Last week, I attended the Prince Caspian movie along with most of the families who are part of the Church I serve. A few observations.
1.) What’s with the collagen treatment on the lips of Anna Popplewell (The actress who played Susan)? When you compare Anna’s lips from the last Narnia movie with this one you can clearly see that Anna’s lips went through a growth spurt that Wilt Chamberlin could’ve only envied. When she laid a kiss on Prince Caspian at the end of the movie I was afraid that the guy was going to disappear in those lips, never to be found again.
2.) The writers of the script turned Lewis’s Susan character from being a soft spoken but wise Queen to a horny warrior princess. She went from being the Queen of Sheba in Lewis’s book to being an in heat Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie. On the transformation of Susan from being a Queen of Sheba type in Lewis’ book to being Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie the Director of Caspian, Andrew Adamson, made his views known.
“I know C.S. Lewis didn’t think women should fight, but I have a different view about how strong or assertive women should be. That was something I discussed and said there was no way I was making a film that says that.”
You know if Adamson wants to make a movie about his different views about ‘how strong and assertive women should be’ why doesn’t he first write a series of books called ‘The Chronicles Of Adamsonia,’ have them become treasured volumes and bestsellers to generations of Christians, and then make them into a Movie instead of defecating on the Chronicles of Narnia by injecting his modernistic Worldview onto a book that was decidedly not infected with modernity?”
3.) What gives with the kissing scene? This was another example of Adamson injecting his modernistic Worldview on to a book that was essentially medieval in its setting and flavor. I seriously doubt that most Christians thought about that scene as that kind of thing is the norm among our 15 year old girls today but it really isn’t a role model we should want most of our 15 year olds emulating.
4.) The character development was awful! You never got a sense of the refusal of ‘doubting Trumpkin’ to believe in Aslan. The film created no wonderment at Trumpkin’s loyalty in spite of his disbelief. The Nick-A-Brick character was completely flat and barely revealed the nature of his treachery. Peter comes across as a tyrant who will brook no counsel and who never repents of his boorish behavior. Reep-a-Cheep was the character that was perhaps most true to the novel. He was my favorite character in the movie.
5.) The character development could’ve been pursued somewhat if the script writers hadn’t decided to invent, whole cloth, a scene that is not in the book. The whole invasion of the Castle was yet another example of Hollywood try to improve a book instead of just telling the story of the book. This scene contributed nothing to the plot of the movie (though it had its due sense of daring and excitement) and it was used to despoil the Susan character by turning her into an assassin. You know, as I think about it, I think Susan had more kills in the movie then Caspian, Peter, and Edmund combined.
6.) Nick-a-Brick, who in Lewis’s book was the villainous ‘Black dwarf,’ was played by a White guy while the heroic Centaurs and Minotaurs were played by Black guys. Coincidence?
7.) The invented scene ended with the entrapment of a large Battalion of Old Narnians trapped behind the Castle Gate, who you knew were being slaughtered by Miraz’s army. It was a bit intense for children.
All in all if you could view it as a movie that had nothing to do with the book it was OK. The thing that gripes me is that these movies make their money by attaching themselves to the books. If they want to make stand alone movies that have nothing to do with the books then let them have at it. But if they are going to make Movies and suggest that they have anything to do with the books besides a few character names then it would be nice if they actually had something to do with the books.
Susan in “Caspian”;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narniafans/2440566764/in/set-72157604721611901/
…and in the first film;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narniafans/2489777169/sizes/o/in/set-72157604721611901/
Yes, I see what you mean.
BTW, not long ago I saw a documentary on Neanderthals on the Discovery Channel that consistently depicted the WOMEN doing the hunting, while the men staying in the cave watching football on TV. Well, they were NEANDERTHALS after all 🙂
Greetings Bret,
Forgive me for posting on an unrelated topic.
I recently watched a two-part interview with Mark Dever after the Together for the Gospel conference (you can check it out at the Between Two Worlds blog). I am increasingly aware of how much disagreement and fragmentation of theology persists in the camp of folks who label themselves “Reformed” (A continuum spanning from Federal Vision to John MacArthur).
Dever gets culture wrong in my opinion, which means he gets Gospel wrong (as his comment about churches donating computers to public schools reveals). I was wondering if you might write up a piece on the essentials of Reformed Doctrine, or maybe “what would Calvin and our Reformed heirs call us out on today?”
I’m hard-pressed to find much to get excited about in the “growing Reformed movement” because I’m struggling to see coherence in the vision of its self-professing membership.
Where do I need to strengthen my own mind in order to be used to sharpen others’s?
Joshua,
There is no coherence…. or at least very little.
A friend of mine and I were talking about this yesterday. Whereas the Reformed movement should be one huge ocean line moving in the same direction what it is instead is 10,000 individual row boats moving in a host of different directions each rowboat trying to sink the competing rowboats.
I’m not old enough to know whether or not it has always been this way. Maybe it has.
It is a disaster.
Are you asking me to write on what Reformed theology 101 is or are you asking me to write on where the Reformed movement is going wrong?
The latter topic would take a very large book.
Let me know what you’re looking for.
Blessings,
Bret
Robert,
You’re a funny guy!
Bret
p.s. — What’s a football?
Bret,
Thanks for the response. I think a little of both is what I have in mind. I’ve been trying to plumb the depths of “Reformed theology 101” for the last four years and feel I’m only just getting my feet wet.
The “Reformed movement” issue is one that is only recently emerging to the surface of my thoughts (revealing how late I’m entering into the waters), and one I realize can easily get me painted into a corner as a “cranky” or “idealistic” detractor.
Not long ago I would have listened to Dever’s comments and been rather pleased, but of late I see a profound lack of precision, resulting from a more profound lack of cautious (that is to say, logical) thinking, especially with regard to Scripture. Dever doesn’t consider baptism an essential piece of the puzzle. I happen to think Covenant Succession rather important. Dever (and D.A. Carson, apparently) thinks redeeming culture is a dangerous idea. I happen to think redeeming culture is the very task we’ve been given in Scripture.
So I guess here is what I’m looking for from you:
1. An outline (complete with the appropriate reading materials) for Reformed theology 101.
2. Get started on the book exposing the errors of the present-day Reformed movement.
If you attempt either I’d be more than grateful!
Peace,
~Joshua
It is important to note that those “Reformed” folks that are not coventental are NOT Reformed. Tulip only grows in the soil of Covenental Theology. This is a big deal and is much bigger on the smatterings of wet or dedicated babies!! It is better for everyone, including our baptists brothers and sisters to not label those reformed who are not truly covenental.
Joshua,
I would agree with David… If you’re not covenantal you’re not Reformed. I would go another step and say if someone contends “that it is positively wrong to engage in cultural or ‘public square’ apologetics” they are not Reformed. If you are satisfied with thinking that all the other denominational expressions of Christianity that are not Reformed can be counted as vibrant Christianity and so should not, like Apollos, be taught the way better’ you are not Reformed.
I’d be glad to concede that all the ‘Not Reformeds’ or ‘Barely Reformeds’ above are Christian but they are certainly not Reformed.
I think, short term, I can help you with the outline for Reformed Theology 101. Look for future posts that deal with that.
Bret and David,
Thank you both for further clarifications. I guess there is an interesting question as to why folks who are not covenantal choose to identify themselves as “Reformed,” even though the disagree on major points of emphasis from the original reformers.
Although I don’t like being refered to as the scared-of-the-spider type person, just because I’m a girl, doesn’t mean that I’m going for the warrior side of girls. In fact, I’m not. I think that girls need to accept who they are, and not try to be different. God made us to be who we are. Not so we can try to imitate others. They need to realize that.
Sarah,
Yes, God made men and women different and it is well for each to be pleased with how he made them.
Pastor