Prince Caspian's Challenge to Filmmakers

Contains some book spoilers.

It's probably a mistake to read (or even reread) a book just before seeing the film adaptation, but I always seem to do it anyway. I want to see the new Narnia movie this week, so last night I reread Prince Caspian by C. S. Lewis. The one review I've read was lukewarm at best, but if the movie is a little flat and disappointing, I'm not sure all the blame belongs to the filmmakers. Prince Caspian may be the slowest and least thrilling of the Narnia series.

As I was reading, I was especially interested to find Caspian's age because the film director has cast a young man who seems much older than the boyish character I remembered. While Lewis doesn't assign an exact age, he tells us that Caspian is about the same age as Peter, who is probably in his late teens. Like his younger siblings, Peter is on his way to school when they are all pulled into Narnia, but this is his last visit; to his sorrow, Peter learns that he and Susan won't come back to Narnia because they're "too old." Even though they're the same age, Prince Caspian has always struck me as younger than Peter. Perhaps it's because Peter can draw on his memories of adulthood from his last trip to Narnia, which lasted many years, whereas Caspian has only recently run away from his aunt and uncle and is still struggling to establish his authority among his followers. The most influential person in the young king's life is still his former tutor.

Although the book is named after Caspian, the Pevensie children are still the central characters. They've returned to Narnia to help Caspian reclaim the throne that is rightfully his, but it's Peter, not Caspian, who challenges the usurping king to single combat. Lucy and Edmund are remarkable for their demonstrations of faith and courage, while Susan struggles with her fears, but Caspian never seems to emerge from the shadow of these much better developed characters. He is neither an unlikely hero fighting for legitimacy or an idealistic champion battling the forces of evil. Rather Caspian seems like a boy king placed on a throne by older and wiser characters who recognize his symbolic authority and his potential (not his current ability) to be a good ruler. He never seems to come into his own by declaring his independence or even making his own mistakes. Even secondary characters like Trumpkin, the cheerfully skeptical dwarf, and Reepicheep, the valiant mouse, are far more endearing and interesting.

Prince Caspian does include one of my favorite scenes: Aslan freeing the young schoolmarm from the misery of teaching bratty little boys who turn into pigs and run away. However, this book was never my favorite in the Chronicles of Narnia, perhaps because very little happens in this book. The meat of the story is in Prince Caspian's escape from the evil uncle who killed his father, the creation of a resistance army, and the battle to restore "Old Narnia." However, much of Caspian's story is told in flashback, and we simply never care about him as much as we do the Pevensie children. For me, the book never had much value except to introduce characters and conflicts that would become important in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which I found much more exciting when I was a young reader. Prince Caspian moves the series forward and provides some important foreshadowing, but it's not a particularly powerful book on its own.

Although Prince Caspian offers scenes with wonderful cinematic potential (the discovery of the overgrown castle, Lucy's dance with the tree-people, the "romp" with Aslan, and of course the battle scenes), the book also presents filmmakers with an enormous challenge: they may have to sacrifice faithfulness to the original in order to create a truly interesting and sympathetic hero.

Twilight: The Movie

Thanks, Kat, for letting me know about the new movie version of Twilight. I don't know much about Kristen Stewart or Robert Pattinson, but I'd say they LOOK the part.

What do you think? Are they Bella and Edward? Do you have high hopes for the movie or are you already preparing to be disappointed?

In Defense of Jacob Black

Contains some oblique spoilers

I've been reading some of the customer reviews (at www.Amazon.com and www.bn.com) of Stephenie Meyer's Eclipse, and I have three responses to those readers who accuse Jacob of manipulating Bella.

1. Yeah, he does.

2. She deserves it. I'm not defending his choice to kiss her without permission--that was clearly over the line--but Bella's been playing mind games with Jacob since she met him, and it's about time he called her on it. Bella's always known how he felt about her, even before he openly declared his love. The fact is, she took shameless advantage of him, particularly when she was so devastated by Edward's leaving in New Moon. Bella calls Jacob her best friend, but the closeness they share--the time they spend together, the wordless intimacy, the frequent hugging and hand-holding--goes well beyond simple friendship. What Bella has demanded of Jacob in the past is the emotional intimacy of a romantic relationship without any strings attached. As someone who's been on both sides of such a relationship, I can tell you that this is not only blatantly unfair but cruel.

3. Edward is every bit as manipulative as Jacob, but of course Bella and the reader adore Edward, so his manipulation appears romantic and forceful or, at worst, endearingly annoying. I'm reminded of the film Say Anything, in which John Cusack fights for the girl he loves by standing outside her house with a boombox blaring out "their" song. When I first saw the film, I thought this scene was breathtakingly romantic and I wished someone would do that for me. Several years later, someone did stand outside my apartment, ringing the doorbell, calling my name, and throwing things at my window. I didn't find it at all romantic; I found it terrifying, as did my roommate, who called the police. I had a very different perspective on the guy-on-the-sidewalk-with-the-boombox scene after that.

Unfortunately, the line between romance and manipulation is a very subjective one, and it all comes down to whether, in her heart of hearts, the girl really wants the guy to be out there on the sidewalk, refusing to take no for an answer.

Denton Public Library Events in August

Join the Denton Public Libraries for these great events!

FAMILY-FRIENDLY MOVIES
Children under 8 must be accompanied by an adult.

First Friday Movie: Bridge to Terabithia (PG, 98 minutes)
Aug. 6, 3:30 p.m., South Branch

Wednesday Family Movie: Happy Feet (PG, 100 minutes)
Aug. 8, 4 p.m., North Branch

Third Friday Movies:
Flushed Away (PG, 90 minutes)
Aug. 17, 3:30 p.m., Emily Fowler Central Library

High School Musical (PG, 98 minutes)
Aug. 17, 3:30 p.m., South Branch


PAPER MAKING

Aug. 2, 3:30 p.m., South Branch

Aug. 7, 4 p.m., North Branch

Aug. 23, 4 p.m., Emily Fowler Central Library

Always running out of paper? The City of Denton Recycling Department can show you how to make your own! For kids 10 and up.


BABYSITTING CERTIFICATION WORKSHOP
Aug. 7 & 8, 2 - 4 p.m., South Branch

Aug. 22 & 23, 2 - 4 p.m., North Branch

If you want to become a certified babysitter, attend this 2-day workshop presented by the Denton Fire Department. Learn great babysitting strategies, emergency procedures, and more! Pre-registration is required, so call 940.349.8752 to reserve your place. For teens, ages 12-18.

CRITTERMAN: AROUND THE WORLD
Aug. 9, 3:30 p.m., South Branch

Aug. 24, 10 a.m., North Branch

Meet animals from around the world and learn about their amazing survival strategies and adaptive abilities. Features live animals!!! Children under 8 must be accompanied by an adult.


PIRATE ADVENTURE!
Aug. 14, 3:30 p.m. South Branch

The famous Pirate Lady leads an exciting, informative, hands-on exploration of a treasure chest filled with replica pirate artifacts.


READING IS MAGIC
Aug. 21, 3 p.m., Emily Fowler Central Library

Join us for an afternoon of magic with Gerald Edmundson, one of the world's top sleight-of-hand artists.

Serendipity

Sorry it's been several days between posts, but I had an opportunity to make some very sweet lemonade out of some lemons I was handed last Thursday.

I was really looking forward to talking with the Gryffindor Book Group about Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne, but nobody showed up. Not one person! It's possible that Verne was just too intimidating, even for folks who said they wanted to read him. There is quite a lot of science in his science fiction--he's obviously fascinated with the potential uses of electricity, for example, and he explains exactly how to calculate the amount of pressure exerted on a submarine as it descends underwater. (Interesting stuff, but a little of this goes a long way.)

I also wonder if Thursday night is just not a good time for our teen and tween readers. We'll still plan to meet at 7 p.m. on August 9 to talk about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (5 days to book release--hurray!), but we'll consider changing the day and time for future meetings. If you're in the Denton area and you'd like to join us, please leave a comment about what days and times you'd prefer to meet!

Anyway, I was talking about these issues with Thom Anderson, the friendly Community Relations Manager at the Barnes & Noble store where our group meets, when a man came over and asked if he could sit with us. There was no point in saving chairs for people who weren't coming, so I said sure. It turns out that this gentleman is the managing editor of the Gainesville Daily Register and after we'd talked for a while, he invited me to submit a review of the newest Harry Potter movie. Of course, I said yes! I spent Friday beefing up the preliminary review I'd written for this blog (July 11, 2007), and this morning I drove 30 miles to Gainesville to pick up several copies of the Daily Register. Hurray! (If my review becomes available online, I'll be sure to add a link to it.)

So that's my serendipity for this week. Although I'm still disappointed that the Gryffindors didn't get to discuss Jules Verne, if even one person had shown up for the meeting, I wouldn't have talked with Mr. Osborne or gotten to publish a movie review in his paper.

Have you had a serendipity this week? If so, leave a comment and tell us about it. Be sure to look for serendipity in your own life in the coming week. I bet you'll find it!

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

It's probably too early for me to write this review, since I went to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix just this morning. We HP fans are a difficult bunch to please because we tend to view every act of artistic license as a betrayal of the books we love so much. During my first viewing of the fourth movie (HP and the Goblet of Fire), I kept a running count of all the characters and plot elements missing in action; however, when I saw the movie a second time, I was able to relax and appreciate the film's many strengths. I have no doubt that the same will hold true for this movie as well, but for now, here is a quick rundown of cheers and jeers.

Cheers
... to the wonderful Imelda Staunton for her absolutely dead-on, pitch-perfect performance as Professor Dolores Umbridge. She gets it all exactly right, from the fussy pink sweater to the annoying little laugh, and the scenes and montages narrating Umbridge's rise to power are uniformly terrific.

... to Alan Rickman, who was once again underutilized. We really should have seen more of him, but Rickman's Professor Snape is so deliciously oily that he steals every scene he's in.

... to Daniel Radcliffe, whose strong performance allows him to hold onto our sympathy even during Harry's tantrums.

... to the art direction and really superb visuals. I particularly liked the use of newspapers and the large poster of Cornelius Fudge, which simultaneously recalled 1984's Big Brother and Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.

... for the much-publicized first kiss between Harry and Cho. Even after all the hype, it didn't disappoint.

... for the spectacular fight scene in the Department of Mysteries. I was a little disappointed that some of my favorite exchanges between Dumbledore and Voldemort were lost, but the filmmakers have made a valid choice to keep the focus on Harry's inner struggle as much as possible.

... for the superb psychological realism of the entire film.


Jeers
... for violating the laws by which at least two, and possibly more, magical objects/processes work. One of J. K. Rowling's greatest talents lies in the creation of an internally consistent fantasy world. She always respects her own rules; the director and screenwriter should have followed suit.

... for prominently featuring a spell Harry doesn't learn until the sixth book.

... for dumping the Quidditch plotline, which leaves Ron almost nothing to do but follow Harry around and be quietly supportive. Joining the Gryffindor Quidditch team gives both Ron and Ginny a chance to emerge from the shadow of their older brothers and develop on their own, but the film denies them this opportunity. The HP movies have consistently shortchanged Ron, portraying him as a rather fearful sidekick rather than a valuable ally, and Ginny does not fare much better. Although she does some impressive wandwork, she asserts little individuality.

... for also dumping the plotline in which Hermione and Ron (not Harry) become prefects. The Inquisitorial Squad, which makes only a brief appearance in the film, is meant to be a corrupt foil to the traditional, legitimate form of student authority; the Squad has little meaning by itself. In Book 5, we see students like Hermione and Ron (and, in flashback, Remus Lupin) struggling with their new power as prefects. Without this plotline, an important theme about the responsibilities of authority is compromised; viewers are more likely to come away with an image of smart kids rebelling against cruel and stupid adults than with an understanding of the obligations and abuses of power.

To give one example: Rowling's Hermione knows she is subverting the system when she talks Harry into teaching the kids Defense Against the Dark Arts, but she is careful to stay within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law: "[E]ven if Umbridge does come in here there's nothing she can do to stop us, Harry, because I've double- and triple-checked the school rules. We're not out-of-bounds . . . . And I've looked up everything I can think of about study groups and homework groups and they're definitely allowed" (Order of the Phoenix 336). In the book, Hermione is prepared to use Hogwarts law as a defense; in the film, however, she merely giggles and says, "Sometimes it's fun to break the rules." Ron's response is both ironic and appropriate: "Who are you and what have you done with Hermione Granger?"

... to the screenwriter and director for ignoring the lessons of their own movie. Over and over, the film insists that Harry is the stronger for being part of a group while pushing Ron, Hermione, and the others further into Harry's shadow.

Children's Media: Books vs. Movies

On July 4, I wrote about parents' attempts to limit their children's reading as "loving censorship," but in my first post, I mentioned the importance of finding age-appropriate books for young readers. I want to clarify this seeming contradiction. Sometimes parental direction is both beneficial and necessary, particularly when a popular children's book is adapted to a film that "everyone" is going to see. Not only will the movie be marketed to a much broader age group than the original book was intended for, but there's an essential difference between text and images.

As communications theorist Neil Postman explains in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, written language is a complex system that requires skillful interpretation; thus it functions as a kind of self-authorizing code. If the child is old enough to understand complex sentences, sophisticated vocabulary, and abstract thought, she is probably mature enough to handle the content of the text. Thus it's relatively easy to protect children from "adult" information encoded in books.

Film, on the other hand, presents information in images, which do not require (much) decoding and are fairly easy to understand. Therefore, movies and television have no built-in safeguards to protect children from receiving information they're not intellectually or emotionally ready to receive. I will never forget my shock at seeing six- and seven-year-olds racing up and down the theater aisles at a showing of Jurassic Park. Parents who thought dinosaurs + Spielberg + McDonald's tie-in = children's movie were outraged by the violent images in the film, but they would never have handed Michael Crichton's book to their children (nor would the kids have gotten through more than a paragraph or two).

Adults as well as children enjoy Harry Potter precisely because the series contains so many intellectual challenges: e.g., sophisticated vocabulary (including British slang), complex characterization, subtle foreshadowing, and detailed plotting, not to mention the daunting length (the fifth book, Order of the Phoenix, is 870 pages long). Understanding the movies does not require the same skill and intellectual maturity, however, and there's nothing but a parent's "no" to protect young viewers from frightening images. I would recommend telling kids that they can see the movie only if they read the book first. Readers who are too young for Harry Potter's dark tone and occasionally violent episodes are likely to give up on the book as "too hard" long before they become upset, unless an adult is reading and interpreting the book for them. And this leads me to my final point.

Allowing children the freedom to make their own reading choices means letting them decide when to put a book down. Young readers are capable of figuring out on their own that a book is too hard or scary or "weird" (i.e., out of sync with their beliefs and worldview) for them, and they will put it down without having to be rescued.