It has been years since I last read the Narnia books, and I can’t say I remember Prince Caspian terribly well... my references to the book come from a Wikipedia refresher. I also never saw the earlier production of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, although it received very good reviews from people whose opinions I trust.
However, none of us were particularly happy with this film, mainly because they twisted the plot into a standardised Hollywood epic fantasy. This film contained all that could be expected from such a film: swashbuckling battles, adrenaline-fuelled chases through woods on horseback, epic battles and even romance. The only problem is, this is nothing like the original Prince Caspian.
The basic synopsis is the same: the four children, Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy, are returned to Narnia after being summoned by Susan's horn. After working out where they are, they come upon a dwarf and discover that Narnia is now run by the Telmarine, who don't believe in the talking beasts or dwarves and other mystical creatures. And they certainly don't believe in Aslan. Prince Caspian does believe, and he should be heir to the throne but for his uncle, Miraz, who would rather his own son became the heir.
Admittedly, the film starts well. The scenes of the children returning to Narnia show their confusion and eventual realisation, and when they appear, fully kitted out as kings and queens of Narnia, they do look like they belong in that world. The dwarves and some of the talking animals are wonderful, beautifully animated and well acted. The centaurs let the side down slightly, with awkward movements and poor animation that makes them look more like a human stuck onto a horse, rather than a single beast.
Prince Caspian himself is, as well as a European heartthrob-wannabe, a well-acted role, encompassing much of the necessary moral dispute and attempts to marry Narnian with Telmarine culture. Aside from him, many of the human characters fell short of my expectations, through no fault of the actors. While C.S. Lewis has often been criticised for sexism, Susan’s exploits in this film were too reminiscent of Legolas from Lord of the Rings. When will Hollywood realise that an archer on the ground in the midst of a skirmish where all the opponents are in full battle armour with swords stands almost no chance? I can only assume that Susan was given super-strength for the purposes of the movie, that her arrows were tipped with a metal hard enough to pierce iron (when combined with her super-strength)… oh, and that her bow had a bladed edge.
Peter and Edmund were better: Peter was believable in the role of a sixteen-year-old with the memories of a king. Edmund played a more stoic role as sidekick and knight, but his exploits were within the realms of possibility, and certainly of fantasy and Narnian rules. Lucy was the most believable of all, slipping easily into the role of the youngest child, the healer who talks to the trees. It is just a small mercy that they didn’t decide to give the pint-sized heroine a sword and have her slash her way through the enemy with her siblings.
In terms of plot, this film includes battles that never existed in the book, and do nothing but call into question the motives (not to mention tactical abilities) of everyone in the film. An extra battle, never present in the book, only serves produce a blood-bath that is entirely Not Suitable for Small Children, and create unnecessary tension between Peter and Caspian. The only possible explanation for this extra battle-scene that I can find is to hold the attention of people who need an action sequence every ten minutes to keep them awake.
This film was not all bad. It is occasionally witty or heart-warming. There are scenes that arguably portray internal struggles and ill-wisdom much better than the book. But I was not happy with the way that Hollywood has twisted a story about chivalry and courage into an action-packed stereotype that uses every possible opportunity to create a bloodbath.
Even if you ignore the fact that this film was obviously filmed in the same place as Lord of the Rings, and that it often has delusions that it *is* Lord of the Rings, this film tries so hard to follow the Hollywood formula that it almost forgets its origins. I cannot blame the writers for wanting to modernise the story to a certain extent. The story line of the book can be used to draw rather obvious lessons about today’s world. But with ‘Prince Caspian’ the writers went too far the other way. In trying to create an action-packed film with characters and plot that the modern audience could Really Relate To, they forgot two of the most important tenets of writing this sort of film: to tell a good story, and to be entertaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment