The Chronicles of Narnia

The Chronicles of Narnia: A prophecy unfolds with 4 siblings, an evil woman, Jesus, and a magical world. Warning: spoilers.

I didn't like it. In fact, I felt like I was being tortured. Why? It promoted belief without reason. This was the recurring message, throughout the movie. I'm sure some people will pick up on the message, be swayed by it, and begin to make decisions using premises that are independent of reality.

It portrayed the bad guys as people who just want to harm and have slaves, and good guys as... well people who aren't like that, but it wasn't really defined. Yea, the bad guys were bad from a Randian viewpoint, but the good guys weren't necessarily good. The only rationally selfish character in the movie was Jesus and a fox, whom both consistently did what was in their own self interest.

The most sickening part was when an old man told the children, paraphrased, "Shame on you for doubting your sister, because she is your family!" This is after her sister went to Narnia, came back, and then told her siblings, then they all tried to go, but the entrance was closed up by the cabinet wall. From the evidence the other three children had, how could it be rational to believe their youngest sister? They shouldn't have believed her until they actually saw the place for themselves, which later they did. Family and another's words mean little compared to experiencing something for yourself, and judging with your own mind.

In some parts of the story, the children attempted to force the good guys to do what they wanted. The good guys then did what they wanted, ignoring the threat on their life! (The children were portrayed as impotent, and the good guys then ignored or tossed aside their threat, but what does it matter?) For example, one of the children was captured by the evil queen. The other three then decided to save him, but they never once asked anyone how they might go about saving him. Near the end, the eldest child held out is sword and told Jesus to help him get his brother back. Jesus soon had his followers go save the brother, and was completely oblivious to the threat to his life. I have no idea why the author put that in the movie. It makes no sense! Why would the children do that? Why?

Santa Claus was one of the worst of all characters. He gave out gifts: A potion that will heal any wound to the youngest girl (Which she didn't even try on Jesus after he was killed, because her elder sister said it was "Too late."). He gave a sword to the eldest boy saying, paraphrase, "This is a tool not a toy. Use it wisely..." to a boy whom was portrayed to be unwise, and continued to be unwise through the entire movie. A bow and arrows to the older girl, which he told her, paraphrased, "Trust that this bow will work, and it will hit your target perfectly." Of course, that was how the bow worked in Narnia. But what about the real world?

The children never ask questions, or test to see how Narnia works, so that they can make good decisions. The story practically just happens to them, as told in the prophecy (which was written by whom? But who cares, thats how it works in Narnia). All they have to do is trust, believe, and exist. Hmm... well, they had to exist for the prophecy to be completed. Existing wasn't really promoted in the movie. More like, "All you have to do is trust and believe."

Post 1

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 10:52pm

"All you have to do is trust and believe."

Dean, are you sure you didn't confuse George Bush's last speech with the movie?

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/16, 10:56pm)

Post 2

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:05am

"All you have to do is trust and believe."

Why do you think Christian organisations so heavily push this movie? and Lewis's works? [Geeesh!!!]

Post 3

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:48pm

I still think one of the most evil ideas I had ever heard came from Pat Robertson comparing this to Harry Potter. He was saying that just like in real life pagans think all you have to do is just use a formula and you can solve your problems but this shows that the heros in this story need a savior... just like in real life.

My observation here is.....

get ready for it....

A HERO THAT NEEDS A FUCKING SAVIOR IS NOT A HERO!!!!!

I apologize for the language... I had an intense need to vent.

---Landon

Post 4

Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 10:34am

But it's OK that Harry Potter is completely overrun with incantations and wagonloads of supernatural elements?

They're both OK, as far as I'm concerned. They are fantasy movies, for kids. There is a piece of me that regrets Lewis' work being rolled out to a global media endeavor, though. I haven't seen the movie, and likely won't, but what I have seen of it tells me it seriously dilutes what is Lewis. The Potter books translate much better to screen, for a number of reasons.

Narnia was C.S. Lewis' first major stab at childrens' storytelling. Surely Lewis is scorned hereabouts, but there is some baby and bathwater with that. If you haven't, it's not a bad idea to learn more about him, and the circumstances regarding his conversion to Christianity. Personally, I never thought his fantasy was as good as his friend J.R.R. Tolkien's, but then again, the approaches are radically different. For my money, the best non-academic work Lewis ever wrote was The Screwtape Letters.

The Pat Robertson "savior" thing is typical Pat Robertson crap. Pat Robertson says things like that for the ultimate purpose of getting people to send money to Pat Robertson.

rde
"Me: Just Like You, Only Better."- t-shirt given from one of my daughters to another.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/25, 10:36am)

Post 5

Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 1:55pm

Rich I was quoting Pat Robertson, and for like a whole month they were doing biographical pieces on Lewis on the 700 club. I watch the show because it's informative especially once you can incorporate how the bias affects what they choose to report and how they choose to report it. I think you're a little too close to religion and a little quick to give the benefit of the doubt when faced with an evil individual who shares some of your values.

And it's not like since it's fantasy you can just totally ignore any set of views that the work itself was based on. Potter is highly individualist and has strong themes of self-reliance and mastering legitimate skills. The magic in the story IS real within the story so if Harry Potter was real the Objectivist view of metaphysics would need (and most likely get) a major overhaul. Ideas like magic are super-human powers are metaphors and storytelling tools, you can use them to make points about real life events and ideas and by taking the story out of the literal you can make the issues more universal and more relatable.

Would you find it acceptable using mystical storytelling elements like what was used in Lion Witch and Wardrobe, Harry Potter and the like to advertise the collectivism of Nazism, Communism etc... Come to think of it that's already happened. I used to be a much bigger fan of Zombie movies but the more I view them the more I see the underlying messages. Everyone alive and in a business suit is either stupid or evil. The zombie masses go through the motions of actually being alive and still working their jobs and shopping. And there's always one of the heroes who's glad to point out how "God is punishing us for our sense of pride" by descending hoards of the undead upon the world.

The ideas behind the fantasy matter.

---Landon

Post 6

Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 2:34pm

I agree with Landon. Fantasy as a genre is just a trapping or flavor on a story. The underlying philosphical message can be anything based on the author's intent. There is good and bad and every sort in between.

Post 7

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:17am

Rich makes a valid point here. Both movies have elements of the supernatural. It's ridiculous to put Harry Potter with all it's magic and superstition above the 'Chronicles of Narnia' just because it's theme is another kind of supernatural. The more relevant issue both these movies should be judged by is; which one is more friendly to the precepts individualism? Sidenote, have you noticed that 9 times out of 10 it's the atheistic liberal's and Democrat's who favor bigger government, whereas the 'christian' or religious population on the whole favor's more liberty? Just look at the voting electorate. That being said, I believe that you can have some great entertainment from those who may be religious. Just because a film may have a basic christian formulary doesn't mean it does not have any merit in the realm of expounding idea's of freedom. Take a look at Milton's 'Paradise Lost' for instance, a christian poem that explains,quite correctly, the meaning of freewill (and does an excellent job at it). You can't always judge a book by it's cover. Life is full of individuals of varying degree and philosophical belief, even objectivists (even at ARI).

Post 8

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 12:39pm

I'm sorry if you get caught up on the fact THAT a story has supernatural elements, even its writer would probably say you're missing the forest for the trees. They're incidental and nothing more than tools of abstraction.

---Landon

Post 9

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 1:43pm

I'd say Landon has it again. His point is the one I was trying to make in my post. After all, you could lump Rand's works similarly with other novels set in 20th Century America and miss the point entirely. The setting in fantasy novels is not a case of the author saying "this is reality," but a case of them saying "these fantastic elements are part of my fictional world, now lets tell a story within those limits." Terry Goodkind's novels are an example of Objectivist inpired fantasy fiction. They contain magic and what not, but the underlying philosophical ideas are inspired by Rand.

Ethan

Post 10

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:26pm

Landon thinks I break bread with Pat Robertson:

I think you're a little too close to religion and a little quick to give the benefit of the doubt when faced with an evil individual who shares some of your values.

I'm not a little too close to religion. I am religious. I believe in Spirit, and I belong to a religious community. No need to sugarcoat it. :)

Who am I giving the benefit of the doubt to? Lewis, or Robertson? I'm not sure what you meant there. To say that Lewis was evil would be foolish, the man didn't have an evil bone in his body. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that, and if you did, that means you are one who believes that all religious people are evil. That would make you part of the problem, not the integration that is so badly needed.

More likely you are referring to Robertson. I do not give him the benefit of the doubt, and I share very few of his values outside of basic ones, like not killing unless in self-defense (I assume he's up for that). Pat Robertson is a key part of the religious right, and for that reason alone I find him deeply disturbing, and dangerous to individual freedom. I am an activist that is trying to rally against the insidious work of the fundamentalist right. This should be clear by now. Also, bear in mind that while I do study many aspects of Christianity, I am not a practicing Christian. I gave up Christianity when I was 12 years old.

What he is doing with Narnia is reprehensible. He is bandwagoning off of it; he is misusing and misrepresenting the work of Lewis. People like Robertson would make Lewis want to vomit, were he still alive.

But that is not the real point of discussion here. Let us be honest. The reason that this thread started is because Narnia was written by Lewis, a Christian. It clearly is Christian-themed. It is, by and large, not unlike a Bible story. In fact, it has thematic elements that resemble many, many stories that have been told in all corners of the world, for epochs. It is about storytelling.

Narnia, therefore, would be a likely target for attack on this forum by somebody, because it contains religious elements. When talking to a child in terms of "trust, and believe," we are talking about spirit, which most Objectivists do not believe to exist, because there is no eye-of-flesh, monological proof of it. Mainly, if a finger cannot be put on it, it does not exist. Of course, we cannot put a finger on compassion either, for instance, because it does not lie in one specified location.

Children do not make the fine distinctions that have been made here. Their vicarious experience is a complete one. They do not view the magic in Harry Potter movies as a conceptual vehicle through which Harry exercises his volition and discipline. They view it as magic. They are much more attuned to the magic and mystery of life than an adult is.
And so it is with the other movie. Narnia resonates differently to a child than to an adult. The interior contours of a child are different than that of an adult, for one thing.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of this country is Christian, one kind or another. On the whole, they are very good people, and they will help you out in a pinch. A movie like has a different meaning to them than to a pure modernist, or scientific materialist, say. It is not required that all people on the earth follow a uniform moral code. There can be reasonable disagreements. In art, which is what we are discussing here, there can also be reasonable disagreements.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/26, 4:28pm)

Post 11

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:05pm

Landon, I'm not 'caught up' in the fact that these movies have supernatural elements at all. I can care less. The point that I made is that the SUBSTANCE of the movie is what is important not the superficial trimmings. Rich made an excellent point on that fact. Just because C.S. LEWIS was a Christian and wrote a good vs. evil fantasy novel doesn't automatically make some of his philosophical arguments mute or of no value. Lewis good friend Tolkien, too was a religious man, yet the Lord of The Rings is an excellent novel (as well as the movies) which delineates right versus wrong, freedom versus slavery. I find it rather ironic how so many objectivists want to breath fire on anything remotely attached to Christianity, yet Rand herself was a fan of some author's who had religious convictions, not because she agreed with the precepts of their religios beliefs, but because she found value and merit in the stories that these author's wrote.

Post 12

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:04pm

It depends on what is considered as good and what is considered as evil - to say it a movie of good vs. evil means little, as such...

Post 13

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:14pm

Erik said:

I find it rather ironic how so many objectivists want to breath fire on anything remotely attached to Christianity

Well, I happen to like quite a few movies with strong religious messages. For example, I like The Last Temptation of Christ a great deal and I'm not a closet Christian or UU for that matter.

Ethan

Post 14

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:44pm

I agree context does matter, Robert. And a point well taken Ethan.

Post 15

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 8:32pm

Most mythology contains magic elements; but among other things it's what else the myths do that determines whether they promote life-affirming values. For example, as I note in my Kong review (see http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/News/1069_t.shtml ) Jackson's Lord of the Rings portrays heroes as individuals with strong, serious motives; they had to destroy the corrupting ring of power lest the powers of evil use it to enslave and destroy them. Through their virtues -- determination, strength and even wisdom -- they triumphed. Sure, Tolkien didn't like industry and was a tree-worshipper before it was PC. But in the Ring movies the more individualist themes are more front-and-center.

Narnia is perhaps enjoyable if you don't focus too much on Lewis's or the movie-makers' central theme. (The special effects and look of the film are very good.) But the Christian theme is very strong and undisguised -- the sons of Adam are sinful, endangering the world and deserving of death. Only sacrifice of the worthy to the unworthy leads to salvation of the unworthy. And let's not forget the importance of faith.

I fear that kids watching this movie will have one more bad moral example instilled in their psyches.

Post 16

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 11:43pm

Erik wrote,

Just because C.S. LEWIS was a Christian and wrote a good vs. evil fantasy novel doesn't automatically make some of his philosophical arguments mute or of no value. Lewis good friend Tolkien, too was a religious man, yet the Lord of The Rings is an excellent novel (as well as the movies) which delineates right versus wrong, freedom versus slavery. I find it rather ironic how so many objectivists want to breath fire on anything remotely attached to Christianity, yet Rand herself was a fan of some author's who had religious convictions, not because she agreed with the precepts of their religious beliefs, but because she found value and merit in the stories that these author's wrote.

Erik, you're defending these Christian writers as if your middle name were "Christian" and your last name, "Christensen"! Uh...wait a minute...your middle name IS "Christian" and your last name, "Christensen." What was I thinking??!!

Bill ;-)

Post 17

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:46am

Bill, the name tie-in is strictly coincidental (funny though) ;-)
Personally, I didn't like the movie Ch. of Narnia other than for the special effects.

Post 18

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 6:42am

I really try to avoid pre-judging films as much as is reasonable, but there is zero chance of me choosing to watch that movie. Like I said before, I already think from the previews, the PR, and some of the products that it is very far away from the essence of Lewis.

Somebody saw a huge market opportunity, and they went for it, and that's just good old capitalism. The movie will make money.

The Tolkien movies were done very well.

Post 19

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 7:26am