« The Story of God | Main | ADVENT Journey #3 Hope & Desire »

December 11, 2005



I wouldn't recommend watching the 80's BBC version - wil probably ruin some childhood memories!


I'm surprised you didn't like it, Andy. My 8-year old daughter said it might be the best film she's ever seen.

A number of the reviews that I've read (including the ridiculous one in the Christian Herald) seem to forget that this is a children's film. I guess I am fairly close to the model of atonement that I read into the film, but I don't - for a second - think that the film or the book(s) have an underlying theology.

I agree that a LOTR comparison is inevitable (much as I tried to resist!). I think this doesn't come off too badly as a kids' version of that. Perhaps though it's better to compare it to Harry Potter, which I haven't seen?


I too have affectionate (and, Mark may be right, rose-tinted) memories of the BBC adaptation. Haven't yet seen the new film, so can't compare.

However I'm intrigued by your comment about the film's (?) theology of atonement.

I haven't seen what the film makes of it yet, but I'd thought the Narnian atonement was a fairly clear-cut Devil-Ransom-cum-Fishhook (reminiscent of eg. Gregory of Nyssa) with vague sacrificial trappings (ritual murder on a stone altar). But it does seem to function as something of a Rorschach Inkblot: I've even had one friend insist (to my continuing bewilderment!) it was the best exemplar they knew of a semi-Girard breaking-the-cycle-of-retribution atonement.

The one thing I think it fairly unlikely to have been consciously intended to evoke is PSA - `silly and immoral' as Lewis had called it. It's perhaps unfortunate there's no element of union with/participation in Christ in sight; but then this is an inevitable consequence of the fundamental weakness of Aslanology - that humanity which is never assumed (within Narnia) cannot truly be redeemed there... We have no way to imagine the Incarnation within a Narnian framework.


I'm suprised...

I've seen it twice now, and thought it was sufficiently non-disney to work. Indeed, I'm told Disney really only did the marketing, like with Pixar films.

I think Lucy was the best character and actor. Peter was rather annoying... you just want to smack his face. I thought Aslan was good though... I thought they captured his facial expressions brilliantly, and believably (being a lion).

It definately lacks the Peter Jackson factor, but it was always going to... It's a kid's film. Lord of the Rings is an adult book. Children just couldn't labour through a book that long or complex unless they are somewhat inclined toward genius... children that knew it are normally ones whose parents read it to them.

The battle scenes are, thus, a bit silly because there's no dirt or blood. My feeling is that you can still have blood on your shirt without showing heads getting chopped off and other gruesom things. but hey, it's a PG which should probably be a U.

so... no, inevitably not as good as jackson. there are too many details that are lacking. But it also lacks the kitsch and cringingly "isn't life awesome" crap of most disney endeavours.... They even resisted the urge to make santa too fluffy.

andy goodliff

The santa scene was I think embarassment on the part of director/screen writers - they tried to make him look so not-santa so as to play down the oddness of the scene


Are you kidding?! :-) I thought the Santa scene was great!

I think all they did was convey that the Coca-Cola version of Santa hadn't corrupted Narnia.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad