It was never my intention to create or perpetuate a straw man.

Even in the title of the post, I acknowledged that Greydanus found it entertaining. And you’re right that he points out places in which the film improves upon the book, insofar as it makes the plot more compelling.

But it’s a strong statement to say: “while the essence of Lewis’s plot is preserved, the themes and ideas behind the story are largely lost.” And he makes that argument persuasively, I think.

Can I use html here? Well, I guess we’ll find out.

For better and for worse — and it’s quite a bit of both — the big-screen Prince Caspian takes far more creative license than its predecessor. There is definitely an up side: Not only is Caspian a better-made film, in some ways it manages to improve on Lewis’s plot without violating its spirit.

My reading of that (and the rest of the review) is that it isn’t a full stop bad adaptation; there are lots of thematic elements that get lost in the translation, but it is much more nuanced that saying that “it is not a good adaptation of the book”. That it stays true to the “plot” (at least) of the book. It has mixed results, with the spiritual elements often being the ones to fall by the wayside, but it still has laudable elements.

I haven’t seen the movie (am just reading the book with my daughter in the hopes that I can see it when it comes to Dawson Creek), so this is not my personal view of the film, just of what Steven said.

Sorry. Let’s put that in a manner you’re more used to:

Heathen reviewer!!!! Gah!!!

I do look forward to seeing it, because even cracked vessels can still bear water. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds profound.

Penn said it was impossible to separate film from politics, and promised that the winning film would be a reflection of the current climate.

That’s somewhat stronger language than “demanding that a filmmaker be ‘very aware of the times in which he or she lives’”.

But I will miss the school trashings.

I certainly didn’t intend a “strawman-bashing party.”

I was simply worried about Penn’s statement, based on the context of his usual commentary.

It sounds (at least to me) like he’s already looking for a particular kind of film, and that makes me wonder if he’s capable of being surprised by something timeless rather than timely.

Being very familiar with how regularly Penn speaks out about specific political convictions, this statement makes it sound like he’s looking for something that aligns with those.

Perhaps I’m just being too presumptuous. And perhaps Citizen Kane was a bad example. (I only grabbed it to represent a masterpiece, the most obvious example. Try Babette’s Feast instead.)

But when I go to a work of art, the question Penn leads with is not at all the question foremost on my mind. I’m more interested in beauty and truth on a timeless scale, not regarding how it lines up with any particular political climate. The brilliance of artists like Ceylan resides in how their work is both particular and timeless, speaking to all generations through the specificity of an exact place and time.

Again, perhaps I’m reading too much into Penn’s words. I’m actually a fan — I was surprised by the powerful second half of Into the Wild; I’m one of the few people I know who remember and enjoyed The Pledge; and Penn’s performance in Dead Man Walking still haunts me. But his frequent political commentary inclined me to interpret him the way that I did.

Jeffrey, Citizen Kane is a “timeless” work of art, but it was also very much “of its time” when it was released in 1941. Ceylan, to use another of your recent examples, will not give us a film about the White House, but he’s surely a brilliant interpreter of our times. I’m especially excited to see Apitchatpong Weeresethakul on the jury.

Heck, if you want to see some quality Bush-bashing, check out the RNC’s response to their loss of another seat in Congress.