Escape to the Movies: The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

[SpaceSpork]

Atheist or christian, Aslan's line near the end was a total facepalm.

"I live in your world, too. But in your world, I have another name."

SYMBOLISM!

Well, it's right from the book. If you blame anything, blame the source, not the adaptation.[/quote]

I do blame the source. Never been a fan of Narnia, actually.

 

[Nouw]

I never even noticed the religion until now...

This one just bores me completely so I'll give it a pass.

 

[SniperMacFox]

I fail to see where it having Chrisian elements to it should be an issue at all. I find it kind of ironic that when something similar to this comes along with a focus on non-Christian religion or philsophy, or that is critical of christianity and/or organized religion in general it's presented as a good thing, but here it's not. I don't think you have to be a believer to appreciate the messages or the analogies, and really I find something rather disturbing with the implication that there is something wrong with being a believer.

Someone whips out "The Matrix", or movies based on "Journey To The West" which is heavily religious (involving gods and the like), and I notice people don't feel the need to make quite the same issue of it. To be honest I actually thought "The Matrix" had just as many analogies as Narnia did in it's own way.

I'm not going to shoot off a list of movies here, or anything, I just don't see why this even needs to come up as a major talking point in regards to the movie.

To be honest, it's not too much of a problem. At the minute. Like Movie Bob said, I have No idea how they are ever going to manage to pull of the Last Battle. If you haven't read it, have a flick through and them tell me whether such heavy religious subtext could cause issues within a multicultural community.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Basically, Susan can't get in because she stopped believing, right? I guess Lewis wanted that to happen to one of the characters just to play that scenario out to the reader. I don't know. I do that sort of thing sometimes, so that makes sense to me. Still a little random though. I might have picked Peter instead, since he is the eldest of the four. They are all "growing up" though, physically and mentally. All of them except for Jill and Eustace are probably at least at young adulthood. I always sort of figured that Lewis just picked Susan for no deep reason. I'm sure she will make it to heaven, though. Aslan let a heathen in, so Susan is a definite. She will probably make it after she dies, though. That's the oddest part for me. The fact that her siblings just disappear into heaven forever. How does that affect her, if at all? Do they explain cuz I don't remember.

A quote from wiki:

Spoiler

Peter says that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia", and (in Jill Pole's words) "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations."

And what happens to her isn't explained. The wording of the above quote is what gets to me. Those few words suggest that Lewis somehow thinks puberty, and the things you feel and think during that period, are bad. I cannot see how such a well-educated man could possibly think something like that.

EDIT: I also can't recommend Neil Gaiman's 'The Problem of Susan' enough. It explains a lot of the problems I have with the series.

PS: It also doesn't help that I watched the first movie before reading any of the books, and found Susan to be one of the two likeable protagonists (Edmund was also all right).

I think it's worth taking into account that the story doesn't make much of an explicit "connection" between Susan's change of perspective and her non-presence at The End. More specifically:

Spoiler

She's not going to heaven because she didn't get killed along with the others, and she's not "into" Narnia anymore, but one isn't necessarily following the other - though the timing is oddly convenient...

The wording IS very unfortunate, there's no way around that. One of the recurring themes in Lewis' fiction is a strong dislike for the trappings of "traditional" Western femininity. In "Horse & His Boy" there's a one-off scene between the main female character, a classic tomboy, and another girl who used to be her similarly-inclined friend but "left" her and became a prissy-princess type; and the contempt for the second girl jumps right off the page. And the White Witch, of course, is an archetypal upper-class matron.

A lot of it was probably cultural - in English society at the time, the female "function" was to "civilize" the male, i.e. to give boys an impetus to grow up into "proper" men; something Lewis had great disdain for. One can only wonder if it would've been written differently had he re-approached Narnia after he married Joy Davidman (and adopted her two children) - which seemed to "settle" a lot of his issues with family, adulthood, etc.

True, the connection isn't explicit, but even when it's just an ancillary reason for her 'no longer being a friend of Narnia', it still rubs me the wrong way. And about

Spoiler

her not being killed

, I think that is quite a plothole. Who then was the Susan we'd seen all along in Narnia? Was that the real one? If so, why didn't she tell them what'd happened. If it was a figment of their imagination, why did it started growing up?

And yes, I do find his, for a lack of a better word, disgust for 'girly girls' somewhat annoying, despite it being somewhat cultural. On one hand, it's not strange for a writer to have favourite characters, but I do believe these things should be repressed somewhat while writing. On the other hand, it'd be a lie if I'd say it was possible to do so completely.

I should probably reread the books once though. It has been quite a while ago since I last read them, so a lot of the details and such have slipped my mind.

 

[UberNoodle]

What's the problem with expressing one's beliefs in their art. Are people that fragile that they can't accept other people's points of view? It's like people must accept everything they see in art or they reject it. The point of art is that you interpret it your way or you accept the other viewpoint exists, and perhaps appreciate that diversity; and that's all. Why get upset or threatened by it?

 

[UberNoodle]

I fail to see where it having Chrisian elements to it should be an issue at all. I find it kind of ironic that when something similar to this comes along with a focus on non-Christian religion or philsophy, or that is critical of christianity and/or organized religion in general it's presented as a good thing, but here it's not. I don't think you have to be a believer to appreciate the messages or the analogies, and really I find something rather disturbing with the implication that there is something wrong with being a believer.

Someone whips out "The Matrix", or movies based on "Journey To The West" which is heavily religious (involving gods and the like), and I notice people don't feel the need to make quite the same issue of it. To be honest I actually thought "The Matrix" had just as many analogies as Narnia did in it's own way.

I'm not going to shoot off a list of movies here, or anything, I just don't see why this even needs to come up as a major talking point in regards to the movie.

To be honest, it's not too much of a problem. At the minute. Like Movie Bob said, I have No idea how they are ever going to manage to pull of the Last Battle. If you haven't read it, have a flick through and them tell me whether such heavy religious subtext could cause issues within a multicultural community.

Sorry to butt in. I don't see why such subtexts or even overt expressions should have ANY issues in a multicultural society. It's not mandatory to see these films. The books are already available. In a true multiculture, cultural differences are explored and appreciated. Are people that fragile in their own beliefs and views that they can't abide by anything contrary of just plain DIFFERENT to them? So what if there are Christian subtexts. They can just as easily be examined past that, at the human core that is in ALL religions. Perhaps people today are so unwilling or unable to delve deeply into things today that they get hung up on the surface. Any thing like this can be understood if you look deep enough. It's not about WHAT you do; it's WHY you do it. So I don't see how any culture could reject a story like Narnia for it's personal expression by the author, and still call itself free and multicultural.

 

[blueschmoo]

nope

 

[Therumancer]

I fail to see where it having Chrisian elements to it should be an issue at all. I find it kind of ironic that when something similar to this comes along with a focus on non-Christian religion or philsophy, or that is critical of christianity and/or organized religion in general it's presented as a good thing, but here it's not. I don't think you have to be a believer to appreciate the messages or the analogies, and really I find something rather disturbing with the implication that there is something wrong with being a believer.

Someone whips out "The Matrix", or movies based on "Journey To The West" which is heavily religious (involving gods and the like), and I notice people don't feel the need to make quite the same issue of it. To be honest I actually thought "The Matrix" had just as many analogies as Narnia did in it's own way.

I'm not going to shoot off a list of movies here, or anything, I just don't see why this even needs to come up as a major talking point in regards to the movie.

To be honest, it's not too much of a problem. At the minute. Like Movie Bob said, I have No idea how they are ever going to manage to pull of the Last Battle. If you haven't read it, have a flick through and them tell me whether such heavy religious subtext could cause issues within a multicultural community.

I'm familiar with it, and truthfully the US isn't so much a multi-cultural community as one with a tolerant central culture that people are supposed to adapt to. A "melting pot" culture in which other cultures are supposed to effectively be destroyed in coming into contact with it, with the best aspects remaining and becoming part of the whole, and the rest being burned away so to speak. Something that we have gotten away from and is at the root of a lot of our problems. People are supposed to enter the US and become Americans, not say remain Mexicans or Chinese or whatever else and simply draw the benefits of citizenship. A problem that has resulted in ridiculous incidents like kids getting in trouble (albiet briefly) for flying a US flag from the bike they ride to school. That said, it has little to do with the discussion at hand, it's simply a misconception that should be done away with, and leads to problems like the one I mentioned.

One of the principles of our country however is supposed to be religious tolerance. Without going into the details of this, this does not mean "tolerance of all religions except the one practiced by the most people" (tolerances does not mean the abillity to practice your religion any way that you want to, nor does it give religions the abillity to run roughshod over society, break laws, etc... which means that based on behavior religions can effectively become criminal through action if not the basic belief and label). So what if "Narnia" is basically a giant analogy to Christianity? That shouldn't even be a factor.

Notice that movies like "The Davinci Code" and it's sequel, not to mention films like "Stigmata" were giant "hey let's bust on the Christians and their beliefs" and while there was contreversy nobody seriously acted like there was a problem with these films being made. Ironically there are more Chistians than non-Christian groups in the US, and it's kind of ridiculous that someone is concerned about upsetting minorities as opposed to the majority of people within our society.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Forget Deal Breaker, The religious Allegories of Narnia were Fascinating to me, but then again I'm a sucker for allegories anywhere. I think it is a very Great way to teach the core value's of Christianity without seeming Preachy. In fact I'm supposed to find Narnia offensive since the main enemies of the Narnians, the Talmarines were, in the book, a pretty clear and slightly racist allegory of Muslims and Arabs. But i don't hold that against Lewis, and I recommend the series to people frequently.

 

[TheAnimeFanFreak]

I just hope they don't butcher any of the books they make into movies... Eragon is a prime example.

 

[Dastardly]

Aren't those books rather blatantly anti-religious?

Of course--that's what I was getting at. Narnia isn't as blatantly "pro-religion" as His Dark Materials is "anti-religion." To be so dogmatically anti-religious is, to me, no different from being dogmatically religious. That's why I group them in the same heading as "religious," whether for or against.

 

[tautologico]

Dear Moviebob,
Good to see your review was impartial, to religion at least. I'm a lapsed Catholic too so I understand the relationship can be complicated to say the least.

The Golden Compass was touted by the author of His Dark Materials and the critics as the anti-Narnia. I thought it was pretty bad with weak villains, deus ex machina and a polar bear fight I just thought was silly.

What did you think of the Golden Compass?

Movie: bad. Book: very good. The other 2 books in the trilogy (His Dark Materials) I didn't like as much, but the first book is excellent fantasy. The second is still good, the third, eh, I think he worried too much about his anti-religion message and the story suffered for it.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

well if you haven't been paying attention to the trend among the "cool kids",the new fad is hating religion and everything to do with it in ABSOLUTELY ALL cases and instances.

to the "cool kids" if you're a believer, than your a backwards psych-job, driveling zealotry and intolerance every chance you get while trying to be a hypocrite behind everyone's back.

and you also hate science,technology,medicine,education,entertainment and math.

...automatically....just for being a believer....not just in God,but in any form of spirituality and most forms of moral codes you don't base on your spur of the moment instincts.
at least that's what I've observed.

 

[Hinoema]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Basically, Susan can't get in because she stopped believing, right? I guess Lewis wanted that to happen to one of the characters just to play that scenario out to the reader. I don't know. I do that sort of thing sometimes, so that makes sense to me. Still a little random though. I might have picked Peter instead, since he is the eldest of the four. They are all "growing up" though, physically and mentally. All of them except for Jill and Eustace are probably at least at young adulthood. I always sort of figured that Lewis just picked Susan for no deep reason. I'm sure she will make it to heaven, though. Aslan let a heathen in, so Susan is a definite. She will probably make it after she dies, though. That's the oddest part for me. The fact that her siblings just disappear into heaven forever. How does that affect her, if at all? Do they explain cuz I don't remember.

A quote from wiki:

Spoiler

Peter says that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia", and (in Jill Pole's words) "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations."

And what happens to her isn't explained. The wording of the above quote is what gets to me. Those few words suggest that Lewis somehow thinks puberty, and the things you feel and think during that period, are bad. I cannot see how such a well-educated man could possibly think something like that.

EDIT: I also can't recommend Neil Gaiman's 'The Problem of Susan' enough. It explains a lot of the problems I have with the series.

PS: It also doesn't help that I watched the first movie before reading any of the books, and found Susan to be one of the two likeable protagonists (Edmund was also all right).

I think it's worth taking into account that the story doesn't make much of an explicit "connection" between Susan's change of perspective and her non-presence at The End. More specifically:

Spoiler

She's not going to heaven because she didn't get killed along with the others, and she's not "into" Narnia anymore, but one isn't necessarily following the other - though the timing is oddly convenient...

The wording IS very unfortunate, there's no way around that. One of the recurring themes in Lewis' fiction is a strong dislike for the trappings of "traditional" Western femininity. In "Horse & His Boy" there's a one-off scene between the main female character, a classic tomboy, and another girl who used to be her similarly-inclined friend but "left" her and became a prissy-princess type; and the contempt for the second girl jumps right off the page. And the White Witch, of course, is an archetypal upper-class matron.

A lot of it was probably cultural - in English society at the time, the female "function" was to "civilize" the male, i.e. to give boys an impetus to grow up into "proper" men; something Lewis had great disdain for. One can only wonder if it would've been written differently had he re-approached Narnia after he married Joy Davidman (and adopted her two children) - which seemed to "settle" a lot of his issues with family, adulthood, etc.

True, the connection isn't explicit, but even when it's just an ancillary reason for her 'no longer being a friend of Narnia', it still rubs me the wrong way. And about

Spoiler

her not being killed

, I think that is quite a plothole. Who then was the Susan we'd seen all along in Narnia? Was that the real one? If so, why didn't she tell them what'd happened. If it was a figment of their imagination, why did it started growing up?

And yes, I do find his, for a lack of a better word, disgust for 'girly girls' somewhat annoying, despite it being somewhat cultural. On one hand, it's not strange for a writer to have favourite characters, but I do believe these things should be repressed somewhat while writing. On the other hand, it'd be a lie if I'd say it was possible to do so completely.

I should probably reread the books once though. It has been quite a while ago since I last read them, so a lot of the details and such have slipped my mind.

That part always struck me as hugely misogynistic on Lewis' part, even when I was much younger. I could tell that Susan was being slighted for daring to become her own person, something that you just didn't do as a girl. You had to be eternally innocent and credulous and unquestioning, like Lucy.

 

[LockandKey]

I don't get how Aslan is Jesus. "He rose from the dead!" people tell me. Yeah, and then I watched him run into battle and bite a witches' face off! It seems like a pick and chose thing where with heavy confirmation bias in play.

He says he is Jesus (or very strongly implies it without ever saying the word Jesus, although he does call himself the Lamb) in some of the later books.

 

[TheNewDemoman]

I fail to see where it having Chrisian elements to it should be an issue at all. I find it kind of ironic that when something similar to this comes along with a focus on non-Christian religion or philsophy, or that is critical of christianity and/or organized religion in general it's presented as a good thing, but here it's not. I don't think you have to be a believer to appreciate the messages or the analogies, and really I find something rather disturbing with the implication that there is something wrong with being a believer.

Someone whips out "The Matrix", or movies based on "Journey To The West" which is heavily religious (involving gods and the like), and I notice people don't feel the need to make quite the same issue of it. To be honest I actually thought "The Matrix" had just as many analogies as Narnia did in it's own way.

I'm not going to shoot off a list of movies here, or anything, I just don't see why this even needs to come up as a major talking point in regards to the movie.

The Matrix did have a slight Christian undertone, with Neo sacrificing himself for the good of humanity. And I agree, why even bring up the Christian part of the story. Why do people always have to bring it up when it's a Christian undertone. Digital Devil saga had a Buhdist one, but no one comments on that.


But I digress. It seems like a decent movie

 

[neograpeshot]

And I agree, why even bring up the Christian part of the story.

Because some people would rather not spend $10-15 to be preached at for two hours.
Not that Narnia does that, I'm just saying that it's a relevant subject to address in a review of a movie that people will have heard has religious undertones.

 

[Final Fall 0]

I never cared for the Narnia movies, nor have I read the books but... What's this one line that makes Aslan less allergory and more second version?

Haven't seen the movie yet, but in the book Aslan says something to the children along the lines of "in your world, I have another name."