7/30/2019 55782082

1/8

FEATUR E

N A R N I A I N V A D E DHow the New Films Subvert Lewis's Hierarchical Worldby S T E V E N D . B O Y E R

A s EVERYONE KNOWS, two Hollywood pro-ductions of recent years bear the titles oftwo of C. S. Lewis's famous stories fromThe C hronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witchan d the Wardrohe and Prince Caspian. The third install-ment in the series. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, isscheduled for release this December, with The SilverCWr slated for 2011.Many Christ ians are very exci ted about thesedevelopments, believing (quite rightly) ehae Lewis'sstories are sho t thro ug h w ith deeply Christian imagi-native themes. Whae can be wrong wieh disseminae-ing ehe seories more widely in ehis way? The answer

is: Absolutely nochingso long as it really is Lewis'sstories being disseminated. But there 's the rub . Aehougheful inveseigation suggests that the Narniafilms are very far from being a faithful repr esen tationof Lewis's own Christian vision of reality.Th is is a serious charge, so let me focus it a bitmo re. I shall not objece eo the qualiey of th e moviesSteven D. Boyer is Professor of Tbeolo^ at Eastern Universityin Saint D avids, Penn sylvania. He, his wife, and the ir fourchildren attend Com munity Evangelical Free Church in Elverson,Pennsylvania.

simply as movies, nor to the interpolat ion of munon-Lewis material into bo th m ovies, no r even to tapp rop riaten ess of film, in prin ciple, as a vehicle telling such seories. Objections might be made (ahave been made) on all three points, bue I shall nmake them here.Instead, I have a larger and more basic questiin mind. Do these film versions "do" whae Lewi

boo ks ehemselves "do"? D o ehose who see ehe filcome away nourished in ehe same way ehae readeof the stories do? Do ehe films give us, or do thtry to give us, something recognizably like Lewicomprehensively Christian vision of the world?

A PECULIAR LOVE O F HIERARCHYIn order to add ress qu estion s like ehese, we have eo afirst wh at Lewis is trying to d o. Wha t is his "C hristivision of ehe world"? We could address ehis questiby focusing on the Narnia tales specifically, but it eup being m ore productive (and avoiding some of ttwists and tu rns of scholarship on Narnia) to begwith a broader account of Lewis's basic theologicoutlook, and so that is whae we shall do.

Underseanding ehis basic ouelook does briwith it, however, one really substantial obstacle: have to think carefully about a significant elemein Lewis's vision ehat does not play very well in oworld, even among contemporary Christ ians. Thelement is Lewis's peculiar fondness for hierarchyThe w ord "hierarchy" does not have very pleasacon notat io ns in our day, so to speak of someon e b

ing "fond of hierarchy" sounds very "peculiar" indeeIt is like adm itting tha t your great-uncle Jack, reaa fine old gentleman, never got over his childhodelight in pulling the wings off flies. Of course, thodd and even repulsive idiosyncrasy m ight be ignorby me mb ers of the family, ou t of their affection Uncle Jack.The only problem with treating Lewis this wis that his particular oddity reappears everywhere his work, usually quite explicitly, and it has an excet ionally strong bearing up on the way he und erstanorthod ox Christ iani ty. If we are going to und ersta

30 TOUCHSTONE | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2010

7/30/2019 55782082

2/8

Lewis's deeply Cbristian vision ofthe world, we will needto try bard to understand bow this suspicious attractionto bierarcby is a part of it.

Two INTERLOCKED PRINCIPLESLewis's thinking begins witb the Cbristian understand-ing of God as tbe Creator of tbe world, and of tbe worldas God's creation. Tbe historic Cbristian doc-trine of Creation requires Cbristians to insist on j^muniting two fundamental principles, and oddlyenougb, two principles that tbe contemporaryoutlook is often prone to separate.

First, it insists upon hierarchy. We migbt notuse tbis term very often, but it is clear that anyserious doctrine ofcreatio ex nihilo ("creation outof notbing") involves tbe recognition of a very realbierarchical distinction between God and world.The difference between tbe great Creator wbogives reality and tbe cosmos tbat receives realityis absolute. Tbe one is utterly independent, tbeotber utterly dependent. Tbe one is worthy of allworsbip; th e other rightly offers tbis worsbip.Tbere is bete a hierarchy of tbe deepest, riebestkind, for in every imaginable respect, tbe world is

goodness of bietarcbically ordered relationships extendsall tbrough tbe world tbat God has made. Relationshipsof all kinds are ordered, Lewis thinks, with an appropri-ate kind of giving and an appropriate kind of receiving.Wben tbat order is respected, real joy and freedom aretbe result.Now we don't bave space here to pursue tbis ideavery far, but the point is absolutely crucial: in Lewis's

The filmmakers have taken thesingle element in Lewis's talesthat twenty-first-century viewersmost need to be instructed in,and they have recast it so that itcontributes to the error ratherthan correcting it.

subordinateand rightly subordinateto the God wbocreates and constantly sustains ber.

Yet tigbt alongside this affirmation of hierarchy inthe Christian doctrine of Creation, we find tbe insistencetbat creation is fundamentally, unambiguously gooJandwitb a goodness tbat grows directly out of its unquali-fied dependence upon its Creator. Note tbe surprisinginterpntration of tbese two principles. Creation is notgood in spite of its subordination to God, in spite ofthehierarchy; it is good hecause of its subordination, hecauseofthe bietarcby. It is good because it is created, and to becreated is to be glorious precisely by virtue of refiecting orshowing forth the greater, bigber glory of tbe Creator.

Indeed, as soon as any created tbing ceases to berightly subordinate to God, tbat creature ceases also tobe good. It becomes a competitor with God, like Molecbor Baal or Satan, ratber than a servant of God. This is tbeessence of sin in Lewis s mind: it is a turning away fromour true creaturely status. It is an attempt to replace tbegoodness tbat naturally comes from being subordinate toGod tbe Creator witb a different, independent, autono-mous goodness. It is a rejection of God.

DELIGHT IN HIERARCHYSo hierarchy, by its nature, is fundamentally good. AndLewis follows tbe overwbelming majority ofthe Chris-tian tradition by going further, by believing tbat the

mind, hierarchy is tbe source of freedom. Tbis meansthat, as odd as it sounds to most of us , bierarchical orderis sometbing tbat we all ougbt not to hate or to fear, butto deligbt in.

To be sure, hierarchy has been abused, and LewisIS well aware tbat, in a fallen world, we need equality asa protection against that abuse. But it is one tbing toprotect ourselves from tbe abuse of bierarcby, and it isanotber to reject outrigbt the thmg that is abusedand itis tbis latter error that tbe modern world has fallen into.Finding that hierarchy has been abused, we have rejectedbierarcby in principle.

But tbis is a dteadful mistake. It is like discoveringthat some of our food has been poisoned and thereforeresolving never to eat again. Worse still, if Lewis is rigbt,tbis rejection of hierarchy is notbing less tban a rejectionof a fully Christian way of seeing tbe world.

COUNTERCULTURAL CREATIVITYOf course, it is anotber question wbctber Lewis really isrigbt about all of tbis. It seems to be a prett)' importantquestion. Unfortunately, it is also a question tbat mostof us have very few resources to answer bonestly, for tbesimple reason tbat, for most of us , "good hierarchy" is acontradiction in terms. Tbe very word hierarchy usuallybas a ring of doom to it in our culture: it reeks of domi-nation and oppression. For most of us, even to consider

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 | TOUCHSTONE 31

7/30/2019 55782082

3/8

the possibility that something called hierarchy could bea good, edifying thing will take an intentional, counter-cultural act of creative imagination.

Enter T h e Chronicles ofNarnia. At last, we are in a po-sition to see at least part of what Lewis is up to in thesedelightful tales. He wants to remind us what a beautiful,elegant, adventurous, festive place the world can be, andhe thinks that right order is a part of that good world.Through these stot ies, Lewis gives us the imaginativetools to think criticallyhe would say to think moreChristianlyabout our own cultural assumptions regard-ing hierarchy, equality, and so on.

We can see Lewis's strategy at work if we just thinkfor a moment about what his original stories are like.Narnia is a great repository of hierarchical images andrelationsof good kings and noble knights, of laborerswho are not disgruntled an d servants who are not de-meaned, of Asian the great Lion who rules over all, whois never safe, but always good.

One can hardly turn a page of T h e Lion, the Witchand th e Wardrobe or of Prince Caspian without encounter-ing compelling images of royal authority and knightlyvirtueand we see now that both of these themes areintimately connected with Lewis's positive construal ofhierarchy, which in turn is foundational to his distinc-tively Christian vision of reality.

HOLLYWOOD SHIFTS THE CENTERSo , what about Hollywood? Is the Christian vision ofthe Narnia films anything like that of Lewis's own Narniastories? That is the question we turn to next.

Let us begin with some brief attention to WaidMedia's 2005 production of T h e Lion, the Witch andWardrobevery brief attention, since we need to spmore time on Prince Caspian. This brevity is unfortuin a way, because I think there really is a fundamenshift in focus in this first film, a shift from a story tis chiefly about Asian to a story that is chiefly about tchildren, an d especially about Peter as he grows towmaturity. To be sure, Asian is quite helpful along the wbut he is no longer the centerand that is big news, ifare thinking about Lewis's Christian worldview. So this much more to be said about this first film, even ifdo no t have time to say it here.

Yet we must take time to note one aspect of Petegrowing up that turns out to be especially relevantour concerns. The greater part of Peter's maturationhis learning to take responsibihty for his situation raththan just quietly acquiescing in it. He must learn to tarisks even in the teeth of Susan's ever-so-rational gosense; he must learn to follow his own judgment, njust do what "Mum" would want him to do. This is a bad lesson: unquestionably, maturity does involve tkind of growth toward independence. But consider tway this growth is formulated in the film.

The opening scene shows us an air raid in Londand we find Peter very angry at Edmund because tyounger boy, rather than running to the bomb shelterhe has been instructed to do, runs back into the houto retrieve a photograph of his father and then has torescued by Peter. Peter performs the rescue all right, bhe also savagely chastises his brother: "Why can't you jdo as you're told!?"

O N E GOD, ONE EMPERO! DEFENDING CONSTANTINEPETER 1 LEITHART978-0-8308-2722-0, 37 3 PAGES, PAPERBACK, $27 ,0 0

"T oo inniiii p e o p l e , for far to o long, h a m ' been able to iniirniiir the a-wfid> xoord Constantine, knowing that the shudder it produces juill absolve them from the need to think through how the church and th e pozuersof the world actually r e l a t e , let alone construct a coherent historical or jtheological argument on the subject. Peter Leithart challenges all th is ,

a nd forces us to face the question o f what Constantiite's settlement^ ' ' " " " l / i / ?iV7,s, and m e a n t . "

IVP Academic .., , . , . , . , , , . 800,843.5)487

32 TOUCHSTONE | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2OIO

7/30/2019 55782082

4/8

A STRANGE SIGNOF MATURITYThese are very significant words, for themovie as a whole consists in Peter learningto think and act independentlylearning,in fact, no t to do as he is told. The value ofthis kind of "disobedience" reappears fre-quently, but most significantly near the endoft he film, in the high, cl imactic m om entwhen the great bat t le against the WhiteWitch seems all but lost. In despair, Petercommands Edmund to "get the girls andgo hom e" -th a t is , to abandon thi s losingfight and get their sisters to safety. But thereformed Edmund now shows his ownnew maturi ty and virtue, and he shows i tby (obeying.

It is a good move: by staying in thebattle, Edmund is able to break the Witch's wand andthus to contribute in no small way to the Narnian vic-tory. In the celebration immediately after the Witch'sdeath, with everything now won and Edmund proveda hero, Peter offers a teasing, tongue-in-cheek "rebuke"to Edmund that takes us right back to the opening oftbe movie: "Wb en are you going to learn to do as you'retold?" he hollers. Of course, he doe sn't m ean it anymo re.By now, he has grown enough to realize that receivingorders and following them is a sign of immaturity andweakness, whereas ind epen den t action, especially when itinvolves of do ing as you 're told, is the sign of s treng th,maturity, and success.

No te well: disobedience is the sign of real matur ity.This quiet , unobtrusive devaluat ion of humble submis-sion to rightful au tho rity is a significant om en of thin gsto come in the later film.Which brings us to the 2008 prod uction called Prince

Caspian. This film once again makes Asian peripheral,and i t a l so inc ludes a grea ter number of depar turesfrom Lewis 's original story, including a sixteen-min-ute siege on the cast le of the usurper Miraz that isnowhere in Lewis's text. This film also addresses muchmore frequently and explici t ly tbe important themeof hierarchy. Yet it is a hierarchy m uch different fromthat of Lewis's books, and different in some pretty far-reaching w ays.

This difference is evident absolutely everywherein the film. One could look at Caspian himself, who istransformed from a noble and honorab le young king inLewis's telling, into a tortured warrior whose uncheckeddesire for person al revenge against his father's mu rdere rleads to the deaths of scores of his Narnian subjects.Or again, one could look at tbe virtuous Red DwarfTrumpkin, wbose cheerful , good-humored embrace of

obedience in Lewis's story is quietly dropped from tbefilm, replaced by the more modern virtues of sarcasm,irony, and cynicism.

PETER T H E PROBLEMBut let us pass over exam ples like these an d focus in steadon that on e character who d emo nstrates m ost clearly inthe film that Lewis's positive vision of hierarchy is notmerely being overlooked by his Hollwood interpretersbut is being self-consciously attacked. That character isthe High King Peter.The Peter we meet in the film version of Prince Cas-pian is a very different Peter from tbe one we saw growup in the earlier film and certain ly very different fromthe one in Lewis's story. In the first place, it is hard todescribe Hollywood's Peter as anything oth er than a bum-bler. He is not part of tbe deliverance that comes fromthe blowing of Queen Susan's magic born. He is insteadpart of th e problem, a stupid, proud, boorish, a rrogantfool who speaks and acts with ridiculous vanity and, farfrom delivering others, needs to be delivered himself. Hisarrogance and vanity are explicitly highlighted in thefilm: We first enc ou nte r Peter as the cause of a brawl ina London subway, which he started simply becausesomeone bumped him. Once in Nar nia, Peter sets ou t to lead the other ch ildrenand gets hopelessly lost, but be keeps insisting (withstereotypical m ale vanity), "I'm no t lost," "We weren'tlost," etc. When he final ly assumes comm and of the N arniansand then is confronted by Lucy, who tries to talk senseinto him and get him to wait patiently for Asian, he

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2OIO | TOUCHSTONE 33

7/30/2019 55782082

5/8

condescendingly repl ies, "I think i t 's up to us n o w .. . .We've waited for Asian long enough." In the enemy castle, in the mid st of their failed at-tack, Peter stupidly and obstinately refuses to callfor retreat , crying ou t instead , "No , I can st i ll dothis!"w hich p rom pts S usan to ask, "Exactly who areyou doing this for, Peter?"

These in stances could easily be m ultiplied. At everypoint, th e Peter of Hollywood's Prince Caspian is the prob -lem, not the solut ion. The high king of Narnia seems tohave devolved into a you ng, han dso m e version of H omerSimpson.

ADAMSON'S A I MBut how has this hap pened ? The p oint here is absolutelydecisive. The makers of the film leave us in no doubtwhatsoever tha t the brashness and insolence and h augh-tiness of Peter in the secon d film are precisely the resultof his having been exalted as king in the first one.

Our fi rst encounter with Peter in Prince Caspianmakes this point quite intent ionally. The scene openswith a general mle in the subway station, of whichPeter is the cause. Order is finally restored by the inter-vention of the police, and then the four children are leftwaiting for a train. Susan takes this opportunity to askPeter caustically, "What was it this time?"giving us anunmistakable hint that this clash was only the latest in aseries of confiicts tha t have had Peter at their center. AfterPeter explains what happened (including the satisfiedacknow ledgment tha t he himself threw the first punch),Susan sighs and asks, "Is it tha t ha rd just to walk away?"Peter snaps back, "I shouldn't have to!"

Then fol low some remarkable l ines. Says Peter,"Don't you ever get tired of being treated like a kid?""We ar e kids," Edmund wryly observes. "Well, I wasn'talways," Peter retorts. He is obviously remem bering tha the used to be a king in Narniaand he wants the king-ship back.Director Andrew Adam son helps us understan d justwhat is going on in this scene in a commentary that isone of the bonus features on the Prince Caspian DVD.Adamson explains,I always felt... how hard it must have been, par-ticularly for Peter, to have gone from being highking to going back to high school, and w hat th atwould do to him, do to his eg o. .. . I always th oug htthat would be a really hard thing for a kid to gothrough. Adam son acknowledges that this emotional turm oil

was "not som ethin g tha t C. S. Lewis real ly got intobu t as director he wanted "to create more d epth for tcharacters, more reality to the situation." He wanted "deal with what al l the kids would go through havileft behind that incredible experience and wanting relive it."This emotional realism was Adamson's explicit aiand as a resul t , the screenwriters who put this scetogether were actively encouraged to think about whit would be like to go from "king" to "schoolboy"na pleasant prospect, of course, and one to which anyus might react with bi t terness and resentment, just Peter does.

Right, any of us might react that waybut thatbecause we have not breathed the air of Narnia. We athinking l ike ordinary persons (and worse , l ike sesufficient, twenty-first-century. Western intellectuainstead of like knights or kings. In Lewis's telling of of the Narnia tales, the children's experiences as kinand queens in Narnia consistent ly t ransform them innobler, more virtuous people in their own world. Thare not spoiled children wanting to be kings again; thare noble kings who carry that very nobility back intheir non-royal roles as schoolchildren.

But not so in Hollywood. To be a king at all is hun ger for power forevermore, like a tiger that has tasthuman blood and ever afterwards is a "man-eater." lose imperial power by being transp orted back to E nglais to become a bitter, sullen, acrimonious brat. Thatjust what Peter has become, and his folly is the driviforce behind most of the action in the movie.

T w o ROYAL STINKERSThe difference between Lewis and his Hollywood intpreters could hardly be greater on this score, and itdemonstrated most clearly in the astonishingly differways that the relationship between Peter and Caspianportrayed in the film and in Lewis's own text. The fiversion shows us a relat ionship of almost unrel ievhostility, suspicion, and animosity. It begins when Peand Caspian first meet and mistake one ano ther for opo nen ts. They finally realize that they are fighting on tsame side, but the civility that is practiced thereafterobviously a thin veneer tha t m asks a seething comp etion between them.

The confiict comes to a head after the failed attaon Miraz's castle. As we have already noted, part of fault for the failure lies with Caspian for abandonthe original strategy in order to pursue his own plafor vengeance, and part of the fault belongs to Peter his proud insistence that no retreat be allowed untilis too late. But given what we have already seen of thTOUCHSTONE | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0

7/30/2019 55782082

6/8

MovieAdmissionsIN MY COLLEGE literature classes,I preach the good ness of hierar-chy all the eimein Spenser, inDante, in Milton, even in the paganVirgil. The stude nts get it. Both sexes,too. They understand the idea thatjust rulership and obedience are in-extricable one from the otherthatthey are, in fact, the same virtue indifferent modes. Someone who doesnot u nders tand that we are all calledto obedience, both kings and peas-ants, is simply a b rat.

The producers of the Narnia

movies reveal a great deal aboutthemselves: They are essentially ad-mitting that they understand noth-ing about power other than that it ismean t to make other people do whatyou want them to do. Underlyingthis utter blindness is a not-very-well-concealed contempt for the male. Ic'sright there in the films. The strangething about it, too, is that the film-makers' tiresome feminism ended upmaking Susan, in the first movie, intoa real snot, a thoroughly unpleasantyoung lady. I don't chink they in-tended that, bu t just as they have noconcept of male virtue, they have noconcept of female virtue, either.

It is amusing to ponder, thoug h.

how these .same people could possiblyproduce and direct a movie withouthierarchical relat ionships amongthemselves. Professors, too , are quitethe egalitarians until some studentquestions a remark of theirs in a pa-per. Then they might as well be en-sconced on the throne of Louis XIV.

ANTHONY ESOLHN

characters, it is no surprise that each of these royal stink-ers refuses to recognize his own part in the fiasco andinstead blames the other.The result is a fierce public quarrel that finallydescends into a childish exchange of insults. WhenLucy asks what happened in the battle, Peter spitefully

replies, "Ask him." Caspian is shocked to be blamed, andhe retorts, "You could have called it off There was stillt ime."Peter; "No, there wasn't, thanks to you. If you hadkept to the plan, those solders migh t be alive righ tnow."Caspian; "And if you h ad jus t stayed here like I sug-gested, they definitely would be!"Peter; "You called us , remember?"Caspian; "My first m istake."Peter; "No, your first mistake was chinking youcould lead these people."

(One can almost hear the "Nah-na-nah-na-nah-nah!"in the background.) The insults continue and escalate,until Peter even insults Caspian 's fatherat which po intswords are drawn in rage, and violence is barely averted.

T w o NOBLE KINGSThis account of hatred and rivalry and mutu al recrimina-tion is about as far as it could be from Lewis's own ac-cou nt of the relationship between these two noble kings.

For Lewis, that relationship is overwhelmingly markedby support, trust, and generosity.Consider just a few lines from the drastically differ-ent story that Lewis tells of the first meeting of the kings.In Lewis's story, that meeting takes place just after Peterhas leaped in to help Caspian in a fight with th e deceitfulBlack Dwarf Nikabrik. As tbe heroes catch their breathafter this deadly clash, the following rem arkable exchangeoccurs:

"We do n't seem to have any enemies left," said Pe-ter. "There's the Hag, de ad .. .. And Nikabrik, deadt o o . . . . And you, I suppose, are King Caspian?""Yes," said the othe r boy. "But I've no idea whoyou are.""It's the High King, King Peter," said Truinpkin."Your majesty is welcome," said C aspian."And so is your majesty," said Pecer. "I haven't

come eo take your place, you know, but to put youinto it."We are clearly in a different world, with a conversa-tion like this one. Caspian is not overbearing and self-imporeane; be knows that his army is in trouble, andhe is glad for assistance. And when be learns that theassistance comes from the High King, he is not put off orthreaten ed: "Your majesty is welcome," he easily declares.Peter's reply is equally striking : "So is your majesty." Eachside happily welcomes and supports the other. There isno pom pous ego or arrogan t comp eti t ion here. Instead,NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 20 10 | TOUCHSTONE 35

7/30/2019 55782082

7/8

we find nobility, autborit)', courtesy, and bumility allwrapped into one.

THE OUTLOOK OF MIRAZIndeed, for Lewis, tbe whole notion that kings must livein competition and suspicion of one anotber refiects tbeoutlook not of Peter or Caspian or the noble Narnians,but of Miraz. It makes all tbe sense in the world tbatMiraz sbould be threatened by any autbority otber tbanbis own, for his own autbority is only tbat of a tyrannicalusurper. Miraz doubts tbe very existence of sucb a tbingas legitimate authority; for bim, tbere is only power. Andpower is always threatened by any otber power.

In fact, wben we first meet Miraz in Lewis's story, wefind him disbelieving the ancient tales of Peter and Susanand Edmund and Lucy on precisely tbese grounds. Hecries out in a rage, "How could tbere be two Kings at thesame time?"

How could tbere, indeed! Sucb a barmoniotis, sup-portive, virtuous understanding of hierarcbical rule isfoundational to Lewis's deeply Cbristian worldview, butit is utterly incomprebensible to Mirazand also to tbeunwitting disciples of Miraz wbo wrote tbis Hollywoodscreenplay. In Miraz's view, kingsbip is all about wbo callstbe sbots, wbo gets bis way, wbo is top dog. Tbose whoadopt tbis view cannot but find tbe notion of courteous,cooperative kings to be impossibly unrealistic.

And this, of course, is exactly my complaint. Every-where you look in tbe first two Narnia films, you findincontrovertible evidence tbat the creators of tbose filmstake exactly tbis view. They simply bave no t seen tbe vi-sion that Lewis saw. Tbey bave never tasted the joy, thepower, tbe life of bierarcbyand so tbey drop all sucbfoolishness and replace it witb a more modern, moresensible story tbat reveals tb e dangerous, oppressivething tbat bierarcby really is.

BAD MEDICINEBut hold on a minute. If tbere is a possibility that Lewiswas rigbteven a bare possihilitythen tbis loss of tbeoriginal Narnia, tbis domestication of Asian, is distress-ing indeed. It signals notbing less tban an invasion by aforeign and hostile power. The creators of tbis "new im-proved" Narnia have taken tbe single element in Lewis'stales that twenty-first-century viewers most need to beinstructed in, and they have recast it so tbat it contributesto the error ratber tban correcting it.

Lewis tbe pbysician prescribed a strong medicineto treat ou r imaginative ailment, but tbe pharmacistsin Hollywood have substituted a different medicine ofthe same name, and one tbat exacerbates tbe sickness

instead of bealing it. As a result, viewers encounter wbtbey tbink is Narnia, and tbey get mere entertainmeinstead of tbe richly Christian view of tbe world tbLewis bimself provided.

I confess, in closing, tbat I do no t really know wbanyone sbould do about all of this. Tbere is a facbance, I suppose, tbat future Narnia films will be mofaitbful to Lewis's own vision. Tbe next installmeThe Voyag of the Dawn Treader, is scbeduled for releDecemb^ under a new director (Michael Apted, wbo rected tbe film Amazing Grace in 2006), but since tbe sscreenwriters are in place and since Andrew Adamsonnow serving as one ofthe producers, I am not bopefu

Moreover, if my experience witb my own cbildrand witb students whom I have casually surveyed is aindicator, tbe damage is already done. When one refto The Chronicles of Narnia, most people already tbinktbe films, not of Lewis's own stories.

THE NEEDED INSIGHTIn many ways, tbe damage has probably even been doinadvertently. Remember tbe comparison I mentionearlier: Lewis is like a member of tbe family wbose iiosyncrasies we try to ignore or smootb over. I susptbat Doug Gresbam and the filmmakers are simply ding wbat every polite, kind family member would dtbey are telling "Uncle Jack's" stories witbout all of tbothersome quirks and eccentricities. Tbis is a generobenevolent way to bandle tbe flaws that appear in allour cbaracters, is it not?

Yes. But wbat if tbe flaw we are trying to smooover turns out to be tbe very heart of the person? Fther, wbat if tbe flaw turns out not to be a flaw at but a supremely countercultural insigbt tbat tbe wodesperately needs? Wbat if the kooky opinion turns oto bave been right tbe wbole time?

One can tbink of anotber well-known figure, tbis oofJewisb descent, wbose well-meaning family was hapto talk about bim to anyone wbo would listen: "Ob, Ysbua? He's afineyoung man . . . an excellent carpenterquite pious in his own way . . . always cared very deeply bis mother . . . yes, a. ine young man. Wbat? Obwell, tbere is tbat silly business about bim tbinking bimsthe Messiah.... Let's just let tbat pass, shall we? Dimention what a skilled carpenter be is? . . . "

"Yesbua" witbout "Messiab" is just anotber capenter. So also "Peter," without tbe wisdom and dignand nobility appropriate to "High King Peter," is juanotber struggling leaderand we already bave plentythose. Asian, without his appallingly bierarchical clawis just anotber pussycat. I myself would prefer to bhim roar.

36 TOUCHSTONE | N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2010

7/30/2019 55782082

8/8

Copyright of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity is the property of Fellowship of St. James and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.