Movies from "Childrens" Books

I'm going to compare and contrast two movies I've just seen:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I)
Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Ahem: SPOILER WARNING!

Let's start with the things they have in common. I liked both the books these were based on. They are often thought of as "children's books" but really aren't (though they can be read to and by children). The casting in both series is magnificent, demonstrating both skill (adult actors) and luck (child actors who have grown into their parts well). Both are neither the first nor (presumably) the last in a series of profitable movies.

Despite that, they couldn't be more different.

It really comes down to the scripts, I think. Harry Potter appears to have been written by someone who read the Cliff Notes, once, a while back, and wasn't paying much attention. "Hmm. I can't remember how this bit went. Well, I'll just throw in an action sequence; the audience is just a bunch of kids, they won't know the difference." Narnia seems to have been written by someone who has read the books many times, liked and understood them, and realizes that you can't simply transpose a book into a shooting script if you want a good movie. They also realize that the audience of the movies will be quite different from the one the books were written for. This means spending minutes of screen time to replace things C.S. Lewis could convey in a phrase.

Lewis writes "the London Blitz" and his audience knows exactly what he's talking about. If the movies had just had someone mention the Blitz, most US movie-goers would say "what's that?" and never understand where these characters are coming from. So, they added the opening sequence of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with the Luftwaffe bombing London. Was it in the book? No. Would it have been needed to make a movie in the 1950's? No. Did I, personally, need it? No. Is it necessary to make a movie for the US in the 2000's in general? Yes. Was it well done and woven smoothly into the movie, complete with a visual reference during the climactic battle? Yes. Had they very clearly done their homework? Yes. I've seen bombing sequences in war movies that were less accurate and realistic.

Another difference is the use of CGI and special effects. The Harry Potter movies have been rather bad at this: 'hey look, a CGI monster!' Now, we know that the creatures in Narnia are just as fake. However...

While watching the end credits of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I noted the VERY large number of effects artists and such. I thought at the time "wow, that sea serpent and the dragon must have taken a lot of work! Well, they were worth it." It wasn't until I'd left the theater and gotten home that I realized Reepicheep wasn't REAL! That is the difference between good SFX and bad, people! It isn't how high tech or how wild and scary you make things. It is about making the audience forget that Reepicheep didn't need to stop by the props department for his sword. It is about the NASA engineers going to the makers of the Apollo 13 movie and saying 'hey, where'd you find that footage of the launch? We'd never seen that before.' 'Um... that was special effects.' 'Really?!'

Now, was Voyage a completely faithful re-telling of the book? No, and in some cases I think they could have done better. The Dufflepods were a little disappointing. The quest to find the seven lost lords doesn't seem to have been enough motivation for modern audiences, so an additional motivation has been added: people are being taken by a green mist, and must be rescued. I'm not thrilled by that change, but they wove it into the movie well enough. Tilda Swinton is back as the White Witch. Yes, she died in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That didn't stop her from appearing (in a VERY nice bit) in Prince Caspian, and it doesn't stop her now. Hey, if C.S. Lewis had had Tilda Swinton playing the White Witch in his books, she'd have gotten more time in them, too!

On the other hand, I was very surprised and quite gratified that Aslan saying "I am known by another name in your world" was left in. I would have expected modern Hollywood to shun a Christian reference that blatant. Of course, it is Christmas season. :-)

Kudos also for including, with the closing credits, illustrations from the books. That was a nice touch, though the clothing depicted had almost nothing in common with that in the movie.

The Dawntreader herself is a very nice piece of work. She's quite believable as a Narnian ship on the outside, though her interior doesn't give the impression of a cramped ship of that type.

All of this is in contrast to Deathly Hallows (Part I). Now, I'm one of the people who signed a petition to have the books split into two movies each all the way back at Book 4, but that was because there was a lot of plot in those pages. I'm glad they finally split Book 7, but could they have shoved in some of that plot instead of chases through the woods? Be warned: re-read the book first, or you won't understand what's going on. Critical elements are missing or altered to the point that they don't make sense anymore. Continuity with the previous movie is lacking. Why are Harry and Ginny kissing? Well, they're in a relationship. Um... in the BOOKS, yes. In Movie 6, she kissed Harry ONCE and told him "that can stay in here too, if you want." While the BOOK makes several references to a relationship stemming from their first kiss (which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT), the MOVIE implies that's it for the year.

Overall Voyage of the Dawntreader is an excellent step up from the slight stumble of Prince Caspian, while Deathly Hallows (Part I) is just another in a series of movies that make you want to read the books again so you can figure out what is going on.

See Voyage of the Dawntreader if you like fantasy, or Narnia, or just well done movies in general.
Don't bother with Deathly Hallows unless you're a hard-core Potter fan.