Chronicles of Narnia review: An invitation to ‘deeper magic’
By Matthew Everhard, The Layman Online, December 19, 2005
I recently had the opportunity to lead our youth group on an outing to see the new movie, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Now I must confess that I have been excited to see this movie for a long time. As a matter of fact, I have had December 9th posted on my PDA for several months in eager anticipation. I had heard that this adaption of C.S. Lewis book by the same title would, would parallel the Lord of the Rings trilogy in scope and majesty. And I must tell you, I was not disappointed. (Well OK, a little bit, but not for any theological reasons.)
First with my disappointments. As an evangelical, I always like things to be done, “by the book.” This is how I construct my theology, and in a parallel manner, how I like to interpret movies. I can’t help it, but I am so used to honoring the original words, the author’s intent, and the exact phrasing etc. of the Bible, that I also tend to hope that movies operate from the same principle when filming concepts taken straight out of any other book, like C.S. Lewis’ fantasy series! My biggest disappointment (not to be confused with a “concern”) is that Aslan, the ferocious lion, is a bit too small. Peter looks down on him in stature. For the King of Narnia, who alone can cause the Witch to shake and quake with fear, “medium” is one-size-fits-nobody. There were other changes that left the movie wanting: The children breaking a window playing cricket is nowhere to be read within the original. Other long stretches of concocted action to parlay the books building pace are merely acceptable.
But my true hope was that the “crucifixion” scene, Aslan’s slaying on the Stone Table as well as the “resurrection” scene, Aslan’s being restored to life to conquer evil, wouldn’t be messed with. I was quite afraid that the movie producers would do something to botch Lewis’ theological allegory. WHEW! They did not, and the substitutionary atonement was preserved with excellence. As a matter of fact, these scenes were done with such cinematic distinction that they really force the audience to ask the bigger questions that Lewis himself would hope to provoke: Why would Aslan be willing to die for Edmund? Why is Aslan alone worthy to buy his life back? What is the “deeper magic” Lewis keeps speaking of? Why couldn’t Edmund simply rejoin the family?
The movie draws the viewer into the drama nearly every bit as much as the written allegory does. For this reason, the film overall merits my “watch it now!” Rating.
As for the other typically concerning areas of movie content (i.e. swearing, nudity, violence etc.) Narnia is clean in every regard. The only note that I could make is that some of the characters would be too scary for my daughter (age 4) to look at. We had read the books together, but will probably not watch the movie for a few more years. The movie is rated PG for good reason, some of the battle scenes are intense, but stop short of being gory or excessively violent.
Truly a “youth group worthy” flick, Narnia can certainly serve as an excellent discussion started for concepts such as the fall (what is Turkish Delight anyway?), redemption, and especially salvation. Particularly noteworthy is the imagery of Aslan breathing life into stone statues, an idea that is “reformed” in theology inasmuch as the statues are absolutely unable to do anything whatsoever to restore their own lives. You too, will be able to draw many discussion starters for your youth group from this movie, and will hopefully be able to challenge your students to consider the atonement in a new way.
Matthew Everhard is the Director of Youth and Family Ministries at Hudson Presbyterian Church, a confessing church. He is also the author of Rock Solid: Helping Teens Discover the Truth of Christianity. 2005, by PLC Publications.