Sunday, June 8, 2008

Why "Prince Caspian" failed

I went to this movie with higher hopes than the last ... I didn't care for Andrew Adamson's version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I know the guy CAN tell a story (I loved Shrek). But he doesn't seem to be able to tell THESE stories.

TLWW didn't come together well, even though it had some good parts.

I felt the same about Prince Caspian, but this one was worse... because parts were so much better. It had a cast that ranged from adequate to excellent, glimmers of good focus, and some of the changes made to the story, in order to help focus and condense it, were good choices and good changes.

Why didn't it work, then?

Well, before I go on about what didn't work, let me say what did.

1) Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin. Perfect. I like this actor anyway, and he was excellent as Trumpkin. Too bad we didn't get to see much of him. Too bad the developing relationship between Trumpkin and the children/kings/queens was not explored. I guess when you only have 2.5 hours you have to cut things like that if you want lots of way-kewl flying animal battle sequences. Wait... I said I'd save the bad for later, and focus on the good... :: cough :: ... let me get back to the good...

2) Eddy Izzard as Reepicheep. Perfectly done, perfectly cast, great interpretation of Reepicheep.

Both Trumpkin and Reepicheep looked and sounded different than what played in my mind as I read the books as a child... they were better. I never could figure out how a mouse could be a threat... now I can.

3) Warwick Davis as Nikabrik. I also wish we'd seen more of him... I'd have liked to have seen him and Trumpkin interact just a bit more. Davis played a great villain... too bad the film didn't relate to us why Nikabrik turned dark... his feeling of despair and abandonment... that led him to the place where he's trying to raise the white witch... Davis did such a good job with the little he had, I'd have loved to have seen him tackle that. The book got it across... the movie did not. er.. there I go again.. back to the good...

4) The Telmarines. I figured out what happens to the Telmarines after they go back to our world. They become UPS drivers. You know how I can tell?
It's a known fact to most American women, that there is no such thing as a bad looking UPS driver. Those guys are always good looking.
So are Telmarines. Wow... those might have been the bad guys, but they can come conquer my town anytime they want.

Miraz was a delightful villain... and his role was fleshed out some so that you could see him for the tyrant he was... that part worked. I also liked that the Telmarines were Spanish in look and sound and culture. Clearly human, but distinct from the "British" Narnians.

Now... to the changes made to the book...
first let me say Prince Caspian is my least favorite Narnia book. Maybe thats why I didn't mind the changes as much as some might. I thought condensing Caspian's story, having him blow Susan's horn earlier, having Trumpkin be captured at the same time... all served to get the characters where they needed to be, but dispensed with the 'story within the story' that we had in the book.

All of this is all good... why then, did the movie fail?

1) The Faramir Affect. Anyone who has read Lord of the Rings is familiar with Faramir, a man strong and noble, who experienced the pain of a father who rejected him, yet did not lose his own moral compass in the process. The guy was "together".
In Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, the writers figured such a character would not do. So they changed him. Instead of a strong, noble, character... we got a wuss with daddy issues.

Why is it that modern filmmakers seem to find it easier to make the villains strong with an element of honor... and yet can't write the heros in a similar fashion? Why are the heros weak, tortured, and traumatized? Why do heros always have ISSUES? Are people unable to tell a story without neutering all the heros? Without making them so much LESS?

Sure, there is a place for that sort of character... and one can show a journey from wuss to hero... but just as Faramir was not the character to 'lessen' in that fashion in the LOTR films... Peter and Caspian were not characters to so cheapen in this movie.

Caspian was reduced to hot hearthrob, who wants his throne and wants to kill the six fingered man who killed his father (several folks in the theater said alound, when Caspian faced Miraz: "You killed my father... prepare to die!" In the Princess Bride Inigo Montoya was a charicature.. he was comic... he was a parody... and it worked well. In Prince Caspian..er... no.)

and Peter... oy. Peter was a whiny kid with power issues. I wanted to smack him. I think Trumpkin did, too. And I'd have cheered if Trumpkin had done it.

HOWEVER... these characterizations could have worked... if the film had managed to get hold of a few themes they toyed with, but never managed to grasp.

which leads me to
2) Poor storytelling, and loss of the theme/focus.
It seems to me the scriptwriters were trying to build the movie around one key scene... Lucy seeing Aslan, and the others not believing her. Peter was trying to do good in his own way... which is a sure way to fail, with evil results. IF the movie had suceeded in focusing on this theme, and building the story around it... the weaker Peter would have made sense.

But the scene where Lucy sees Aslan was so short, and no time was given to the character's reactions. This was the section of the movie where Adamson needed to stop, tell carefully, focus. He did not.

We needed to see that Trumpkin did not believe in Aslan... but in worldly help. We needed to see the film Peter have a similar mentality to Trumpkin... though he believed in Aslan, he wanted to succeed on his own.. he felt alone, abandoned, and responsible in his aloneness. And Edmund... we needed to see Edmund voting to go with Lucy... that was a key scene in the books that showed how Edmund had changed... the scene in the book would have gotten all this across, but it would have taken a little more time to tell (not much). Then we would have seen the characters for who they were... and this character development was absolutely NEEDED.

If they'd spent time with this, though, they couldn't have focused on the kewl floating tree lady scene Lucy had. Well, I guess they could have.. but again, they sacrificed story and character development for the sake of special fx.

I believe that Adamson was trying to tell a story of the wrong that happened when the characters did not trust in Aslan... I believe he was trying to build around that theme. In part I believe this due to how the film ended... we got the scene with Trumpkin facing Aslan... almost as in the book... but this time it made little sense because we'd not been allowed to see who Trumpkin was earlier... we didn't hear about his doubts... we were not permitted enough time to know and understand the character.. so the later scenes made no sense.

Likewise when the children were leaving... we had tearful goodbyes... but since we'd not been allowed to see the characters for who they were... to see their relationships developing.. it meant nothing. It was hollow.

But gosh, there were kewl fx.

What we had was a story that could have been told well... that had elements that were excellent... but Adamson was not the man to tell this story. He did not put the excellent elements together in a way that made sense. The man can do some individual scenes. He does good battle sequences. But seems to have lost the ability to tell a story... or at least, he's the wrong one to tell THIS story.

Here's hoping the next movie has a different director, and trusts in the story and characters more than the special effects. Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a story of conversion... true change in character... it's Eustace's story... and unless it's put in the hands of someone who can develop character, and give the characters rather than the fx the main focus... it will also fail.