Narnia and the Deep Magic
In October, Time asked, "Has [the Narnia movie] reproduced the Christian character of C.S. Lewis's book?" The magazine further proposed "a kind of evangelical sniff test" as a means of answering that question. It postulated that, if certain lines from the book did not survive intact, "the film may be a classic, but never a Christian classic. And its revenues, large as they may be, will reflect that." Those lines? Take a look:
Is Edwards expecting too much? Was Time setting too high and too unfair a standard?
And even if Disney and director Andrew Adamson "got it wrong" according to such standards, how much does that really matter? Is the "Christian character" of the Narnia stories the most important thing about it, or something else?
Greg Wright
Senior Editor and Narnia Blogger
The White Witch: "That human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property."Narnia scholar Bruce Edwards has this to say about what the movie actually did present:
Aslan (later) : "The Witch knew the Deep Magic. But if she could have looked a little further back... she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."
Aslan is risen! Hurrah. But listen closely to his explanation of the witch's downfall: she misinterpreted the deep magic, he says. No! Aslan, what about the deeper magic? Why is that written out, skipped? Aslan's explanation is that the reason good has triumphed is that he has the superior understanding; true, but that's not what's at stake here: it's his superior LOVE that dispenses grace and mercy to the unworthy. It's the deeper magic beyond time, not the proper hermeneutics issued within time. It's not what's written on the stone table, rightly interpreted, that saves; it's the unmerited favor of a Lover who will not let his beloved alone to die.Is this difference between Narnia's "Deep Magic" and "Deeper Magic" just too deep a concept to convey on film? Do you think that the difference managed to come across anyway?
Is Edwards expecting too much? Was Time setting too high and too unfair a standard?
And even if Disney and director Andrew Adamson "got it wrong" according to such standards, how much does that really matter? Is the "Christian character" of the Narnia stories the most important thing about it, or something else?
Greg Wright
Senior Editor and Narnia Blogger
posted by Greg Wright at 7:42 PM
11 Comments:
I believe this is one of the great disappointments of the film. Aslan wins on a technicality! Now let's celebrate!
Obvsiously, this kind of sacrifice on Aslan's part is still good, but it lacks the love, the pain, and the realization that a good animal with no business dying for a human such as Edmund.
Watching the movie, I was not moved the way I was reading the book. In the book, Lewis went to great pains to bring us to that emptiness, pushing us to realize we are Edmund, and we have failed. But Lewis does not stop there, and the book is such a classic because Aslan's love is a model for us all. Ultimately, Jesus' love is that model, and Lewis captures it brilliantly.
In Adamson's version, it is more like Aslan was not a substition for sin, but rather a trickster who fooled the queen. Something tells me the queen would not have been fooled that easily. And something else tells me there was something more to Aslan's sacrifice than manipulating the 'Deep Magic'...
While not giving term to the word "deeper magic", I would have to say the actual intent is still the same by way of Aslan's words "if she had looked further back before time dawned".
In the movie, as well as the book, Jadis knew and proclaimed all traitors belonged to her. Yet, instead she accepted Aslan's sacrifice of himself in Edmund's stead. After all, in her mind Aslan would be dead, the traitor soon killed anyway, and Narnia would remain hers.
However, the propheies that had been given (although more could have been quoted IMHO) give strong hints the White Witch's time as ruler was indeed limited.
Rather than being "hoodwinked" one could say Jadis was so certain the deep magic was meant to serve her and her desires, she had forgotten who had implanted the magic. Not only that, but the bounderies which had been preset.
Unfortunately, the movie mentioned very little, if at all, of the "Emporer Beyond the Sea" who had set very foundations of Narnia in the first place. I would say that's the actual error. While Aslan does remind the White Witch he was there at Narnia's founding, he doesn't hint of who gave the preset laws to which Narnia is bound. Which may have given stronger hints Aslan knew what was to happen. His actions once and for all would have been seen as proving once and for all who the true ruler of Narnia actually was. Jadis' claim might have been seen as allowable only for a short season. And the prophecies had been given as statements of what would come to pass...not what could be. Instead of Aslan being the one who wins the battle and the children being the heirs, the prophecy is forced to come true through choice if the children.
Speaking of foundations, it should be noted in the real world, there's a growing trend to toss away the very foundations on which one stands. This can be particularly seen within the church were, as one once said, "it all depends on a right way of thinking on things". Where the Bible is concerned, it's all doctrine...all teaching. Written by holy men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Bible has only one Author. As such there's no room for differing kinds of thinking because God isn't the author of confusion. The scriptures are the very foundations of the Christian faith. State they can be compromised and what happens to to that foundation?
Good observations, Kami. While it's true we can read the scene as Jadis "being hoodwinked," I do think the movie makes it plain "she had forgotten who had implanted the magic," as you put it. But then you bring out a stronger point, that "the movie mentioned very little, if at all, of the Emperor Beyond the Sea" -- and that may be, as you said, "the actual error." Not a fatal one, but a surprising one.
Thanks for joining the conversation!
Trying to describe the underpinnings of an invented world in a movie is always tough. There's not enough screen time. Monologues, voice-overs, and even text crawls like Star Wars have been tried, but they all make for bad film.
The concept of "Aslan as Jesus", though, seems completely bogus. Aslan is a warrior and a war leader. He leads an army. He fights in battle. We even get to see him tear out Jadis' throat, in a scene that looks like something from "Jaws". The huge teeth and gaping jaws come right at the viewer. Aslan is definitely not a "turn the other cheek" type.
That's more like Mohammed than Jesus. Mohammed was a military leader who led armies for the Lord, and a highly visible political figure in his own time. Like Aslan, but unlike Jesus.
First off...what??? I guess I just don't even get the question. It seems all brains and no heart...why do we need to nitpick (in this case two letters!?) If an e and an er were right after deep would that have been better?
I for one was moved beyond words by the whole sequence...Edmund (You and I) a treacherous and selfish boy DESERVES death. Aslan (Jesus) gives His as a sacrifice for an underserving boy. Deep or Deeper Magic it's still true! Let's open the eyes of our hearts and see the mythic truth here rather than squabble over a couple of letters.
All I know is that there were a few hundred Christians and non-Christians alike CLAPPING and CHEERING for Aslan when he resurected...they are not doing that because of CS Lewis' tale they are doing it for GOD's TALE depicted by CS Lewis and now adapted to film by Adamson et al...
Anonymous,
I totally understand your confusion over Aslan as a Jesus figure...if you are anything like me you are Westerner and we have been force fed a Jesus meek and mild diet all of our lives.
Was Jesus meek and mild? Yes and no. One author put it great he said "Jesus was kind and caring to those who needed it; He was also challenging and confronting to everyone else." The problem is an imbalance in the way western and modern churches depict Jesus...mostly as a bearded lady holding a lamb.
If you don't believe me pick up your Bible and read any of the Gospels you will find Jesus healing, comforting and you'll also find Jesus making whips and turning tables. You'll hear him say things like "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."
Also check out Revelation where Jesus is riding a horse and his sword is bloody...oh and best of all the REAL Christmas story in Chapter 12...it has a Dragon in it!
So I agree with you...Aslan can't be like the bearded lady we have come to know as Jesus...but he is like the REAL Jesus! He is a King, Captain of Angel Armies, a Warrior who fights for those who love Him and are ready to advance His Kingdom.
Hope that helps...if not check out these books...maybe they'll help...
Wild at Heart by John Eldredge
Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow
No More Christian Nice Guy (I haven't read this one yet but love the first 2 pages!)
Coach Z,
Sorry you "don't even get the question." It's a question that gets at the heart of differences between films and the books they were based on.
The quotes from Time and Bruce Edwards make the context pretty clear: C. S. Lewis, who wrote the story in the first place, apparently felt it was pretty important to distinguish between "Deep Magic" and "Deeper Magic." Andrew Adamson, in directing the film, didn't.
So, to clarify, one of the questions is: does the difference bewteen the two matter, as far as the film being effective is concerned?
Your answer, put succintly, is apparently "no." For others, it's "yes." Now, I find that interesting. You find it a waste of time. Whatever.
A second question is: Does the film still manage to convey what the book intended?
This is a question you don't seem to care about at all. And that's fine. You don't need to.
But there's no need to insult others who DO care by calling the discussion "all brains and no heart." What if it is? Is there something wrong with like-minded people having a discussion that interests them? Nobody forced you to participate.
The spirit of Hollywood Jesus is to encourge open conversation -- not shut it down. If you've got something to contribute, fine. But if the conversation going on is a waste of your time, go do what you'd rather be doing and let everyone else jabber away!
Wow Greg!
First off my question as to WHAT?? and pretty much everything in the first paragraph was actually directed at Bruce Edwards "Narnia Scholar". Not to you for bringing it up or creating this Round Table so whoa...now that i look at it shoulda woulda coulda taken the we out of why do we need to nitpick two letters and put why did edwards nitpick two letters...
Second I didn't mean to imply that I'm not open to talking about these things...actually the complete opposite i was throwing my ideas into the ring too which I'm happy to do, it just is a bit different than yours...and seems to be interpreted as i think it's a waste of time...wrong. It's all good.
Last I'll just answer the rest of your...hmmm what is it? spanking? throw down? whatever...by saying my difference in opinion on this matter starts and stops with two premises:
1. Film is an art form...period. It should speak to us of it's own accord. I don't think critisizing (sp? dang i miss word spell check) or nit picking is the way to interpret film...it's not a waste of time...i'm not trying to shut anyone down...i'm just communicating my view.
2. I don't think Film version of a book has to completely agree with the book...again it's an art form...the artist must express. As the director of "The Count of Monte Cristo" said "The film is not like the book if you want the book go read the book." (again answering Edwards not trying to shut the conversation down).
So let me be succinct in answering your original questions (which i liked and wasn't attacking):
Is this difference between Narnia's "Deep Magic" and "Deeper Magic" just too deep a concept to convey on film? ::NO:: Do you think that the difference managed to come across anyway? ::YES::
Is Edwards expecting too much? Was Time setting too high and too unfair a standard?::YES::
And even if Disney and director Andrew Adamson "got it wrong" according to such standards, how much does that really matter? ::DOESN'T::Is the "Christian character" of the Narnia stories the most important thing about it, or something else? ::YES::
Hopefully that helps...if not I look forward spending eternity with you Greg...then I know we'll see each other's true hearts and where any physical communication barriers broke down here...until then let's round table...luv ya man!
Very cool, Z.
As to the "spanking? throw down?" tone of my reply -- it seemed to me in keeping with the tone of your post. No offense intended. Sorry! (But it did seem to have the desired response.)
Knowing that your "nitpick" thing was "actually directed at Bruce Edwards" helps a ton. But the interesting thing there is, if you follow the link to his column, you'll find that he's totally on board with your "MoveMe" approach to the film. And moved he was. He loved it! So hyper-intellectualization -- for him at least -- didn't in the least get in the way of how he feels about the movie.
The fact that a bona fide Narnia scholar (and he is, by the way) could both love the movie and yet have grave reservations about the movie's failure to deal with the "Deeper Magic" issue fascinated me -- particularly because the movie didn't click with me on any level.
You and I agree that "film is an art form...period." All artforms, though, are subject to critique. That's what critics and scholars do. If they particularly like something or don't like something, the better ones are actually capable of explaining why in very specific, concrete terms.
So calling what critics and scholars do "nit picking" is by nature pejorative. That's just not a term that anyone views as neutral. Nit-picking is a bad, mean-spirited thing. Right?
I also agree with you, completely, that film adaptations of books need to be artistically free to pursue their own vision. In the case of Adamson and Narnia, it didn't seem to me that he felt free enough to do that.
You also might be interested to know that I agree with ALL of your succinct answers to the roundtable questions.
Bet you didn't expect THAT, eh?
I was really hoping that someone on our staff would have a gut-level response like yours. From the other posts, it's pretty plain that we didn't all react the same way.
Score another one for diversity of thought!
What's REALLY interesting is that you and I could have the same answers to those questions while having very different responses to the movie as a whole. I find that very interesting indeed.
Thanks for taking the time to spar with me a bit!
Thanks Greg...
It sure is fun to spar! Take a turn in the ring so to speak...I'm glad we could come to some terms looks like we don't disagree as much as we thought we did...that is cool.
As far as art being open to critique it's a debate for another day and we've derailed this forum already...but I still think art should be "experienced" first and foremost...allowed to move us...before we start critiquing from a technical point of view. Ken Gire said it best (Reflections on the Movies):
"If there is a place for criticism [of movies], it is a secondary or tertiary place, not a primary one. It should even be secondary, in my opinion, for those whose livelihood is film-writers, directors, film critics, film school instructors. We shouldn't respond to a movie critically until we have first responded to it viscerally. We should look at a movie primarily to learn something about life, and secondarily to learn something about our livelihood."
Again...not saying one is better than the other but I'll continue to approach movies as Philippians 4:8 says, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Take care man...hope you guys have fun at the HJ Conference...hope I can join y'all next year.
you want to read the REAL Christmas story look it up in Luke 2
Post a Comment
<< Home