Comments on: The Red Witch

By: tab3791

tab3791 — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:03:27 +0000

Haven’t seen Narnia yet, don’t know when or if I’m going to get around it. I don’t want to see Peter as a reluctant hero. That was one of the things that ruined Lord of the Rings for me, when Aragorn was such a whiney wimp.

But can you really expect a movie to be faithful to a book in the underlying reality if the director and those in charge can’t fathom the original world-view? Even if they get all the actions 100% correct and don’t leave out any relevant event, it will still be colored by their own perceptions, which can’t fit the underlying premises unless they understand it themselves.

Which is why it’s rare for an excellent book to make a good movie, because excellent books are subtle in their complexity, and it’s easy for someone who doesn’t know to miss it.

But not impossible.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:04:31 +0000

It is only possible to say it is faithful to the book if you look at it very superficially. For instance, how many big Hollywood blockbusters can you name that have not had a reluctant hero, like Batman Begins? And so Adamson made Peter a reluctant hero, although Lewis’ Peter is a confident leader. Even after the children are told the prophecy that the four of them will sit on thrones, Peter continues to talk the rest of the movie about how he’ll stay, but the others need to be safe, they have to go home as soon as possible.
It would be interesting to write an essay on that aspect of the movie, dealing with the postmodern version of a hero (always reluctant to step into their destiny) compared with other versions throughout history.

By: thecachinnator

thecachinnator — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:54:29 +0000

I’m with you on the film. I left completely nonplussed. I abandoned being able to call it a good movie when Aslan cried out, “It is finished,” before dying. A movie faithful to the book would have spent more time on the restoration of Edmond, the healing of the statues, and the resurrection than the big fight. Adamson blew it. The whole thing was so painfully obvious that it didn’t even resemble the book. And it’s not like the book was overly convoluted; the movie was just that in your face.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:53:06 +0000

I agree that when she talks about what she wants in a film, it is not necessarily realism. Good thoughts.

As for her ‘Red Witch’ comments, after reading a lot of interviews with her around the time of the Narnia film’s release about what she was trying to portay and what she thought Lewis meant, they helped explain why I was so strongly disappointed in the film. Although I don’t think the film would have been much different had she not been involved, because I think Adamson (the director) has such a misguided vision of Lewis’ story. I really don’t understand how people can say it was “completely faithful” to the book.

By: thecachinnator

thecachinnator — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:40:34 +0000

Being one, it is common knowledge that most actors are full of it and full of themselves, but every now and then one of us actually does have an articulate intellectual moment. I don’t even know what to do with her ‘Red Witch’ comments, but I like what she had to say about her desires in film. I would add that I desire to see the flip side of what most people will imagine she’s advocating. Most people will read what she has said and interpret that she wants a realism that is actually realistic. She never says realism, but that’s what most people think of when they think real, untidy, gritty, and earthy. I would also love to see absurdity fill some of the needs she voices. She is advocating a story that doesn’t sitcom its endings or give us the perfectly flawless character. Her vision seems to be gutsy and real. I think you can accomplish the same ends without realism. I don’t know that it would ever rival pretty realism for popularity, but I love pushing the bounds of the medium of film. Very interesting stuff.