I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, newly out on DVD, and it ticked me off. It’s the second Lord of the Rings rip off based on C.S. Lewis’ venerable children’s stories; the original books were not Lord of the Rings ringers, you understand, but the movies certainly are. And because there are seven books in Lewis’ series, Disney Studios and Walden Media think they’re sitting on a long-term gold-mine type of franchise the magnitude of which only Harry Potter fans know for sure. Only problem is, as in the case of Potter, they have to figure out how to preserve the child actors. Maybe cryogenesis would work.
But I digress. As a film, Prince Caspian is nothing to write home about. The special effects are good, but the acting is pretty uneven. For instance, the young actors playing the four Pevensie children (Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley and Anna Popplewell) have skills well-suited to an ABC Afterschool Special, but Peter Dinklage is a hoot as Trumpkin and Sergio Castellitto is wonderfully evil as King Miraz. Director Andrew Adamson can frame a shot and seems to know where to place the camera, but his action set pieces are plodding and uninspired, and at two hours and twenty-four minutes, the thing drags on forever. Even the beautiful New Zealand locations — that contribute to the low-rent LOTR atmosphere — couldn’t keep my attention for that long.
None of that got my dander up. After all, there are a lot of crappy movies out there, and imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. What really made me mad is its pandering to America’s current xenophobic mood. Every bad guy looks, well, foreign. Our heroes — the good English children and Prince Caspian — are fair and European. The bad guys — the Telmarines — are costumed like conquistadors, and their accents sound Hispanic. They seem all dark and swarthy, the set-decoration is dark and swarthy, and they — the dark and swarthy ones — are sneeringly evil, almost to a man.
Swarthy King Miraz
And to top it all off, they’ve come from overseas, they’ve invaded the peaceful country of Narnia, the inhabitants of which just want to get along with one another, and build an inclusive, multi-ethnic paradise by the sea. And it’s that last bit — the multi-ethnic (or in this case, multi-species) vibe — that plays to our American narrative, to wit that we are tolerant and a melting pot, and the nasty furreners aren’t. In fact, if there was a course in film school on how to support American nationalist myths, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian could doubtless be used as an example.
Of course, Prince Caspian’s xenophobia is not entirely the fault of the filmmakers — its seeds are contained in the source material from Lewis. In his case, the shining city on the hill is England and the foreign threats represent (a) the Nazis (World War II had ended five years before) and/or (b) the growing communist empire. In recent years, the books — and now the movies — have become avatars of evangelical Christianity, even though Lewis himself was horrified by the idea. Thus, the teaching of Christian values, one of which is “love thy neighbor,” has become leavened with a little xenophobic yeast.
As for me, I just wish we could be a little more discerning in how we view our popular art, and that well-read critics could get beyond talk of screenplays and special effects and into debates about the darker side of the Hollywood dream. But of course, that’s not going to happen any time soon. Pandering to fears makes money, sells product, and that’s what Hollywood — and the media outlets for which critics write — are all about.
RSS 2.0
The actor who was chosen to play Caspian may or may not be “fair and European”, but surely the fact that the character belongs to the same race as the villains mitigates the perceived racism of Lewis’s book, does it not? Consider also that Caspian’s people are pretty much the only humans in Narnia, apart from the Pevensies — and Lewis never suggests that the humans shouldn’t be there.
If anything, I seem to recall that Lewis takes it as a given that a human like Caspian must reign over Narnia, no matter what his race — though the fact that only humans can be kings and queens in Narnia (and not, say, centaurs or dwarves) certainly raises other issues.
I have not seen this film, but I agree that Sergio Castellito is a fine actor: having seen him in a dramatic performance as a con-man in “The Star Maker” (1995) and his warm-hearted, extrovert cook in “Mostly Martha” (2001), he is someone whom I look forward in a cast.
Rick – I doubt I”ll ever actually watch this one (I’ve never read Lewis’ books and the whole fantasy/adventure genre is just not my thing), but I certainly enjoyed reading your thoughtful review. I really like that you are so discerning about the subtext of films like this, which are inoffensive on the surface. As you note, it’s rare to see a reviewer delve more deeply in to the subtle implications of casting choices, etc – let alone be so well-versed in the source material.
Hi, Peter
My problem with it is not racism … as I said, it’s xenophobia, fear of foreigners or strangers, or “the other.” I’ve never been one to think that Lewis’ novels — which I read several times in my younger days — are racist, per se, but I think that there is a healthy dose of fear of “the foreign menace” in both the novels and the film. It’s easier to pick out in the latter because of costuming and choice of actors and the set design.
I think you’re right: Lewis argues strongly for multi-culturalism in his novels, and the evil foreign invaders — especially in the film — are all the same My problem is that when you schematize that — and other unsavory things — as being a quality of outsiders, you breed fear and hatred of them, and that bolsters nationalism.
Btw, I visit FilmChat and have enjoyed your work in that site and in CT.
Gloria, I am just now becoming aware of Castellito and agree with you; I’ll look out for him more in the future.
Pat, thanks . . . as I told Peter, I read the Lewis novels when I was younger, and enjoyed them. It’s just now that I’ve gotten older and more crotchety that I’ve started thinking of these things. i would like it if we were all a little more discerning in how we view popular culture and think about how such a powerfully immersive media such as film affects us.
As a film, Prince Caspian is nothing to write home about. Great, now you tell me. I just knocked off a ten page letter to home about this movie. Dammit!
I’ve read a lot of Lewis’ writings but never these books so I’ll take your word on the ideas presented there. Plus I have no intention, despite my love of adventure/fantasy movies, of ever seeing this. I saw the first one and didn’t care for it so there’s nothing to draw me back in. However, I have a question. Peter writes that according to the books “only humans can be kings and queens” and so perhaps we could interpret that along other lines, like Lewis supporting a Dominionist position. Since I don’t know this story well enough though, I’m confused. The Lion, Aslan, wasn’t he the king of Narnia? Or not? I’m so confused.
I’m not sure about Lewis supporting a Dominionist viewpoint, Jonathan (but he was from a country with a state church) . . . but I don’t really think he would have supported the notion that his country should be ruled by Christians, or by conservative biblical principles in the case of the (slightly) less radical version of Dominionism.
As far as Aslan ruling Narnia, I think it’s kind of a “High King” sort of thing, with the children Lucy and Peter and Edmund and who-ever being multiple Kings and Queens. Apparently, in Narnia, you can have more than one.
As far as Aslan ruling Narnia, I think it’s kind of a “High King” sort of thing, with the children Lucy and Peter and Edmund and who-ever being multiple Kings and Queens. Apparently, in Narnia, you can have more than one.
Narnia sounds like a stupid place.
I’m the High King of my blog (insert pot joke here) and no one else is allowed even a whiff of power.
And sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to the Dominionist principle of humans having dominion over the animals and the earth.
Hey I just used the edit function for a typo! Wordpress Rules! It’s the High King of Blogging Platforms!
I saw this over the summer. It was boring. Without Aslan, there’s really no reason for this series to exist.
You know what pissed me off? The fact that, in the first movie, the villain was the White Queen! Talk about xenophobia!
And a woman! Talk about sexism!
And a witch! Talk about anti-paganism!
And English! Talk about anti-Anglophilia!
Jonathan said: And sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to the Dominionist principle of humans having dominion over the animals and the earth.
Ah, well many Christians — but not this one — believe that.
And WordPress is bitchin’.
Marilyn, very true, very true . . . without Aslan, it ain’t much. But, look on the bright side: only five more to go!
You know what pissed me off? The fact that, in the first movie, the villain was the White Queen! Talk about xenophobia!
Now, class — looks like I’m going to have to delineate the difference between xenophobia and racism
Can you say xenophobia? I knew you could . . .
Yeah, but…I’ve been hearing this stuff for years. I’ve heard that Lewis’s books are racist and xenophobic, and I’ve heard the same thing about Tolkien. It seems like, in fantasy, if your villains don’t have the exact same skin color and accent as your heroes, then you’re going to get into trouble with somebody.
Bill, I think there’s something to what you say, and that’s the thing about the fantasy genre: it admits to a lot of interpretation.
But at the same time, the thought that their work might have a bit of xenophobia about them doesn’t make me think any less of Tolkien, Lewis or their works. They’re products of people and of their times, after all . . .
My problem, though — and it has less to do with you, Rick, than it does past experience, since I haven’t even seen Prince Caspian — is that once people start deciding that Lewis or Tolkien were racist and xenophobic based solely on the fact that their villains aren’t exactly like their heroes, both writers become forever tarred with that brush. The racism charge regarding Lewis strikes me as particularly nuts, given that his most famous villain (as I pointed out in my non-sequitor first comment) was the WHITE QUEEN. But people see what they want to see. Lewis was a white Christian, so there must be some dirt in his books somewhere.
I just edited my comment twice. That was sweet!
Sweet!
I think you have an excellent point, Bill. And in the film, it’s a lot more obvious than in the books. For the record, I don’t think Lewis was any more racist than anybody else, and probably less. But I also think that unconsciously our art — film, literature, and representational — can be used to support our nationalist agendas, and that was what I was trying to get at by talking about xenophobia in this work.
As far as stereotyping white Christians, it happens quite a bit, doesn’t it? But then again, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of Christ: Crusades. Inquisitions. Witch burnings. But people do seem to forget — especially these days — the good things powered by the church: churches both black and white were dominant forces in the civil rights movement (we remember that here in the South); Catholic and Protestant social service agencies are present in force in many inner cities. And the list goes on.
How did it go from Bill’s discussion about xenophobia and racism charges to defending the church in modern times? I think I detect the old switcheroo at play. But to Bill’s original point, I have to agree. I don’t know if anyone used to watch the old Siskel and Ebert show when it was called At the Movies but when they were reviewing The Rescuers II: Down Under, Siskel started charging it with racism because the villain, who was white(!) was constantly shown in shadow to make him appear darker. Ebert said that’s just how villains are often photographed but he was being too nice. All due respect to Siskel, but I really felt like smacking him right about then.
I haven’t seen Prince Caspian, nor will I ever (sorry), but I must admit, it does seem like just maybe you’re reaching a little bit. Maybe you’re not, I haven’t seen it so can’t defend that position but it does seem like too many people look for undercurrents of something bad everywhere. Not you specifically, just in general.
Lapper… you accidentally swapped the fat one and the skinny one… it was Ebert that said it was racist:
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ANGEL/video/x63t0s_the-rescuers-down-under-1990-siskel_shortfilms?from=rss
Don’t you feel bad now??? All this time you’ve been wanting to hit a dead guy!!!!
I brought up the white Christian thing, Jonathan, so Rick’s comments aren’t out of the blue. And I think the fact that both Lewis and Tolkien wore their Christianity on their sleeves is relevant, or at least might be, but I don’t want to go too far with that, lest I be guilty of the same thing I’m complaining about.
I remember hearing about that Rescuers Down Under thing on Siskel and Ebert. Siskel did have a tendency to say some pretty ludicrous things, in a way that implied that het though they were legitimate criticisms. I remember him complaining that Dustin Hoffman looked ridiculous in the HAZMAT gear he wore in Outbreak. Ebert’s defense was, quite reasonably, that that was simply what Hoffman looked like in the gear.
Jonathan, ME? The old Switcheroo? I’m hurt, cut to the quick, even, and you DON’T want to see my quick …
But, as I said to Bill, I think he does have a valid point, and you do too. People do look for undercurrents, they go out of their way looking for them, and sometimes they aren’t there. But this slapped me in the face, the bad guys initially struck me as Arab, if you want to know the truth. It wouldn’t be the first film to play on those fears since 911 to make a buck.
Fox, I was wondering where you were . . . thanks for the clip. And sorry my software put you in the “approve” bin . . . you must be commenting from an email it didn’t know.
Bill, both Ebert and Siskel said some strange things . . . I’ll bet dollars for donuts that Siskel hated Outbreak, and was looking for another way to slam it.
I
Fox, thanks for the correction. And uh, no, why would I feel bad about mixing them up due to my aging memory. Wait a minute… are you saying what I think you’re saying?
Fox is an AGEIST!!!
Okay, anyway, I realize Christianity is relevant to their works I was just giving Rick a hard time guys… geez Louise, look at my past comments here. They always start with a joke. Including this one.
So I watched the clip again and Ebert was being so overly politically correct there it was ridiculous. And besides, in the case of villains, darkness has never been used as racial device (I’m talking historically speaking, in literature and theology) but as equivalent to night, disease, shadows, the unknown, and so on. Not to color of skin. I wonder, when Ebert watches Citizen Kane, a movie he dearly loves, and Kane bends over to sign his Declaration of Principles and his face becomes swathed in shadow, does he think Welles did that to make a statement that people who are hypocrites, who don’t stick to their principles, are more darkly complected? Yeah, I didn’t think so. He understood the principles (no pun intended) of darkness in the historical sense at work in Kane but it fled his memory when he reviewed Rescuers Down Under.
I knew you were joking, Jonathan . . . that’s why I responded in kind.
And I really hate political correctness for the sake of being politically correct. You’re right, of course: dark versus light is a common literary motif, both in secular and religious literature, one related to seeing versus not-seeing, or enlightenment versus non-enlightenment, and etc.
And I knew you knew that I knew you were … no, wait. You knew that I knew that you knew I was responding… no wait. Oh forget it I’m confused. By the way, right now, this very moment, at my computer, I’m covered in shadow.
you must be a racist.
No, I think that means his computer is a racist. Or the shadow is.
Fox, I was wondering where you were . . . thanks for the clip. And sorry my software put you in the “approve” bin . . . you must be commenting from an email it didn’t know.
I got sad… I thought maybe Marilyn had convinced you to ban me. :0(
No, but I think maybe cuz it was a long link?? I don’t know… that was weird.
I am an ageist, probably a sexist, and definitely a capitalist. But I hate myself and my stocks are sunk, so it all evens out… karma wise.
No, I think that means his computer is a racist. Or the shadow is.
Either that, or the person filming him is a racist . . .
I would never ban you, Fox, even though Marilyn was very persuasive.
I’m a capitalist as well, but my capital has, alas, fled.
No, I think that means his computer is a racist. Or the shadow is.
Either that, or the person filming him is a racist . . .
Yes, my bad. I failed to mention when I’m at my computer there is often an entire film crew around me recording everything I do.
And they’re racist. Except for the gaffer, he’s a xenophobe. I’m an ageist but going the other way. I have teenagers who live in my house and so I think I’ve earned the right to look down upon them by almost every measure of evaluation there is. Nothing, NOTHING, they think is right. It’s ALL WRONG. Logic and reason live far, far away from their brains.
I failed to mention when I’m at my computer there is often an entire film crew around me recording everything I do.
I KNEW you were a star, Jonathan, hiding behind that fake name . . . who are you? Martin Balsam? Don Knotts? I know . . . you’re star of stage and screen Judith Light! What’s Tony Danza really like?
And who knew you were an ageist?
And who knew you were an ageist?
Well, I knew, but I guess that’s a given. Oh and Katherine Helmond. I told her on the set of Who’s the Boss one day when that Alyssa Milano was bugging the crap out of me.
That Alyssa . . . what a pest.