AllTheseThings

Prince Caspian

It has been, perhaps unsurprisingly, a very Lewisian weekend. A good friend, Rev. Dr. Michael Ward, visited our family and we all ventured to see the new film release, Prince Caspian. In general, I am an unshakeable purist as far as cinematic “adaptations” go: virtually no book I have loved has ever been improved by screenwriters in the transition from page to screen. Whether it be Austen, Lewis, Tolkien, or Dickens, the Faustian bargain of exchanging word for image has always been disappointing, and at times, infuriating. It only gets worse when quite modest (at best) screenwriters and directors put their stamp on exquisite dialogue and plot. With all that admitted, and in many instances replicated in the case of Prince Caspian, this film satisfies the viewer more than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Perhaps The Lion on screen wrestled viewers sufficiently away from the book to allow an even greater freedom for future Narnia Chronicles. Indeed, all of Prince Caspian’s variations and permutations suggested the original book but obviously did not feel obliged to it. The additions to plot and dialogue echo, in a sense, the classical tradition of retelling by authors and playwrights who really had no strong fidelity to an original, authorized, version. Homer’s Iliad and Sophocles’ Oedipus all benefited – and suffered – from successive retellings. Has Narnia become so mythic as to join the stockpile of characters and plots who can all be, within reason, reconfigured for a given version? Will its flexibility mean resilience and continued imaginative power? Perhaps, and purists such as myself would do well to avoid an Ossified Version that crosses all genres. Moreover, it was a powerful and violent film. It was martial from the word “go”, with early battles leading to ever greater and more massive final battles; its character development depended on conflict to an almost absurd degree (e.g. Caspian and Peter in a perpetual adolescent battle of ego’s). Yet, and again yet, the fundamentals of belief in redemption against all hope and the absolute power of the Lord of heaven and earth (and water) made for a highly thrilling story.

Even more satisfying on Narnia was Dr. Ward’s recent talk on C. S. Lewis at “Socrates in the City” in New York, a fantastic outfit run by Eric Metaxas. Dr. Ward is a scholar, who through decades of love for the Narnia tales, first discerned an astonishing depth to Lewis’s “childrens” books. OUP was so taken by his discovery about Narnia that they published his dissertation on the Chronicles in the book Planet Narnia, which details the way in which C.S. Lewis used an imaginative conception from the Middle Ages to create the governing scheme for all seven Chronicles. In short, no one for fifty years had seen, before Dr. Ward, the manner in which a medieval conception of the cosmos as articulated in their astronomy – and taught by Lewis for decades as a scholar – made for that perfect number seven in Lewis’s books. Nor had anyone seen the way in which the seven planets gave the very atmosphere of each of the Narnia books. For more, read the book (or visit www.planetnarnia.com), as the author does a masterful job in explaining why the Chronicles are far more than bald Christian allegories. By Jove!

Nicodemus

Mind Over Body

So, it turns out Cleopatra was loved for her mind, not her body.  Feminism was on the march in ancient Egypt too I guess. 

Some British archaeologists--for Valentine's Day no less--published findings based on a Roman coin depicting Cleopatra.  They show that she was no physical beauty at all.

Compare:

and

Then think about the modern mind's traditional view of Cleopatra:

 

Which images are closer?  Cleopatra and Susan B. Anthony or Cleopatra and Elizabeth Taylor?

I think the artists since Cleopatra's time have altered our perception, bringing it down to the "lowest common denominator" of sorts--physical beauty.  In doing so, they have altered the reason she was probably revered from her personality to her body.  (And for those of us in the viewing audience, thank goodness for that!  As for society, well, that's another story--the audience v. societal benefits, is the perpetual battle, isn't it?)

Consider this progression of descriptions over the centuries--from closest in time (see the coin above for the physical depiction) to the most modern (see E. Taylor's picture nearby.)

From the article:

Plutarch, in the "Life of Antony" written a century after the great romance, said of Cleopatra: "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her."..."But the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice ..."

Then to Chaucer:

"fair as is the rose in May."

And to Shakespeare:

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety; other women cloy the appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where most she satisfies."

Well, it turns out that the reason age couldn't wither her was that it had already occurred!  Nevertheless, the woman's beauty was in her presence and company.  This, I imagine is something Susan B. Anthony would have applauded.  And maybe, just maybe, we have in Rome and Egypt an early example of the type of mind-over-body womanhood so much discussed in erudite circles today.

Nevertheless, I doubt the movie would have been such a hit had Susan B. had the lead!

We blog, you decide,

Thomas More

[email protected]

Further signs of hope in...Hollywood?

The other night, my wife and I enjoyed an advance of Amazing Grace, a splendid new movie profiling the life of William Wilberforce.  It will open in theaters nationwide on February 23 and is well worth taking the time to see.  Wilberforce is too-little remembered today, which is another lamentable sign of the facile nature of so much contemporary evangelical political involvement.  Those few who are familiar with Wilberforce -- hopefully soon to be joined by millions more if the movie's message enjoys any success -- will know that this year marks the 200-year anniversary of his successful campaign to abolish the British slave trade.  Wilberforce's heroic efforts over two decades, in the halls of Parliament and throughout his nation, testify to a remarkable mastery of the craft of politics at its best -- a unique combination of persistence, persuasion, pragmatism, and principle. 

Looking back from today we can applaud his success.  Yes in watching the movie, one cannot also help but be struck at the contingencies of history.  This did take him 20 years, after all, and being on the losing end of countless votes in Parliament.   Time and again Wilberforce faced real moments of despair, when by any reasonable standard his quest had ended in failure, and further efforts would be the very definition of futility.  And this where his faith in God proved most genuine and most enduring, for only because he realized that politics was just a proximate means in his permanent calling was he able to endure, knowing that faithfulness is its own reward.  That, and the love of a beautiful woman helped inspire him to get back in the game, as it were.  This is Hollywood, after all, though in Wilberforce's case it also happened to be true to life.

And a word on the money and inspiration behind this movie -- it is the latest labor of love (following "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," etc) from billionaire Phil Anschutz and his capable team at Bristol Bay Productions and Walden Media.  Their stated goals are to marry first-rate cinematic production with inspiring, transcendent stories.  At least to this viewer, they succeed again.  Here's hoping the market and the movie-going public will agree.

Hollywood v. Families

I'll try to bring together a couple of discussions we've been having here at All These Things with this post.  Following Philomena's post, Timothy described the deterioration of music lyrics, which launched a discussion on art and society.  You can certainly see moral deterioration in movies as well. A company called CleanFlicks formed to deal with this problem. It edits out nudity, violence, profanity, etc. from movies and then sells or rents the sanitized version.  Of course, this sent Hollywood into a tizzy.  And, joy, a lawsuit followed. 

Now, CleanFlicks pays for the movies they edit, so this is not an issue of pirating, or copying without authorization, like what has been in the news with Napster.  The issues were more about artistic content and copyrights.  Also keep in mind, the movies are clearly marked as "edited by CleanFlicks" so no one would think--horror of horrors--that the edited version was the director's original content.

Jay Cline recently commented, in response to Lucy's first post on TV, that he has dumped TV altogether and uses Netflix exclusively in his home.  This means Mr. Cline rents all his content.  Someone in his position in particular, depending on his family's tastes, might have preferred to rent certain CleanFlicks versions.  We all are aware of "good" movies, that we enjoy, have a good message, interesting story-line, but as we watch them with kids think:  "this is not how I remembered it!" and have to hit "stop."  CleanFlicks takes care of the worry and problem--or at least they did.

Hollywood "artists" were so offended that the movie they created was not viewed in its original form a lawsuit ensued.  Not surprisingly, CleanFlicks lost to the Hollywood big shots on the other side.   You can get a very interesting take on this matter here, where Reason's Nick Gillespie's explains the fallacy in so much of their "we don't want you editing our material" logic.

In essence, viewers mentally and physically--through modern technology--edit on their own:

"As a viewer, I am already acting as a "third-party editor" to [directors'] ...films..."

Hollywood, however, is not interested in your editing, only theirs.  Why?  Because of their concern for their reputation--fair enough, it is their creation.

"These films carry our name and reflect our reputations," continued Apted [the Hollywood/Directors' Guild representative discussing the case.] "So we have great passion about protecting our work...against unauthorized editing."

Of course, this misses the point that anyone who made the decision to rent the edited version and not the original--which is more difficult from a consumer/availability standpoint--has ALREADY determined that they do not think much about the director's reputation.  Instead, the renter is saying "I trust CleanFlicks' reputation (or reputation for discretion) more than that director's."  Gillespie continues to challenge Hollywood's logic:

But here's the rub. There is only unauthorized editing whenever a piece of culture is put in front of an audience. The individuals watching in the darkened theater, the family room, or on a computer screen are constantly making choices, skipping over stuff, misinterpreting things, and more. The audience, alas, has a mind of its own, and that mind doesn't care about the creator's intentions...

When it comes to film and video, a host of technologies, including VCRs, remote control, and Tivo, have radically altered the terms of consumption.

That's certainly true at Casa de More.  With Tivo and DVD's, we simply fast forward past objectionable content.  We're editing--and without concern for the director's reputation!  So it becomes an issue of our convenience; we worry and wait with our trigger/remote finger at the ready, or we let someone at CleanFlicks do it for us.  Hollywood missed this point, and, one senses, it probably did for more reasons than just "artistic reputation."  It seems Hollywood is generally dismissive towards families concerned with objectionable content.  Hollywood has missed it again when it comes to family entertainment--and this time it'll cost them.  Families who would've rented an edited "Titanic" will now go without.

But beyond the finances, they are widening the cultural divide, making Gillespie's subtitle right on:  "How Hollywood won a lawsuit while losing a cultural battle."

Two thumbs down,

Thomas More

[email protected]