The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Rated PG, 2 hr 12 min
Critics' Rating: B
Miles's Rating: B
Brooklynne's Rating: A

Saturday night, Evan, Kelly, Zach, and Aileen joined Brooklynne and I at the movies to watch Disney's adaptation of C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The film has generated a wide range of reactions in the press, from gushings over the casting and acting, to harsh criticism of the allegory, and everything in between. In churches across the country (or at least in mine), the film has been billed as a great opportunity for communicating the Gospel to the non-Christian community, although I've seen some skepticism in Christian circles as well.

This review is really difficult for me, because I really like the story of the movie and I do think it is an entertaining film, but I have to say that I was not impressed with the fine points, especially the directing. I have my doubts that director Andrew Adamson understood the subtleties of Lewis's faith, and it is Lewis's handling of the subtleties that make Christians cherish his stories.

WARNING: IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK OR SEEN THE MOVIE, THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD.

It's hard to pinpoint these oversights in retrospect, but I'll try to explain a few examples. For one, Adamson misses a key component in the film when he brushes aside Edmund's addiction for the witch's turkish delight. To me, all of Edmund's tragic flaws are encapsulated in his inexplicable lust. Late in the film, the witch explains that Edmund sold out the others for "sweeties." But Adamson never established that Edmund was completely seduced and controlled by the power of his desires. Edmund enjoys the candy, but then we can't tell that he's thinking about it again until he asks for it in the witch's castle. In the book, the narrator is semi-omniscient and we are told that he is obsessed, but short of a voice-over, a film has to be more creative in communicating this message. That's what makes the difference between an ok movie and a great one, and its even more critical in this instance because Edmund's struggle over turkish delight makes us identify with him and identify with his need for Aslan's sacrifice.

Adamson also missed developing the intensity of the witch's evil and desperation. Isn't it important that the queen knows that she is losing her grasp on Narnia, and is seeking desperately to hold on to her power? When she trades her claim on Edmund and finally murders Aslan, the celebration of her victory is the greatest irony, but the irony is lost in the flatness of the witch's character. She seems so self-assured and unphased by the melting snow around her. Aslan is not a real threat, he's only a wrinkle to be dealt with, a fly in the ointment. That's not how I interpret the situation and I think the witch of Lewis's book is rattled and desperate to kill either the children or the lion.

Finally, I didn't particularly like Aslan. He was too tame, too gentle. I love Lewis's lines that make it into the end of the film,

Mr. Tumnus: He's not a tame lion.
Lucy: Yes, but he is good.

But in the movie, except for one instance that I can remember, ASLAN IS A TAME LION!

To me, these shortfalls sadly rob the movie of some of the spiritual power of the book. But despite these complaints, the movie is a good show. The children are well cast and Lucy (Georgie Henley) constantly steals the show. I thought any film with talking animals would be lame from the start, but Disney comes through with their typical special effects magic. One great move that I loved in the film was that after the witch kills Aslan, she appears on the battlefield cloaked in his shaven mane. I don't remember that detail from the book (although it might be there), but it is a cool decision that added to my experience. The sets are beautiful and, if the film doesn't capture the texture of the book, it does closely honor the basic plot line. I'm glad I went to see the movie and I will gladly pay to see the next installment.