More Narnia Reaction

The reaction to the Chronicles of Narnia movie as compared to the reaction to Brokeback Mountain or King Kong has been culturally illuminating. Movie reviewers are culturally liberal as a group, whatever their politics. This need not be and in fact liberal may be the wrong term for the bias. The media is not so much out of step in terms of liberal politics, but socially and culturally. It is secular and libertine when much of the nation (if not almost all of it) is religious and moralistic.

But as a recent blog entry at National Review On-Line pointed out reviewers also live in a strange world. Most go to many movies a week. Most of us do not. Many reviewers crave something new while many of us got to movies as entertainment hoping for something our entire family can enjoy. Even Christian film buffs are not immune to this. At a Christian college it is perfectly predictable that a certain sort of student will hate (as a matter of first principle) any film most Christian’s like. They are so upset with the Christian sub-culture (often for just reasons) that their logic, to paraphrase Sarek, is uncertain when it comes to Christian films. Secular film reviewers, who seem to fear that any ticket for Narnia will lead to the Christian Taliban ruling America, are even more conflicted.

King Kong may be a great movie that breaks all records. However, surely someone could point out that it is a bizarre title to release at Christmas and that remakes do not always fare well. This looks like a great summer film put out at the wrong time. However, most sites looked as if they could not wait to get Narnia off their front pages; some never put it there, and put Kong in its place. My bet is that (in the end) Narnia makes more money over the Holidays than Kong. Even if I am wrong about the numbers, the unequal treatment given the two may speak to this media bias.

One of the most bizarre reviews of Narnia was at www.boxofficemojo.com. To be fair to the reviewer he seems generally cranky and he hated Kong. However, a quick Google search of his writings shows him to be a secular libertarian of the “religion is bad” school. From the title forward, it is plain that he has not even tried to shelve his ideology in reviewing the film. Of course, he has a right to do this, but it just means that the ninety percent or so of Americans who do not share his views must take his opinions with a grain of salt. It is a common tactic of secularists to try to divide the religious by labels and name callings. Most Americans don’t like fundamentalism of any kind given the way it has been portrayed to them by the media so mainstream Christians (who share the views of the Pope or Billy Graham) are painted as weird religious extremists. Since most of us have no desire to be on the fringe we separate ourselves from these groups and in those way the tiny secularists minority can cling to the power it has in our republic.  

My comments are in italics.

Scott Holleran

Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, based on the first in a series of children's books by C.S. Lewis, puts its religious ideas—faith, sacrifice, selflessness—to graphic images of death, supernaturalism and stark terror, making it inappropriate for young children.

This is a judgment that may or may not be reasonable. One can compare the reviewers take on the Harry Potter movies to see if this is a fair conclusion. However, one will not the complaint about “supernaturalism” in the list of things inappropriate for children. Does the author mean that God-talk can damage a young mind? Such a complaint would be impossible to prove, so one can only hope that he meant something else. If not, then we have the first hint of an irrational bias against religion.

This fanciful Christian propaganda opens with the bombing of London as a mother and her four children run for their lives. Dad's at war when the bombs start falling and middle child Edmund (Skandar Keynes) runs back to grab his father's photograph, prompting older brother Peter (William Moseley) to admonish him for being selfish. The self must be denied, Narnia warns, for the sake of others. Or else.

The director of the film is not a Christian. I see no evidence that the Disney Company is overrun with Christians. There were Christians involved in making this film, but since eighty some percent of the nation is Christian that is not surprising. In what way is this Christian propaganda? If it does support world-view than is Brokeback Mountain libertine propaganda?
Evidently the notion of self-denial really bothers the reviewer. That is his right, but of course one could ask his qualifications as a film reviewer to make such statements. It is also an odd time to make this criticism. He seems to feel that at the Holidays most children are in danger of thinking too much of their nation or of others. Has he ever had children or visited a mall? I don’t see little tykes overrun with monastic abhorrence of the things of this world. Perhaps a small reminder of duty, honor, country and living for others might help make them less narcissistic and more, well, jolly?
As for the “or else”, apparently the reviewer has never read Plato and discovered that selfishness and tyranny in the soul harms it. Being selfish makes you unlovable both to others and yourself. The “or else” is natural consequence of your behavior.  

What an else. But first, we meet the kids when they are sent by their mother to live in the country with an old professor. He lives in a big house with acres of empty rooms and closets and nothing for kids to do. The plot is relatively simple for a time, as the family dynamic takes shape. The youngest child, Lucy (Georgie Henley), represents pure faith and there's a responsible older sister, Susan (Anna Popplewell), and Peter, who is in charge. Selfish Edmund is the demon seed in need of redemption.

Lucy (whose name means light) does not represent pure faith. She is the one “who sees.” Peter and Susan both act by faith (in the traditional Christian sense) but do not see as well due to their lack of logic (as the Professor points out). They have been blinded by an educational system that does not teach an open philosophy of knowledge, but places secularist blinders on them. Now this may be wrong, Lewis would be happy for a good argument, but it is not what the reviewer seems to think it is.
If by faith one means (with Dante whose bust is prominent in the Professor’s mansion and ideas in Lewis’ writings): assenting to the most reasonable idea about which one still has doubts, then Lucy does have “faith.” If one means belief in the absurd or despite the evidence, then this is a concept that the Narnia books (and to a lesser extent the film) and Lewis rejected.
When a game of hide and seek leads Lucy into the imposing wardrobe, she steps into Narnia, a fantasy world with fauns, centaurs and an evil white witch (Tilda Swinton, dripping with contempt for children like she eats them for breakfast). Up until now, Lucy is a nice kid, but, like the movie, she grows less benign as she personifies the self-abnegation theme.

Evidently the reviewer thinks giving of self for the sake of others a fearful and evil idea. Of course, “self-sacrifice” may be false and not genuine. Lewis himself pointed out that some people do “give of themselves” in a controlling and manipulating manner. However, we would have to believe with a tiny secularist minority, against our experience (by irrational “faith”?) that all such actions are false and hypocritical. All the hospitals, charities, and community service done by self-denying people would be the problem. We should live (I suppose) in a Darwinian world where everyone lives for self. This sort of person delights in picking holes in folk like Mother Theresa or self-sacrificing public servants. There is a sort of brutal appearance of honesty to this, but if everyone who is afraid their kids will become like Mother Theresa instead of Ayn Rand does not go to this film I doubt it dents the box office. Bluntly, it is a world view that is ugly and not particularly rational.  
The other children follow Lucy through the gateway to snowy Narnia—the prerequisite is faith—

This is simply false. Edmund finds Narnia, because it is there, when he is deeply skeptical about it. He goes into the Wardrobe to mock Lucy and finds Narnia. Peter and Susan also find Narnia by accident not because they have “faith.”  
and the conflict takes shape, with Edmund willing to sell his family to the witch, Narnia's dictator who has outlawed humans. Director Andrew Adamson (Shrek) makes the most of Lewis' characters in visual terms, though he doesn't linger for longer than a few seconds. Who can blame him? With preachy beavers, a two-faced fox and wolves, who sound like they smoke two packs a day, it would all seem a little ridiculous if kept on too long.

Lewis has written a fairy tale. A fairy tale is not a Dickens novel and is not dependent of deeply drawn characters. Instead a fairy tale is about place and deep archetypical lessons. The reviewer may find fairy tales absurd, but I am fairly assured the genre will out last him.

In fact, it does, with Narnia looking fake, though Adamson keeps it relatively convincing by moving things along at a brisk pace.

This is an odd sentence. What is it for a fantasy world to look “fake?”

The story remains intact, such as it is, with Narnians prattling on about a prophecy and someone named Aslan, a lion king (voiced by Liam Neeson) who uses mystical powers only after most of Narnia has already dropped dead. Rock bottom is reached when Santa Claus drops in looking like something the reindeer dragged in and sounding more like Oprah than a jolly old elf.

We now know the reviewer does not like prophecy in his fairy tales. He also (it appears) would only wish to believe in a god who keeps bad things from happening . . . an unfortunate position for a libertarian. Apparently, God would have to save us all from the consequences of all our choices in order to pass muster with this reviewer. Of course, it is Father Christmas and not Santa Claus who drops in, but knowledge of what he is reviewing does not appear a strong suit.
Bad Edmund gets what he has coming (by the movie's morality), which means he is undeservedly forgiven in the next instant, this being a Christian picture. Like religion, this winter wonderland is arbitrary but, on its own terms, the fantasy falls apart.

Religion and forgiveness are arbitrary? How? The moral universe in Narnia, as in the real world, operates in a law-like manner. Sin and you are harmed by it as is everyone else around you. You pay a price and so does the community. Sometimes a great act of self-sacrifice can redeem the situation. This is not just a Christian notion, but is the result of centuries of human experience. Forgiveness is a mighty act that can help heal the worst situations.

Non-Christians should pause as they read this review. Most people in the USA don’t like Christianity because they are afraid it leads to an overly rigid morality. But is only a religion that knows the law, the deep magic of the movie, which can forgive. Secularists invent their own morality and transgressing that morality carries “rehabilitation” (which sounds so much more cheerful than punishment!) that only ends when the secularist is satisfied. Laws can be broken and mercy can be given in a rational universe with a Law Giver. Everything else, which looks at first like freedom, is simply substituting a Creator who gives us rights (as the Declaration states) with men who allow us rights.  
Dependable Peter leads his family into harm's way because a couple of beavers told him it's his duty to help others, which makes it still harder to accept nebulous Narnia as worth the lives of four children.

This is bizarrely the opposite of the film. . . Peter struggles through the entire film (too long in my opinion) to decide if saving Narnia is worth the danger. He bases his final decision not just on the “word of the beavers,” but his experience with the dangers that the free folk of that world face. Like any good Englishman in World War II, he is willing to run risk that others might be free.
The freedom of an entire country is in peril, the children might be able to save it, and they place the needs of the many (not at all nebulous creatures but real sentient beings they come to love) over their own needs. Like our brave soldiers in Iraq, they sense that it is the duty of free men and women to protect those that cannot protect themselves. The reviewer may think that such sacrifice is worthless, but I am glad that the veterans of the first two World Wars (Lewis was one) did not agree.

The faun who befriended Lucy wanted to turn her in, the centaur had a tough time taking a liking to Peter, who's been designated the future king, and all Aslan seems to do is negotiate with the enemy and sacrifice himself.

Much of this is called character development in a film the reviewer likes. Some of it is just false.
The faun is selfish and a quisling. He puts his own needs over that of his fellow Narnians and works for the secret police. Of course, failing to do this and acting as a patriot would require self-sacrifice so perhaps the reviewer is upset that the faun eventually saves Lucy to his own peril. He wants to turn Lucy in before he knows what a human is. When he gets to know a human he sees that his species-ism is wrong-headed. He has learned to love someone different than himself at great cost to himself.

Aslan frees Edmund from the White Witch, does not place himself above the law, and kills the White Witch. What else should he have done?
The humans are not much better; Susan, the smart sister, abandons reason,

Instead, Susan opens her mind to the fact that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in a secularist philosophy. She is, in fact, encouraged to embrace reason by the professor.
Peter is hell-bent on risking the family for Narnia and, by now, Lucy is grating on the nerves. It seems poor Edmund, imprisoned by the witch, only wanted some candy.

Peter spends two-thirds of the film trying to get his family home. This statement is false and almost perversely so. We are not told what is grating about Lucy who is a favorite of almost every other reviewer of this film. Edmund’s love of Turkish Delight was a symptom for his self-centered desire to be “king of Narnia” and lord it over his siblings. He is willing to betray them for his own desires. Like many a selfish person, he discovers that getting what he wants means that he does not get what he wants!
  
The big battle, with mixed match-ups and acts of valor that make no sense, is a bust. Narnia's greatest asset—Swinton as the white witch—is undone by overproduced fight photography, engaging her sword against a child in slow motion, forced to waste her best efforts at wickedness in a few moments that make her look like she's Tina Turner from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome auditioning for Madonna's Vogue video.

I don’t agree with this, but at least it has to do with the film and not the writer’s world view.
None of it is pretty, even when it's supposed to be, let alone exalted. Despite Adamson's mitigating efforts, Narnia stands for death, destruction and renunciation of self in a poorly disguised Christian fairy tale.

Narnia stands for life over death. It understands that a life lived for self where one lives as long as possible at the expense of duty, honor, and country ends up being long, but miserable. It understands that in the light of eternity such a choice is even more foolish.

Narnia is for the destruction of tyranny and the establishment of liberty under law.

Narnia believes that one finds the best self in the denial of selfish desires and in embracing love.

Narnia is a Christian fairy tale. One might want to compare secularist’s fairy tales and their dystopias to Narnia and decide which worldview has the better ideals. In any case, one should also beware getting worldview from a film reviewer with no qualifications!