Well, I guess everyone's entitled to an opinion. I thought it was an important message, and central to the theme of liberation that underpinned the entire book.
Was the Frolic inappropriate?
- Thread starter PrinceOfTheWest
- Start date
Mozart the Meerkitten
Well-known member
The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.
I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way.That's my argument. Thank the Lord it wasn't included. People would've left their seats in the theater. You people have got to think about those who haven't read the book, and those unfamiliar would think (probably in these exact words), "What the hell is this?"
How do you know people would have left eh? and how do you know what they would say?
As I said in another thread (and I quote) 'We can never know what would've happened...'
I don't know how you can't like that part in the book either its AWSOMEATIC!!!
Tis what I think.
I don't think people would have left the cinema had it been included in the movie except for the fact that the movie ws so far afield from the book that it would have been inappropriate in that movie. There was no place for joy in the PC movie as it existed. They would have had to completely change the climax to match what actually happened in the book. Had they done this, I am pretty certain that the movie would have been a ton better than it was.
All the stuff about Aslan liberating the land from the Telmarines was cut out, and to me the frolic was part and parcel of that.
All the stuff about Aslan liberating the land from the Telmarines was cut out, and to me the frolic was part and parcel of that.
Mozart the Meerkitten
Well-known member
Miss.SunFlower
New member
This is the day this is the day that the Lord has made that the Lord has made and we will rejoyce we will rejoyce and be glad in it and be glad in it!
Does that sum up the frolic? Because if it doesn't I don't know what will.
*nods nods* That's a song we sing in church. One of my favorites too.
It does very much describe what the frolic was.
MRW
New member
The frolic was "out of place" you could say. It was strange, random, and bizarre. Sure, it could "represent joyful feelings and happiness," but to me it really topped off the weirdest pile of junk I've ever seen.
I'm surprised no one here felt it was bizarre or strange in any way.
I agree with PotW. The whole point of the frolic was that Aslan was using it to sweep away the oppression of the Telmarine rule and awaken those whom Narnia really belonged to. Miraz had done his best to stamp out the old Narnians -- talking beasts, sprites, and demigods alike. Their returne, en masse, showed better than anything else that Aslan had returned to set things right, and that Caspian's army wasn't meant to win the war by itself -- merely to do their duty by rebelling against the oppression and keeping Aslan's ways alive while they waited for Aslan to set things straight.
As much as I like the PC movie, I would have liked it so much better if the Frolic had been included. To do it right, we would have had to split up the girls and the boys about halfway through the movie, we'd have met Aslan much sooner which would make the castle raid unnecessary, and we'd have had each of the children gradually coming to see Aslan, including Susan's admission that she knew he was there all along, but that she didn't want to see him, which is important for her character development.
That's a very important point, MRW. The Telmarines had conquered Narnia by force and had been ruling it that way ever since. Their heavy hand had lain upon the country for ten generations (though it's clear Miraz' hand was heaviest of all.) What ended their reign was not simply a more powerful force, but the true liberation brought by Aslan. It was the victory of the small and joyous over the strong and oppressive. The meek did inherit Narnia. In a very real sense, the Telmarines were laughed and danced out of Narnia - except those who chose to stay to laugh and dance.
The question vis a vis the movie (which would probably better be taken up in the thread where this discussion originated) is how they might have portrayed the frolic. Frankly, given where they took the story, I don't think they could have succeeded. The moviemakers missed this aspect entirely, and cast the story as a contest of strength and skill between two warring forces. Ultimately the force with the greater strength won. Granted, the scene with the trees charging the battlefield and the river god destroying the bridge were impressive - but they weren't true to the book. The river god asked Aslan to loose his chains, and at His word the vines tore the bridge down. The trees didn't assault anyone - they didn't need to. The Telmarines were so terrified at their approach that they cast down their weapons.
So one of the real lessons of Caspian is that the meek shall inherit the land. The Old Narnian army played a role, but were ultimately doomed - it was only a matter of time before they would be crushed by the superior Telmarine force. What defeated the Telmarines was the power released by the joy of the jubilee proclaimed by Aslan. In Him they had the victory, the freedom, and the ultimate rest.
Sound familiar?
The question vis a vis the movie (which would probably better be taken up in the thread where this discussion originated) is how they might have portrayed the frolic. Frankly, given where they took the story, I don't think they could have succeeded. The moviemakers missed this aspect entirely, and cast the story as a contest of strength and skill between two warring forces. Ultimately the force with the greater strength won. Granted, the scene with the trees charging the battlefield and the river god destroying the bridge were impressive - but they weren't true to the book. The river god asked Aslan to loose his chains, and at His word the vines tore the bridge down. The trees didn't assault anyone - they didn't need to. The Telmarines were so terrified at their approach that they cast down their weapons.
So one of the real lessons of Caspian is that the meek shall inherit the land. The Old Narnian army played a role, but were ultimately doomed - it was only a matter of time before they would be crushed by the superior Telmarine force. What defeated the Telmarines was the power released by the joy of the jubilee proclaimed by Aslan. In Him they had the victory, the freedom, and the ultimate rest.
Sound familiar?
Good points Meg and Roger.
That's what I meant before - the filmmakers could only had included the frolic if they had made a different movie from the one they made, way different. If they had made that movie, the one that stayed true to the book in these critical areas, then the joy of the frolic would have been more than appropriate, it would have been the climax of the story. And they'd have been able to include all those beautiful scenes of how Aslan liberated the land, like the school houses demolished, and the old nurse reunited with Caspian ... **sigh**
Changing the movie from the book is like a bit of a lie. And we all know that a lie grows and grows. The moment you diverge from the book, the more decisions are made for you TODAY by what you did BEFORE.
dawnpatrol
New member
That would've been nice. The teachers union may have been offended though. It's been awhile since I've read Prince Caspian but I remembered that scene with the shool houses being a clear shot at secular public education.
MrBob
Well-known member
Actually, the filmmakers seemed to just treat Aslan as a more serious character than he was in the books. The romp in PC was the third scene where Aslan was shown that he could be fun. Earlier in PC, he has some fun with Trumpkin, tossing him in the air and catching him in his paws. In LWW, Aslan runs around and plays with Lucy and Susan after he comes back to life.
The romp in the PC book could have been limited to an LWW-style mission where he reawakened the statues in the Witch's castle. In the film, this was pared down completely to a roar that reawakened the trees. A "gay" romp was not absolutely necessary complete with Bacchus, but I so much wanted to see Gwendolyn's classroom turning into a wooded area
As for the word "gay" every child that I know (me included) goes through that stage where they learn the real meaning of gay and have fun with the word.
MrBob
The romp in the PC book could have been limited to an LWW-style mission where he reawakened the statues in the Witch's castle. In the film, this was pared down completely to a roar that reawakened the trees. A "gay" romp was not absolutely necessary complete with Bacchus, but I so much wanted to see Gwendolyn's classroom turning into a wooded area
As for the word "gay" every child that I know (me included) goes through that stage where they learn the real meaning of gay and have fun with the word.
MrBob
I think it was a shot at excessive education altogether. Remember in Lion, one of the things the Kings & Queens did that helped make it Narnia's Golden Age was "liberated young dwarfs and young satyrs from being sent to school" (odd thing for a teacher to say
). Lewis' educational experiences was exclusively with private schools, so I don't think it was a private/public thing he was expressing, just impatience with excessive schooling.
The romp in the PC book could have been limited to an LWW-style mission where he reawakened the statues in the Witch's castle. In the film, this was pared down completely to a roar that reawakened the trees. A "gay" romp was not absolutely necessary complete with Bacchus, but I so much wanted to see Gwendolyn's classroom turning into a wooded area
Agreed, they could have done it that way, and it would at least have been a nod to the joy of Narnia and Aslan himself ... but I think ES is right, once they started turning away from the true themes of the book, there was no way to go back and re-integrate their actions to the new storyline. Once the battle for Narnia just became a showdown between two armies to be accomplished completely by force ... then the venue for the joyful romp that actually reawakened the trees and won the war by dancing and partying and laughter was completely gone.
Animus Wyrmis
New member
I have always loved the Romp, and I was looking forward to seeing everyone drinking and partying with Aslan. (To be honest, I was bored silly at the end of the film--and that's impressive, because I hold my breath for the fight in the book.)
I do think that the Romp is important, though--when I think of Narnia, I think of a happy place where everyone is outside, usually in the spring or the summer. Almost all of my Narnia fics have their pivotal scenes outside, and that's not a conscious choice on my part--it's just that Narnia, for me, is always outside. The only building in my mind seems to be Cair Paravel. I imagine the Narnians running around with Aslan and playing in the meadows and talking to the naiads and dryads. But if you think about it, that's not a Narnia we actually see much of. We almost always see Narnia in trouble (LWW, PC, LB) or we spend most of our time outside of Narnia proper (MN, HHB, VDT, SC)--the Narnia of my imagination is almost entirely imagined, and I've finally figured out where I get it from--it's the stories and the Romp. The stories Tumnus tells about dances and parties, the stories Bree and Jewel tell, and the tiny bits of scenes where the Pevensies have already saved the world. The only place we really see that happy, wild Narnia for any length of time is the Romp. It's restoring Narnia to itself, and in a lot of ways to a Narnia we don't ever get to see.
I would have loved to see it in the film, but I agree it would have required a different sort of movie to pull it off, which is depressing. I think whoever said that Aslan is more serious in the films makes a really good point--in the books he's a great deal more playful.
I do think that the Romp is important, though--when I think of Narnia, I think of a happy place where everyone is outside, usually in the spring or the summer. Almost all of my Narnia fics have their pivotal scenes outside, and that's not a conscious choice on my part--it's just that Narnia, for me, is always outside. The only building in my mind seems to be Cair Paravel. I imagine the Narnians running around with Aslan and playing in the meadows and talking to the naiads and dryads. But if you think about it, that's not a Narnia we actually see much of. We almost always see Narnia in trouble (LWW, PC, LB) or we spend most of our time outside of Narnia proper (MN, HHB, VDT, SC)--the Narnia of my imagination is almost entirely imagined, and I've finally figured out where I get it from--it's the stories and the Romp. The stories Tumnus tells about dances and parties, the stories Bree and Jewel tell, and the tiny bits of scenes where the Pevensies have already saved the world. The only place we really see that happy, wild Narnia for any length of time is the Romp. It's restoring Narnia to itself, and in a lot of ways to a Narnia we don't ever get to see.
I would have loved to see it in the film, but I agree it would have required a different sort of movie to pull it off, which is depressing. I think whoever said that Aslan is more serious in the films makes a really good point--in the books he's a great deal more playful.
Mozart the Meerkitten
Well-known member
Not intirely true.
I agree the Romp is the main happy thing for Narnia in the books, but there is also; When Aslan is reserected He and Lucy and Susan play and in the end of Last Battle thats the happiest moment in all the books I think,and in PC after the Telmarines are defeated they have happier times too the night before Aslan sends them back, and in LWW when the Pevinses become kings and queens.
Still you're right that happy Narnia is not seen alot in the books and almost not at all in the movies.
They should have put the Romp in the movie it would have been alot better.
Still "We can never know what would have happened..."
Hahaha, This made me laugh. No they are not inappropriate, in the right meaning of the word.
I agree, so there! When I read The Silver Chair and Puddleglum, Eustace and Jill begin to act silly they say "Gay is the word." And so they act gay in the proper, original, unhijacked version of it. I'm reclaiming that word too.I was making a counterstrike to try to reclaim a perfectly good English word that has been co-opted by people with an agenda. I know I'm dating myself, but I am a student of Lewis and an Old Western Man, so I shall use the term as it has always been understood, not as it has been corrupted.
I would contend that in the classic use of the term, "gay" was precisely what that frolic was.
So there.
I didn't horribly miss the scene in the movie but I do love it in the book. It reminds me of David dancing for joy before the world.
And ES, you mentioned "It all comes down to this. Does God want people to be happy? Sometimes we portray faith as "Be extremely miserable in your self denial and when you die God will give you chocolates and wine."
Oddly enough, I was rereading old journal entries and I have one on joy (I think its actually influenced from John Piper). I'm just going to post it here. But my commentary on it would be that I think the frolic was a prime example of Narnians taking joy in the simple fact that Aslan was with them. That in itself was a reason to be the gayest of all Narnians. (Proper usage fully intended ) Okay, now I wish it had been in the movie.
"Joy is not the absence of suffering, it is the presence of God. It is the consciousness of the threefold joy of the Lord. His joy in ransoming us. His joy in dwelling within us as our Savior and power for fruitbearing and His joy in possessing us, as His Bride and His delight; it is the consciousness of this joy which is our real strength. Our joy in Him may be a fluctuating thing: His joy in us knows no change.
A tongue filled with laughter and praise is a reflection of a heart filled to overflowing with the joy of the Lord. What a joy it is just to be with someone whose heart is full.
When was the last time you laughed for the sheer joy of your salvation? People are not attracted to somber doctines. There is no persuasive power in a gloomy and morbid religion. Let the world see your joy and you won't be able to keep them away. To be filled with God is to be filled with joy."
And ES, you mentioned "It all comes down to this. Does God want people to be happy? Sometimes we portray faith as "Be extremely miserable in your self denial and when you die God will give you chocolates and wine."
Oddly enough, I was rereading old journal entries and I have one on joy (I think its actually influenced from John Piper). I'm just going to post it here. But my commentary on it would be that I think the frolic was a prime example of Narnians taking joy in the simple fact that Aslan was with them. That in itself was a reason to be the gayest of all Narnians. (Proper usage fully intended
) Okay, now I wish it had been in the movie."Joy is not the absence of suffering, it is the presence of God. It is the consciousness of the threefold joy of the Lord. His joy in ransoming us. His joy in dwelling within us as our Savior and power for fruitbearing and His joy in possessing us, as His Bride and His delight; it is the consciousness of this joy which is our real strength. Our joy in Him may be a fluctuating thing: His joy in us knows no change.
A tongue filled with laughter and praise is a reflection of a heart filled to overflowing with the joy of the Lord. What a joy it is just to be with someone whose heart is full.
When was the last time you laughed for the sheer joy of your salvation? People are not attracted to somber doctines. There is no persuasive power in a gloomy and morbid religion. Let the world see your joy and you won't be able to keep them away. To be filled with God is to be filled with joy."
You know, i agree with what everyone on here has been saying about being happy, we are meant to be happy, and being happy was not really included in the movie and should have been. And i really love that scene in the books, because it shows that it's not all 'serious' at times, but also happy and joyfull, and 'gay' (if you want it).
But this is one of the parts that does bother me the most, because of the gods of ancient mythologie in it. I mean, no, it doesn't really bother me, but it bothers some people around me, and the keep bugging me with it And i just don't really know how to answer it. They usually get their info from 'heaven is open', which is in my opinion NOT a reliable site at all, and not just because of their Narnia-posts, but also for various other reasons that kind of shows that they don't get some things. But anyway, about halfway through this webpage, it talks about the part with Bachus in PC:
http://www.heavenisopen.com/narnia.html
It talks about how bad it is and how demonic that Bachus was included in Narnia, and when i hear that, i just don't really know how to respond to it. I always say that Lewis included various mythology creatures and such, because he obviously wanted that, and that almost no one has a problem with readin the Iliad and such. But it just doesn't work, and i find it a bit hard. Maybe someone can help me, 'cause i don't really get why Lewis included Bachus and all that
).But this is one of the parts that does bother me the most, because of the gods of ancient mythologie in it. I mean, no, it doesn't really bother me, but it bothers some people around me, and the keep bugging me with it
And i just don't really know how to answer it. They usually get their info from 'heaven is open', which is in my opinion NOT a reliable site at all, and not just because of their Narnia-posts, but also for various other reasons that kind of shows that they don't get some things. But anyway, about halfway through this webpage, it talks about the part with Bachus in PC:http://www.heavenisopen.com/narnia.html
It talks about how bad it is and how demonic that Bachus was included in Narnia, and when i hear that, i just don't really know how to respond to it. I always say that Lewis included various mythology creatures and such, because he obviously wanted that, and that almost no one has a problem with readin the Iliad and such. But it just doesn't work, and i find it a bit hard. Maybe someone can help me, 'cause i don't really get why Lewis included Bachus and all that
I will go out on a limb here. Narnia had the real Bauchus whilst Ancient Greece had a false one, the same way we have the real God of righteousness whilst Ancient Greece had false gods that dallied with buxom farmers' daughters.
There is a scale of reality in force, one mentioned by the Professor at the end of LWW. The Neoplatonic scale by which there is the class (model) and the instance (copy). Things on Earth are slightly weaker instances of the original classes, things in Narnia are closer to the original, more sincere and less tainted by sin and corruption.
By my analogy, beauty on Earth is like a VHS tape made from broadcast TV of a movie, "Modified to fit your screen", blurry and riddled with commercials. Beauty in Narnia during the trials is like DVD. Beauty in Narnia during the Golden Age is like Blu-Ray. Beauty in Heaven is meeting the actors and watching them perform for you, then having them write you into the plot.
There is a scale of reality in force, one mentioned by the Professor at the end of LWW. The Neoplatonic scale by which there is the class (model) and the instance (copy). Things on Earth are slightly weaker instances of the original classes, things in Narnia are closer to the original, more sincere and less tainted by sin and corruption.
By my analogy, beauty on Earth is like a VHS tape made from broadcast TV of a movie, "Modified to fit your screen", blurry and riddled with commercials. Beauty in Narnia during the trials is like DVD. Beauty in Narnia during the Golden Age is like Blu-Ray. Beauty in Heaven is meeting the actors and watching them perform for you, then having them write you into the plot.
That's an interesting observation. It could certainly connect in other ways too. After all, I could do it with Satan.
Bible: Satan can appear beautiful but is a deceiver and evil but powerful for a time
Narnia: The white witch is beautiful (as are many of the evil ones in Narnia) and seen ultimately as evil. She holds a limited power for a time.
Earth: People come and go so fast we forget to focus on the evil behind the bad. We only see bad humans and then try to justify how they got there, rather than recognizing evil for what it is.
I like that insight, I really do. The Bacchus thing has always bugged me a bit too, Lieke. This idea definitely helps.
Bible: Satan can appear beautiful but is a deceiver and evil but powerful for a time
Narnia: The white witch is beautiful (as are many of the evil ones in Narnia) and seen ultimately as evil. She holds a limited power for a time.
Earth: People come and go so fast we forget to focus on the evil behind the bad. We only see bad humans and then try to justify how they got there, rather than recognizing evil for what it is.
I like that insight, I really do.
The Bacchus thing has always bugged me a bit too, Lieke. This idea definitely helps.