Prince Caspian: Gearing up for May 16

***SPOILER WARNING***

Walden Media's journey into the world of Narnia has been full of controversy from the beginning. However, despite the many debates on Narniaweb and other sites concerning the first movie, they were nothing compared to the controversies raging now over Prince Caspian.

So the question is- what has been changed- and is it enough that we should consider skipping the film?

My answer is a resounding "NO!"

However, there are some things that are absolutely critical for you to keep in mind in order to enjoy the film. And some of these, for die hard fans especially, is being aware ahead of time of some of the changes that are being made.

That is the point of this blog post- in addition to giving me a chance to voice my own opinions about these films once and for all.

First of all let me say that after watching "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" I gave up all hope of seeing a faithful adaptation of this series. Granted, the characters were perfectly cast, the production was quite beautifully designed, and it followed the generally story very well. However, there were perhaps no more than two or three lines that made it unchanged from the book into the film. And that, in my mind, was inexcuseable. Jane Austen and Shakespeare- writers of far more difficult and archaic dialogue have been translated to screen with much more faithfulness to their original language.

So with that in mind, I entered the period of waiting for the next film, "Prince Caspian" with extreme skepticism. All the rumors and confirmed plot changes that have surfaced have only cemented in my mind the belief that this will not be a faithful adaptation of C.S. Lewis's book.

However...

I think it will be a most enjoyable and well made film. And I have decided to enjoy the changes as a story of their own, and not beat them up for differing from the book.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss what those changes actually are.

First of all, there is the casting. As I said previously, the casting in LWW (particularily of the Pevensies and Mr. Tumnus) was my favorite part of the whole film. And- apart from one character, I think the production has continued to do a superb job of picking actors who match their characters perfectly.

And that one character that is rather off the mark...well, he's one of the changes that I've decided to love.

He is, of course, Prince Caspian.

In the book, we are told that Caspian is young, about the same age as Peter- most of us understand that to be about 13 or 14. Ben Barnes is 26. However, as we've been told over and over again, William (who plays Peter) is 20, therefore casting someone who looks the same as as Peter is going to require someone older than the implied book age.

Secondly, of course, is the fact that Caspian is described as having golden hair. Hmmm. Not quite matching up there. This is where the production's decision to delve into the pirate background of the Telmarines (hence the "Spanish" feel) put them in a tough spot. Caspian had to match the rest of his people...therefore the "golden hair" went out the window.

*sigh*

What's the good side? The reports we've gotten on Ben Barnes so far seem to be very positive. I think he is going to make quite a dashing (er...swashbuckling...) prince of Narnia- and very enjoyable to watch. And on that note- here is a lovely new interview for your enjoyment!

Next up, of course, is the plot itself. Most fans of Narnia agree that the plot structure of Prince Caspian is almost impossible to translate to screen. As Mr. Gresham (Lewis's step-son) put it, it wouldn't exactly work to have the Pevensies sitting around a campfire for half of the film! (my paraphrase).

We're not exactly sure what all of the changes are. Some pictures seem to indicate that Caspian may join the Pevensies at the ruins of Cair Paravel (In the book, he doesn't meet any of them until they reach Aslan's How- and then only the boys). We do know for certain that the story begins in Narnia, with the birth of Caspian's cousin- an event which causes him to flee for his life.

Other changes include a "night raid" on Miraz's castle- the purpose of, again, we aren't sure. It seems that Lucy opposes this raid, and then goes on a "search" for Aslan. We also know that Aslan himself does not appear until quite close to the end of the film.

Another, more minor change that most people have been confused by in the trailer, is the appearance of the White Witch in the cavern of Aslan's How. As reader's of the book know, the hag and the werewolf offer to call her up, saying that witches can never really die. However, that is as far as they get- in the book. The film, it seems, chooses to show a bit more than this, requireing Edmund to break the enchantment- which, all in all, seems quite fitting. A film, after all, needs to show more than tell, and I'm anticipating that the emotional impact of actually seeing the White Witch will be much greater than just hearing of the possibility. (Clarification- it's not really her, it's merely a ghost-image)

And then there is the most controversial rumor of all....

This is one of the first bits of photographic evidence that we have of there being a flirtation/slight romance between Caspian and Susan. However, there's a lot more than this behind this particular rumor.

It all started a couple of years ago, when, as an April Fool's Day joke, the moderators at Narniaweb played a prank on all of us by posting a "rumored romance" between Caspian and Susan as a news item. The next day they admitted that it was a joke and took it down- in addition to several other news items that were also pranks. This is a yearly tradition at Narniaweb and a source of immense amusement to us all.

But...it now seems that the mods were righter than they knew...

In the Ben Barnes video production blog that was released online several months ago, there was a shot of Susan assisting Caspian with his archery aim- a shot that seemed to hint of "something more" between the two. This provoked enough fan discussion that we asked Mr. Gresham about it in an interview. He told us that there were more important things (like global warming) to worry about, but he did not deny it.

Then, much more recently, rumors of a pre-showing began to surface and several comments were posted to the effect that there was indeed a very subtle romance between Caspian and Susan. Something to the effect of "they flirt, he saves her, they kiss at the end."

Ahem.

Needless to say, since such an occurace as kissing never appears in the Narnian books (nor any hints of a romance between Susan and Caspian) this provoked quite a storm of outrage. Many theories on why this could have been invented by the filmmakers, and how it could add to the story (and Susan's eventual disbelief in Narnia) can be found on the Narniaweb forums. The general opinion remains that this romance (and certainly a kiss) has no place in Narnia.

However, some fans, like myself, who have decided to embrace the changes, find this all highly amusing and are delighted to have a bit of romance thrown into the mix. Since we gave up on a literal adaptation, there is simply no need waste our breath protesting it. And, I admit, that if May 16 comes and there is not even the slightest hint of a romance between those two, I'm going to feel slightly cheated.

After all, I think a lot of viewers not familiar with the books would find it rather odd to have a beautiful girl and a handsome guy in a film and not have some sort of romantic attraction. Again, this is a consequence of playing around with the ages.

But perhaps, not such a bad one after all.

Things to check out

With illness, birthdays and deadlines for two college classes and one costume for Mr. Bill Sikes looming large, I've been too busy to post as often as I'd like. Most notably on my opinions of the Oscars, which my siblings and I watched and vastly enjoyed.

However, Jeffrey Overstreet did a fairly decent job setting the high points down, and though I don't agree with everything he says, if you didn't get a chance to watch the ceremony, check out his post here.

And click here to see some AMAZING new high resolution pictures from Prince Caspian. I'd post some here, but I'm afraid they might be a bit spoilerish...for an instance, if you haven't heard anything about the Susan/Caspian rumors, then don't click the link. However, if you don't mind slight spoilers like that, do click the link immediatly! These are the sort that are too good to be left up and I'm sure we're all worried that Disney is going to order them taken down...

O for a Time Machine...

...so that I could venture back to the 1520's and meet this intriguing woman for myself. Well, actually, I wish I could discover what she actually believed about her faith, because pretty much no one today knows for sure. Why does it matter? Because the truth behind her character and actions lies in what she believed. Was she a true Christain? Was she a power-grabber? Was she something in between? Was she really Protestant, or actually Catholic?

One author claims that she was a better Catholic than most of her family, which makes no sense because she was obviously in favor of Henry's separation from Rome. Furthermore, she in good conscience (as a good Catholic) could not have married an excommunicate! (If my understanding is correct.)

So, at the moment, I'm inclined to believe she really was Lutheran. But will we ever really know? Probably not. Which makes my task examining this in a research paper rather annoying. I want to know for certain!

I console myself with thoughts of writing a novel, based on the premise that she was an Evangelical Protestant. Because the best way to truely examine the motives of a historical character is to put yourself in their shoes as much as possible. And I think one of the best ways to do this is to write fiction. Because you have freedom to explore the truth.

All this is actually quite radical for me, because until fairly recently I was very pro-Catherine of Aragon/Princess Mary. Anne was always the villianess. But my recent reading has been testing and changing those beliefs and what I'm finding is the fascinating woman that has intrigued historians for years.

And, for the record, the new movie "The Other Boleyn Girl" is based on a supposedly interesting but woefully inaccurate book of the same title. I have not yet decided whether I shall be seeing it or not. On the one hand, I would love to see Natalie Portman portray Anne, but on the other hand I think the inaccuracies would send me screaming from the theatre.

In honor of my birthday...

(oops! spelling!)

...I am putting up a few of my favorite graphic art creations to share with all of you. Please leave a comment to let me know if you take or really like one of them.

A new record!

This is just to announce that I just accomplished the remarkable feat of typing 10,000 coherant words in one day. In other words, I wrote a complete 22-page short story based on the characters and events of a mystery party a friend of mine held a couple of weeks ago. I am sure there is some editing left to do, but this is without a doubt the most writing I have ever done in a single day. I'm not even sure that I've done this much in TWO days!

And it's past Midnight now...

Reepicheep!

He's perfect! Just how I always imagined him!

Becoming Jane

I have been asked by several members on the Fairy Tale Forum (which I administer) to post a review of "Becoming Jane" now that it has been released to DVD and I have been able to see it with subtitles.

Well, first of all, I will say that if you would like a complete list of anything that might be objectionable, please check out the Plugged In Online review. I will discuss objectionable elements in my reviews, but because my level of sensetivity may not be the same as my readers, my advice will always be to get the complete listing from www.pluggedinonline.com if that is something that concerns you.

Also, be forwared. The following review may contain spoilers.

Becoming Jane, this year's film addition to our growing choices of Austen-related movies, focuses on the early years of Jane herself.

It is important to be aware from the first that this is a young Jane. Many people have been appalled by some "themetic" elements that have been included that they feel is an affront to the author. While there are two very short scenes that have some dialogue/images I wish had not been included (so that I might share this film with my younger sister), I must say that I do not think they are completely a disgrace to Jane.

Why? Firstly because Jane does respond to this kind of material in the proper, moral way that we would expect her to. Secondly- because such topics did exist in those days, as they do now. Furthermore, England had not yet reached the restrictive stage of the Victorian era- a fact that I think many "Janettes" tend to forget. Jane was a well brought up pastor's daughter, but that does NOT mean that she was never exposed to immoral ideals. In fact, what truely makes a person moral is the knowledge that immorality does exist, but remaining moral despite that. Without temptation, how could we ever claim victory?

The second charge brought against this film is that Jane's relationship with Tom Lefroy is completely fictionous and imagined.

Well, the answer to that is both "yes" and "no."

For three interesting articles on what we know concerning their relationship, click here and scroll down to the bottom of the page. The first three articles are the ones to read.

The answer is "no" because we have hardly any evidence that there was every any romantic relationship between Jane and Tom.

Yet the answer is also "yes" because a) we do not have all the letters Jane sent to Cassandra (a fact the movie deals with by Jane asking Cassandra to burn the letter in which she reveals her feelings for Tom) and b) because there is evidence in the letters to suggest, at least, that Jane liked Tom very much.

The third answer is that it doesn't really matter. The filmmakers were playing around with an "what-if" theory, rather than doing a straight "bi0-pic." And as long as they represent Jane's character faithfully, I have no problem supporting this film. I think my biggest question would be...would Jane ever really begin an elopement with anyone? Well, she was a very independant-minded lady and she was young (only twenty).

Now- how does the film itself hold up- simply as a film? (And leaving all questions of historical accuracy out of the picture.)

The answer is- fairly well. It still lacks some of the sweetness and grace that made 2005's Pride and Prejudice such a delight to watch, but it is a fairly well-made film. When I saw it in the theatres, I thought the cinematography was rather shaky and "in-your-face" but it was much more enjoyable on a small screen and I was better able to appreciate the shots.

It also has a more realistic feel- if that is possible. It does decide to deal with some very earthy issues- besides the moral ones already confronted, Jane's brother has a mental illness, her family is forced to dig their own potatoes and feed their own pigs, and (Spoiler) Jane's almost-brother-in-law dies overseas, leaving her sister completely devestated.

Yet there is also humor, and family devotion. And, without any doubt, there are frequent mentions of characters and ideas that end up in Jane's later books.

For an instance- an elderly dowager mentions a "pretty wildness" by Jane's house- upon which Jane immediatly rushes to her writing tablet and jots the words down- which will later be spoken by Lady Catherine in P&P.

Jane suffers her own Mr.Collins/Mr. Elton proposal from her brother's friend Mr. Warren.

And- though some may find the sight of Jane Austen playing cricket a bit too "feminist" for their liking, a former Jane Austen Society president points out on the special features that one of Jane's heroines, Catherine Morland (of Northanger Abbey) was quite fond of cricket.

She also finds the same sort of disgust towards Tom Lefroy that Elizabeth Bennet has towards Mr. Darcy. But although her relationship with Tom serves as a catalyst for the beginning of her most fameous novel, Tom is a great deal more human (read "flawed") than Mr. Darcy, and also a great deal more interesting (read "funny") to watch. (And he is, after all, played by rising star James MacAvoy.)

But the connection that I saw come through most strongly was the relationship between Jane and her sister Cassandra. If Jane is Lizzy Bennet, than Cassandra is Jane Bennet. Their hair colors even match the colors given to those heroines in both the 1995 and 2005 versions of the film! (Brown and gold). The bond between these sisters is so sweet, strong and loving. One cannot help but see Lizzy and Jane Bennet in them- a parallel which Jane herself draws when she tells her sisters of the marvelous marriages she is giving them- though both she and Cassandra have recently seen their hopes for marriage dashed.

Artistically the film is also lovely. Very real- nothing fancy or gilded about it. There is definetly earth and mud aplenty. But there are also fountains and gardens and beautiful forests. Not to mention lovely scenes of Jane writing...(why don't we encourage that kind of handwriting any more?)

The costuming is also well-done. Like 2005's P&P the transition period of the late 1700's is clearly shown. Some characters (such as Jane) wear the new, high-waisted dresses, but many of them also wear the traditional lower waists and longer sleeves of the colonial era. Furthermore, though I was originally annoyed by the darker, richer colors that Jane wears at home, the filmmakers explained that lighter colors were a sign of wealth, since they showed dirt and were impractical for household chores. Since Jane's family is poor, it makes perfect sense that she would wear darker more practical colors while at home.

And I must admit that I have a certain weakness for the long, elegant coats that the men wear...so dashing!!!

And that, in short, is my very long, very opinionated review of "Becoming Jane." No doubt there shall be several die-hard Janettes that disagree with me, but we are all entitled to our own opinions in this world, are we not?