With the wife away in Montreal, I finally rented and watched The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe last night. I read all seven of the Narnia books several times as a child, so I was mildly surprised that I didn't feel more interested in seeing it. To me, all the hype, especially within Christian circles, surrounding its initial release drowned some of my interest. It felt like a movie designed to appease that audience. And after watching all three Lord of the Rings, I feel like I've had my fill of CGI battle sequences for a VERY long time.
Overall, I basically liked it. I actually think Aslan seemed a little too tame for my liking, but I'm 31 and not 11, so that may have something to do with it. It will be interesting to see how filmmakers handle Lewis's cariactures of Arabs in later books if further movies are made--there were only a few passing shots here of human-like creatures who weren't white. Here's three things that stood out to me from the movie--mostly questions that it raised for me.
1. War is a necessary part of life, both physical and spiritual. I actually liked how this movie framed the story with the bombing of London. It gave a slightly more melancholy note to the film. Yet in the movie, war and violence are unqualifiably endorsed. The Narnian side is fighting a just war--purely defensive and with acceptable means. They're clearly the good guys. Yet on Earth, war is hardly so attractive. The Nazis were a bad bunch, but the firebombing of Dresden (from the little I know if it) was no picnic either. And the long term psychological and physical effects of war are more than we see here. Yes--wars are necessary, and can be a helpful way to think of spirituality. I live in a neighborhood where there's clearly a battle, with real guns. But in Lewis's book, and in the gospels overall I would contend, Aslan's sacrifice is the better picture of this.
2. Men are meant to rule. Yes, all four of the kids in this film are crowned at the end. Yet it's clear that Peter is THE king. He's in charge. And one could have a hayday with the victory over a heavily maned lion (does it get more masculine?) over a cruel, emotionless (read: non-feminine) queen. And the prominance of physical strength in this film as a ruling force also favors the masculine.
3. Evil creatures are basically loveless, ugly sociopaths. This I find interesting from the Christian standpoint. Part of the point of the Gospels (and even Scripture as a whole) is that powerful, attractive people usually don't get the gospel. It's those on the margins who do. Yet, in movies like this, good creatures are noble, fine-looking things. The evil creatures have all kinds of physical distortions. Edmunds character was really the most interesting in this film, I think--partly because he's the most torn between the sides. The book makes more of his desire for Turkish Delight (and power) than the movie does. That's a very Lewis theme--that evil is "bent" desire--that I would have liked to seen highlighted. Evil isn't usually this obvious or easy to detect.