The very first trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is now out!
I must admit that I haven't read the book in ages. But, for what they're worth, here are my reactions:
Annoyance:
At Edmund's going through the same thing Peter went through in Prince Caspian: "I'm a king!"
At Peter and Susan's reappearance. They're not supposed to come back to Narnia! Ever!
At Reepicheep's new voice. He sounds a lot like the other guy, but it isn't the same.
Happiness:
At the awesome special effects! This movie is going to be a real treat to watch!
At King Caspian - way to make him look older.
Trepidation:
How much will the White Witch be in the movie? Will she be the main bad person? I hope not.
Will they take the special effects overboard? Will the story become just a prop for all the cool stuff they can do?
In my opinion, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is an easy one to adapt into a movie (I've heard it's just an "epic story" that isn't really "about" something like Prince Caspian is about faith). The interesting one will be The Silver Chair. Can Hollywood really make a movie aimed at teenagers that is about chastity? I doubt it.
It's funny how you and I seem to share the same concerns about VODT! I groaned when I saw Edmund having a "king" complex, it got very old with Peter in PC.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe I'm blind, but I didn't realise that The Silver Chair had any messages about chastity. Can't think of where chastity fit in the book, but if it's there, then that's wonderful.
"A 'king' complex" - I like that! I agree it got old with Peter in PC, although I think it was an essential part of the story. It's not until he gets over the idea that High King Peter can do anything on his own and trusts in Aslan that the Narnians defeat the Telmarines. It seems to me that that's one of the big places where the theme of faith comes into play in the movie. But a "king" complex is entirely unnecessary in Edmund's case!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, my memory on The Silver Chair isn't very clear as I haven't read it in years, but I remember two chastity (or lack thereof) things that jumped out at me.
The first thing is the man-eating giants. Lust is essentially treating someone as an object of pleasure rather than a person. It seems to me that the giants represent this rather well. I can't think of any way of treating someone as an object of pleasure that beats making him/her into food!
The second thing is Prince Rilian. He is ensnared by the Lady in the Green Kirtle, who originally gains control of him by luring him to her with her beauty. Pretty much all sin is painted attractively (otherwise no one would ever do anything wrong!), but specifically having a man ensared by a woman's beauty seems to point more toward lust than any other kind of evil.
I'm interested to hear what you think about these two things. Do you agree, or do you think I'm reading too much into the story?
Well, since Peter was "High" King, I suppose he was allowed some measure of insecurity and bitterness. But in Edmund's case, I think it's wholly unnecessary, not to mention irritating to watch on the big screen! After all, he's worked out his major problems with Aslan before in LWW, so if he's going to have complications, isn't he stealing Eustace's thunder?!
ReplyDeleteI hadn't actually thought of the giants as representing lust, but you could be right. After all lust is wholly focused on the body and what the body can do for you, whereas love is what you can do for the one you love.
I agree more with Prince Rilian's case. Although I hadn't thought of the Lady of the Green Kirtle being lust specifically, she could stand for that. I took her as being a representation of Sin, something that looks beautiful and attractive, but is hideous on the inside. In fact, if they pick up on this theme in the movie, I think it would make very interesting viewing.
You know, I hadn't thought of Edmund stealing Eustace's thunder... that WOULD be bad!
ReplyDeleteI agree that picking up on the beautiful/hideous theme could make the movie quite interesting. Also, I re-read snatches of SC yesterday and tend to agree with you. It seems like C.S. Lewis may not have meant the book to be specifically about chastity and lust (though having an unrelated boy and girl go on an adventure together hints of chastity) - though I might add that it seems like SC could be "about" almost any form of sin that the reader wants it to be. Drug addictions particularly came to mind when I read the scenes with Rilian in Underworld.