Writing/Narnia...
Jan. 15th, 2006 06:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSort of procrastinating writing the next bit of Chapter 15 of my novel, the good news is I plotted out what this portion would be over a month ago and that it would happen approximately in Chapter 14 or 15, and voila, it is.
How's that for plotting without using an outline? (I did it more or less in my head, then jotted it down in notebook, before I forgot. Often my head skips ahead in my story. And I have to force myself to pull back and work up to the point that my head/heart wants me to write at. Has anyone experienced this problem? Or is it just me?)
Just came back from seeing Chronicles of Narnia:The Lion, The Witch & the Wardrobe, which I'd been putting off seeing for numerous reasons - the main ones being that there are a lot of other movies out at the moment I want to see even more. But I know that this film needs to be seen on the big-screen if you want to see it at all, while the others can be seen on a small one - ie. Matchpoint, Munich, Casonova,
and Memoirs of a Geisha - well not so much Memoirs, but I'm on the fence about Memoirs and Casonova, to be honest.
Did I like Chronicles?
I have read all the Chronicles of Narnia novels. Not recently, mind you. I read them when I was approximately 11 years old or whatever age you are when you reach the 5th or 6th grades. While I enjoyed the novels, they did not stick with me in the same way that Zilphia Keatly Snyder's books did or Madeline L'Engle, or for that matter Ursula Le Quinn's Wizard of Earthsea, which I liked better.
What bugged me about the Chronicles, and I did not remember this until I was in the middle of the movie, was two things: 1) the lack of a strong female heroine. The Chronicles disappointed me, because I thought I had the heroine in Lucy. But was completely set-up. Also, the books are very male focused, women tend to fit into two roles - either caregivers, healing the sick or the witch, icy and regal. 2) I sympathized with Edmund and struggled with Peter who was a tad on the self-righteous end of the spectrum. Not sure if I sympathized with Edmund when I was 10, but I did here, which was odd.
The movie is beautifully crafted. Although I could tell the animals are CGI and the special effects were more or less obvious, the scenerary is spectacular and the small details on creatures such as Mr. Thomas - the fawn, and
the evil dwarf aiding the Queen are quite mezmerizing. My favorite character may well be Mr. Thomas. Also Tilda Swinton's performance of the White Witch is equally mesmerizing. She chooses the opposite approach that most actresses have chosen when given similar roles, instead of hamming it up, she goes the opposite direction - complete restraint. Frozen. Ice cold. Yet her eyes express exactly what her plans are. You can see her plotting while she is seducing poor Edmund and you can see why he'd be seduced. She is beautiful. Graceful. Looking at her is a bit like looking at a sculpture made of ice. And in some ways her character reminded me a bit of Hans Christian Anderson's The Snow Queen - in her palace made of ice, with Edmund caught under her spell. Aslan is also quite pretty, but disappointing, again, you could tell he was CGI, no where near as realistic as Peter Jackson's Gollum. But servicable.
All in all? I had no problems with how the film appeared, it is beautiful. Nor with how it was acted - well-cast and well-performed. The pacing was fairly tight. Yes, I looked at or attempted to look at my watch more than once, but it did not drag.
What I had troubles with was the story and the dialogue, which more than once made me roll my eyes. There was in fact a point in the film that I considered leaving, but changed my mind. That point came when Aslan told Peter that Edmund had betrayed them all and it would be difficult bringing him back into the fold. But we will forgive him. It felt, patronizing. The whole story in fact felt patronizing. And reminded me a great deal of certain branch of Christianity that I ran into while in school - which pushes my buttons - it's the branch of Christianity that Phillip Pullman makes fun of in His Dark Materials and Terry Prachette/Neil Gaiman make fun of in Good Omens, which I'm tempted to pick up again. Started reading it a bit during the Xmas holidays, but wasn't able to get into it. (I'm a moody reader.) The view is that we are in a holy war. The Devil has his troops on one side and God has his troops on the other, and earth is the battle-field, each side trying to win souls. It is a view of the universe that seems overly simplistic to me and at times offensive, justifying warfare and killing. Aslan tells the children they are queens and kings ruling over Narnia - they have been given roles but not really choices. It feels very pre-ordained.
I agree with other critics that I've read regarding this film - it is a "literal" interpretation of the books in many ways, but does not really add anything to the cinematic landscape. Unlike the LOTR, which has sections that do haunt me - Chronicles feels fluffy.
I can't say I really enjoyed it, yet at the same time can't say I regretted seeing it. Except, perhaps that I know it is highly unlikely I'll go see another one in the series. I almost prefer my vague memories of reading the series to what I saw on screen, in those memories, I've managed to delete the things I didn't like and keep the things I did. So overall? No, I guess I didn't really like it all that much and can't say I'd recommend it to anyone else.
How's that for plotting without using an outline? (I did it more or less in my head, then jotted it down in notebook, before I forgot. Often my head skips ahead in my story. And I have to force myself to pull back and work up to the point that my head/heart wants me to write at. Has anyone experienced this problem? Or is it just me?)
Just came back from seeing Chronicles of Narnia:The Lion, The Witch & the Wardrobe, which I'd been putting off seeing for numerous reasons - the main ones being that there are a lot of other movies out at the moment I want to see even more. But I know that this film needs to be seen on the big-screen if you want to see it at all, while the others can be seen on a small one - ie. Matchpoint, Munich, Casonova,
and Memoirs of a Geisha - well not so much Memoirs, but I'm on the fence about Memoirs and Casonova, to be honest.
Did I like Chronicles?
I have read all the Chronicles of Narnia novels. Not recently, mind you. I read them when I was approximately 11 years old or whatever age you are when you reach the 5th or 6th grades. While I enjoyed the novels, they did not stick with me in the same way that Zilphia Keatly Snyder's books did or Madeline L'Engle, or for that matter Ursula Le Quinn's Wizard of Earthsea, which I liked better.
What bugged me about the Chronicles, and I did not remember this until I was in the middle of the movie, was two things: 1) the lack of a strong female heroine. The Chronicles disappointed me, because I thought I had the heroine in Lucy. But was completely set-up. Also, the books are very male focused, women tend to fit into two roles - either caregivers, healing the sick or the witch, icy and regal. 2) I sympathized with Edmund and struggled with Peter who was a tad on the self-righteous end of the spectrum. Not sure if I sympathized with Edmund when I was 10, but I did here, which was odd.
The movie is beautifully crafted. Although I could tell the animals are CGI and the special effects were more or less obvious, the scenerary is spectacular and the small details on creatures such as Mr. Thomas - the fawn, and
the evil dwarf aiding the Queen are quite mezmerizing. My favorite character may well be Mr. Thomas. Also Tilda Swinton's performance of the White Witch is equally mesmerizing. She chooses the opposite approach that most actresses have chosen when given similar roles, instead of hamming it up, she goes the opposite direction - complete restraint. Frozen. Ice cold. Yet her eyes express exactly what her plans are. You can see her plotting while she is seducing poor Edmund and you can see why he'd be seduced. She is beautiful. Graceful. Looking at her is a bit like looking at a sculpture made of ice. And in some ways her character reminded me a bit of Hans Christian Anderson's The Snow Queen - in her palace made of ice, with Edmund caught under her spell. Aslan is also quite pretty, but disappointing, again, you could tell he was CGI, no where near as realistic as Peter Jackson's Gollum. But servicable.
All in all? I had no problems with how the film appeared, it is beautiful. Nor with how it was acted - well-cast and well-performed. The pacing was fairly tight. Yes, I looked at or attempted to look at my watch more than once, but it did not drag.
What I had troubles with was the story and the dialogue, which more than once made me roll my eyes. There was in fact a point in the film that I considered leaving, but changed my mind. That point came when Aslan told Peter that Edmund had betrayed them all and it would be difficult bringing him back into the fold. But we will forgive him. It felt, patronizing. The whole story in fact felt patronizing. And reminded me a great deal of certain branch of Christianity that I ran into while in school - which pushes my buttons - it's the branch of Christianity that Phillip Pullman makes fun of in His Dark Materials and Terry Prachette/Neil Gaiman make fun of in Good Omens, which I'm tempted to pick up again. Started reading it a bit during the Xmas holidays, but wasn't able to get into it. (I'm a moody reader.) The view is that we are in a holy war. The Devil has his troops on one side and God has his troops on the other, and earth is the battle-field, each side trying to win souls. It is a view of the universe that seems overly simplistic to me and at times offensive, justifying warfare and killing. Aslan tells the children they are queens and kings ruling over Narnia - they have been given roles but not really choices. It feels very pre-ordained.
I agree with other critics that I've read regarding this film - it is a "literal" interpretation of the books in many ways, but does not really add anything to the cinematic landscape. Unlike the LOTR, which has sections that do haunt me - Chronicles feels fluffy.
I can't say I really enjoyed it, yet at the same time can't say I regretted seeing it. Except, perhaps that I know it is highly unlikely I'll go see another one in the series. I almost prefer my vague memories of reading the series to what I saw on screen, in those memories, I've managed to delete the things I didn't like and keep the things I did. So overall? No, I guess I didn't really like it all that much and can't say I'd recommend it to anyone else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 02:04 am (UTC)Oddly, I remember loving the books even though I didn't read them as a child (probably weren't even written when I was a child!)--I think I just liked the idea of going into a magic world, and didn't catch the Christian references at the time.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 05:41 am (UTC)It started out well with Lucy and the Faun and I think I fell a bit in love with the actor portraying the Faun - he's so perfect. Also Edmund and the Queen which is the perfect contrast. The film didn't really work for me after that and I could not abide the older siblings, they grated on my nerves.
Interestingly enough, I saw the Brother's Grimm the night before. Which has similar themes and moments - two brother's fight a witch, one gets mortally injured while the other must kill her. One almost betrays the other. I don't believe the Brother's Grimm is a great movie, it is deeply flawed and very busy, but I enjoyed it more than Narnia and it still haunts me, in a way the film Narnia didn't. Gilliam takes more risks in it. Plays with our assumptions more, twists our views of fairy tales and sets up some frightening images. He also demonstrates that the Grimm tales are in some ways more horror than fantasy. Some images from that film I keep replaying in
my head long after it's over, can't say the same for Narnia. And if I were to watch one of them again or recommend one? It would be Brother's Grimm.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 03:02 pm (UTC)The first half hour or so of Narnia is definitely much better than the rest.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 04:51 pm (UTC)One of the things that is fascinating about the film - is the actors who play the brothers are cast against type. Heath Ledger - normally the romantic lead and hunk in films, with his long blond locks, plays the nebbish and close-shaven Jacob, who is socially awkward and seldom gets the girl. While Matt Damon, normally plays the nebbish, socially awkward, close shaven role - is playing the romantic lead, hunk, with the long blond locks.
Does it work? In a way. It's certainly interesting. And was done at the actor's request. Gilliam went along because he was fascinated by the idea of it. (I got this bit from the commentary that comes with the DVD.)
It's an odd movie. Almost too much going on. But some amazingly haunting images that will stay with you long after it is over. Of the two films, I'd definitely recommend Grimm over Narnia as not only the more creative effort but the more interesting and gripping of the two.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 02:20 am (UTC)I was thrilled with the faun (I didn't think the producers would be so brave, I thought they would try to make the faun more 'Disney-esque').
And I agree about the witch, she did a great job (avoiding the campy pit-falls).
I loved C.S. Lewis, but there is no way around the fact that his Narnia books are pretty superficial and light-weight, we've been really spoiled by many better books for kids.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 05:33 am (UTC)It's not just that they are superficial, but that there is some truth to Phillip Pullman's accusation - these are children's books that preach a world of strife, control, and misogyny - that is faintly disturbing. These aren't books I will buy my niece or suggest she read. And at the time I read them, there were better books out - much better - Frank L. Baum's Wizard of OZ, Ursula Le Quinn's Wizard of Earthsea series, the Anne McCaffrey novels, the Andre Norton WitchWorld. Plus Zilphia Keatley Snyder. On the Christian front, there was MAdeline L'Engle.
I enjoyed C.S. Lewis at the time, and have now read other works by him, including Screwtape Letters. I don't like his writings. And find him somewhat didatic in style. It's odd, looking backwards, I wonder if I noticed the whole Christianity slant at the time? I think I did.
May have even agreed with it, but I grew out of it. Questioned it.
Course, I read Ursula Le Quinn's series, Snyder's Witches of Worm, and Ellen Rankin's Westing Game soon after, so that may have had an effect. All three of which haunt me more than Narnia did, two of which I think my parents may still own (I know they have the Le Quinn series since that's a classic, and I think they have Game).
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 04:44 pm (UTC)