The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader—Walden Media’s third Narnia movie—portrays one of the fiercest battles you’re ever likely to see at the movies.
I’m not talking about blades and arrows (although even C. S. Lewis would be alarmed at how much violence occurs in big-screen Narnia).
No, I’m talking about wars waged off-screen as this Voyage was translated for the screen.
Dawn Treader is, let’s face it, a meandering tale. As Prince Caspian sails from island to island, his adventures are episodic and conversational—hardly compelling movie material. The screenwriters revised Dawn Treader into the series’ most entertaining and enjoyable movie so far...
...and they botched its themes badly, just as they bungled the first two. Either they don’t understand Lewis’s story, or they’re actively subverting ideas he illustrated beautifully.
To be fair, I’m grateful for those at Walden Media who share C.S. Lewis’s faith, and who fought “For Narnia!” I want to thank them for preserving at least two of Dawn Treader’s profound storylines.
One follows Eustace, an obstinate boy who must learn humility, courage, and the value of the imagination. Dragged into high-seas adventures with Caspian and Reepicheep, he makes himself an intolerable nuisance. As played by Will Poulter (Son of Rambow), Eustace’s insolence is entertaining, even endearing.
True to the book, Eustace catches gold fever and is transformed into a dragon. Giddy at the opportunity this presents for special-effects mayhem, the filmmakers almost spoil everything by contriving a battle between a sea serpent and the suddenly valiant, fire-breathing Eustace.
Despite these embellishments, Eustace’s story arrives at its proper conclusion. He’s not a hero. He can’t save himself from the wages of his sin. It’s Aslan to the rescue.
The adventures of Lucy Pevensie—played again by Georgie Henley, the franchise’s greatest asset—are also preserved.
While her friends sleep, Lucy is kidnapped by invisible “Dufflepuds.” They lead her to The Book of Incantations and ask her to read a spell that will break their invisibility curse. They’re illiterate, you see.
Can you hear the high-fiving at Walden Media? They’ve never produced a scene that better illustrates their primary mission: to make movies that inspire young people to read great books.
See what happens when Lucy opens a book? She breaks curses! She makes unseen worlds visible! And she discovers a story so beautiful that she wants to read it again immediately! But it’s a magical book. Once read, the story is gone. Lucy will spend her life longing to remember that story and its mysterious consolation.
Isn’t that what great fairy tales do? They inspire us with a mysterious hope and consolation that other genres rarely offer. As adults, we long to revisit the childhood enchantment we enjoyed between “Once Upon a Time” and “Happily Ever After.”
J.R.R. Tolkien told C.S. Lewis to stop lamenting his attraction to pagan myths and fairy tales. Pagan myths—with their stories of paradise lost, war in heaven, and worlds redeemed by a dying god—expressed humanity’s longing for reconciliation with the divine and anticipate the advent of Christ, the “true myth” of the Gospel.
Lewis, inspired, imagined a series filled with characters from pagan myths. In Narnia, fauns, dryads—even Bacchus himself—bow before Aslan, who justifies, redeems, and reigns.
But all this gets lost in translation. Critic Steven Greydanus points out that the filmmakers even overlook the significance of the title: They never once show Caspian’s ship fulfilling its purpose and sailing eastward toward the dawn— toward Aslan’s country.
Watching Dawn Treader’s storytellers lose their “golden compass,” I was startled to see that they preserved the story’s most blatantly “evangelical” moment: Aslan tells Lucy that she can seek him in her own world by another name.
That scene set Seattle film critics to groaning. I heard one lament that the movie would have been better without “all of that religious stuff.”
And although I’m risking the wrath of all Narnians, I gotta say—I agree.
For me, Aslan’s words to Lucy remain one of the most frustrating moments in the Narnia Chronicles. Profound as they might be, they violate the “Show, Don’t Tell” principle so fundamental to great storytelling. When Aslan starts pointing out direct correlations with Christ, his story is reduced to a Sunday School lesson.
I’ve always preferred Tolkien’s mythmaking. Middle-earth needs no justification or explanation. We don’t need Frodo or Aragorn to remark, “Golly, I’m Christ- like!” I wish Lewis had trusted his fairy tales to speak for themselves, trusting his readers’ intelligence.
But despite my frustrations with Lewis’s allegorizing, I’m still haunted by many inspired moments in the book.
In one of my favorite exchanges, the skeptical Eustace meets the magnificent Ramandu, who is—quite literally—an age-old star. Eustace says, "In our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas." Ramandu responds, “Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
Thus Lewis reconciles what are often portrayed as opposing viewpoints. The poetic “Dark Ages” perspective nods respectfully to our post-Enlightenment scientific method, while acknowledging that truth is made of more than mere information.
Is that moment in the film? Of course not. Poor Ramandu never shows up. Did the writers think he was unimportant?
I’m grateful for Walden Media’s campaign to get people reading. If it works, moviegoers will find in C.S. Lewis a wiser storyteller than Narnia’s screenwriters. Perhaps Walden should start a reading comprehension program for filmmakers, teaching them to read closely, and to ponder what something like “Dawn Treader” means.









Share This Event
You can email "Dawn Treader: Off Course and Adrift" by Copying and pasting this link into an email or instant message
or, clicking this link to email the link using your computer's email program.
These icons link to social networks where users can share and discover new webpages.
Most Hollywood types are going to groan at "all that religious stuff" anyway, whether a subtle thematic element or a short statement.
It seems to me that Hollywood is one of the most preachy towns in the world. For example, "The Kids Are All Right" is a short, not subtle, sermon--right in the title.
Is this a criticism of the book or of the movie?
I thought the first two movies were stories of a Parallel Evil Narnia where everything is not as it seems. I imagined the third will be this way too.
I have a strong hunch (please forgive me if my hunch is wrong) that Gresham does not understand his step-father and is out to make some big bucks regardless. Yeah, these films have been that disappointing and I hope they stop making them.
Voyage is the story I did my senior performance on in college. And I need to hurry up and see the movie so I can talk about it and then perform the scenes for people as Lewis intended them.
Jeffrey, I'll revisit your review when I get home from the movie theater. :)
To the original reviewer: right on, except that I (like Lewis) have no problem with allegory. Lewis wrote whole books of the stuff (The Great Divorce, The Pilgrim's Regress). You clearly share the Tolkienian temperament -- JRRT loathed allegory. Odd, for a medievalist, come to think of it (the medievals adored allegory and saw it everywhere, even in the supposed habits of the beasts). A matter of taste. For myself, neither as a kid nor at any later stage have I been bothered by the "tell" (rather than "show") bits of the Lewis books. If anything, I found them _particularly_ thrilling . . .
Authorial voice is very much present in all movies. To assume that the ORIGINAL author's voice is the one that needs to be present is utterly wrong, and one has to accept that the film is only BASED ON the original text. There is no such thing as a film adaptation that is faithful to the text because one cannot compare text and film on the same grounds. Even if the author of the original text made the movie that was based on that text, the movie version would still be different. Many would say inferior, but they would be wrong to say so because the comparison does not exist.
The mediums of books and film are too different, you see. And the limitations of books are a film's strong points, and the limitations of films are a book's strong points. To say that a film is just the “Ghastly Mock-Up” of its origin is to mistake them for the same thing. A book is an intellectual construct, as is a film. But the book is read and understood in the same intellectual spirit. One reads the words of the book, and the act of reading is an intellectualized activity. We cannot understand language but for the association we have intellectually learned each symbol has to the thing it represents. We cannot read “dog” without formulating our own ideas about dogs, which dog, whose dog, etc. This is not a bad thing, but this intellectualization can be a limitation. Reading the text is based on the purest of intellectual skills: reading! Words! This can get in the way of emotional reactions to events and stories. Not to say we cannot react emotionally to a book, but that we first have to intellectualize what we have read before such a reaction can be had. But, this intellectualization also gives the ability to get that nuance of description and character design and thought process and meaning. Books can be very nuanced, but they are forever intellectual.
However, film is NOT an intellectual medium. While there is in most films a very strong intellectualization (characters tend to speak, after all, and language is just that), we often are not reacting to the words characters are saying, but the situations we see them in, and the way they are behaving. Film has the unique ability of bypassing our intellectual process altogether. We cannot help but see light and cannot help but hear sound. It is not based on us understanding, but just our ability to keep our eyes open and our fingers out of our ears. You may say that images act as a set of symbols that we must intellectualize, and that may be true to a certain extent, but sound is the purest form of emotional and reactionary stimuli ever. The brain functions in such a way that sound literally reaches the parts of our brains that feel emotion before it every reaches the parts that can apply meaning to it—the reverse is true of sight. Books lack sound. Movies, since 1927 anyway, are more sound productions than they are image. The limitation? 2 hours screen time is limiting. The intellectual nature which allows authors to go in-deph on certain themes and ideas is missing—and if a filmmaker tries to go there, audiences tend to groan because it gets in the way of our emotional experience because of how obvious it can be. That’s a limitation.
However, reading Tolkien and watching The Lord of the Rings remain two separate experiences. I cannot compare them, and I love both. Lord of the Rings the film is indeed a simplification of the books, but only on an intellectual level. I believe every single word the characters speak, I believe the reasons they behave the way they do, and I don’t care that I don’t have a window into what is going on behind their actions, because I am allowed to react to what is going on strictly emotionally, and that’s an altogether different ride.
To sign off on all movie adaptations of books you love is foolish, because it is an unjust over-simplification of adaptations. That is a sign that you cannot separate one work from another, that you cannot watch a film realizing that CS Lewis did not make this, but Andrew Adamson did, or Michael Apted. Changing your viewpoint to understanding that will lead to less frustration if the adapted film happens to be as bad as these current Chronicles films. But, at the same time, can lead to a great joy when you discover a new side to the story you’ve always loved. To say that film adaptations just shouldn’t, is to discredit some of the greatest films we have ever seen, The Godfather, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Lord of the Rings, No Country for Old Men, The Shining, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, There Will be Blood, Children of Men, Rebecca, Jaws, Blade Runner, and the list is just about endless as it goes on.
There is nothing that could not be made into a great movie—one just has to look at the movie, and quit comparing it to its source.
When a Mother wrote C.S. Lewis a letter asking him what to do because her little boy was worried that his love for Aslan was like idolatry he wrote, "But Laurence can’t really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that’s what he is doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing and saying are simply the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before …" and then he wrote, "If I were Laurence I’d just say in my prayers something like this: ‘Dear God, if the things I’ve been thinking and feeling about those books are things You don’t like and are bad for me, please take away those feelings and thoughts. But if they are not bad, then please stop me from worrying about them. And help me every day to love you more in the way that really matters far more than any feelings or imaginations, by doing what you want and growing more like you.’ That is the sort of thing I think Laurence should say for himself; but it would be kind and Christian-like if he then added, ‘And if Mr. Lewis has worried any other children by his books or done them any harm, then please forgive him and help him to never do it again.’
Lewis is not writing from a heart to snare anyone in or trap anyone with clever schemes. He is a brilliant man but also a loving man. And although some of his greatest lines are left out of the movie some of the more honest ones were kept.
I find it interesting that Lewis never was made chair of Medieval or Renaisance literature at Cambridge simply for the very reason that he wasn't subtle enough or sophisticated in his writing but instead was an embarassment to them as he wrote Childrens fantasy stories and religious essays. Does there not come a point where subtlety has to be shed for the sake of others?
If nothing else then perhaps the movies will spur on the sales of the wonderful books.
Just one thing. I agree with you in that I don't like allegories that are too heavy. But I have mixed feelings about the moment with Aslan. The thing about it that I am so thankful for is particularly the fact that Aslan does NOT make that explicit.
I think its important to take story for what it is in itself, and not what has been written about it outside of the story (either by Lewis or anyone else). With that said, I think it would have indeed been heavy-handed if, within the book, Lewis explicitly identified Aslan as Christ. But he doesn't. Lewis (and the movie) leaves that name a mystery. It sets the children (and the readers/viewers) on a journey of trying to figure out for themselves what that name is. And that is something for which I think he deserves a little more credit.
The Narnia films aren't problematic just because they fail to get Lewis' creation right (which they do), but because they aren't particularly great examples of filmmaking. There's plenty of potential for astonishing visuals in the Narnia books, but these workmanlike films rarely capitalize on it.
http://www.narniacode.com/
it is a BBC tv documentary, based on Dr Michael Ward's Oxford University Press book, now
released in non-scholarly format by Tyndale Press.
disclosure: i am a minority investor in this project
I know a fellow who was offered a chance to direct one of these films. He would have made millions, but he walked away because the creative team made it clear that they would work against his attempts to preserve the Christian themes of Lewis's stories. Good for him.
My only quibble (and you knew it was coming, but let me be the first to make the argument) is that Aslan doesn't merely point out "correlations" with Christ, because -- no matter how many critics and commentators claim otherwise -- Aslan isn't a "Christ figure"; he is nothing less than a fictional portrayal of Christ himself, in another form. He is literally the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, imaginatively incarnated as myth rather than as man. Aragorn shouldn't utter "Golly, I'm Christlike!" because the Christlikeness of Aragorn is a matter of archetypal resonances. But Aslan can point out that he IS Jesus, because he IS Jesus.
Besides, it's a rock-bottom fact that without his "didactic streak," Lewis wouldn't have written the Narnia books at all. Saying that they would be better off without their religion is, it seems to me, like saying that 1984 would be better off without its politics. Or Hamlet without that annoying Prince . . .
What did you like about this film?
Add a Comment (comments will not appear until cleared by moderators)