On May 15, 8:10 am, user...@nospam.nul wrote:
> It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
> interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
> is sullen and unpleasant, and Peter (William Moseley), the eldest, is
> pompous. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) was shady last time, but he's learned
> his lesson, so now he's boring. And Lucy (Georgie Henley) is no longer
> a little girl with a cute character face, but a pretty young lady on
> the brink of puberty. As such, she no longer effortlessly embodies
> spiritually gifted innocence.
Only *after* clicking on the link did I learn that except for the use
of Chekhov as a standard of comparison, this has nothing whatever to
do with Star Trek, but has to do with the Narnia sequel now in
theatres.
Except for feeling that the reviewer is being terribly unfair to claim
that a young girl has to make an effort to look innocent when she
hasn't even had her first menses yet, even if it's coming soon, I
*really* am unprepared to make any comment on this. (But then, even an
innocent 4-year-old might have to make an effort to appear
"spiritually gifted", so I might be interpreting the reviewer's words
unfairly.)
Look at the recent controversy over a young actress, for whom puberty
was several years in the past, who recently went to quite some effort
(with help from Annie Liebovitz) to look slightly other than innocent.
If girls that age are expected to look innocent, it is inconsistent to
say that much younger girls need to go to a lot of effort to maintain
the appearance of innocence.
John Savard
Benjamin Pavsn…
Daniel
