The audience that saw the first film is simply told to forget what complex and bizarre relationships unfold before them (despite logical gaps the book likely explains), and just recall, and identify with these kids they already know and (presumably) care about, while the newbie is basically told that characterization does not matter. But it should, since so much of the Narnia trip involves the children slaughtering many living creatures, and showing absolutely no remorse nor guilt over it, even though they surely must have seen what the Nazi onslaught wrought in their day to day lives as Londoners.
This lack of psychological realism leads into the film's second great flaw: Hollywood action film quipitis. This is where characters do not talk in normal conversational tones (a great strength of the first film, and something which raised it far above the dumbed down LOTR series). As example, note how the kids, who spend the bulk of this film killing the invaders of Narnia, simply use Ahnold-like quips to convey what they will do next, to each other and the Narnians — who have picked up remarkably quickly on such asides. They also soon give each other mere glances, the way superheroes do, meaning, 'Ah, you don't realize that my sibling can do this.' Even quips become superfluous. But, again, this utterly trashes any real and deep characterization.
In the first film, as example, Edmund propels much of the action in that film, due to his lack of confidence and selfishness, which is preyed upon by the White Witch, and used against the Narnians. In this film, nothing like that occurs. In short, there is not a single ounce of inner turmoil within these children, all at the ages when self-confidence is at a low. Instead, we get Peter acting like an ass, Edmund playing Robin to Peter's Batman, little Lucy obsessed with the magical lion Aslan, and Susan defined only by her ambiguous budding sexual feelings for Prince Caspian — i.e. a pointless love story that is a) not fulfilled, and b) not in the original books. Hence, why is it added? For realism? In the midst of a CGI gorefest?
Thus, another problem arises — the darkness of this film. Whereas the first film was set mostly in the white of winter, and the cinematography was well lit and stunning, and the expressiveness of the characters was shown (especially in the four children), this film will have none of that. It is dark, dark, and (did I mention?) dark; not only in theme, but literally in the murkiness of much of the film being set at night, even one spectacular invasion of a castle. Cinematographer Karl Walter Lindenlaub has to bear the blame for this visual mess, for the first film's cinematographer, Donald McAlpine, did a great job filling the screen with something interesting in every corner.
Article comments