Andrew Adamson's film version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe opens with dropping bombs - a decision which is justified by the the story's wartime England milieu, but which nevertheless feels oddly and uncomfortably resonant in today's military climate. The Pevensie children are driven from London to the countryside by the Nazis, that evil empire against whom their father is fighting overseas. Not long after, however, they enter the titular wardrobe and are placed in another, parallel conflict against usurping "Queen of Narnia" the White Witch; a heavily idealized battle steeped in Christian imagery, stark good-vs.-evil binaries and Arthurian chivalry. It all serves to make one wonder just what to make of C.S. Lewis' religiously-motivated WWII escapism in the midst of these decidedly un-WWII times.
Because no matter what the hawks might say, "good" and "evil" are far more abstract terms today than they were in 1950. The war in Iraq has no Hitler, no monstrous, genocidal bogeyman to rally against - unless you count Osama bin Laden (unrelated) or Saddam Hussein (out of commission). Instead, as in Vietnam, we are confronted with a bewildering jumble of conflicting forces and motivations - a mess against which neat notions like "good guys" and "bad guys" just can't hold up. We know now, as we did not know (or would not accept) then, that American bombs are dropping on innocent civilians, women, families. The contrast between Narnia's dramatized air raids and Iraq's real ones could not be more distinct, simply because "we," the aggressors, are here meant to identify with victims Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy. Throw in the glittery conflicts in Narnia itself, a level playing field where literally lionized good is easily distinguished from literally demonized evil, and Narnia's political intentions become even more eyebrow-raising.
Is it wise to be dealing in such strictly-divided oppositions here, now, when the lines between right and wrong have never been blurrier? Adamson seems to think so, as he translates Lewis' parable with a relish that goes beyond the merely literal. The children are forced to accept responsibility in the face of an overwhelming wickedness. They rise to the occasion; they kill, and their killing is pardoned for their cause is just. Is it just liberal paranoia to look at these symbolic moments and see, somewhere lurking in the background, the smoldering remains of 9/11's twin towers? If so, then you might as well accuse the religious right of the same: they've been rallying around this movie, praising its values in the midst of an industry they famously revile. And well, we all know where the religious right's votes and money go. Mind you, I'm not nearly so conspiracy-minded as to believe that The Chronicles of Narnia is a balls-out excuse for the war in Iraq. But a film like this one, which effectively plugs its fingers in its ears and refuses to acknowledge the shades of grey between white Aslan and black Witch while the real world continues to exist in full color, must be viewed with a certain amount of caution.
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Another movie I can skip. Isn't there some kind of law against movies that place children under extreme duress? Maybe i should promote one.