can't answer for those who are, but I'm pretty sure the traditional answer would have been that animals don't have souls. CSL takes a slightly different line in (I think) The Problem of Pain, where he suggests, IIRC, that the higher animals might be able to develop a soul through their relationship with a human being: sort of "He for God, and she for God in him" translated into the animal kingdom. But that's from memory, and it's a long time since I read it.

Re: please can I go round again

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Oh dear.... the only time I was ever in sympathy with Ann Widdecombe was when she insisted that (a) cats did go to heaven and (b) if by any chance they didn't, then she wanted to go to cat heaven not people heaven.

I'd find it very hard to believe my cats didn't have souls.

Re: please can I go round again

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, the traditional answer, but Hafren asked for the take these days, rather than the older one. (Not that I know it, though most of the Christians I know would be in the 'if it looks like love, and smells like love, and acts like love - you know the rest, stupid' camp.)

Re: please can I go round again

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with the grieving relatives too, though not with the whole book, as you know.

On the doctrinal matter, I suspect there's no point in bringing up a rather under-informed, liberal Anglican view (of the next century on too), but very much in the FWIW category: I think some of the non-answering of the question is less significant if you don't think of Heaven and Hell quite so much as distinct and almost physical places. If one even believes that anyone would end up forever in Hell (which I tend not to, though it's not something I've spent a lot of time worrying about) - the view is that they'd be 'there' NOT because they've been judged and rejected and thrown into that 'space', but because for them being in the presence of pure love (God and I'd say everyone else, at that point) would be the last thing they'd want. Refusing your own happiness - well, it's a bigger, more drastic equivalent of people we know right here and now who literally do not want to be happy - do not want to be in good, loving, happy relationships with those who offer that. Personally, I find it hard to believe the situation would be likely to arise because I don't think the type of people who are loved by others will be able to carry that kind of resistance to such an extreme in the face of that kind of love. And if it's just a sort of temporary 'not quite in the mood yet' (or alive, of course), then that's still thinking linear, human time, which must be different.

But, having written all this ramble, I think it's worth even less than I thought when I started.

Re: please can I go round again

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Actually that's very helpful.

The first point - the idea that 'hell' might be a state of refusal (or denial?) rather than rejection by God is pretty much implicit in TLB, first with the dwarfs who refuse to see anything but a stinking stable, and then with the animals who look at Aslan's face in fear and horror and veer off into darkness. The Great Divorce makes a similar point rather differently and I think interestingly, with visitors to heaven (from 'hell') not being able to bear very much reality - finding the grass there too sharp for their tender feet, and so on, and needing to build up their spiritual muscles to enable to them to enjoy heaven.

That wasn't so much of a problem to me, but the apparent indifference of the blessed is harder - harder at least to make seem reasonable and laudable in a story with linear temporality, which let's face it most stories exhibit. But your comments lead me to wonder whether there's maybe a sense in which stories have a sentimentality (in a bad sense), enforced by that linearity, which a truly God-like perspective lacks - God being the ultimate realist. If you could perceive everything at once, would some of these problems disappear, like spare terms in a solved equation?

Not sure if that makes sense of any kind, but I'm going away to think about it...

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I had a sneaking sympathy for Nikabrik too - and for the Last Battle dwarfs who keep insisting they're still in a stable and The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs. I always thought I'd be sitting with them.

I do like the Hamlet-ish bits of Prince Caspian - the plotting and secret meetings in the usurping uncle's castle at the start, and the treacherous aristos at the end. But then I liked the Calormene politics and Lazaraleen in The Horse and His Boy.

The Silver Chair was always my favourite, and not just because of Puddleglum.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

I liked Lasaraleen too! It puzzled me because she was just the kind of girly girl I didn't usually like. I think now that I was reacting against CSL's obvious scorn for her. She's a paler version of Ginevra Fanshawe in Villette, and you can't help liking Ginevra; she may be shallow and fluffy but she's not quite as dim as she looks and has a sort of endearing helplessness that actually gets a lot done for her. Charlotte obviously had a soft spot for her, but then Charlotte liked women a whole lot better than CSL did.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I think Aravis is the sort of girl I'd have liked to be, and perhaps I knew I'd be more likely to turn out like Lasaraleen. But I think she is essentially good-hearted. She may think Aravis running away to Narnia with a peasant is Not Nice, but in the end, when she can't talk her out of it, she helps her do it. It would have been perfectly easy to wait until Aravis had gone to bed and then send a slave out to tell Aravis's father where to find her.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's true. There's a sort of unexpected female solidarity about her; she isn't catty and she comes through for a friend.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Thought you might be interested in this take on the film from whatho - I had not thought of the "missing scene" angle but it's true.... Also I find her take on Susan fascinating.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's very good (i.e. I agreed with it!). The missing scene has bothered me at times, and at other times it's bothered me that it didn't bother me as much as it should. Sigh...