An Analysis of Evil- Part One: Narnia
As a break between my apologetics and church vestments series, I'm doing a three-part series called "An Analysis of Evil," wherein I am going to look at the popular representations of evil in three modern settings- namely, Narnia, Lord of the Rings and, finally, Star Wars.
Before I begin, I would like to note that these analyses are based purely on the movies and not on the books. I have not read the Narnia books, I did not care for Lord of the Rings (although I thoroughly enjoy the movies) and no one reads the Star Wars books anyway. Part of the reason I chose these three "portraits of evil," if you will, is because I do not think that they are as cut and dry and we are supposed to think they are. So, without further delay, I shall begin my analysis of Narnia. (Oh, and these reviews will include spoilers, but if you haven't seen the movies by now, are you going to see them anyway?)
~
The basic premise of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is that some children discover a magical wardrobe that leads them to another world. This world is, apparently, perpetually winter and is ruled over by a tyrannical witch, who styles herself Queen.
The children eventually get enlisted to assist an army to overthrow her; the army is led by the lion Aslan. The Queen is eventually deposed and the four children installed as kings and queens of Narnia in her stead.
There are some rather obvious Christian allegories at work here (and apparently they are even more obvious in the book), but I'm going to set those aside. Yes, the Queen is supposed to be the Satan archetype and the lion is supposed to be the Christ figure, but those aren't part of the overt storyline.
So, we must turn to the Witch, as she is the central "evil" figure of the Narnia world.
The central problem with the White Witch is that she is, apparently, ruling over a land that is not hers to rule. In other words, she is a usurper.
Now, usurpers are, generally speaking, bad things. They destabilize the established social order and can often cause more harm than good. Additionally, they represent a disruption in the natural flow of a bloodline- that is to say, in the case of a monarchy, they are a deviation from the Divine Right that the Lord bestowed upon a certain House to rule a given area. However, this is a fantasy world, so we're going to simply go with the "usurpations can cause more harm than good" tack for the moment.
So, what it boils down to is that the Witch is ruling the land when she shouldn't be. Fair enough. An authority that is not legitimate and exercises a tyrannical hold over its people cannot be termed "good."
The question becomes, therefore: is her reign illegitimate and tyrannical?
I would say that no, it is not, in fact. And why? We hear from the beavers that the Queen has been ruling over Narnia for 100 years. Indeed, when Aslan, the lion, is spoken of, he is spoken of as "returning" after a hundred year absence.
In other words, the legitimate ruler (Aslan) left his country for a century. Implication: anarchy. The absence of a legitimate government makes it impossible to say that the person ruling over the country at the present time is a "usurper" or is somehow ruling over what is rightfully someone else's.
Indeed, I would argue that Aslan's abandonment of his realm for such a significant length of time is, in fact, an abdication of his own authority. His gross recklessness indicates either an inability or incapacity for governance and hence his removal would be in order.
In fact, the situation between Aslan's departure and return is, in some sense, almost remarkable. A single power- the Queen- rose up to impose order and law on a land that would otherwise have degenerated into utter anarchy. Rather than several warring kingdoms (a highly probable situation- look at modern day Zaire), we have a stable government.
In fact, because of this, the positions of Aslan and the Queen as good and evil, respectively, become reversed! Aslan re-enters the scene and, unreasonably, asserts his right to rule over Narnia by assembling a rebel army. But, as we have seen, his reckless disregard for the welfare of his former subjects by leaving them for a century to fend for themselves is in itself enough to disqualify him from serious consideration as a reasonable ruler. Indeed, he is a rebel and immediately begins to destabilize the social order upon his return.
We have no reason to believe that the Queen is actually a particularly bad ruler. The land is in a perpetual winter, this is true, but we are given no indication that this actually has a negative effect on the economy of Narnia. There are no reports of widespread starvation and famine as a result of this. In fact, the only negative effect seems to be that Christmas never comes and Santa, therefore, cannot come either and give out presents.
However, in a scene wherein Santa meets the four children and gives them weapons, we actually see that this "Santa" character is a highly seditious and treasonous rebel- he arms the Queen's enemies with weapons that eventually contribute to her downfall.
Furthermore, although the Queen is portrayed as being "ruthless" and "evil" in her methods, they are actually fairly reasonable. She is plainly capable of maintaining law and order and she explicitly and widely publishes her dictates- humans are to be turned in immediately: and with good reason! When the four human children appear, they become leaders of the rebellion against her power. She turns enemies to stone, but, as we see in the end of the movie, it is not a permanent transformation and so can be likened to imprisonment rather than outright execution.
Additionally, the "Mr. Tumnis" character that Lucy meets in the beginning of the movie, though we are meant to be sympathetic with him, is actually a traitor as well. He is imprisoned in stone as well for his failure to report Lucy's appearance to the Queen- a treasonable offense.
The various creatures that surround the Queen are, additionally, meant to "speak to us," in some sense, that they are sinister and "evil" looking and that she, by implication, is therefore also evil. However, if we analyze the supporters that Aslan has, we see that his "side" is populated with all manners of abominations- half man/half horse centaurs and the like. Are wolves any more terrifying that cheetahs? They might seem "scarier," but that doesn't mean the cheetahs aren't also efficient killing machines.
All in all, I don't think that the portrayal of the Queen and her authority does a competent job of demonstrating that she is actually "evil." Additionally, we should note that beauty is often very much "in the eye of the beholder" and there is no reason to assume that the "perpetual winter" of Narnia is actually a bad thing. Winter is beautiful in its own right and, because it did not have an adverse effect on the peoples and economy of Narnia itself, cannot be said to be inherently bad.
An issue may arise with the sacrifice of Aslan towards the end, as the Queen comes off as rather sinister there. However, the Queen approaches Aslan regarding Edmund, who had previously been a traitor. The Queen demands Edmund's blood to satisfy the "Deep Magic" of Narnia and insists that the land will be destroyed if the Deep Magic is not appeased. Given that both she and Aslan recognize this danger, this does not seem to be idle conjecture. Aslan nobly offers himself in Edmund's place and thereby secures more sympathy points from the audience.
However, this is hardly an actual endorsement of Aslan's goodness and nobility. He reveals, after his death and resurrection, that the Queen had actually misinterpreted the prophecy. He does not say, however, that she misinterpreted the fact that someone had to die to appease the Deep Magic, lest the world be destroyed. And, given Aslan's duplicitous lack of divulgence that he would be resurrected after his death, his sacrifice becomes quite trite. He knew, after all, that he would come back and someone had to die to keep the world from ending. This is not nobility, it is trickery.
The rebel army and the Queen's forces then engage in a titanic clash, with the tide initially going towards the Queen. Aslan, however, liberates the prisoners that the Queen was holding and uses them to achieve victory. In other words, to his rebel army he adds divisions of traitors and criminals. He then kills the Queen, the rightful ruler, and effectively totally undermines the society that had been in place for a century.
In a final act that further underlines the fact that he should not be ruling, Aslan then crowns the four humans as kings and queens of Narnia.
This is irresponsible on a number of levels. Firstly, it is unlikely that two queens and two kings, even if related, could possibly be competent governors. The buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak, and we are given no indication that any one of them has any sort of executive ascendancy over the others.
Secondly, the kings and queens are mere children. Lucy is very, very young at the time and even Peter is not very old. While not a minority reign, specifically, it nevertheless demonstrates that the lion Aslan does not have a proper conception of government.
Thirdly, Edmund is a traitor. Why a traitor should suddenly, after "repentance" be crowned as a king of Narnia is utterly beyond me. He demonstrated megolomaniacal traits early in the movie, being lured in with Turkish Delight and he repeatedly betrayed his family. The scene in which he sat in the Queen's throne is particularly significant, as 1. it was inappropriate and 2. it demonstrated his desire to power which the Queen had recognized.
Fourthly, the children have no governmental experience. They rather haphazardly acquire combat experience (at least Peter does), but this does not mean they will be effective governors. In the final scene of the movie, they are shown engaged in, of all things, a frivolous hunt. While monarchs are, of course, allowed their leisure time, they certainly should not utilize it by riding through the woods on horseback while wearing their crowns. This, coupled with the hunt and the fact that, upon their return to their entry-point into Narnia and their lack of remembrance of it, strongly implies that they were irresponsible rulers, which is not surprising.
All in all, what the movie shows us is a series of governments over Narnia. The first, presumably Aslan's, is brought to an end when he leaves his realm for a hundred years. This grossly irresponsible act is almost certainly indicative of his character as a ruler- that is to say, also irresponsible. This is followed by the remarkable consolidation of a single ruler, the Witch-Queen, who governs effectively and capably for a century. Her rule is destabilized and toppled by the re-appearance of Aslan and several humans, who are then installed as monarchs, despite their lack of ability or training, a further mark of Aslan's governmental ineptitude.
Despite the movie's attempt at a portrayal of an evil queen, I think what we actually have here, after further investigation, is not as black and white as they would like us to believe. Indeed, I would argue that, based on the movie, the Queen's rule of Narnia is preferable to Aslan or the children's.
~
Thus ends part one of the Analysis of Evil. Tomorrow: Lord of the Rings!
Saint Thomas More, pray for us!
Our Lady, Queen of Angels, pray for us!
Before I begin, I would like to note that these analyses are based purely on the movies and not on the books. I have not read the Narnia books, I did not care for Lord of the Rings (although I thoroughly enjoy the movies) and no one reads the Star Wars books anyway. Part of the reason I chose these three "portraits of evil," if you will, is because I do not think that they are as cut and dry and we are supposed to think they are. So, without further delay, I shall begin my analysis of Narnia. (Oh, and these reviews will include spoilers, but if you haven't seen the movies by now, are you going to see them anyway?)
~
The basic premise of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is that some children discover a magical wardrobe that leads them to another world. This world is, apparently, perpetually winter and is ruled over by a tyrannical witch, who styles herself Queen.
The children eventually get enlisted to assist an army to overthrow her; the army is led by the lion Aslan. The Queen is eventually deposed and the four children installed as kings and queens of Narnia in her stead.
There are some rather obvious Christian allegories at work here (and apparently they are even more obvious in the book), but I'm going to set those aside. Yes, the Queen is supposed to be the Satan archetype and the lion is supposed to be the Christ figure, but those aren't part of the overt storyline.
So, we must turn to the Witch, as she is the central "evil" figure of the Narnia world.
The central problem with the White Witch is that she is, apparently, ruling over a land that is not hers to rule. In other words, she is a usurper.
Now, usurpers are, generally speaking, bad things. They destabilize the established social order and can often cause more harm than good. Additionally, they represent a disruption in the natural flow of a bloodline- that is to say, in the case of a monarchy, they are a deviation from the Divine Right that the Lord bestowed upon a certain House to rule a given area. However, this is a fantasy world, so we're going to simply go with the "usurpations can cause more harm than good" tack for the moment.
So, what it boils down to is that the Witch is ruling the land when she shouldn't be. Fair enough. An authority that is not legitimate and exercises a tyrannical hold over its people cannot be termed "good."
The question becomes, therefore: is her reign illegitimate and tyrannical?
I would say that no, it is not, in fact. And why? We hear from the beavers that the Queen has been ruling over Narnia for 100 years. Indeed, when Aslan, the lion, is spoken of, he is spoken of as "returning" after a hundred year absence.
In other words, the legitimate ruler (Aslan) left his country for a century. Implication: anarchy. The absence of a legitimate government makes it impossible to say that the person ruling over the country at the present time is a "usurper" or is somehow ruling over what is rightfully someone else's.
Indeed, I would argue that Aslan's abandonment of his realm for such a significant length of time is, in fact, an abdication of his own authority. His gross recklessness indicates either an inability or incapacity for governance and hence his removal would be in order.
In fact, the situation between Aslan's departure and return is, in some sense, almost remarkable. A single power- the Queen- rose up to impose order and law on a land that would otherwise have degenerated into utter anarchy. Rather than several warring kingdoms (a highly probable situation- look at modern day Zaire), we have a stable government.
In fact, because of this, the positions of Aslan and the Queen as good and evil, respectively, become reversed! Aslan re-enters the scene and, unreasonably, asserts his right to rule over Narnia by assembling a rebel army. But, as we have seen, his reckless disregard for the welfare of his former subjects by leaving them for a century to fend for themselves is in itself enough to disqualify him from serious consideration as a reasonable ruler. Indeed, he is a rebel and immediately begins to destabilize the social order upon his return.
We have no reason to believe that the Queen is actually a particularly bad ruler. The land is in a perpetual winter, this is true, but we are given no indication that this actually has a negative effect on the economy of Narnia. There are no reports of widespread starvation and famine as a result of this. In fact, the only negative effect seems to be that Christmas never comes and Santa, therefore, cannot come either and give out presents.
However, in a scene wherein Santa meets the four children and gives them weapons, we actually see that this "Santa" character is a highly seditious and treasonous rebel- he arms the Queen's enemies with weapons that eventually contribute to her downfall.
Furthermore, although the Queen is portrayed as being "ruthless" and "evil" in her methods, they are actually fairly reasonable. She is plainly capable of maintaining law and order and she explicitly and widely publishes her dictates- humans are to be turned in immediately: and with good reason! When the four human children appear, they become leaders of the rebellion against her power. She turns enemies to stone, but, as we see in the end of the movie, it is not a permanent transformation and so can be likened to imprisonment rather than outright execution.
Additionally, the "Mr. Tumnis" character that Lucy meets in the beginning of the movie, though we are meant to be sympathetic with him, is actually a traitor as well. He is imprisoned in stone as well for his failure to report Lucy's appearance to the Queen- a treasonable offense.
The various creatures that surround the Queen are, additionally, meant to "speak to us," in some sense, that they are sinister and "evil" looking and that she, by implication, is therefore also evil. However, if we analyze the supporters that Aslan has, we see that his "side" is populated with all manners of abominations- half man/half horse centaurs and the like. Are wolves any more terrifying that cheetahs? They might seem "scarier," but that doesn't mean the cheetahs aren't also efficient killing machines.
All in all, I don't think that the portrayal of the Queen and her authority does a competent job of demonstrating that she is actually "evil." Additionally, we should note that beauty is often very much "in the eye of the beholder" and there is no reason to assume that the "perpetual winter" of Narnia is actually a bad thing. Winter is beautiful in its own right and, because it did not have an adverse effect on the peoples and economy of Narnia itself, cannot be said to be inherently bad.
An issue may arise with the sacrifice of Aslan towards the end, as the Queen comes off as rather sinister there. However, the Queen approaches Aslan regarding Edmund, who had previously been a traitor. The Queen demands Edmund's blood to satisfy the "Deep Magic" of Narnia and insists that the land will be destroyed if the Deep Magic is not appeased. Given that both she and Aslan recognize this danger, this does not seem to be idle conjecture. Aslan nobly offers himself in Edmund's place and thereby secures more sympathy points from the audience.
However, this is hardly an actual endorsement of Aslan's goodness and nobility. He reveals, after his death and resurrection, that the Queen had actually misinterpreted the prophecy. He does not say, however, that she misinterpreted the fact that someone had to die to appease the Deep Magic, lest the world be destroyed. And, given Aslan's duplicitous lack of divulgence that he would be resurrected after his death, his sacrifice becomes quite trite. He knew, after all, that he would come back and someone had to die to keep the world from ending. This is not nobility, it is trickery.
The rebel army and the Queen's forces then engage in a titanic clash, with the tide initially going towards the Queen. Aslan, however, liberates the prisoners that the Queen was holding and uses them to achieve victory. In other words, to his rebel army he adds divisions of traitors and criminals. He then kills the Queen, the rightful ruler, and effectively totally undermines the society that had been in place for a century.
In a final act that further underlines the fact that he should not be ruling, Aslan then crowns the four humans as kings and queens of Narnia.
This is irresponsible on a number of levels. Firstly, it is unlikely that two queens and two kings, even if related, could possibly be competent governors. The buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak, and we are given no indication that any one of them has any sort of executive ascendancy over the others.
Secondly, the kings and queens are mere children. Lucy is very, very young at the time and even Peter is not very old. While not a minority reign, specifically, it nevertheless demonstrates that the lion Aslan does not have a proper conception of government.
Thirdly, Edmund is a traitor. Why a traitor should suddenly, after "repentance" be crowned as a king of Narnia is utterly beyond me. He demonstrated megolomaniacal traits early in the movie, being lured in with Turkish Delight and he repeatedly betrayed his family. The scene in which he sat in the Queen's throne is particularly significant, as 1. it was inappropriate and 2. it demonstrated his desire to power which the Queen had recognized.
Fourthly, the children have no governmental experience. They rather haphazardly acquire combat experience (at least Peter does), but this does not mean they will be effective governors. In the final scene of the movie, they are shown engaged in, of all things, a frivolous hunt. While monarchs are, of course, allowed their leisure time, they certainly should not utilize it by riding through the woods on horseback while wearing their crowns. This, coupled with the hunt and the fact that, upon their return to their entry-point into Narnia and their lack of remembrance of it, strongly implies that they were irresponsible rulers, which is not surprising.
All in all, what the movie shows us is a series of governments over Narnia. The first, presumably Aslan's, is brought to an end when he leaves his realm for a hundred years. This grossly irresponsible act is almost certainly indicative of his character as a ruler- that is to say, also irresponsible. This is followed by the remarkable consolidation of a single ruler, the Witch-Queen, who governs effectively and capably for a century. Her rule is destabilized and toppled by the re-appearance of Aslan and several humans, who are then installed as monarchs, despite their lack of ability or training, a further mark of Aslan's governmental ineptitude.
Despite the movie's attempt at a portrayal of an evil queen, I think what we actually have here, after further investigation, is not as black and white as they would like us to believe. Indeed, I would argue that, based on the movie, the Queen's rule of Narnia is preferable to Aslan or the children's.
~
Thus ends part one of the Analysis of Evil. Tomorrow: Lord of the Rings!
Saint Thomas More, pray for us!
Our Lady, Queen of Angels, pray for us!
posted by Jason | Sunday, January 15, 2006
10 Comments:
does the happiness of the members of one's kingdom matter? Although, we did only meet the rebels...maybe everyone else was content.
I must say, I fail to see the significance of hunting with crowns. What if they were crowns specially made for playing?
I'm very looking forward to the next posts! ...and expect comments from my bro in regards to LOTR. He's an expert. :-)
Fair enough comments, actually, and things I probably should have addressed. Yes, the happiness matters, but I don't think that's a point we can adequately judge because we only get "evidence" from rebels. If anything, it would seem that MORE are content than are not, because the Queen's army in the final battle is considerably larger than the rebel army.
The significance of hunting with crowns on is that it would seem to indicate a disregard for the purpose of royal regalia. Crowns are supposed to be symbols of authority and are not properly employed in entertainment. Additionally, even if they were "hunting crowns," that would almost seem to be a totally unnecessary frivolity which would indicate a disregard held by the children for the proper employment of the resources of the country.
Jason,
Perhaps this is due to the movie's depiction of events (which I have not seen), but you've gotten a few things wrong.
1. Aslan was only briefly the ruler of Narnia, and that was centuries upon centuries ago. After that, he immediately handed power over to a human king and royal family. The fact that Aslan left does not mean that the kingdom was left to fend for itself; Aslan was not King of Narnia.
2. Peter is High King of Narnia. In the event of disagreement between the four rulers, it is Peter's decision that matters. The buck does, in fact, stop somewhere; it stops with Peter.
3. We have no evidence that the Queen is at all capable of lifting the spell that turns people into stone. Aslan demonstrates that he can do this, but it is quite possible that the queen herself is unaware of this possibility, rendering her petrification of people equivalent to death again.
4. If Aslan's foreknowledge that his death will not be permanent renders his sacrifice to be trite and meaningless, why is the death of our Lord Jesus Christ any different? After all, He was well aware of the fact that He would not remain dead either.
You're not going to say that Sauron was actually an okay guy, are you?
Because if you do, that will be really spectacular. And I swear I'm not being sarcastic in any way, if there is anybody on the planet who could make an argument for Sauron's inherent nobility, it's you.
That should be read as a compliment, by the way.
John-
My interpretation was based on the movies, not the books. Hopefully in the books the case against the Queen would be considerably more potent.
In the movie, there was no backstory on Aslan, only the implication that he had been the ruler before he left, so I don't think my leap is unjustifiable. There is, additionally, no indication that Peter is the high king. The Queen may or may not be able to lift the spell, but if we are going to assume things, it seems logical to assume that, if Aslan can, she can too. Finally, your last point is perhaps the only one which is really within the scope of what I was saying (since, again, this was based solely upon the movie). The nature of Aslan's sacrifice is, it seems, completely different than Christ's. Aslan dies because the Deep Magic must be appeased- yes, he does sacrifice himself in place of Edmund, but he needed Edmund to help overthrow the Queen and he knew that he would come back from the dead, so this is not, for example, a sacrifice for the sins of the world and comes off more as self-interested than Jesus' does.
Kurt, although I may have flipped Narnia by arguing that the Queen was good and Aslan not o_O, I'm not sure I could do the same for Sauron...
oh of course you could do the same for Sauron, he was just the friendly protector of some elves who were just too ugly for society-In reality what was he but a fighter for equal treatment of all creatures...cough cough ....was that too sarcastic.....I look forward to your entry on Lord of the Rings Jason....
Heavens to mergatroid! You asked for an objection, here it is. My complaint with the movie was that it misrepresented the natures of Aslan and the Witch. I don't think it did THAT bad a job, however. Although, I think the job it did do invalidates it as a means for examining this topic, as you seem to have shown. Read the books -- you can put each one away in an afternoon, and they're exciting, thought-provoking, funny, and just all around excellent. Then write a series that uses the books, and not the silly movie, to examine good and evil.
And yes, I know none to most of what I'm about to say comes out in the movie, but work with me for a minute. First off, one has to take into consideration that Aslan is not merely a "Christ figure." He IS Christ. Just as Christ walked among us men as a man, so does He walk through Lewis's world of talking beasts as a lion.
Second, are monarchs not allowed to hunt? There weren't very many recreational activities, comparitively speaking, in medieval societies, you know. OK, so you don't wear your coronation crown when doing it, but when was the last time you saw a hollywood costume department get something right? You can't blame the Narnians because the costume department was stupid.
And really, if you had grown up in London, and been sent to worthless schools and had a perfectly boring life, and then were made king or queen of a magical land where everything important in life was hundreds of time better than where you came from, what incentive would have ever to think of London? That's almost believable without considering the influence of magic, which is of course constant and heavy in Narnia. In fact, I think the fact that they weren't spending time worrying about their past showed that they were MORE dedicated to their task of ruling Narnia, and doesn't at all demonstrate irresponsibility.
Third, while Salic law is nice, you can't base an entire analysis of a world's moral fabric on how well it is applied. You've over-emphasized a particular aspect (in fact, part of a particular aspect, because as others pointed out, the Witch herself has no rightful claim to the throne, nor even any rightful place in that world) while under-emphasizing the importance of others. Take the case of winter. Winter is sterile, it is a time of coldness and death in which nothing grows. Growth and life are works of God -- death is an evil, introduced into the world by the work of Satan. Winter has LONG been a symbol of deprivation, sterility, and death in human culture, and it's one that even children can understand. This is a CHILDREN'S story, after all, and Lewis makes use, for the most part, of very simple metaphors. Winter is nasty and bad; wolves are on the witches side because they are sinister and ruthless creatures associated with winter and have a long history of being represented in art, literature, and culture in general as "bad guys" (think Peter and the Wolf). Large cats, on the other hand, are associated with grace, poise, and honor. You may think winter and wolves get a bad rap in this way and that cats are over-honored, but that doesn't mean you can divorce one piece of art from the entire tradition of symbolism and anthropromorphic artwork in Western society. Furthermore, your point about winter not harming people is just wrong. These are ANIMALS -- they forage. Beaver can't build his dam, he has to dig a hole in the ice to catch fish to eat. How well do you think the talking deer, or the elephants (which probably went extinct after the witch's conquest, cause they never come back into any of the stories), or any number of other animals fare? Never mind the fact that the Witch has introduced all sorts of evil things like hags and harpies and ghouls into Narnia.
And to dart back to the books a moment, yes, the queen caused a severe deviation from the Divine Right, because Aslan Himself established a Narnian monarchy under King Frank I at the dawn of time, so the Witch has the fact that she ousted the rightful rulers (and not being human cannot be one herself).
And as for Aslan, I fail to see, as someone else mentioned, how His having superior knowledge to the Witch's makes His sacrifice "trite." Satan couldn't know the effects and aftermath of Christ's death on Calvary the way Christ Himself (or at least His divine nature, if you want to get into those debates) did. They muffed this in the movie rather thoroughly, but even there it simply diminishes what happens, but doesn't seem to invert it to that extent.
Hmmm... I have to ask ... is this post entirely serious? Taken as the movie alone or not, there are some logical leaps, and you are ignoring the internal dynamics of the film. I may address this in a future blogpost, if that's alright...
You're certainly welcome to address it if you want. It's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I will stand by my analysis of the movie qua movie, without reference to the book.
Only sons of Adam and daughters of Eve can be true rulers of Narnia. The White Witch is descended from giants.
And just so you know (even though you're not referring to it) her name is Jadis and she basically killed every person in the last world she was in in her lust for power. Then the professor in the movie (as a child) used a magic ring in an attempt to rescue his friend dragged her back to London where she had no power but tried to kill several people. Then when they tried to bring her back her world "Charn" was destroyed, so instead of letting her die between worlds the children brought her into an empty world, which eventually became Narnia (created by Aslan).
Also, "Morgo" or whatever is name was in the movie (Fenris Ulf in the books) was such a bitch in the movies. He had way too many lines trying to mock people. He said almost nothing in the book. Wtf do your job and shut up.
That movie was really annoying.
Also, even if she could/intended to transform all these individuals back from statues wouldn't it be cruel to transform them into stone, devastating their families in the first place?
That is besides the point though, Aslan performed a miracle by bringing them back to life. By turning them to stone the White Witch essentially killed them in a terrifying magical way.
And Edmund is accepted because Christ by nature is infinitely merciful. Edmund was tempted and fell, but he was forgiven by Aslan. And now he has a new strength because he is aware of his own weakness.
As for Tumnus, he was comitting a treasonous act...under a ridiculously tyrannical government! He says that even the trees may be watching them (and perhaps this is so since the White Witch's network of spies finds out about his infidelity). Tumnus is a true patriot in my opinion because he wants what is best for the Narnian populace and to restore Narnia's proper government.
What sort of government is the White Witch running when everyone is in fear of her and everyone is spying on someone else in the hope that he won't get fingered as a traitor himself?
Post a Comment
<< Home