some movie.
i've watched narnia. C=
it was good.
i cld go on in a most unstructured, unobjective, incoherent manner, but i'd prefer to do that audibly.
but basically character development was good. the little added prelude was good grounds to set the tone for their relationship thru-out the entire film, and the entire chronicles itself later. actors chosen was good too, cuz the four children really looked the part and cld well act the part, except arguably susan, who did the whole professional-woman thing really well, and there came a part where she was supposed to be crying and stuff (the lion's erm, crucifixion. and when he ressurected) she was supposed to be excited, joyous, happy and stuff, and well, it didnt work la. it just didnt work. but other than that, the characters took on a very simple, streo-type of character, as it is intended int he book. which is good, becuase with four characters, you dont want to make each one of them overly-sophisticated. they are after-all children, tho these charactersitics still aply to people of all ages. the effect is actually quite brilliant, cuz with four very differnt diverse characters, that all fit into the different scenarios, it leaves the readers/viewers to identify with each one of them of different proportions. its almost like a personality test, where we are actually a bit of all the personalities, what matters is how much. and even than, all their characters were not as straight-forward as to be summed up in a phrase or two.
edmund for example had to play the multi-dimensional role of being the one who refused to submission, yet inherently good-natured (which was apprent at teh beginning, but was flashed out while trying to save his brothers life and almost sacrificed his own intrying to do so). at one point of time, he looked almost angry, resentful, and he knew he was wrong (he never contended with that) and consequently, a little remoreful. towards the end of the story, the ratio between the two shifted from one end to another. i think its the eyes. and eyebrowns. he's got nice eyes.
Peter's character is simpler, but identifiable to as well. the one who holds responsibility not because he wants to, but because he was given it either outright, or through obligation as the eldest of the family. in contrast to edmund, he has less of an ego problem and comes across as objective (e.g. agreeing with susan after the line she nicely and sacarstically put it "that was well handled" and he didnt let the emotional side of him react in defense to the emotional attack.) of course, in contrast to edmund, he is usually wide-eyed, eye-browns lifted, has no freckles, and has lighter hair, which makes him alot more obedient looking, therfore when he raises his head, it doesnt produce the natural effect of trying to impose authority, but accepting his status of authority, even though he may feel inadequate at times. perhaps, its the factor of bordering unbearble pressure that makes it seem so.
i think the book never inteneded peter and susan to have a narrower age gap as comapred to susan and edmund, which the film showed thru means of hieght. (altho edmund looked taller than he did in certain scenes) but this effectively coupled peter and susan together, apart from the other two. but because susan hasn't been given the kind responsibility peter has, she almost looks as though she is fighting for power, of course thru subtle means. she is second oldest, and peter never orders her around, but interestingly enough, she is usually the one who will disagree with peter in an almost condencending kind of way (blaming him for losing lucy?), also leaving out the younger siblings in the discussion. she seems to want to have power because she thinks she can do a better job than peter, and yet, she doesnt seem to want the responsibility. for example the instance when she contended on the way peter handled lucy's story on the wardrobe saying "that was well handled" she immediatly walked off, giving her no sense of closure, and leaving peter to do it. (altho he just merely said the same thing in a different tone) its almost like a common phase where we're trying to grow up and we do so by using logic to explain everything, and believing everything should be logical. but being logical in itself is not a bad thing. i guess this was best flashed out when she was arguing for an alternative plan. "i'm trying to be reasonable", of which peter responded "no, you're trying to be smart" which also helped to add a few laughs to the moment. at this point, it was evident that susan was clearly not half as objective as peter. she was either using logic to put peter down (and thru perception, establish attain more weight) or she was trying to be all grownup and adding logic, not because the situation calls for it, but for the sake of having logic itself. (or because she likes the image) and this immediately causes a knee-jerk action, because everyone knows that logic is not the end of itself, but a means to an end, an end, susan did not have. however, this knee-jerk reaction is not rationalised by the viewers, but is derived from the tone of her voice. whether or not she was trying to be objective is not a key question, but whether she appeared objective is, and in this case, she failed.
in the midst of all this trying to be grownup and all, i think cs lewis was also trying to show that she had a non-logical, emotional, softer side to her. i cant really remember, but whatever it is, it sure didnt come out well. the part when the stone table broke, and they turned around shouting aslan with the nice morning sun rising behind them, just cheesy. for a few reasosns. but nevermind that. the main reason why i think cs lewis wanted this is primarily because of the scene when lucy and susan were playing around in the river and susan apologised for something (i think it was for not being such a contrarist) she said something like, 'we used to have fun together right?' 'ya, before you got boring' and she gave this sorta grin, eyes smaller by a bit, and it wasnt as glaring a contrast as the one at alsan's ressurection, because it mantained the part of her that looked grownup, but yet she still participated in the childlike activities lucy would have like splashing water at each other. which does go to show that you can be grownup, mature, and still have fun.
lucy, is to put it simply and probably most accurately, cute. she is by far the smallest thing in the movie, and the way she runs up to people and gives them random hugs, tho she can never reach beyond their waists is just adorable. she's acting cute yes, for her age and her smile, thats charming, she can pull it off. my guess is that the main reason why it works so well, is because it is consistant in her nature to be like that. the way she's still unexposed to the world, trusting, and what we normally call niave (altho she is unfailingly right) the epitome of our emotional side. which is why she doesnt just treat aslan as a king, or councilor or someone to have confidence in, but draws up to him as a friend, and that is probably what draws him to her. (which wasnt highlighted in the movie as much as the book, or maybe it will be in the later books) unlike the rest, she doesnt question their calling into narnia, but just believes and accepts them as truths and sees the most basic need of helping her friend of a fawn.
so we have four characters, one who has the burden of responsibility and tries his best to cope with it, another who thinks she can take the responsibility better because she thinks she's grown up and has the logic to deal with, another who resents his brother's responsibility, doesnt care much abt it, and just wants to do his own thing, and one who simply couldnt care less about it, because she just wants to help (contribute, not lead) the situation.
i think while in leadership, we sometimes can be a peter, and we also can be a susan. and while under leadership, we can either be susan, or edmund. or optimistically, the changed edmund or the lucy. but thats just on the level of leadership.
i thought, true to the movie's atmosphere, the music ran to a complete parrallel. i will personally purchase the sound track sometime in my lifetime. its not just good (well, its brilliant) but it really carried the mood. just for example, in the game of hide and seek, when lucy found the wardrobe, how the music stopped on the note and faded into another, more mystically tuned and instrumented meoldy. humour was also appropriate for different reasons. it wasnt just good (my, the sacarsm) but it was apt in each situation, for different reasons. it made edmund look playful in front of the witch, which allowed the witch to scream causing contrast in terms of tone of voice, edmund's expression, and the conflict of sound between the audience's laughter and her high shrieking voice.
another deivce employed was consistancy of themes. the way the image of images dancing in the fawn's fire and how lucy stared at the candle light flicker, how the four children entered the wardrobe in exactly the same way they exited gave the whole story a very complete sense of closure. besides the fact that this feels very nice, i dont know how it actually contributes to the aims of the film. and speaking of which i thought they did aslan well. a commanding presence, partially built up by the stories of him before he appeared, partially because of the things he did and said (e.g. follow them, he'll lead you to edmund), partially because of the good graphics. and even though he has such an almighty awe-inducing area-of-effect aura, its not imposing at the same time. i guess this has point has purpose tho.
oh and the jokes we added were quite funny too. 'backdoor the frozen throne'. hahahaha.
speaking of which, the battle almost seemed modelled after lotr. a large part of the good guys being centaurs, to look like horses, bad guys looking like orcs, and the nice white unicorn infront. i think they shld have muted peter's war cry tho.
well, there's alot more points and supporting details, but i'm not the lit student that can elucidate them that well. i think all in all, there were flaws. a number (like peter drawing his sword in such dissensitising quantities, groan). but they were largely peripheral, and thus not very consequential. i'd give it a higher rating than the papers.
bla. in the end, i'm still as unstructured, unobjective and incoherent as i feaered i might be. oh well. i cld've been worse.
it was good.
i cld go on in a most unstructured, unobjective, incoherent manner, but i'd prefer to do that audibly.
but basically character development was good. the little added prelude was good grounds to set the tone for their relationship thru-out the entire film, and the entire chronicles itself later. actors chosen was good too, cuz the four children really looked the part and cld well act the part, except arguably susan, who did the whole professional-woman thing really well, and there came a part where she was supposed to be crying and stuff (the lion's erm, crucifixion. and when he ressurected) she was supposed to be excited, joyous, happy and stuff, and well, it didnt work la. it just didnt work. but other than that, the characters took on a very simple, streo-type of character, as it is intended int he book. which is good, becuase with four characters, you dont want to make each one of them overly-sophisticated. they are after-all children, tho these charactersitics still aply to people of all ages. the effect is actually quite brilliant, cuz with four very differnt diverse characters, that all fit into the different scenarios, it leaves the readers/viewers to identify with each one of them of different proportions. its almost like a personality test, where we are actually a bit of all the personalities, what matters is how much. and even than, all their characters were not as straight-forward as to be summed up in a phrase or two.
edmund for example had to play the multi-dimensional role of being the one who refused to submission, yet inherently good-natured (which was apprent at teh beginning, but was flashed out while trying to save his brothers life and almost sacrificed his own intrying to do so). at one point of time, he looked almost angry, resentful, and he knew he was wrong (he never contended with that) and consequently, a little remoreful. towards the end of the story, the ratio between the two shifted from one end to another. i think its the eyes. and eyebrowns. he's got nice eyes.
Peter's character is simpler, but identifiable to as well. the one who holds responsibility not because he wants to, but because he was given it either outright, or through obligation as the eldest of the family. in contrast to edmund, he has less of an ego problem and comes across as objective (e.g. agreeing with susan after the line she nicely and sacarstically put it "that was well handled" and he didnt let the emotional side of him react in defense to the emotional attack.) of course, in contrast to edmund, he is usually wide-eyed, eye-browns lifted, has no freckles, and has lighter hair, which makes him alot more obedient looking, therfore when he raises his head, it doesnt produce the natural effect of trying to impose authority, but accepting his status of authority, even though he may feel inadequate at times. perhaps, its the factor of bordering unbearble pressure that makes it seem so.
i think the book never inteneded peter and susan to have a narrower age gap as comapred to susan and edmund, which the film showed thru means of hieght. (altho edmund looked taller than he did in certain scenes) but this effectively coupled peter and susan together, apart from the other two. but because susan hasn't been given the kind responsibility peter has, she almost looks as though she is fighting for power, of course thru subtle means. she is second oldest, and peter never orders her around, but interestingly enough, she is usually the one who will disagree with peter in an almost condencending kind of way (blaming him for losing lucy?), also leaving out the younger siblings in the discussion. she seems to want to have power because she thinks she can do a better job than peter, and yet, she doesnt seem to want the responsibility. for example the instance when she contended on the way peter handled lucy's story on the wardrobe saying "that was well handled" she immediatly walked off, giving her no sense of closure, and leaving peter to do it. (altho he just merely said the same thing in a different tone) its almost like a common phase where we're trying to grow up and we do so by using logic to explain everything, and believing everything should be logical. but being logical in itself is not a bad thing. i guess this was best flashed out when she was arguing for an alternative plan. "i'm trying to be reasonable", of which peter responded "no, you're trying to be smart" which also helped to add a few laughs to the moment. at this point, it was evident that susan was clearly not half as objective as peter. she was either using logic to put peter down (and thru perception, establish attain more weight) or she was trying to be all grownup and adding logic, not because the situation calls for it, but for the sake of having logic itself. (or because she likes the image) and this immediately causes a knee-jerk action, because everyone knows that logic is not the end of itself, but a means to an end, an end, susan did not have. however, this knee-jerk reaction is not rationalised by the viewers, but is derived from the tone of her voice. whether or not she was trying to be objective is not a key question, but whether she appeared objective is, and in this case, she failed.
in the midst of all this trying to be grownup and all, i think cs lewis was also trying to show that she had a non-logical, emotional, softer side to her. i cant really remember, but whatever it is, it sure didnt come out well. the part when the stone table broke, and they turned around shouting aslan with the nice morning sun rising behind them, just cheesy. for a few reasosns. but nevermind that. the main reason why i think cs lewis wanted this is primarily because of the scene when lucy and susan were playing around in the river and susan apologised for something (i think it was for not being such a contrarist) she said something like, 'we used to have fun together right?' 'ya, before you got boring' and she gave this sorta grin, eyes smaller by a bit, and it wasnt as glaring a contrast as the one at alsan's ressurection, because it mantained the part of her that looked grownup, but yet she still participated in the childlike activities lucy would have like splashing water at each other. which does go to show that you can be grownup, mature, and still have fun.
lucy, is to put it simply and probably most accurately, cute. she is by far the smallest thing in the movie, and the way she runs up to people and gives them random hugs, tho she can never reach beyond their waists is just adorable. she's acting cute yes, for her age and her smile, thats charming, she can pull it off. my guess is that the main reason why it works so well, is because it is consistant in her nature to be like that. the way she's still unexposed to the world, trusting, and what we normally call niave (altho she is unfailingly right) the epitome of our emotional side. which is why she doesnt just treat aslan as a king, or councilor or someone to have confidence in, but draws up to him as a friend, and that is probably what draws him to her. (which wasnt highlighted in the movie as much as the book, or maybe it will be in the later books) unlike the rest, she doesnt question their calling into narnia, but just believes and accepts them as truths and sees the most basic need of helping her friend of a fawn.
so we have four characters, one who has the burden of responsibility and tries his best to cope with it, another who thinks she can take the responsibility better because she thinks she's grown up and has the logic to deal with, another who resents his brother's responsibility, doesnt care much abt it, and just wants to do his own thing, and one who simply couldnt care less about it, because she just wants to help (contribute, not lead) the situation.
i think while in leadership, we sometimes can be a peter, and we also can be a susan. and while under leadership, we can either be susan, or edmund. or optimistically, the changed edmund or the lucy. but thats just on the level of leadership.
i thought, true to the movie's atmosphere, the music ran to a complete parrallel. i will personally purchase the sound track sometime in my lifetime. its not just good (well, its brilliant) but it really carried the mood. just for example, in the game of hide and seek, when lucy found the wardrobe, how the music stopped on the note and faded into another, more mystically tuned and instrumented meoldy. humour was also appropriate for different reasons. it wasnt just good (my, the sacarsm) but it was apt in each situation, for different reasons. it made edmund look playful in front of the witch, which allowed the witch to scream causing contrast in terms of tone of voice, edmund's expression, and the conflict of sound between the audience's laughter and her high shrieking voice.
another deivce employed was consistancy of themes. the way the image of images dancing in the fawn's fire and how lucy stared at the candle light flicker, how the four children entered the wardrobe in exactly the same way they exited gave the whole story a very complete sense of closure. besides the fact that this feels very nice, i dont know how it actually contributes to the aims of the film. and speaking of which i thought they did aslan well. a commanding presence, partially built up by the stories of him before he appeared, partially because of the things he did and said (e.g. follow them, he'll lead you to edmund), partially because of the good graphics. and even though he has such an almighty awe-inducing area-of-effect aura, its not imposing at the same time. i guess this has point has purpose tho.
oh and the jokes we added were quite funny too. 'backdoor the frozen throne'. hahahaha.
speaking of which, the battle almost seemed modelled after lotr. a large part of the good guys being centaurs, to look like horses, bad guys looking like orcs, and the nice white unicorn infront. i think they shld have muted peter's war cry tho.
well, there's alot more points and supporting details, but i'm not the lit student that can elucidate them that well. i think all in all, there were flaws. a number (like peter drawing his sword in such dissensitising quantities, groan). but they were largely peripheral, and thus not very consequential. i'd give it a higher rating than the papers.
bla. in the end, i'm still as unstructured, unobjective and incoherent as i feaered i might be. oh well. i cld've been worse.