Animals and Prince Caspian

"There is death in the camera"
-C.S. Lewis, "On Story"

When it comes to films adapted from novels, I have an open mind, but I reserve the right to cling to what I enjoyed about my experiences while reading the book. This book is the supreme reference from which lit geeks quote and cross check for hours after a movie. "It didn't happen that way in the book;" "The book never mentions that," etc. Truth be told, I do not think that it is fair to expect the movie to be the book. They are different art forms, and they usually have different creative talent behind them. The movie should be considered on its own merits, and the lit geeks should be content to commiserate among themselves and not among people who would otherwise enjoy the movies.

That being said, it is fair to compare the merits of a movie against the merits of a book, especially when the movie claims to be inspired by said book. For instance, I think that it was a critical mistake for Peter Jackson to end his Two Towers at the Battle of Helms' Deep as it undercuts the climax of the entire work, which we do not see until Return of the King. On the other hand, I find Jackson's Gollum, enacted by Randy Serkis, more interesting in many ways than that of Tolkien's Gollum. If we criticize Jackson for not following the plot of the book, we should only do so because it mars Jackson's story.

Watching Prince Caspian, I am not so troubled by the assault on Miraz' castle or the rather pointless and somewhat disturbing romance between Caspian and Susan. I admit to cringing when noble Repicheep tells a squirrel to "shut-up" for its lack of strategic prowess, and the necromancy of the White Witch makes me uncomfortable. If these are the kinds of characters and situations Walt Disney Studios wants to see, then so be it, but let's make sure that we understand where this is coming from.

Walt Disney Studios wants to make money, and they want to make a lot of it. The Harry Potter series continues to do well, and Disney already made a fortune off The Lord of The Rings by virtue of their daughter company, Touchtone Pictures. Disney sees a series, and they have to keep it going. What they do not have to do, as Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter teach us, is please Narnia's faithful and careful readers, particularly those who are more interested in the philosophical aspects. Nevertheless, one scene and one line in the movie makes the whole movie and the whole series a sham, and it is because of a very important philosophical aspect.

We actually do not need to read the book for this line to be a problem. It would smack us in the face if it didn't happen so quickly. Still, the book provides an interesting contrast, so I will refer to it presently. In the meantime, observe professor Cornelius' study. Note Badger's understanding of the significance of Queen Susan's horn. Even Nikabrik's more than half-hearted longing for the days of the White Witch (days of which he had no direct knowledge) speak to the fact that the source of strength for all true Narnians is their tradition. Badger is one of our strongest characters because he does not forget. Trumpkin is one of our most empathetic characters because he clings to the hope that the tradition inspires, and Repicheep is noble because he remembers that he has his voice as a gift to the mice that gnawed through Aslan's bonds so long ago. Peter is not king by hasty writ, treachery, or intrigue, but by conquest and gift for the sake of great deeds - deeds that are commemorated in Narnian tradition.

In the book, we find the kings and queens making their way back to Caspian with Trumpkin. All at once, a bear attacks Lucy and is shot dead by the dwarf. Susan hesitated shooting the bear because she did not know if it were a talking bear. Trumpkin comments, "That's the trouble of it [...] when most of the beasts have gone enemy and gone dumb [...] you never know, and you never wait to see" (emphasis mine).

A few lines later, Lucy comments, "[w]ouldn't it be dreadful if someday, in our own world, men started going wild inside, like the animals here, and still looked like men, so that you'd never know which were which?"

For a child who was spirited away to the country a year prior because of the bombing raids on London, this statement is ironic. Nevertheless, it only works as an ironic statement because most of us know that this very thing happens to man all the time, especially during times of horror such as developed during World War II. So, why did this bear have to die, as it were?

In commenting on the the creatures of Tolkien's Lord of The Rings, Lewis says, "[t]he imagined beings have their insides on the outside; they are visible souls" ("Tolkien's Lord of The Rings"). Thus it is with Lewis' characters, except where it comes to humans. There is no complexity to the talking animals: they are the characters you expect, because they are the animals you see. Only man is complex, and we can hope that the best man is a combination of the graces bestowed upon centaurs and mice, yet devoid of the werewolfishness of werewolves and the haggary of the hags.

Thus to kill a talking bear is a dreadful thing because one has not just killed an animal, but a sympathetic personality, or a man with claws and fur. But to kill a bear that has forgotten how to talk is to kill a man who has become an animal - it is to kill a Narnian who has forgotten that she is a Narnian because she has forgotten her traditions. She has "gone enemy and gone dumb." To forget Narnian traditions is to forget that one was invaded and is occupied by one's invader. The Resistance can still claim freedom in their hearts and minds, but those who forget become utter slaves. After all, if one forgets who one is, how can one claim self-possesion? The most tragic part is that it is the gift given to every Narnian that makes it possible for one to forget Narnian traditions and to become a dumb beast. It is a matter of free will.

This is not the Narnia of the movie. In the movie, after listening to Susan's anxiety, Trumpkin says, "if you're treated like a dumb animal long enough, you start to act like one." And it's over. Narnian tradition can really be the "fairy tale" or the "superstition" that Miraz talks about because, given enough time and enough political repression, all Narnians will inevitably be subdued in heart and mind. The Narnian mind is not, and never was free, but subject to the external forces that tried to influence it. There was never any choice, simply desperate resistance and an occasional lucky victory. Without freedom of the mind, one cannot trust tradition, which is passed down by memory. Therefore, we cannot blame Nikabrik for not trusting in Aslan.