![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
So I just got around to watching the Narnia movie (wardrobe) [the reasoning why I didn't see it until now is basically a long not bitter at all, type going wrong things]. I realise there are lots of issues, lack of poc, lack of female speaking roles, CS Lewis is a man of many issues and so is hollywood, and just all round BLAH.
But the issue that stood out the most for me personally is the same one that pissed me off as a child -despite enjoying most of Narnia- when the Fox spoke about getting into genetics... He looked like one of the enemy.
Just the concept that there are good beasts and bad and everything was broken up into races. It felt like it eliminated the element of choice, which really undermined Aslan's sacrifice - he chose to sacrifice himself in order to save Edmund. People chose to follow the Queen or Aslan - that's what makes the choice... have consequences and meaning. =/
It makes a more striking battle appearance, but it makes me feel sick at how shallow and superficial it is.
This is also possibly the point where I admit I felt slightly guilty about enjoying Narnia a small child because I caught the Christ metaphor, but didn't understand that it was um. Meant to be there? I thought it cheapened actual Christianity. ;>.> *makes the oogie boogie type motions*
My opinion these days is very different, though oddly enough for almost the exact same reasoning. I think fictional drama on real life issues can be a good thing as it makes things more identifiable and well. personal. You get a better idea for what that sacrifice meant exactly. Seeing Aslan's discomfort and thinking about how frightened he must of been but he knew what he needed to do - makes me thing about the situation it's reflecting. Thinking about why stuff was wrong or good and the issues behind things is really important as far as I'm concerned, instead of just ... If you don't think, where is the choice and where is the meaning behind your belief?
Though a lot of people are idiots, and I think sensitive issues should be treated sensitively...
The PoC issue bothers me a lot more than female roles. At least in the BBC miniseries there were black centaurs as well as white ones with the humanoid part (~.~; though they didn't get speaking roles IIRC and still no Hispanic/Middle Eastern/Asian/Other.), it would of been easy to have a bit of diversity amongst the humanoids.
It could of been worse* though.... which Narnia did actually >.<;... and not just with black dwarf Vs Red dwarf thing, like the human nations in "Horse and His Boy".... Calormen = so much face palm. (ack. Why did I have to like Shasta and Bree snarky friendship so much? Why did Aravis seem so kick ass? This was my favourite. D:) At least in the movie it's just animals - sentient though they may be - rather than dividing up people into that undercurrent of being born into roles where they are basically not good people.
*shrugs* The female characters that Narnia had always rocked my socks a lot so the unbalancing never really bothered me. Though I was always irritated about the santa line about women in battle being an ugly thing. Anyone in battle is an ugly thing.
(Also Jadis was totally hot when she had the two swords. Just sayin')
Heh. And I can see how much I changed and didn't change. I still enjoy some parts of Narnia, but looking at a lot of issues in the series still makes me feel slightly guilty about it. Just the reasoning for why is different. And the irritation has gone up.
I don't know if I'll be able to watch Caspian now though. And I'm not sure if Narnia is a book series I want to encourage my kids (if I ever have any) to read, even though before it was always on the list of things they must have a copy of. =/
*I would rather attribute stupidity than malice.
But the issue that stood out the most for me personally is the same one that pissed me off as a child -despite enjoying most of Narnia- when the Fox spoke about getting into genetics... He looked like one of the enemy.
Just the concept that there are good beasts and bad and everything was broken up into races. It felt like it eliminated the element of choice, which really undermined Aslan's sacrifice - he chose to sacrifice himself in order to save Edmund. People chose to follow the Queen or Aslan - that's what makes the choice... have consequences and meaning. =/
It makes a more striking battle appearance, but it makes me feel sick at how shallow and superficial it is.
This is also possibly the point where I admit I felt slightly guilty about enjoying Narnia a small child because I caught the Christ metaphor, but didn't understand that it was um. Meant to be there? I thought it cheapened actual Christianity. ;>.> *makes the oogie boogie type motions*
My opinion these days is very different, though oddly enough for almost the exact same reasoning. I think fictional drama on real life issues can be a good thing as it makes things more identifiable and well. personal. You get a better idea for what that sacrifice meant exactly. Seeing Aslan's discomfort and thinking about how frightened he must of been but he knew what he needed to do - makes me thing about the situation it's reflecting. Thinking about why stuff was wrong or good and the issues behind things is really important as far as I'm concerned, instead of just ... If you don't think, where is the choice and where is the meaning behind your belief?
Though a lot of people are idiots, and I think sensitive issues should be treated sensitively...
The PoC issue bothers me a lot more than female roles. At least in the BBC miniseries there were black centaurs as well as white ones with the humanoid part (~.~; though they didn't get speaking roles IIRC and still no Hispanic/Middle Eastern/Asian/Other.), it would of been easy to have a bit of diversity amongst the humanoids.
It could of been worse* though.... which Narnia did actually >.<;... and not just with black dwarf Vs Red dwarf thing, like the human nations in "Horse and His Boy".... Calormen = so much face palm. (ack. Why did I have to like Shasta and Bree snarky friendship so much? Why did Aravis seem so kick ass? This was my favourite. D:) At least in the movie it's just animals - sentient though they may be - rather than dividing up people into that undercurrent of being born into roles where they are basically not good people.
*shrugs* The female characters that Narnia had always rocked my socks a lot so the unbalancing never really bothered me. Though I was always irritated about the santa line about women in battle being an ugly thing. Anyone in battle is an ugly thing.
(Also Jadis was totally hot when she had the two swords. Just sayin')
Heh. And I can see how much I changed and didn't change. I still enjoy some parts of Narnia, but looking at a lot of issues in the series still makes me feel slightly guilty about it. Just the reasoning for why is different. And the irritation has gone up.
I don't know if I'll be able to watch Caspian now though. And I'm not sure if Narnia is a book series I want to encourage my kids (if I ever have any) to read, even though before it was always on the list of things they must have a copy of. =/
*I would rather attribute stupidity than malice.
Oh well. It's been so long since I read the books. I missed the allegory entirely as a child, but I wasn't raised Christian.
Although it probably comes down to Lewis being a wanker.
But he's also made less sympathetic. We see some of the signs of being mean to Edmund from Peter but the movie flattens it and makes it seem... Insincere? So at the end he's being noble to take the blame where as in the novel it felt more clear that family issues and wanting to be special was why Edmund was more inclined to listen to the witch.
There was also a bit in the novel that made me think that he had definitely been bullied at school - because they said something about how his school had changed him (and they went to boarding schools).
They also had a bit in the book if you eat and drank with the white witch she gained power over you but I can't tell if it got mucked up by advertising or if they just really didn't cover it at all in the movie.
He definitely got his redemption in the book and became a better person, but I don't think it was made as clear in the movie. (Pretty much all of the Narnia books start out with unpleasant children though, that become nicer as the book goes on.)
But that works too.
I suppose since I think a large part of Christian morality is BS I'd be a bit less able to figure out the sin stuff from the movie hints
CS Lewis is still a wanker, though.
The sins Edmund suffered were envy/anger with relation to Peter and greed/pride with the witch- he was sensitive with how he was being compared, he chose to ignore some of the warning signs which is how it became treachery - he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he tried to logic it away letting greed take advantage.
The movie approached it really badly.
My point of view is a bit bias though - Edmund throughout the series is compared to his other siblings and tends to comes up in a way where he feels he is inferior. He was the other son, disfavoured compared to golden boy Peter who he has to live up to. Lucy is the one closest to the heart of Narnia and the baby of the family and Susan well... Lucy in the voyage of the dawn treader goes into the same thing a little bit with being jealous of Susan, who is the pretty one.
It's been at least over a year since I've read wardrobe, but Edmund while being obnoxious, was overall was a fairly sympathic character for me and it went to detail in last chapter that he worked hard to overcome his wrongs - hence the title of just. Which the movie is like oh hey and bye with.
(And Peter was a bit of an ass. Really.) When we see him again in horse and his boy he's pretty likeable all the way through IIRC. And he's the good one in voyage, where we have a new obnoxious child to take the lead, Eustace!
*Obnoxious != I didn't like overall.
To be honest on the same pathway Edmund's treatment and development though was why Susan in the last battle didn't come across that badly for me [which is the one everyone gets upset about] with how she was treated because she was being set up as a plot point in opposition with Edmund (original four, bad circumstances to begin with choice made close to Aslan, Susan = better start but choices pulled her away and she had the better background for it) and it couldn't be Lucy (because Lucy = heart and who the books were written for to begin with). It was either her or Peter - and Peter wasn't quite as keen to grow up and lose his childhood magic/innocence - which is fairly common in almost all forms of children's lit, western and eastern.
I didn't see it related to women in general or her as a person, but rather. Well CS Lewis's great big gaping Morality Issues. (It helped that I had figured out the Christ metaphor not that long before reading last battle)
The way women in general are treated - tending to take the background, male characters more prominent and more frequent, the battles are ugly with women in them - though at least they still got to fight - rather than the specific plot points are what make me sad when it comes to Narnia. And to be honest there are a lot of series that don't have any female characters at all, or ones that I can not stand.
(Jadis was an awesome villain, Polly I liked way more than Diggory, Jill the same with Eustace, Aravis rocked my socks. Susan was awesome - sensible and glamorous - she took it too far but those traits were things I wanted -a lot- and Lucy, always struck me as being the soul of the series.)
I realise now I didn't make it as clear as I wanted up there. I didn't think there was something wrong with writing the scene as a child - Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on noble heroic sacrifice that works out in the end... I thought there was something wrong with me for making the comparison.
Just though that was the thing that stuck out the most while watching the movie, it's what makes the other issues seem more problematic - and it's the other issues particularly PoC, which I didn't pick up on as a kid that leave the longer impression.
I dunno how much the explanation of "It's just the times, and I can't really blame [significant person] for being [racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise bigoted] when most of the society was encouraging and enforcing it" can defend a person, but I don't think it's good enough for CS Lewis and it's certainly not good enough for modern day adaptations/interpretations.
But yeah, the adaptions don't have much in the way of excuses for it at all. =/