Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
<w.c.> |
Looking forward to this, although the books were so marvelous to read when young that a movie can't hold as much fascination, just as I enjoyed, but didn't delight in, "Lord of the Rings" as a movie. It's just not the same when the special effects aren't the product of your own imagination, or the characters partial projections of your own inner life. http://adisney.go.com/disneypi...es/narnia/index.html http://www.narniaweb.com/ | ||
Here is a related story. Narnian Order: Which C.S. Lewis book comes first? By John J. Miller
| ||||
|
<w.c.> |
Lowry shows how the Left kisses its own backside as a form of movie review: http://www.nationalreview.com/...owry200512090858.asp "Lewis and Tolkien wanted to reinvigorate the powers of the imagination so it would be primed to detect the hints of a higher and deeper reality � �further up, further in,� as Lewis put it. A theme of the Narnia books is that the children instinctively know the right thing to do because, as Lewis scholar Jonathan Rogers explains, �they have read the right imaginative stories.� Lewis and Tolkien undertook their project against the grain in a mid-20th century that was an age of desiccated rationality. We have gotten more desiccated since. Now everything tends to be viewed through the postmodern trinity of race, gender and sex. British fantasist Philip Pullman has said the Narnia stories are racist since the villains are dark-skinned. What does he make, then, of the aptly named White Witch, who represents Satan? Then, there�s the charge of misogyny and a sexually repressive Puritanism. The New York Times Magazine essayist regrets that Susan, one of the children, is denied salvation at the end of the series �merely because of her fondness for nylons and lipstick,� because in other words, �she has reached puberty [and] become sexualized.� That�s not it at all. The point is that, as one character says, Susan �always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up.� For Lewis this meant losing the capacity to be childlike, with its guileless receptivity to wonderment and joy." | ||
<w.c.> |
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavist...androeper/today.html Check out the audio review they give; both are rather giddy about the movie. I'm glad I've read the books first, since I'll retain the immeasurable depth one's own imagination opens to in such writing. | ||
A theme of the Narnia books is that the children instinctively know the right thing to do because, as Lewis scholar Jonathan Rogers explains, �they have read the right imaginative stories.� Lewis and Tolkien undertook their project against the grain in a mid-20th century that was an age of desiccated rationality. I think that's a very very interesting concept. The culture these days (and probably all days) is about winning the hearts and minds of people. And that means trying to program them like a computer before somebody else does. But are we that susceptible to being programmed? Are we always poised at the edge of the precipice wherein we might be forever lost and falling because we thought or read the wrong thing or didn't get the opportunity to read or see the right thing? Well, that's a quick synopsis of history, me thinks. But there's one constant here, I think, and Rogers touches on it. It's summed up in the word, "imagination". Imagination is something feared by tyrants and those who wish to control. Imagination is the first cousin of creation. It is the spark of life. Indeed, it could be said to be the very meaning of life, for to imagine is to be free, to create, and to work with the material of existence as if it were all one big Play-doh ball. That is love. And to love is to break or transcend the inherent constraints of ignorance. And, yes, therefore "reading is fundamental" and questioning prevailing attitudes is vital, even while it can be quite upsetting. Surely imagination has been used for quite evil deeds. But I like Lewis' idea of "further up, further in". Even bad ideas can open doors to other ideas, but surely we might feel the outward and uplifting pull (and this can be a quite poignant and painful pull) of certain works of art as opposed to that which tends to only denigrate, cheapen or brutalize. Yes, construction and destruction are two sides of the same coin, but why is it that so many these days honor, or give legitimacy to, only destructive urges? To be "uplifting" is not to inherently be taken away from rational reality into flights of precarious and destructive delusion any more than deconstructing and pulverizing is to be "uplifting" and clarifying. Both can do so. Both can also do the opposite. We are made for both. To trust only one or the other is to miss half of life. | ||||
|
<w.c.> |
Worth seeing, as the reviews suggest. | ||
We saw it last night and thought it was superb. The little girl Lucy stole my heart. | ||||
|
<w.c.> |
Yes, my feeling too. | ||
Saw it. Love it. Would like to see it again soon. (That's a rarity for me.) The actor who played Tumnus (James McAvoy) did such a superb job that the reward surely was in the satisfaction gained in bringing to life such an outstanding character. An Oscar would be but a trifle in comparison, but I�m sure he'd take it. | ||||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |