I have long said that this film did a phenomenal job with the character Peter Pevensie, and what he represented in the film. Sure his character wasn’t exactly like the book, but he served a different purpose. I would say a greater purpose in the film than he served in the book.
In the book, he was rather flat character without much growth throughout the story. It doesn’t really work to have a character that doesn’t display growth. For that, you might as well get a cardboard cutout with a monotone.
Today, I found an article by a woman that I feel gets it right. I don’t know if she read my review of the film from last May, but I understood the roles of Peter and Caspian, and their positions against one another.
In the movie, the youngest of the three Pevensie children, Lucy, has the most faith in Aslan, the lion, who represents Jesus. Aslan waits for the children to seek him and he does not force himself upon them. Lucy’s oldest brother, Peter, is eager to take control and leads the Narnians into battle against the Telmarines. The battle is doomed to disaster as he does not seek Aslan’s help. The rivalry between Peter and Prince Caspian is indicative of lives which are not relating to God or in “Prince Caspian”, lives that are not seeking the help of Aslan. Many of the brave Narnian creatures are killed and the stress is unbearable. In our lives, do we encounter unnecessary stress and difficulty because we do not seek the help of Jesus? Do we argue and compete with those who should be our allies? These problems are consequences of avoiding Jesus’ help, of forgetting that Jesus is king and He wants to help us.
Finally in “Prince Caspian” the children seek Aslan’s help and suddenly, dramatically, the Narnians are successful in battle. The river powerfully washes many of their enemies off the bridge, somewhat like the Red Sea (in the book of Exodus, in the Bible) parting to let the Israelites flee from Egypt, only to move back over the land in time to engulf the Egyptians who were pursuing them. (Women Respond)
I’m glad that I’m not the only one that took that message from the movie. Perhaps it is something that I was meant to hear. Perhaps it’s something that Sian needed to hear. Perhaps it’s something that you needed to hear. I don’t know, but I do think that was an unintended but incredible testament to the Christianity that is present in the story of Prince Caspian. I think it’s also a testament to the fact that the message gets through regardless of how under-the-table it seemed to be.
But this is only scratching the surface. What sorts of things did you take from Prince Caspian?
To me the Prince Caspian film is also partly an allegory to the Acts. In the film the Narnians have seen their land get invaded and changed by the Telmarines. They accuse Caspian for the things that his people have done, but eventually the Narnians learn to live side by side with the Telmarines. In a similar way it was difficult at first for the Jews to accept the pagans being included in God’s plan and his promises (they had after all seen the Romans invade Jerusalem and ruin their temple), but eventually they managed to see them as brothers and sisters and even risked their lives to spread the Gospel to the heathens.
I very much disagree. The sad thing here is the Peter’s character was sacrificed for the message. Granted, the message is a good one. Arrogance is bad. Point taken when I was 5 years old. Also, one needs to trust and cannot put all faith in one’s own abilities. Alright, so that is a good lesson for the story.
The sad thing? Peter comes across as having learned nothing from his last adventure in Narnia except that it’s fun to be in charge and to be capable. He didn’t learn temperance. He didn’t learn humility. He didn’t learn patience it seems. That is a tragic price to pay for a good little moral. The character of Peter still comes across as an overall positive character, but he’s not Peter the Magnificent which we see in the book.
The problem with this argument though, is something that we learn about in youth ministry training. Everyone learns different lessens at different ages and in different ways. The fact that you learned that particular message at 5 doesn’t mean that someone else didn’t learn that message until they were 25. In youth ministry, you don’t assume that everyone has learned the same moral character building at the same age. It’s this that I am applying here, which I am not alone on, based on both the blog I quoted, and a comment below here.
Meeting people where they are at is a very key thing. Peter does, though, come across as having learned much from his first adventure. So much, though, that he is over-confident. He’s over-compensating for his knowledge. He ruled a peaceful Narnia and didn’t have to deal with any real war after the one they had where Aslan won the victory.
He has learned nothing of ruling as King during war-time, based only on what the written word conveys. I know he didn’t learn humility, but when you’ve been called “the Magnificent” for 30-odd years, there comes a point when you could lose track of your humility, to the point of false-humility. Instead, he had a lot of false-pride. I feel that the moral is there for those that need it, and to dismiss it is an injustice to those that may have needed to hear it… those with a completely different upbringing.
What I am trying to do, however, is to help people to see the positive things that can be found within this ‘more savage Narnia.’ And if someone can learn to look a little deeper or gets the message of something they hadn’t seen before, that’s the important thing.
Sorry Paul, but that’s not true. Peter fought wars in his time. He couldn’t even fight with King Lune because he was at war with the giants.
My point is that a much beloved character was sacrificed for a lesson that I think most people found to be very simple and not profound. I understand things have to be changed for a film to work, but one of the reasons people loved these stories is not only because of the themes but because of the characters. When you change too much of the characters, you might as well not film the story period.
Sian. Yes we need to be reminded of it, but in the film it’s not given good resolution. It’s assumed that Peter learns his lesson, but he never speaks to Caspian about it. He only briefly speaks to Lucy about it. In the book, I was stunned by Peter’s humility, and he does learn it after not believing Lucy. They didn’t need to make him a jerk for him to learn the lesson. I think that there was a cost/gain ratio here. The cost was the character of Peter. The gain was a lesson in humility. I and many others felt that the cost outweighed the gain. That is, losing Peter as a remarkable and magnificent role-model was too high a cost for the lesson in humility.
Okay, you’re right about Peter fighting those wars, I’d forgotten about that.
And I agree about changing characters… I think that if it’s done, it’s done with care and consideration.
When it comes down to it, I feel the same way that I feel about each retreat that I help lead. If the retreat fails to reach all but one of the participants, then the retreat is not a failure. That one person’s life is forever changed by an experience that they’ll never forget. Everyone else either missed out, or it just wasn’t their cup of tea.
I don’t think a conversation wound up being required between Peter and Caspian, when, during the battle, their backs were up against the wall, and there was nothing they could do, I feel that they, in that moment saw each other as equals, and were basically turning to the battle with their final act of war. I believe they thought the war was over, and there was nothing left to do but fight to the death. That moment, to my mind, was when that discussion happened on film. Granted, I like to read into things, and read things into movies that aren’t necessarily part of it, but that was my thought process.
I completely agree with that article. I didn’t see that at first but after watching the film so many times, I saw that the reason everything failed miserably was because Aslan was not the focus. Thanks for posting! 🙂
The idea of having Peter go on a journey like that is not a bad one. It’s the execution of it that’s a problem. I have talked to several non-readers (and fans) who wanted to slap Peter, even after the movie was over. He was so off-the-charts arrogant and selfish that audiences couldn’t relate to it. The audience doesn’t need to be reminded every time Peter opens his mouth that he is an ignorant jerk who only cares about himself. And if you read some of the lines in script form, you see that Moseley did not have to come across as annoying as he did. He could have delivered them differently.
Again, the basic idea is not a bad one. In the book, Peter does rely on his own understanding at first (he reluctantly decides not to believe Lucy about seeing Aslan). The first thing Peter says to Aslan is “I’ve been leading them wrong all along.” But in the book, we know that Peter means well and truly cares about Narnia and his siblings; he’s just going about it the wrong way. In the movie, he’s completely selfish and cares more about being a hero than the Narnians.
Good idea, poor execution.
intresing article, i have seen that in the movie and in places in the book where peter gets upset over some things, i guess when i watch the movie again i’ll probably see it again 🙂
Nice article. I thought much the same thing when watching Prince Caspian. All too often people forget to put their trust in God and we can all benefit from a little reminder.
While Peter is presented differently than in the book, I think it leads to a good message and is also a fair change for the movie version of this story. In the book, Peter seemed to be a rather undeveloped character to me. The movie version of Peter presents a much more dramatic development of his character. I also think the changes to his character seem to reflect a more modern take on what someone of his age would be going through had they spent many years as an adult and are now young again.
I’m Sian, the woman who wrote the article about Peter in my blog WomenRespond.com. Thank you Paul for using it to generate an interesting discussion. I am pleased that “Prince Caspian” has encouraged us to think about important issues such as pride, humility and how we relate to God.
Unfortunately it seems that we learn most when we are in challenging situations. As Paul said, Peter left Narnia at the end of “The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe” when life was peaceful and it would have been easy for him to take his high position for granted. When Peter returned to Narnia Aslan was not so visible as he had been before. He expected the children to seek him out and this required Peter to realize that he needed help. Only a situation that left him out of control would teach him humility and the faith to seek Aslan’s help.
Rilian, in an earlier comment wrote: “Arrogance is bad. Point taken when I was 5 years old.”
We may learn not to be proud when we are little but don’t we need to keep learning this as we mature and as circumstances change? It is more likely that we become arrogant when we have more opportunities to control situations. God hates pride as it suggests that we value ourselves more than him. In real life as well as in Prince Caspian, Aslan/God allows us to become a “jerk” to learn the lesson that we need to humbly seek his help.
In the end Peter, and we, will have much greater integrity and wisdom if we are proved to be wrong so that we can re-direct our lives under the loving protection of Jesus. I think that the character development of Peter in the movie is excellent. I hope our characters will also develop as we realize that throughout life we are inclined to rely on ourselves rather than God and we need to be aware how unpleasant we become when when we lose sight of Him.
Do I need to learn this lesson? Of course! “Prince Caspian” did a great job of reminding me,yet again, that it is so much better when Christ is in control.
Nicely done Paul! 🙂 I had done a blog post with a similar concept when the DVD came out… I love reading what other people took from the movie too!
The tension between Peter and Caspian was also completely inappropriate. The main theme of this story, and perhaps the entire series, is the myth becoming fact, a crucial idea to Lewis and his conversion to Christianity. To Caspian, High King Peter is a character out of his bedtime stories, a figure out of myth and legend. In the book, naturally, Caspian is in awe of getting to meet one of his legendary heroes.
Admittedly, there is some small justification for the Peter/Caspian argument scene in the book because Lewis does say there were short tempers in the Narnian army after the first few battles with the Telmarines. But what’s really important here? The idea of the Peter being a myth come to life for Caspian was sacrificed. Nothing is worth sacrificing that idea for.
Another important idea in the story is that Narnia has been corrupted for hundreds of years, and now the old days are returning to save the day. In the movie, the old days (the Pevensies) become part of the problem rather than being part of the solution. I shuddered when Caspian said that blowing the horn was his “first mistake.”
I wholeheartedly agree about Peter. The movie character was very deep and interesting.
…I could see how some tension with Caspian would be justified; correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the book’s Peter feel the need to clarify to Caspian that “I haven’t come to take your throne, but to put you in it,” or something closely along those lines?
What disappointed me, though, was that Caspian himself was lost… that not only was there tension with the High King, which came in my opinion farther than it should have, but there was also a sort of robbing Caspian of his innocence–giving the little-boy-heart-alive who had fed his imagination on Nurse’s tales of the Golden Age a rough edge and an angsty, domineering attitude.
Telmarine or not, since when was the sword-happy man who took as long as he did to protest the summoning of Jadis our Caspian?
Peter is one dimensional in the book so the film makers decided to add a great deal more depth to the character. This potentially does make a more interesting film but does it really work ?
Partially I think. As with all things Narnian the answer is not straightforward. On paper Will Moseley compares unfavourably as an actor with the likes of River Phoenix at the same age (e.g. Stand By Me) but he brings a fury to the part during the Miraz fight that stands up there with the best. That scene ends with this exchange which both actors deliver superbly :
What’s the matter boy, too afraid to take a life ?
– It’s not mine to take !
In no way is Peter one dimensional in the book. Reversely, the book includes an excellent showing of his growth as he comes to understand the unpredictability of Aslan and as he reassures himself as the High King.
I can see how this can be confused as a very “one dimensional” character because he consequently doesn’t do a whole lot at the beginning. This, however, is precisely the point: as the High King, he should be a very prominent role and the LEADER of the trip from Cair Paravel to Aslan’s How. Instead, he generally does not take the lead – a move completely against the expected personality of any King.
Demonstrations of this are shown as he is not the first to act when Trumpkin is being drown, as he tries to avoid voting whether to go uphill (where Lucy saw Aslan) or downhill (where Trumpkin says there is a bridge) at the finding of the gorge, and many other instances when he does not assume command. Generally, Trumpkin or one of his siblings suggests the next action instead. Even after Trumpkin says they should hide the boat on the island, Peter says, “I should have thought of that.”
Despite these flaws, CS Lewis never made him selfish or power hungry, which are his greatest traits in the movie. Rather than the well-intending but sometimes badly-judging leader (who grows into the great leader he once was by the end), the movie showed a foolish boy trying to relive his days of glory, at the cost of many lives, who then very suddenly realizes (through the White Witch’s sequence and Edmond’s help) that only by Aslan can they defeat Miraz. The first shows growth in self confidence where the second shows growth in faith in Aslan (both of which are important).
So, it is safe to say that I see both characters as fully dimensioned. The question is, which do I prefer?
In answer, I believe I prefer the book. At the same time, I can see why the movie would seem very empty without more “tension.” The book is primarily based on magical encounters which can flatten to nothing on a TV screen, without CS Lewis’s narration. Also, the first battle scene is extremely interesting to watch but is not part of the book (and wouldn’t be part of the movie if Peter hadn’t suggested it). In the end, I think that Prince Caspian makes a much better movie if you don’t try to replace the book with it. They are both interesting, but moreso if considered unrelated. By pointing out every difference, you’ll only annoy yourself.
I would still like to point out that I never felt a full reformation of Peter’s character by the end of the movie. In the book, he apologizes to Aslan and his family, whereas he NEVER gives any apologies in the movie. We are only to assume that he has had a change of heart because he stops, for the most part, glaring at Caspian. However, I don’t much care for the look he gives him just after Caspian rescues Susan during Peter’s duel. This could be bad on the actor’s part, though…