I paged through WORLD Magazine yesterday, and saw that they published a big, vividly illustrated article on the new Prince Caspian movie.
The article was very positive, even boosterish, but it had the opposite effect on me than was intended. I’d been excited to see the movie, but after reading the article I made the sad decision not to go.
What set me off was a statement that director Andrew Adamson decided to make Susan Pevensey a warrior in the battle (in the film), though Lewis had made it a point to keep her out of it (in the book).
The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. I understand that I’m touchy and obsessive on the subject, but there are times when madmen (like me) can see the truth that sane people can’t, because we look where nobody else is looking. If it’s true that the truths that are most important to defend in any age are precisely those that are most despised, then madmen are sometimes the bloodhounds who smell out what the truth-hunters don’t see.
The decision to kick aside a plot point that mattered to Lewis, just because it’s unfashionable, is not a minor matter (or so it seems to me). In this situation it’s a declaration that there is no special calling for a man to be warrior and protector in the world. Nobody seems to see this, but to me it’s obvious—such a view has dangerous, catastrophic consequences, not only for boys and men but for society as a whole. It’s an assertion (one at which Lewis would have snorted in contempt) that there is no essential difference between men and women; that there are only interchangeable hominid units.
You think this doesn’t matter for society? Look at what happened at the California Supreme Court today, where the justices struck down the state’s marriage protection law. The court’s decision was based, at bottom, on the conviction that men and women are interchangeable. Marry a man. Marry a woman. Take your choice, it’s all the same.
If you think the court decision was good, you probably won’t understand what I’m talking about. But if it troubles you, maybe you’ll see what I’m trying to say.
Even if I’m nuts.
I’m with you: the movie people, including Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, have betrayed the book and Lewis.
It isn’t just a matter of a movie with a change that shouldn’t be made. People who hadn’t read the book will see the movie and read Lewis’s book, which (so far….) has not been tinkered with. And for many of these readers, the Susan of the book will seem insipid compared to the sword-wielding babe they watched in the movie. It will be harder for them to “get” the book.
Fortunately, many people will have read the book and responded to it before seeing the movie, and in some families the book will be read to the children before they see the movie.
Lars Walker, you’re right, but not completely right.
As an author, you(1) ask a publisher to invest a relatively small amount of money in a book that would be profitable even with sales in the thousands or ten thousands. Since the investment is relatively low, you get to keep creative control and can keep your message clear.
A movie director, such as Andrew Adamson, has to convince a movie company to invest a huge amount in making a movie. IIRC, the investment is typically in the tens or hundreds of dollars. This requires convincing the movie company that the movie will sell a huge number of tickets, and to do that you have to cater to what they perceive as the current culture.
Until this equation changes, movies will be more insipid and less interesting than books. It’s the nature of the beast – capital intensive businesses take less risks.
As long as it gets people to actually read C. S. Lewis, I think the net result will be positive. Even if Susan appears insipid at first – if they start with Narnia, they’ll read other materials. Eventually they’ll get it. The worst thing would be for Narnia to be forgotten.
(1) I’d like to say “we”, but since my religious Fantasy is still gather virtual dust in a slush pile somewhere I can’t, yet.
I see your point, although pleasing the audience doesn’t seem to be a major concern in a lot of recent Hollywood projects. However, I’d agree with it in these terms–the people moviemakers want to not offend are not the general public, but other members of the Hollywood community.
And I’m not sure that speaks well of them from either ethical or business perspectives.
You are not nuts. You are speaking Truth, and in this secular world, it’s a breath of immensely fresh air.
I’m re-thinking taking my nieces to see the film now. (When they read TLTW&TW, we had quite a lenghty discussion on the theory behind the line “battles are ugly when women fight” and Lucy’s reasoning that she could, of course, be brave when she had to be.)
Insert sigh here . . .
“lengthy” that is!
Perhaps you are but mad north-north-west. But I urge you to see the movie anyway, then tell us more about it. See if your madness holds up.
Lars Walker: However, I’d agree with it in these terms–the people moviemakers want to not offend are not the general public, but other members of the Hollywood community.
Ori: You’re right. I suspect they’re getting intellectually inbred. I suspect that the future of this industry belongs to people like the guy who didn’t have a computer capable of animating animal forms – so he made cartoons with characters that look like vegetables. He’s working on a distribution network now.
I hear you loud and clear. U.S. television has become virtually unwatchable as it has become a 24/7 celebration of the female as male. Almost all “adventure” movies must first be analyzed to try to measure the degree of “female empowerment” injected into them. Occasionally, they will get it right; Vantage Point with Dennis Quaid had a female “bad guy” which was actually believable. I expect the Prince Caspian example to be a moment to abandon any willing suspension of disbelief, but that it will not affect greatly the overall appreciation of the story. Actually, the final installment of Lord of the Rings had a similar scene with “manly deeds” being performed by a female character and one of the Hobbits in the final battle sequence. Unfortunatelyh, though, it will be a long time before we see a remake of the Steve McQueen-Yul Brenner movie “The Magnificent Seven,” unless, of course, we have a few females among the Seven.
I generally agree, but the difference between this movie and the Return of the King movie is that the “manly deeds” in ROTK were based on things that happened in the book.
There are two different things going on here in Lewis’ mind.
First, he clearly did believe that a woman or a girl should be able to defend herself, or others, if need be. He gave Susan a bow (and good skill for archery) and Lucy a dagger for a reason.
Second, he clearly thought that women shouldn’t get into the fight unless there clearly was desperate need, and that men should take care of the battle in less desperate circumstances. This was a very common view in many armed societies. The samurai women specialized in castle defence, and so did many European women of knightly or noble rank.
Third, he did acknowledge that, if women had to fight, things could get messy. This has two sides: first, exposing women to brutality and killing off the future of a people; and second, the very common occurrence of women not only fighting dirty, but killing and torturing the enemy wounded out of sheer motherly excess of protectiveness. Now, this was not always the case; there were many medieval women skilled in battle and chivalrous too. But as a general rule, it’s usually better not to have women fighting wholesale, or to conscript them.
Lewis’ take was a very balanced one. There are other ways to go, but he chose that one. It allowed him to show girls that it was okay for them to like activity and defend themselves, without devaluing the more girlish girls’ legitimate wish to stay out of fights. Since most girls have a helping of both tomboy and pink ruffles, it worked out fine.
Finally, keeping the Queens out of the battles was tactically and strategically wise. If Peter and Edward had gotten themselves killed or captured at any point, Su and Lu were still there. Their bodyguard force would also function as reinforcements if things got bad, or a special strike force if the Narnians were attacked from behind. After the battle, the Queens could run operations whether or not Peter and Edward were too exhausted or hurt; and of course, Lucy had the healing cordial, which had to be kept safely out of the battle. At all times, Susan and Lucy might choose to hazard themselves, of course; but it was not something that generally would help.
Authors of note don’t usually stick stuff in for absolutely no reason. Whether or not the author explicitly plans it, things tend to tie together. If you take out or change _one_ thing, you end up having to change quite a lot.
I think that’s very well put, Maureen.
I saw the movie yesterday and Susan is not in the fray in the major battle, though she uses her bow quite a lot. There is some of that whacking the foe with an arrow in hand as we saw Legolas do in close, personal combat LOTR. In the major onslaught, she stays back and directs the archers.
I come at this from the pov of a veteran. I put myself in uniform for four years in my younger days, and made myself available to die to protect my country. For good or bad, I served under James Earl Carter. Other than mobility exercises and watching the commander-in-chief strip the military of dignity, I kept the gears of the machine greased for the duration. I intellectually understand all the arguments against women in combat, and agree that only in extraordinary circumstances should women be placed in direct combat positions. Even so, when the subject comes up, it still feels like my service is viewed as less than that of my male counterparts.
I very well understood and could identify with Susan’s role in the battle. Sorry, Mr. Lewis.
Susan, thank for the report. That may modify my decision not to see the film.
Personally, I feel sad and somewhat second-class in my Christianity whenever the importance of marriage is discussed. But I recognize that important issues have to be talked about, regardless of how they make me feel personally.
Susan: Even so, when the subject comes up, it still feels like my service is viewed as less than that of my male counterparts.
Ori: First, thank you for having protected our country.
Second, arguably military service which does not include combat or the likelihood of combat should be viewed as less than one which does. My military service (3 years in the IDF, mostly sitting in an office) certainly doesn’t deserve much respect. This should be true for men and women.
Having said that, combat support positions can easily turn into combat positions. Our enemies couldn’t care less how we classify truck drivers – they’d still shoot them if possible.
Well said, Lars. Huzzah. Thank you, too, Maureen. Very well put.
I think this androgynisation of our culture is not just bad, it is catastrophic. And it is in art where this folly can be either, by great effort, manipulated to produce a new dogma, or can be a shining example of the ordinate nature of the universe as it is, created by God. Art can be reflective of that hierarchical, patriarchal God(he is a Father, commands his equally divine and eternal, all-powerful, Son). This is one of the fundamental joys of the Lewis/Tolkien/non-modern literature…it is unsullied by the extravagant mind-twisting of egalitarianism, post-sexual revolution nonsense and Masculinism (AKA “feminism”).
Give me difference. Give me complementarianism. Give me beauty, truth. Women should not be so disrespected and degraded as to be forced into a boring sameness with men. Oh, the ugliness that produces.
Not going to get drawn into the feminism-in-literature debate for the moment; as an author working on two texts with female protagonists (one a thoroughly active killer who hates violence, the other a largely submissive Renaissance merchant’s daughter) I doubt I could be objective anyway.
I will say this: Susan’s changes in the novel seem to fade in comparison to the major change as I see it. One of the main themes of the story was about the loss and rediscovery of enchantment. A critical moment shows Aslan dancing with Bacchus, essentially bringing out the virtues of paganity as an antidote to modernity. This whole plot was essentially written out, replaced with far too many LotR-lite scenes of “fun-with-swords.” Instead of frolicking Satyrs, we have windmill-like catapults.
Who knows, perhaps the two changes are connected. After all, if EVERYTHING must be about fighting, there isn’t any role for women–unless you give them a chance to join in the pointless CGI fun.
I agree – it sacrifices truth for political and economic correctness – and is as demeaning to women as possible by suggesting that we were of no use in the times before liberation. I’m about to read The Problem of Susan’ is it any good?