Who likes a cold winter? I do. And though I may stand pretty much alone in this, allow me to defend my case: a cold winter is a blessing if only because it comes to an end. Spring’s muddy damp is tolerable because it means relief from hard ground; it promises warm days ahead and then delivers on that promise. A cold winter means that spring, and the ensuing summer, will be a delightful change.
But a cold winter does us another favor, if we will let it. A cold winter is a reality check. Here in the West, home of central air, fast food, and grocery stores proffering more choices than we can comprehend, suffering and discomfort of any kind are difficult to come by. If we try hard enough, we can manage to avoid it completely. Unless, of course, we are forced to confront it via weather.
Adversity is good for us, we know this. We expect it in academics and athletics; we should welcome it in weather. A good cold winter, in all its discomfort, reminds us of our frailty and, perhaps, that we are guests on this planet, subject to authority and control far beyond our reach.
The delightful characters of Lewis’s Narnia have to face this fact every blessed day, and by the time Lucy stumbles into their frosty world, they have been facing it for one hundred years. Whether we are reading the book or watching the film, we feel their pain: winter, ice and snow with no chance of Christmas.
Director Andrew Adamson creates this world beautifully in his cinematic production of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Evergreen trees are enshrouded with snow that lies thick and silent, and Tumnus’s hooves break that wooded silence with a familiar and gentle crunch. An invitation to tea is something we would all warm to; the crackling fire replete with visions of dancing fauns is the perfect response in a Narnian winter landscape.
It is the winter’s absoluteness that makes spring’s return so delightful. The budding green and blooming flowers herald the appearance of Lewis’s magic: water begins to run under the ice, and soon enough nyads and dryads appear in the form of drifting flower petals and water fountains.
The magic accelerates: centaurs charge down hillsides, shocking us with their grace, power and, somehow, familiarity: they look precisely as we imagined they would and yet they amaze us. Peter leads an army of them, with fauns, giants and leopards besides. They charge against ogres, trolls and giants of the unpleasant variety, while overhead griffins screech and soar, fighting for the good guys. The battle and the season work as reversible metaphors: spring’s answer to winter is good’s answer to evil, and the relief and rightness of it all is palpable.
But Lewis and Adamson favor us, too, with that other confrontation: the suffering that comes from facing one’s weakness and failure. Tumnus’s confession to Lucy is one of heart-rending contrition. Cowering on the floor of his home, the fire gone out and the room gone cold, Tumnus agonizes over what he has done in luring Lucy toward likely death at the hands of the White Witch.
My favorite scene is a confrontation of the absolute variety: apparent good facing absolute good. Peter, Susan and Lucy stand facing Aslan, this lion of whom they have heard so much, the one whose coming has melted the Witch’s winter. They seek him because they believe he will help them find their brother. They are drawn to him because they sense something beautiful and good in his very name. They know that Edmund’s disappearance is his own fault; they know that he is a traitor. They have not, at this point, considered themselves his keeper. Rather, they have been annoyed with him and worried, yes, but mostly are looking for him to save his life and to give him a good scolding.
And here Adamson draws from his child-actors a profound moment. One look at Aslan’s face, and the children are individually confronted, not with Edmund’s treason, but with their own. Aslan is interested in Edmund, to be sure, but he is also profoundly interested in his siblings, and this penetrating interest suddenly exposes all of their shame. The children are cold again, chilled to the marrow by their own failure to love. The right to justice dissolves in a deep need for mercy.
Happily for them, and for all of us, mercy runs in Aslan’s blood. The children’s mumbled apologies—a rare cinematic admission of fault—are, of course, accepted.
Yet it is this moment of contrition, just as much as Edmund’s, that makes Aslan’s sacrifice meaningful and essential. And it is this moment that makes the girls’ joy in Aslan’s resurrection that much more real.
We can’t truly know the joy of spring without first confronting winter. More importantly, we can’t know the joy of forgiveness until we have learned to say “I’m sorry.”
Posted by Rebecca Stevenson at January 27, 2006 7:34 AM
One must speculate as to where Karl may have developed these “father-figure” traits that are mentioned. Karl states that he lived in solitude for his childhood, with very little interaction with his parents, especially his father. Obviously, Karl’s parents viewed him as inferior due to his mental handicaps. A childhood of solitude would more than likely deprive Karl of garnering and paternal traits that a father would demonstrate towards a child.
Karl does not specify his current age or his age when he killed his mother and Jesse Dixon. It is only mentioned that Karl has served a seventeen year term at the state hospital. Putting the facts together, one may assume that Karl is presently in his 30s. Once again, going from his solitary childhood to a mental hospital leaves Karl without much influence from a mentally capable role model. In his seventeen years in the hospital, Karl was primarily immersed by others of similar mental capacity and little influence from an authority figure.
The point I argue is that Karl’s role towards Frank is not particularly a paternal one, but rather a role that a friend would play. In fact, Karl often times acts submissive to Frank as well as the other characters. Karl’s social abilities seem to parallel that of Frank, or possibly someone younger. His “fatherly” reprimands seem to be something Karl has gained from his studying of the Bible, or possibly past mistakes, but not necessarily from his father. Why would a negligent father like Karl’s feel a need to reprimand him if he showed no interest in Karl at all?
Karl is rather timid in the face of confrontation. Karl’s immaturity manifests itself as he tells inappropriate jokes (two men on a bridge) while trying to comfort Linda and uses in offensive terms (not funny ha-ha funny queer) when talking to Vaughn. When Doyle is physically and abusing Linda and Frank, Karl remains motionless on the couch. Karl’s actions represent that of a child who does not know better in these situations.
I feel that it is a stretch to call Karl a father figure to Frank. Karl acts towards Frank as a peer, never condescending to Frank and often times submitting to him. The fact that Karl has been deprived of a father figure himself makes it seem unlikely that he would be able to reflect father like qualities on young Frank.
Posted by: Jonah Yearick at December 3, 2006 8:25 PM