Where the film improved on the book (spoilers)

PrinceOfTheWest

PrinceOfTheWest

Knight of the Stone Table
Royal Guard
Emeritus
Since I'm known as such a Narnia purist around here, I figured it was safe for me to start a thread like this. The books are part of my life to such a degree that it's almost inappropriate to call me merely a "fan" ("fanatic" would be closer). But in my opinion the film version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader hewed so closely to the spirit of the story that they actually did some things better than the book. I remain a firm fan of the books, but it would be unjust of me not to recognize the great job the screenwriters and director did in translating the story to the screen - especially when I've been so fiercely critical at other points. These are my thoughts on the topic; I welcome feedback, as well as others adding points they appreciated about the film
 
The development of Edmund

One of the shortcomings of the book (yes, I actually said that) is that once the travelers fall through the picture frame, Edmund nearly vanishes. He gets a few lines here and there, but the main thrust of the story is about Caspian (the Lone Islands, Ramandu's Island), Eustace (Dragon Island), and Lucy (the Island of the Dufflepuds). Edmund serves as the person to whom Eustace tells the story of his un-dragoning, and has that little dust-up with Caspian on Deathwater, but other than that is The Missing Character from the story. I don't fault Lewis for this - the book was short, and there's only so much you can do with the story without turning it into an epic - but Edmund's nearly invisible state is a loss.

Clearly the screenwriters had to do something about this. They couldn't waste an established and beloved actor like Skandar, so they had to play up Edmund's role more than the book had. I think they did an excellent job. To me, it seemed Edmund played just the right amount of role, and in just the right manner. His character was consistent and well developed, and the film struck a good balance between him, Lucy, Caspian, and Eustace. Even his spat with Caspian at Deathwater Pool was consonant with the theme in the book, for there was a curse on that water (come to think of it, maybe that's where the screenwriters got the idea for the green mist.)

Even in scenes that were totally new in the film, such as the fight against the sea serpent, Edmund was written and played consistently with the story as written. I thought the portrayal of his and Caspian's relationship was very well balanced and realistic. The screenwriters and director deserve credit for doing a good job weaving in and fleshing out the Edmund in a way the book did not.
 
I thought that Lucy and the beauty spell was an improvement. I like how it is in the book, but it was even more meaningful how they did it in the movie. :)
 
The fall of Lucy

I know this is under dispute elsewhere, but I think the film did a magnificent job of portraying the Fall of Lucy with the spell of Beauty Beyond the Lot of Mortals. This was difficult, because in the book this is an extremely significant incident, the importance of which escapes most readers. If you read the account carefully and ponder its implications, you realize that Lucy was willing to lay waste the Narnian world by saying the spell. From the pictures on the page, she knew the devastation that would result if she said the spell, but she wilfully set her teeth and was prepared to say it anyway. Only the direct and miraculous intervention of Aslan prevented her - and even then her petulance about not being allowed to say it resulted in her saying the Eavesdropping Spell.

The significance of this incident is hard to overstate. Every human who comes to Narnia falls at some point (with the exceptions of Peter and Polly Plummer - and Polly has a bit part.) Edmund's treason, Eustace's petulant selfishness, Jill's pride at the cliff edge, Digory's willfullness in the Hall of Images at Charn - everybody falls. Lucy's fall came here, standing at the reading podium in Coriakin's house. Lewis clearly implies that it is her envy over Susan's beauty which causes her rebellion. There was probably more involved - like most young girls Lucy probably admired many beautiful women - but as her sister, Susan would have been a focal point of Lucy's dissatisfaction.

The screenwriters had a task with this one. Books have a narrative voice, so Lewis could describe what Lucy was seeing in the pictures on the page, allowing the reader to understand the situation. Films have no such device. They must rely on dialogue and images, and have very tight time constraints. I think that an attempt to directly translate what Lucy saw on the page in the book - i.e. the devastation of the Narnian world - would have been confusing and distracting. Also, the appearance of Aslan's face on the page would have mystified people, and the message would have been lost.

I think the modifications made by the screenwriters beautifully captured the heart of Lucy's rebellion without violating the core of the story. Her tearing out the page and tucking it under her tunic, then getting it out and reading it later, told the tale very effectively. The scene in the mirror where she is rewarded by "becoming" Susan, followed by the nightmare of realizing that she had "wished herself away", was very powerful. Lucy found that (to use Aslan's words), "all get what they wish, but they do not always like it."

I think the film made good use of the screen's ability to leverage ambiguity. There is no question that Lucy said the spell, and consequences followed. Aslan said as much, confronting her frankly with her deed ("What have you done, child?") Lucy must acknowledge and repent of what she has done. Then she "wakes up", and we're left unclear about whether the whole thing had been a nightmare, or if Aslan had somehow undone the consequences of Lucy's rebellion.

The critique has been made that Aslan's rebuke of Lucy was couched in the pop-psych jargon of self-esteem, and I think there's validity to this criticism. Yes, the gravity of Lucy's rebellion was much more severe when it was clear that people would die and nations be destroyed as a consequence of her disobedience. But given the limits of film, and how the screenwriters recast the incident, I think Aslan's response was the best that could be done. After all, the "wishing oneself away" is not just a personal unpleasantness, but a grave sin. All in all, I think the film accurately and potently portrayed the fact that Lucy did wrong, knew she was doing wrong, and was reprimanded by Aslan for her disobedience.

One thing I wish could happen: on the page in the book that "showed" Lucy with Susan's face, if the titles "Vogue" or "Cosmopolitan" or "marie claire" could be superimposed on the mirror, that would really drive the message home. Despite the blather about valuing yourself and having high self-esteem, the real message sent to young women in our culture by such media is that they are not satisfactory, that they should envy the beauty and glamour of others, and they should try to become someone they're not. They are told to "wish themselves away".
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
One of the shortcomings of the book (yes, I actually said that) is that once the travelers fall through the picture frame, Edmund nearly vanishes. He gets a few lines here and there, but the main thrust of the story is about Caspian (the Lone Islands, Ramandu's Island), Eustace (Dragon Island), and Lucy (the Island of the Dufflepuds). Edmund serves as the person to whom Eustace tells the story of his un-dragoning, and has that little dust-up with Caspian on Deathwater, but other than that is The Missing Character from the story. I don't fault Lewis for this - the book was short, and there's only so much you can do with the story without turning it into an epic - but Edmund's nearly invisible state is a loss.

Clearly the screenwriters had to do something about this. They couldn't waste an established and beloved actor like Skandar, so they had to play up Edmund's role more than the book had. I think they did an excellent job. To me, it seemed Edmund played just the right amount of role, and in just the right manner. His character was consistent and well developed, and the film struck a good balance between him, Lucy, Caspian, and Eustace. Even his spat with Caspian at Deathwater Pool was consonant with the theme in the book, for there was a curse on that water (come to think of it, maybe that's where the screenwriters got the idea for the green mist.)

Even in scenes that were totally new in the film, such as the fight against the sea serpent, Edmund was written and played consistently with the story as written. I thought the portrayal of his and Caspian's relationship was very well balanced and realistic. The screenwriters and director deserve credit for doing a good job weaving in and fleshing out the Edmund in a way the book did not.
Click to expand...

I agree! The Deathwater scene was very well done. And the sea serpent scene was much more cinematic once they changed it. In the book, they pushed it over and off the ship. In the movie, they actually had a battle! :D
 
I agree about Edmund's role, and about Lucy's struggle. Paul (Specter) raised the point in another thread that if the film had somehow been able to show Lucy beautiful beyond the lot of mortals with all those wars being fought for her, it would have forced comparisons to Galadriel's declaration in LOTR that in place a a Dark Lord they would have a queen, beautiful and terrible "All will look on me and despair!" I think that's true; the similarities would have been quite strong. The way they handed this in the film worked well ... although it did not have the emotion that I've attached in my lifetime to that part of the book.
 
inkspot said:
I agree about Edmund's role, and about Lucy's struggle. Paul (Specter) raised the point in another thread that if the film had somehow been able to show Lucy beautiful beyond the lot of mortals with all those wars being fought for her, it would have forced comparisons to Galadriel's declaration in LOTR that in place a a Dark Lord they would have a queen, beautiful and terrible "All will look on me and despair!" I think that's true; the similarities would have been quite strong. The way they handed this in the film worked well ... although it did not have the emotion that I've attached in my lifetime to that part of the book.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes! Exactly!!! I agree with all that both of you have said!!!
 
I hadn't thought about the Dawn Treader book sidelining Edmund until I saw POTW's remarks on this. It is ironic that the film (while I agree that it handled Edmund well) left out one thing of significance that Edmund had been allowed to do in the book: telling Eustace, "You were only a brat, I was a traitor." This would have been a good thing to keep.

In other ways, though, the Dawn Treader movie scores points for maintaining a strong sense of continuity with the entire saga--an important thing to do, when the physical setting of action is completely removed from anything in the preceding novels. For instance, it was a nice touch for Caspian to have kept Edmund's flashlight in case Edmund ever came back for it.
 
I agree, CF - I was hoping he'd say that line when they were rowing in the boat, but they softened it to "you were a pretty good dragon." And Edmund could have said something other than "you were just an ass" (which has different connotations to today's audience than it did in England at that time). He could have said "you were a jerk", or something. But Edmund missing the opportunity to identify himself as a sinner was one of the weaknesses of the film - but a minor one.
 
I definitely agree with your thoughts on Edmund, POTW. He is one of my favorite characters in the book series and I was very pleased with what was done with his character in VDT. :) When reading the book, I had always wished that C.S. Lewis would have covered his character a bit more. The movie did this and that may be one of the large reasons I was so happy with it. :D It was certainly my favorite change from page to screen.

However, it is a shame that his dialogue between Eustace was cut. I always loved that section in the book. That being said, having Edmund's character more involved was a really wonderful improvement, despite this minor leave out.
 
Last edited:
In an oddly almost-frightening way, the movie picked up an idea I spread around the forum. The idea that the different adventures purged them of certain sins that stood between them and being able to come face to face with Aslan's Country. When I saw that, I rejoiced exceedingly.

The movie had to get weeks and weeks of travel in two hours. It did this without drastically rushing things. Rather, it combined things and simply did more with less.

Eustace was SPECTACULAR. He was, methinks, the best actor in the entire film.

I rather like that Caspian, rather than being bullied by Aslan into going home, came -----> that close <------ to going through the wall of water, only to decide that you can't run away from your responsibilities.

Reepicheep was amazing. I so loved the way he slept on the beach in a little curl. And when Lucy hugged him...my oh my!

This film rocks and rolls.

That being said, it was disappointing that they wouldn't let me bring my own nuts and berries into the theater. Luckily they didn't discover the smoked salmon that I tucked into my cap.
 
If they HAD noticed your smoked salmon, they would have made you hand it over to Rhince, to supplement the meager amount of food he was able to find on the island of cursed treasures.

Speaking of Rhince, and thus of the entire Narrowhaven population in the movie: although the bluff staged by Caspian and Bern in the book worked as a way to overturn the slavetrading establishment, it WAS good to see the slavers getting their butts kicked in the movie--and good to see the Narrowhaven citizens joining in the action.
 
EveningStar said:
I rather like that Caspian, rather than being bullied by Aslan into going home, came -----> that close <------ to going through the wall of water, only to decide that you can't run away from your responsibilities.
Click to expand...
"being bullied by Aslan", indeed, Stripey One! Being reminded, however firmly, of the responsibilities you took an oath to discharge is not "being bullied", but being recalled to your duties. This is Narnia, not the competition for the Do Your Own Thing trophy during Self Esteem Week at Camp Letsbenice. Here we bow down to Aslan, not the false god of radical individualism. We understand our lives in terms of service to others, not doing what we wish in a self-centered quest for "fulfillment".
 
That was the short version that lacks the clarifying fine print. I did not mean to make out Aslan as a ruffian. :D
 
I didn't know they let badgers into theaters. ;)

Anyway, I really liked the review, and agreed with everything! Especially what you said about Caspian. That made up for him going to the beach. The same end was accomplished.
 
The relationship between Reepicheep and Eustace

I think the film makers hit a grand slam with their portrayal of the relationship between Reepicheep and Eustace. Again, given the shortness of the book, Lewis didn't have time to flesh out all the subtleties and nuances of the relationship between the noble mouse and the brat. We get hints of it with the three major incidents: Eustace's tail-pulling prank which got him seriously reprimanded by Reep, the time Reep caught Eustace trying to steal water after the storm, and how Reep kept the dragon Eustace company. Beyond that, we're left to guess. We know that Eustace personified the kind of petulant immaturity that someone like Reepicheep would loathe. But we also know that Reep was as just as he was noble, and would have been able to recognize, as well as learn from the Pevensies, that Eustace "never had no bringin's up", and he was more to be pitied than censured. Not that it would have changed Reep's treatment of Eustace - some kinds of immaturity need a firm hand, and Reep would have known just what to do.

I think the screenwriters did a tremendous job of understanding this dynamic and portraying it on the screen. The pivotal scene was the duel, which was a conflation of the tail-pulling and the theft. In the book the duel was mentioned but didn't actually happen, but I think the film pulled it off beautifully. Reepicheep's character and intentions were perfectly portrayed: he knew he had nothing to fear from Eustace, but the lad had much to learn from him. His challenging, taunting instructions, and encouragement were intended to goad Eustace to rise above his pettiness and cowardice and put forth a real effort. Notice Reepicheep never demeaned Eustace - everything he said, even if it stung, was intended to call Eustace to be better at what he was doing, even if it was just wildly swinging a kitchen knife around. Reep's comment at the end of the duel betrayed his real intentions: "I'll make a swordsman of you yet." Even though he couldn't stand Eustace's actions and personality, he was willing to undertake the training that the lad so badly needed.

Of course the film portrayed Reepicheep comforting the dragon Eustace on the beach with great faithfulness to the book. And when Eustace the Dragon flew beyond the island (which, of course, didn't happen in the book), I think the portrayal of Reepicheep as his constant companion was very much in line with what Reep would have done. And in the battle against the sea serpent, Reep was like a Good Angel on Eustace's shoulder, shouting encouragement and reassurance. When Eustace grew frightened and would have flown away, it was Reep who upbraided him. "You're a dragon! You've got skin like chain mail! You can breathe fire!" What we caught hints of during the duel was in full display during the battle: Reepicheep the Knight was calling Eustace to rise above everything that limited him and do the noble deed the situation called for. They attacked the monster as a team, and Eustace acquitted himself with distinction, thanks to Reepicheep's confidence that he could.

I think Lewis would have been delighted at this portrayal of both characters. It was very consistent with them both, and beautifully portrayed on the screen. The screenwriters and director deserve applause for the wonderful job they did with this portion of the film.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
I think the film makers hit a grand slam with their portrayal of the relationship between Reepicheep and Eustace. Again, given the shortness of the book, Lewis didn't have time to flesh out all the subtleties and nuances of the relationship between the noble mouse and the brat. We get hints of it with the three major incidents: Eustace's tail-pulling prank which got him seriously reprimanded by Reep, the time Reep caught Eustace trying to steal water after the storm, and how Reep kept the dragon Eustace company. Beyond that, we're left to guess. We know that Eustace personified the kind of petulant immaturity that someone like Reepicheep would loathe. But we also know that Reep was as just as he was noble, and would have been able to recognize, as well as learn from the Pevensies, that Eustace "never had no bringin's up", and he was more to be pitied than censured. Not that it would have changed Reep's treatment of Eustace - some kinds of immaturity need a firm hand, and Reep would have known just what to do.

I think the screenwriters did a tremendous job of understanding this dynamic and portraying it on the screen. The pivotal scene was the duel, which was a conflation of the tail-pulling and the theft. In the book the duel was mentioned but didn't actually happen, but I think the film pulled it off beautifully. Reepicheep's character and intentions were perfectly portrayed: he knew he had nothing to fear from Eustace, but the lad had much to learn from him. His challenging, taunting instructions, and encouragement were intended to goad Eustace to rise above his pettiness and cowardice and put forth a real effort. Notice Reepicheep never demeaned Eustace - everything he said, even if it stung, was intended to call Eustace to be better at what he was doing, even if it was just wildly swinging a kitchen knife around. Reep's comment at the end of the duel betrayed his real intentions: "I'll make a swordsman of you yet." Even though he couldn't stand Eustace's actions and personality, he was willing to undertake the training that the lad so badly needed.

Of course the film portrayed Reepicheep comforting the dragon Eustace on the beach with great faithfulness to the book. And when Eustace the Dragon flew beyond the island (which, of course, didn't happen in the book), I think the portrayal of Reepicheep as his constant companion was very much in line with what Reep would have done. And in the battle against the sea serpent, Reep was like a Good Angel on Eustace's shoulder, shouting encouragement and reassurance. When Eustace grew frightened and would have flown away, it was Reep who upbraided him. "You're a dragon! You've got skin like chain mail! You can breathe fire!" What we caught hints of during the duel was in full display during the battle: Reepicheep the Knight was calling Eustace to rise above everything that limited him and do the noble deed the situation called for. They attacked the monster as a team, and Eustace acquitted himself with distinction, thanks to Reepicheep's confidence that he could.

I think Lewis would have been delighted at this portrayal of both characters. It was very consistent with them both, and beautifully portrayed on the screen. The screenwriters and director deserve applause for the wonderful job they did with this portion of the film.
Click to expand...
You're right! I really appreciated all of those things. I had always wished that there had been a duel in the book, so I enjoyed that. :D Reep was great in this movie; I am so proud to be his fan! In PC he was kind of rude and sarcastic, but not in VDT. He was so encouraging and kind to Eustace, while still reprimanding him when necessary. The viewer really sympathizes with Eustace when he has to say goodbye to Reep because you see how fond they were of each other.
 
MissReepicheep said:
Reep was great in this movie; I am so proud to be his fan! In PC he was kind of rude and sarcastic, but not in VDT.
Click to expand...

I actually think that was done purposely. He learned his own lessons in PC when he lost his tail. He said that a tail is the honor of a mouse, and obvisouly felt like he was less of a mouse because he lost his tail. Aslan tells him I think you think too much of your honor, but gives him his tail back, "Not for your honor, but for the love of your people." His tail is now a reminder that his pride is nothing. I think that is what shows in his character in VDT.
 
Back
Top