Tierras de penumbra

Shadowlands started out as a 1986 BBC television film. Actor Joss Ackland regarded playing CS Lewis as one of his favourite roles.

William Nicholson later adapted his own screenplay for a movie version directed by Richard Attenborough. This was a small chamber piece for a director better known for epics with a cast of thousands.

For Anthony Hopkins it was another opportunity to show he can do subtle and nuance after winning an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs.

Inspired by the true story of dusty dry Oxford academic CS Lewis. Who fell in love with divorced American poet Joy Gresham in 1950s Britain.

It is a story of how a middle aged man, known for his children books. Turned friendship into a marriage of convenience (in order for Joy to remain in Britain.) To romance by which time she is dying of cancer.

Just as Hopkins did in 84 Charing Cross Road. It is a portrait of a hemmed in repressed grey 1950s Britain. In this case the upper echelons of academia which seemed to have been consisted of single old men.

The acting is top notch. The direction is retrained. It's a bit of a tearjerker.

I watched this film as I'm a sucker for weepies. I didn't know that it was about CS Lewis, a little naive, you may say, but I just saw that it had a good rating in the TV guide and so I set the video to record it. I have told my family that I will kill them if they ever record over this film! It is beautiful. No background knowledge of the life of CS Lewis is needed- just sit back and enjoy. Some people may criticise such things as Debra Winger's accent and the fact that Douglas (Joseph Mazzello) should have had a brother in the film, but ignore them and let yourself be submerged in the sheer excellence of the film. The best line, for me, is when Hopkins, as Lewis, is teaching his class and tells them that "The most intense joy lies not in the having, but in the desire. The delight that never fades, the bliss that is eternal, is only yours when what you most desire is just out of reach". It will leave you crying yet contented. Watch this film, but do so with a box of tissues. If you leave the room to get something, you will without fail miss something. Not a moment of this movie must be missed!

C. S. Lewis is making a bit of a comeback with the "Chronicles Of Narnia" movie of late, but here's a film portrait of him made in 1993 starring the great British actor Anthony Hopkins.

To Christians, Lewis has always been a familiar name: one of the greatest and most well-known Christian apologists theologians ("Merre Christianity," "The Screwtape Letters,"etc.) and fiction (the Narnia series) writers of all time. But this film - no surprise - doesn't really deal with that: it's mainly a love story, the love he had toward his American wife, played by Debra Winger.

Being a Brit, the film takes place in England and features some wonderful landscapes of that great country. Hopkins exudes warmth in the role of Lewis and Winger is okay, New York City accent and all, as the American. I would have chosen someone else for the role, but Winger gets by.

Not to be forgotten is the fine job Edward Hardwicke did as "Warnie," Lewis' brother. Joseph Mazzello, one of the top child actors of the early '90s, is the Lewis' young boy. When father and son cry together at the end, it is one of the most touching scenes I've ever viewed on film.

It's a touching story, period, and if it doesn't get your eyes moistened at least once, check your pulse. The dialog in here is excellent, too. I particularly enjoyed the by-play of dry wit between the professors and Winger's various comments to her husband.

Nice films like this are unusual and should be treasured, as Lewis and his works are by so many people, Christian or non-Christian.

Many people seeing this film who are familiar with CS Lewis' writings will be tempted to be disappointed.

They should not be. In defense of this film and the method used to get the results, I have two things to say.

The first, and by far the most important, is that spiritual films are very difficult to make -- especially if one is speaking about something above one's head. That's why the life of Jesus is such a difficult subject and has met with so little success, at least from an artistic point of view.

Even Mel Gibson's Passion suffers from this to some extent. I would say his representation of the Passion reflect more of our times and what we consider to be important than on the ministry of Jesus. I may be wrong; I am not a believer so my opinion may not matter. But what is true is that no matter what your belief, spiritual man (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and others) are very hard to make biographies of. In my opinion what they represented survived not because we have understanding, but because our instincts tell us they are what we should be. It is not a mind thing at all. AND FILMS REQUIRE OUR MINDS, at least to make them. It would take a soul equal to that of Christ to make a film about Christ.

To a far lesser extent, that is true of CS Lewis. His was a very complex theology dressed in wonderful parables. He had a great understanding of the parables and used the same technique. It does little good to discuss his theology in a film that is about 2 hours long. In fact, the viewer is sort of expected to know something about his writings and theology.

Which brings me to my second point. Perhaps it is because I am over 60 and not been brought up on Romances that I find this one so appealing. Here was a man that had lived his entire life one way, mostly in his mind, when he was confronted with feelings that demanded he reinterpret everything he believed. How many of us at his age could do what CS Lewis did?

Here was a man that thought one way and was forced to live another. What the mind is a very poor substitute for what our emotions understand. CS Lewis was very quick, I think, to recognize this and embraced it completely once he found it out.

Douglas Davidman Gresham (Joy Gresham's son), has said that the film is perhaps not completely factually correct, but the emotion representation is "spot on".

For me, no truer words could be spoken. What does it matter what details are missing, or changed because we have only 2 hours to tell a story? What matters is that we see the humanity of the man and his wonderful ability to embrace openly his new found emotions are what matters. And to put this into his spiritual structure was even more remarkable.

It's a good film. Enjoy it and pay attention. It requires an open heart and an open mind. Give it both.

Shadowlands portrays Lewis as a naive old bachelor with little experience of life, sheltered if not positively shallow. But you tell me: when he was 10 his mother died; when he was in his late teens he entered the army, endured trench warfare, and was wounded; he saw his best friend killed in battle; honoring a pledge, he moved in with the friend's mother and sister and supported them for many years; he had a sexual relationship with his friend's mother, and although she was an extremely difficult woman he remained with her until her death; and during all these years his much-beloved brother Warnie was a binge drinker who often ended up face down in the gutter. Does this sound like a sheltered life to you? I can't speak for anyone but myself, but this strikes me as a pretty full life - he'd gone through more by the age of 25 than I have at 45. Lewis loved Joy Davidman, and she brought something important to his life. But to say he needed her to become a Real Human Being is condescension of the worst sort, and this aspect of Shadowlands's script is a kind of slander (perhaps a backhanded slap at Lewis's Christianity, which is "obviously" childish and unrealistic?).