Awenydd

One’s opinion of Prince Caspian will depend greatly on what one is expecting. If you are hoping for a line-for-line book to screen translation of C.S. Lewis’s original material, go watch the Wonderworks version. You’ll enjoy it a lot more (that’s no slight; I enjoyed those as a kid). If, on the other hand, you’d like to see a masterful expansion of the core ideas in Lewis’s book that begins to approach epic, this is a film to watch. SPOILERS follow. If you continue reading, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Director Andrew Adamson has gotten the hang of things. While The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe strays less from the source material, Prince Caspian is a much better movie.

Adamson and his cowriters have taken many things that Lewis only hinted at and fleshed them out a great deal. Layers have been added to the political struggle between Miraz and his councilmen, as well as to the relationship between Caspian and his uncle. Also fleshed out is the ambivalence of the Narnians about backing a Telmarine prince, descendant of the Conquerer that tried to wipe them out.

Possible (or even probable) character conflicts that were not explored by Lewis are also found here. The friction between Peter and Caspian is a good example. In the book Peter comes right out and assures Caspian that he has no wish to make a play for the throne, and Caspian glibly goes through the story with no unease about four ancient monarchs jumping out of legend just when he is trying to claim his place as king.

While Lewis probably thought these attitudes and actions would serve as good role models for children, a deeper and more mature characterization has benefited the film greatly, and in the end actually emphasizes the desperate need that the Narnians have for Aslan. Because these sons of Adam just can’t seem to get anything right.

Peter is having coming-of-age issues and is understandably troubled by seeing what he considers a foreign invader claiming right to lead the Narnians. Caspian, the rightful king by Telmarine descent understandably feels slighted when he’s shunted to second place when the four Pevensies arrive, and he’s filled with a spirit of vengeance when he finds that Miraz is responsible for his father’s death. This conflict between Peter and Caspian leads to what such conflicts often do: separate agendas resulting in spoiled plans and unnecessary bloodshed.

The cinematography and pacing of the film is far superior to its predecessor. This feels like a film, and not like a random collection of scenes haphazardly strung together. The battles are more convincing, and, as I said before, approaching epic proportions. The effects are more polished. More importantly, I felt that I could connect with the characters better. They are more human and less like cardboard cutout. And not all the characters are so wayward. Lucy serves as the shining light of faith that Aslan is near, and Edmund keeps Peter from veering too far off course.

The only thing that I thought perhaps was overplayed was the attraction between Susan and Caspian. I can understand why they did it (apart from marketing value), and why it works. I was always puzzled about the asexuality of the Pevensies. It is very odd that in all of their years as adults in Narnia, none of them ever marry. If they had produced heirs like other responsible monarchs maybe their kingdom wouldn’t have been overrun by Spanish pirates when they left Narnia.

Now, for the most part, I think the relationship between Susan and Caspian is tastefully done. They are young attractive people, and so the chemistry between them isn’t exactly out of place. Also it makes for a couple great lines (like Lucy to Susan: “What was that? ‘Maybe you’ll need to call me‘?”). But then sometimes it veers off on into a celebration of Hollywood glitz and kitsch. Caspian’s rescue of Susan, while cool, does feel kind of staged.

So what about the message of the film? Is Lewis’s original vision intact? Well, while I think probably Lewis might object to a few things (such as Susan’s active involvement in the battle, though I think he would be happy with Peter and Caspian’s chivalry), the picture of Aslan as savior still shines brightly. As I mentioned earlier, the deeply human flaws we see in the characters only serve to emphasize the need for Aslan. This is no more apparent than at the How (the stone table) where the White Witch is almost brought back from the dead. It becomes very clear. These people are lost without him. Also, Aslan’s absence is felt so sharply that the film very effectively avoids a deus ex machina (the “Dude, where’d the lion come from?” effect) at the conclusion when Aslan finally appears.

Overall, Prince Caspian is a very good effort, and a satisfying film experience. Again, if you’re looking for slavish adherence to the book, you will be disappointed. But if you are open to seeing C.S. Lewis’s story enriched with a complexity not found in the book, this is a film to see. I am no longer worried about Adam Adamson at the helm of Lewis’s classic books. The director has finally figured out how to make a movie, and the series is now in good hands. If the remaining installments show the same level of improvement in movie-making quality, they will become classic films in their own right.

Just added Hayley Westenra’s “Both Sides Now” to my blog player (or you can click that link if the player doesn’t work for you). Lovely piece of music with bittersweet lyrics and vivid imagery, sung by an angelic voice. Now what more could you ask for in a song?

Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I’ve looked at clouds that way

But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
Clouds got in my way

I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I’ve looked at love that way

But now it’s just another show
You leave ‘em laughing when you go
And if you care, don’t let them know
Don’t give yourself away

I’ve looked at love from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
It’s love’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud
To say “I love you” right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I’ve looked at life that way

But now old friends they’re acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I’ve changed
Well something’s lost but something’s gained
In living every day

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all

This is a bit I wrote a while back while I was working out my personal approach to writing historical fiction, whether for the page, or for the screen.  For filmmakers, simply substitude the word “reader” with “viewer.”  The principles hold true.  Some people might find it interesting, and I hope it is helpful and edifying to everyone…

Fiction is intended first to entertain.  Not to educate.  Fiction in a historical setting can and should be very educational, but must not interfere with the first and primary goal.  By all means, educate the reader.  But don’t make him feel like he’s being educated.

Do not be pretentious.  That goes for exposition as well as for dialog.  It is a good rule for all fiction, but one that is especially easy to break in historical fiction.  In general, keep to the rules of Strunk and White.  Use as many words as necessary and not a single one more.  Above all, avoid Victorian style histrionics.

Do not jolt the reader out of the story.  If you have a historical detail that you believe to be important to the story, weave it into the exposition or the dialog.  Don’t just drop it onto the reader in an undisguised parenthetical form.  Fiction is about the illusion of reality.  Do not dispel the illusion by reminding the reader that it is fiction.  The reader is not going to be impressed with the author’s knowledge of history or period if he feels like he is reading a textbook.

Do not jolt the reader out of the story (and that is not a mistaken repitition).  The author, along with his personal view and opinions, should be invisible.  The author is always behind the scenes, working the plot, laying down exposition, and directing the flow of dialog to subliminally influence the reader’s perception.  The writer should work to put a thought, perception, or an image in the reader’s mind as if she were the one who first thought of it.  It takes more skill and effort than stepping up to the soapbox and preaching to the reader, but in the end it is much more effective, both as fiction and as instruction.

Do your research.  Nothing jolts the reader out of the story more than glaringly anachronistic details, events, or dialog style.  Make sure you know your history.  Just because this is fiction does not give you the liberty to make things up entirely. If you must change actual details, be sure you know you are changing them, and why.  History is God’s story.  Treat it with respect.

Finally, be a writer, not merely a scholar.  In fiction, excellent writing can make some minor historical inaccuracies (such as time compression, geographic fudging, etc.) excusable, but historical accuracy cannot make up for slipshod prose.