XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, alt.religion.chiristian.east-orthodox,   
   alt.religion.chiristianity   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.episcopal, alt.christnet.theology   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
    went to see the film of The voyage of the Dawn Treader last night, and today   
   finished reading the book for the fifth time, and noted some of the   
   differences between the film and the book.   
      
   I hadn't seen the previous two Narnia films in the current series, perhaps for   
   the same reason as I never saw (and don't want to see) the films of Lord of   
   the Rings, because I don't want the film to interfere with the pictures in my   
   head when I read the books. But The voyage of the Dawn Treader is different.   
   It isn't set in Narnia itself, and is more like a series of short stories.   
      
   In the prepublicity leading up the the film release there was some talk of the   
   film removing all the "Christian" elements of the book, and interviews with   
   the producers in various publications, in which they said that they weren't   
   Christian, and so hadn't handled it as a Christian story.   
      
   Well, I don't think C.S. Lewis himself regarded it as a specifically Christian   
   story, though it is, of course, informed by his Christian worldview. The most   
   overtly Christian thing about it is at the end, where Aslan says that he is   
   known in our world by another name, and the children returning to our world   
   need to learn to know him by that name, and that was retained in the film.   
   What disappeared in the film was a lot of the theological nuances, and as it   
   was written as a children's story, they wouldn't be apparent to most children   
   on a first reading either. Perhaps seeing the film might encourage childrent   
   to read the book.   
      
   One of the things that stood out for me was that Reepicheep came across as a   
   much more sympathetic character in the film than in the book. The first couple   
   of times I read it I found him rather tiresome, and sympathised with Caspian,   
   when Reepicheep said to him, 'Your Majesty promised to be a good lord to the   
   Talking Beasts of Narnia.'   
      
   'Talking beasts, yes,' said Caspian. 'I said nothing about beasts that never   
   stop talking.'   
      
   And perhaps something of the film lingered when I reread the book, because I   
   saw Reepicheep in a new light.   
      
   The film handled Eustace Scrubb fairly well, and showed his change from an   
   unpleasant character to a somewhat improved character fairly well, though some   
   of this was lost because in the film most of the changes took place in his   
   dragon form, and not his boy form. Edmund and Lucy, however, appeared much   
   older in the film than they do in the book. Perhaps it was difficult to handle   
   their appearing to be older while in Narnia and reverting to the chronology of   
   this world on their return.   
      
   One of the things I found interesting was the things that the film added to   
   the book, and those that it removed, or emphasised less.   
      
   One of the first additions was people from the Lone Islands disappearing into   
   the mist, and a girl from the Lone Islands stowing away on the Dawn Treader   
   and becoming a kind of companion to Lucy, though her role is not clear, and it   
   is not helped by her somewhat wooden-faced performance.   
      
   What gets lost in that part of the story, partly because of the changes and   
   spurious additions, is the point that comes out strongly in Lewis's narrative   
   -- that bureaucrats who pay more attention to statistics and economic trends   
   than to people tend to lose sight of justice, and are unworthy of their   
   office. I can't help wondering if this was perhaps a bow to political   
   correctness on the part of the film's producers, in a time when governments   
   keep telling us that cuts in spending have to be made because of the   
   statistics, regardless of the effect that they might have on people.   
      
   The order of events is also changed somewhat. In one sense this does not   
   matter very much, since each episode on the voyage, each island or archipelago   
   visited is independent of the others. But in the book there is a progression.   
   At the first stop, at the Lone Islands, the voyagers are faced by mainly human   
   evil - slave traders and a corrupt bureaucracy.   
      
   In the book the next stop is at the dragon island, where Eustace is briefly   
   transformed into a dragon, and there, of course, magic enters the picture,   
   certainly in the actual transformation. But it is also human evil, in that it   
   is linked to Eustace's dragonish thoughts. The actual transformation is   
   handled quite well in the film. Where it is different, and not improved, is   
   that while in the book Eustace is transformed back into a boy before they   
   leave the island, in the film it is moved much later, and Eustace stays in   
   dragon form for longer, I suspect because the film producers wanted him to   
   fight the sea-serpent in his dragon form rather than his human form.   
      
   The sea-serpent episode is also moved closer to the end of the film, and that,   
   to me, is one of its greatest weaknesses. It tends to turn the film into a   
   B-movie like Anaconda, and I got the impression that the producers simply   
   could not resist the temptation to play with Anaconda-like special effects in   
   3D, with close-ups of the lunging head that kept snapping but never seemed to   
   actually do any significant damage. In the book it is the boy Eustace, rather   
   than the dragon, who attacks the sea-serpent, his first significant (though   
   ineffectual) act of bravery in the story.   
      
   The other significant addition in the film is the quest to collect the swords   
   of the seven missing lords, and to bring them together on Aslan's table, and   
   the change in Eustace is marked by him being the one to put the last sword   
   there, which is supposed to make everything right.   
      
   What is missing from the film is Ramandu.   
      
   Ramandu's daughter makes an appearance, and she is a star, and goes back to   
   being one, instead of marrying Caspian (though the film does show the   
   attraction he feels towards her). But Ramandu, though mentioned, does not   
   appear at all, and this is where some of the theological nuances get lost in   
   the film.   
      
      
       'In our world,' said Eustace, 'a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.'   
       'Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it   
   is made of. And in this world you have already met a star; for I think you   
   have been with Koriakin.'   
       'Is he a retired star, too?' said Lucy.   
       'Well, not quite the same,' said Ramandu. 'It was not quite as a rest that   
   he was set to govern the Duffers. You might call it a punishment. He might   
   have shone for thousands of years more in the southern winter sky if all had   
   gone well.'   
       'What did he do, Sir?' asked Caspian.   
       'My son,' said Ramandu, 'it is not for you, a son of Adam, to know what   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)