Chronicles of Narnia

[kandrathe]

I can see that point of view, however, I'm not sure this film is guilty of tearing the clothes from the story anymore than a photograph is stealing a subjects soul. This movie is an image of the Novel, but there is so much more in the Novel that could not be put into the film. The Novel remains in my mind as something altogether different, and better in many ways.

Which does not mean that I would not indulge in mere entertainment at times. I might prefer my favorite dishes, like a thick AAA aged black angus tri-tip, cooked to medium rare with garlic mashed potatoes, or fresh Maine lobster with sweet butter and lemon. But, I still can enjoy a hamburger, fries and a cold bottle of coke once in awhile.

Again though, I am thinking of a comparison between photography and painting. When photography emerged there were many who looked down on it as a non-art. A photograph was a direct image of the subject matter, and contrary to the skill of painting where the eye interprets a full image from the paints on a canvas. Anyway, it reminds me of your talk of nuance, subtlety and a full revealing of the subject matter. It is interesting to me since I dabble in photography, and also an impressionist style of painting. I like the contradiction between them.

Are there stories that deserve a full revealing? Is film the perfect medium for telling that tale which cries for sunshine? I can't believe that only the best films are ones that leave you with questions, and that there must be some tales that are best told completely in the sunshine. Nicholas Meyer might be wrong about art.

Here is an opinion of another film maker, Joseph Pisano;

Basically, anything that hones the process is a good thing. It's about the final product, not how you got there. Again, I mean technically. This bull#$%& about "smelling the film stock" is film snobbery and it's most obnoxious. A performance is a performance. A shot is a shot. If the only way Terence Malick can get THAT shot in a film like "Days of Heaven" is on 65 mm, then that's the only way to shoot it. If George Lucas wants to paint the whole thing in a computer and then project it digitally, that's fine too. It's the artist's vision and what they need to make it happen. The processes are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps King Kong is a movie that needs to be told on film three times to get it just right. It was written as a screenplay, and directed by one of the writers(Merian C. Cooper) so I hope that version got it correct. I guess we need the 2005 version for the cool CGI effects possible now.

Unlike Kong however, the Novel has not been yanked from the bookshelf jungle, subdued and humiliated for your entertainment. It's merely a replica, a mechanical image, a facsimile. If you seek the Novel, it's still wild and on the shelf right where you left it.