**Comparing Narnia and LotR** [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Firefoot

12-10-2005, 09:25 PM

I definitely recommend going to see the Narnia movie in theaters. I went to see it today, and I thought it really was fantastic. For those of you who are concerned about Disney involvement, I can't recall any "Disney moments." If I hadn't known Disney was filming it, I wouldn't have been the wiser. The movie was beautifully done.

I'm not going to say whether it was better or worse than LotR - my feeling coming out of the theatre today was definitely comparable to that of when I came out of seeing RotK. Summed up in a word: wow.

I would say that the casting of the Narnia movie was overall better than that of LotR. Just about every single one of the characters I could look at and say "That's Peter" or "That's the White Witch" - as much as I love the LotR movies, I can't say the same thing about Elijah Wood's Frodo or Orlando Bloom's Legolas, for example. The acting was pretty strong all around, I thought (I'm not the greatest judge of acting, though), whereas in LotR I could find definite stronger and weaker performances. The Narnia movie also has a much smaller cast, though, and several of the main characters were animals...

LotR is definitely the more dark in tone between the two (four?) movies, which I suppose is to be expected. While both movies depict a good vs. evil struggle, Narnia isn't quite as dire about it. The danger in LotR feels more... real? evil? Not a better or worse thing, just different. I do think that the humor in the Narnia movie tended to be better done and more fitting in the movie - some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

As for battles. The shivery sort of feeling I got at the charge of the Rohirrim and the charge in the Narnia movie was definitely similar. Again, though, the Narnia battle was more colorful, I suppose. It's not the same sense of smoke, ruin, and war. However, it was still superbly done.

The CG of the Narnia movie was quite good - I'm sure LotR laid the groundwork for much of it. In some ways, I'd imagine it was more complex than LotR's CG (mostly thinking Gollum here) being that they had to blend people and CG for the fauns and the centaurs. Talking animals was one challenge LotR did not have to deal with, but the Narnia movie carried it off excellently. The best way that I can put it is that it worked - and not simply in the "it was adequate" sense.

The biggest difference is probably in my own reaction. Initial reaction is that I like the Narnia movie more than the book, which I last read about a year ago and so am a little fuzzy on the details. I was disappointed by FotR when I first saw it, and while I was completely wowed by the RotK movie, the story had already been complete for me before I saw the movies. For the Narnia story, I enjoyed the books, but the movie brought it to life for me.

arcticstorm

12-10-2005, 10:22 PM

As I have seen the movie twice now, I can comment on a couple things as compared to LOTR. Since this movie used the same battle simulation program, massive, as LOTR, I can honestly say, that Narnia showed me a better depiction at what it could do what with over 70 some different types of creature fighting in the battle. I believe that LOTR was the pioneer films that paved the way to these films. Both films are incredible in their own rights. I honestly believe that without JAckson's films, these films would have been a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to make, as some of their techonology had not been tried out yet.
Narnia was a lot closer to the book than any film I had yet seen that was based on a book, but with LOTR they had a lot more material to place in three hours than Narnia had to place in their two. However, their were a few creativce liberties taken as with all films. BUt overall they were good films that I believe C S Lewis and all his inkling frieds would have been proud about.

Legolas

12-11-2005, 12:21 AM

some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

This is great news to me. I was very unhappy with the treatment of Gimli and a few other moments in Lord of the Rings because of the forced, corny humor...it's made me worry about other 'epic fantasy' type books-turned-movies. You've calmed my fears. :cool:

Boromir88

12-11-2005, 09:02 AM

I would say that the casting of the Narnia movie was overall better than that of LotR. Just about every single one of the characters I could look at and say "That's Peter" or "That's the White Witch" - as much as I love the LotR movies, I can't say the same thing about Elijah Wood's Frodo or Orlando Bloom's Legolas, for example. The acting was pretty strong all around, I thought (I'm not the greatest judge of acting, though),~Firefoot
That's interesting, considering I have really heard any well-known names in Narnia (though that doesn't mean they aren't good). LOTR I thought was cast very well, though I do know what you mean in that there were weaker roles and you just think "Hey this isn't Gimli, or this isn't...etc"). I guess I'll have to wait and check it out to see. :D

davem

12-11-2005, 10:35 AM

I'm in two minds about seeing this. I've read some positive reviews (though Metro, while giving it a very good write up overall, did say that the battle scenes were like Peter Jackson's epic recreated with fuzzy felt).

I don't care about the Narnia books in the way I care about LotR, but still, I wouldn't want to see them spoiled. I have read a rumour that rather than doing all 7 books they're planning another two movies covering the main storyline of the rest of the books (so that would probably mean no Magician's Nephew, no Horse & his Boy & probably as with the BBC adaptation some years back Prince Caspian & Voyage of the Dawn Treader run together. The BBC didn't adapt The Last Battle either, I remember.

arcticstorm

12-11-2005, 05:31 PM

I have read a rumour that rather than doing all 7 books they're planning another two movies covering the main storyline of the rest of the books (so that would probably mean no Magician's Nephew, no Horse & his Boy & probably as with the BBC adaptation some years back Prince Caspian & Voyage of the Dawn Treader run together. The BBC didn't adapt The Last Battle either, I remember.

I have checked up on this rumor and I am glad to say that the plan is to make seven films depending on how well they do.
http://www.narniaweb.com/content.asp?id=2

Kuruharan

12-11-2005, 06:19 PM

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that in the Avoidance of Stupid and Incomprehensible Plot Deviations category The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe wins hands down.

including the effects that come from the same workshop

It is funny you should say that, but there were some pieces of armor (I'm particularly thinking of the helmet of Aslan's centaur general) that just had LOTR influences all over them. On the whole, I admit that I generally prefer the armor designs in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as being more in character than some of the stuff that appeared in LOTR (which in some cases was rather silly in my opinion).

I do think that the humor in the Narnia movie tended to be better done and more fitting in the movie - some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

Amen. The Beavers were hilarious...even Maugrim had a bit of a giggle or two. I found the exchange between Edmund and Philip to be pretty funny as well. It was one of those, "Oh yeah, that's right!" moments. (Those who have seen the movie will know what I am talking about.)

LotR is definitely the more dark in tone between the two (four?) movies, which I suppose is to be expected. While both movies depict a good vs. evil struggle, Narnia isn't quite as dire about it.

I think that while Narnia does have a more lighthearted tone, it may also have something to do with Narnia already having suffered the worst and not having any place to go but up. In Middle earth the heroes were trying to preserve and protect. In Narnia the heroes were trying to overthrow an already established tyranny and start fresh.

If there was anything I was “disappointed” about was that Liam Neeson would not have been my choice for the voice of Aslan. I would have preferred somebody with a deeper voice.

Essex

12-12-2005, 04:59 AM

As for battles. The shivery sort of feeling I got at the charge of the Rohirrim and the charge in the Narnia movie was definitely similar. Again, though, the Narnia battle was more colorful, I suppose. It's not the same sense of smoke, ruin, and war. However, it was still superbly doneThe charge was the best part of the movie for me, and rivalled (not sure if it beat) the Ride of the Rohirrim. The few seconds before the forces clashed - as the music and sound falls down to almost a silence, as the cheetahs slowly overtake their comrades , and then BANG! the foes clash together at high speed - was Magnificent!

plus I also like the fact that the children aged and spent years in Narnia, forgetting about the 'real' world and finally stumbling onto the Lamp Post. and we got a glimsp of the White Stag which was welcoming.

PS if you haven't seen it yet, hang around for a while after the credits start as there's a little bit more to see after a minute or two.............

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-12-2005, 05:53 AM

It was an enjoyable movie, with a different feel than the book for me. FotR was a bit closer that particular mark, but that is all subjective.

If I hadn't known that Disney was involved I don't think I would have guessed, but I am looking forward to any future films. the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is my favorite of this series, and so I am a bit more critical, (just as I was overly critical of the LotR movies), but I think it quite possible that I would like a film version of say the Horse and His Boy, the Silver Chair or Dawn Treader better than the books.

Suprisingly, it did seemed a bit rushed once the characters were in Narnia, unlike LotR where it didn't seem rushed at all. But all this must be taken with a grain of salt, I am rather an Ent...and a critic.

And Essex is right, do stick around after the credits start rolling.

Morsul the Dark

12-12-2005, 07:59 AM

the final narnia battle was the best battle ive ever seen now having said that

minotaur captain goes stands on a rock screams and holds up his sword(is it me or is that the orc captain at helm's deep?)

many other similiarities came to me while watching it however i do not recall them at this time

Lalwendë

12-12-2005, 02:12 PM

The fact that Disney made the film wouldn't put me off seeing it, after all, they made Pirates of the Caribbean, which was splendid (but does Narnia have Johnny Depp in it? :p ) and proved that they can 'do' action. There are two things putting me off seeing it right away. Firstly I would like to read the book over again as it's a good twenty years since I last read it. Secondly, I want to wait until the hordes of kids have seen it; I was waiting for the bus this morning and the kids from the local school were all shouting excitedly about going to "see Narnia" later.

I've always found the idea of having a 'white witch' as a 'bad guy' a little strange, and I have to say that the books were spoiled for me as I read them after LotR, and nothing quite matched up to it for a long time, but from what's been said here, I'm quite looking forward to seeing it. Also I'm intrigued to see James McAvoy in a film that's as far removed from Shameless (not recommended for kids) as it's possible to get. ;)

I hope they do all the books properly as that would be a real disappointment - at least they have done this with the Harry Potter films (the latest one was the best). That's been the problem with the previous BBC adaptations, in that they seemed to give up part way through and not make any more, very like the situation with the Bakshi cartoons. I'd rather see something through to completion even if it is not up to what you expected (or hoped for). Maybe if this film is the huge success it promises to be then they will.

Kuruharan

12-12-2005, 04:44 PM

I want to wait until the hordes of kids have seen it

For what this is worth (probably not much...)

I went to see an early afternoon showing and it was a mixed audience. No one age group predominated. In fact there was a group of rather venerable citizens there who made about as much noise as anybody with their laughing and cheering (not that it was disruptive or anything...you know what I mean).

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-12-2005, 05:18 PM

Be advised too that it doesn't totally follow the book, but it is fairly close.

davem

12-13-2005, 04:28 AM

What I've found most interesting about the movie so far (I haven't seen it yet) is the way Evangelical Christians have leapt on it as a means to evangelise:
http://nppnblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/city-impact-narnia-film-strategy.html
http://store.yahoo.com/biblestudies/liwiandwa.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/europe/567/section/uk.churches.see.evangelism.opportunities.in.rising .narnia.mania/1.htm
http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/engine.cfm?i=92&id=421&arch=f#ideas

Now, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. What interests me is the way Evangelicals have grabbed onto Narnia but didn't bother with LotR (ok, some did, but not to any extent in the same way).

From Lewis's own words I'm not sure he would have approved. Is this merely capitalising on 'Art'? Does it 'break the spell' of the secondary world Lewis created? Most importantly, will children be taken to see the movie because 'its good for them'? Will their (our) experience of the movie be enhanced or spoiled by such a close association with 'religion'? Obviously, when we read the book we can see as much 'allegory' in it as we wish to (many readers seem not to have picked up on that aspect of it at all, especially if they read it as children & it wasn't pointed out to them by a 'helpful' adult), but with all this blatant promotion of the movie by Evangelicals as 'a way to get children into Church' will the wonder & magic be lost as 'The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe' is forced to serve another ('higher'?) purpose?

Essex

12-13-2005, 11:08 AM

Be advised too that it doesn't totally follow the book, but it is fairly close.I put it to you that it is VERY close to the book, seing as I only finished reading it to my son 4 hours before we got to the Cinema!

The 'changes' I can pinpoint at the mo:

We don't have our grown up heroes, saying 'fortwith / alas / perchance' (and other posh long winded words I can't remember) - at the end of the book.

The professor sees them fall out of the wardrobe at the end.

We have a little bombing scene added at the start of the movie but that was only to start setting up edmund's character.

Edmund doesn't meet up with mr tumnus at the castle does he? he's already stone then isn't he?

so what parts were further away from the book for you then Hilde? I can't think of many more, but I'd like to hear your view as I'm not a real Lewis officianado!

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-13-2005, 11:46 AM

A few changes that I can think of are:

In the book they never follow Edmund when he dissapears to find the witch's castle. In fact, after he is found to be missing one of the beaver's mentions that Edmund looks like someone who has eaten of the witch's food, (something significant in my mind). Also the children and the beavers have left long before any wolves appear and there is no chase from the beaver dam, like in the movie. The group of travelers are indeed just waking up in a sort of beaver safehouse when Father Christmas turns up. And the witch turns the fox to stone when she comes upon him and others celebrating the return of Christmas, in the book. He is not really defiant, if I remember correctly. (And the movie witch looks like frosted warmth instead of deathly pale with blood red lips. I can't imagine her being THE Jadis of the Magician's Nephew. ;) )

All these though, I can understand. It was like with LotR, they wanted you to be on the edge of your seat, so they heightened the action, but I liked it better in the book when you didn't know exactly how close the witch was and what she was up to.

I do wish that they had more time so that they didn't have to abbreviate the interaction between Aslan and the kids quite so much. But that too is understandable given the young age of some of the viewers.

Edit: And one last thing, the movie implied that Aslan killed the White Witch. Didn't she run off or something in the book? It has been a while since I read it and I might be confusing stories, but I thought there was a discussion about how she would return again.

luthien-elvenprincess

12-13-2005, 04:52 PM

by Hilde Bracegirdle:
Edit: And one last thing, the movie implied that Aslan killed the White Witch. Didn't she run off or something in the book? It has been a while since I read it and I might be confusing stories, but I thought there was a discussion about how she would return again.

Then with a roar that shook all Narnia from the Western lamp-post to the shores of the Eastern sea the great beast flung himself upon the White Witch. Lucy saw her face lifted towards him for one second with an expression of terror and amazement. Then Lion and Witch had rolled over together but with the Witch underneath...
and when those who were still living was that the Witch was dead they either gave themselves up or took to flight.

So, yes, Aslan killed the White Witch. However, her body must have been left to be viewed by all...in the movie, she disappeared.

by davem:
Now, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. What interests me is the way Evangelicals have grabbed onto Narnia but didn't bother with LotR (ok, some did, but not to any extent in the same way).

From Lewis's own words I'm not sure he would have approved.

davem...what words do you mean. Since Lewis is a very well know Christian theologian, why does it seem so hard to understand why Christians would use his writings as an opportunity to talk with others about their faith?
And why would Lewis have a problem with that?

davem

12-14-2005, 03:29 AM

davem...what words do you mean. Since Lewis is a very well know Christian theologian, why does it seem so hard to understand why Christians would use his writings as an opportunity to talk with others about their faith?
And why would Lewis have a problem with that?

I think Lewis position on the Narnia stories was to 'play' with the idea of what would happen if the Son of God had come into a world like Narnia.

There's an interesting article on the Christianity Today website on this subject http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/32.0.html. These quotes sums it up:

The danger is that we could prize his image, and what it does for us, more than his message and what he intended it to do. Lewis never wanted to be a symbol. In fact, he questioned whether "little books about Christianity" had much lasting impact. … It's a good guess that he would prefer his own Christian identity to be something for the reader to discover, just as we gradually realize who Aslan is. Tampering with the words of Lewis' books would be a travesty. However, if Lewis is not labeled "Christian apologist," if he's mainstreamed into the community of other writers, it may help him escape the prejudice that traditional Christians face today. It won't limit his message; he'll still be a Christian apologist. Just one who can slip behind otherwise-locked doors more easily.

..."The author almost certainly did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of the Narnian theology to the Christian story," Sayer writes in Jack. "His idea, as he once explained to me, was to make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read and enjoyed years before. 'I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism of the child's imagination.'"

Where I think Lewis would be uncomfortable about the way Evangelicals are using the Narnia movies is that they aren't allowing Children to 'gradually realize who Aslan is', they're 'ramming' the 'Aslan is Jesus' http://aslanisjesus.co.uk/ 'message' down kid's throats. They're not allowing Children to discover Lewis's meaning by coming to Narnia & making their own 'connections' to the Christian story, allowing them the pleasure of reading the stories/seeing the films as works of Art in their own right, but telling them beforehand 'This is about Jesus!' In short, they're telling them what the story means, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. If Lewis had wanted to write a book about Jesus for children he would have written one in plain & simple language. Children who are taken to see Narnia, or given the books to read, having been told beforehand what they 'mean' will have pre-conceptions about them, & will read/watch them as a 'lesson', a 'sermon' - which is not at all what Lewis wanted.

Lalaith

12-14-2005, 04:56 AM

Interestingly, what seems to be happening here in the UK is that the evangelical "grabbing" of Narnia is actually putting people off seeing it. (That, and generally lukewarm reviews) The British general public are very secular in their instincts and don't like anything they suspect to be overtly religious propaganda. (The Passion of the Christ did very badly in UK cinemas) I've heard a fair amount of talk both in the media and among ordinary people regarding "dodgy Christian moralising" in Narnia.
It's the same with the march of the penguins movie. I've heard a lot of people say, disparagingly, "oh, that's that film that all the American Christians really latched on to," (despite the fact that the film-maker himself has disassociated himself from the claims made about the penguins' family values...)
I personally intend to see both films, and make my own judgements.

As for the LotR films, there was also a bit of sneering here when they first came out, but of a different kind. Narnia is held in more general affection than Middle-Earth in the UK - it is considered more mainstream, more people read the CS Lewis books as children, whereas Tolkien (or rather his fans) had a slightly more odd and geeky reputation. It was only when the PJ films began to be seen as a movie event, like the Star Wars films, that the sneering stopped.

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-14-2005, 05:23 AM

Good points, and thank you so much for the insight into how these films are being received else where. The actual movie comes across very much as Lewis would have intended (as stated by davem). It is a shame that people can't form their own opinions of it after seeing it. But I suppose that even then, it will now be hard for them to see it without noticing the elements of Christianity. To me, those parts have always been like finding a jewel or two (if you recognize them) in a story that is prefectly wonderful in its own right. They make you realize that there might be more hidden, if you care to go digging, but it is left entirely to you. It is enjoyable as it is.

And if you excuse the step back a post or two, yes luthien-elvenprincess, you are very right. I had the opportunity to look at the book this morning before switching on the computer, and I found the movie had the end of the witch more accurately than I did! :p

Lalwendë

12-14-2005, 08:28 AM

I think in the UK people as a whole also possess a strange kind of stubbornness, a resistance to anything which has been prescribed as "good for you"; we seem to grumble a lot at the prospect of being told what to do and when, yet paradoxically we also buy newspapers which want to ban seemingly everything which is in any way fun.

The same section of the media which is accusing Narnia of being a sinister recruiting device for the church are currently also crying censorship about Sainsbury's withdrawing DVDs of Jerry Springer The Opera from their shelves. Vice versa, those who are hoping to use Narnia as a way of recruiting for local sunday schools are the ones who were urged by a pressure group to ring the BBC and complain about Jeery Springer The Opera. I wonder how many have seen or read either and are really able to comment?

All that worries me is that as a child I was not unlike most other children and if offered the choice of two entertainments, one chosen as "appropriate" by my parents and one "discovered" by myself or my friends then I would always plump for the latter. For children, fun almost always wins out over educational value. I mean, which Christmas song would you rather have listened to, Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday or Cliff's Millennium Prayer (or Band Aid's Feed The World, to substitute a secular "good for you" entertainment) ? ;)

Fair enough, there is nothing at all wrong with Christians grabbing hold of Narnia and being excited about it and getting people to go and read/see it and so on (after all, the secular world has stolen Christmas, as a Guardian journalist wryly put it the other day); but I am worried that too much promotion of it as being good because of, or even just too much emphasis on, the Christian element of the story might have the opposite effect and turn a lot of kids right off Narnia. Let's see what happens when King Kong opens as to which film gets the bigger audience.

Rimbaud

12-14-2005, 11:01 AM

Yah, I'm with Zoe Williams on this one, lal. Those who take the 'Toynbee' route, with their atheistic drum-banging are as bad as some of those whom they decry. I'm faithless myself, but was more than capable of enjoying the books without being overtly sermonised, and surely will be similarly able to view the movies as good ol' capitalistic hubris.

Furthermore, as was mentioned in the same article you reference, other than the resurrection malarkey in LWW, the majority of people wouldn't feel overwhelmed by Christian imagery, as there are fewer people with a working knowledge of Biblical imagery in the audience (another result of Britain's increased secularism).

Lalwendë

12-17-2005, 05:26 PM

I can recommend the Narnia film. I saw it today and thought it was excellent - it was even more moving in parts than LotR (especially where Aslan gives himself up :( ), and the allegorical aspect was not laid on thickly at all.

Acting first. Tilda Swinton played the White Witch well - I don't know how all the proper kids in the sudience felt about her, they were all very quiet indeed throughout, but this big kid was scared by her. :eek: ...I think it's because she always reminds me of my aunt.... The young actors were all excellent, particularly the little girl playing Lucy; a lot of child actors can be bit 'wooden' but not in this case. I also liked Liam Neeson as Aslan, though I didn't realise it was him for some time. Did anyone else notice Douglas Gresham in the cast list? This made me think of the addition of Tolkien's great-grandson to the cast of RotK - a link to the books and the imaginations which created these worlds.

The design was very bright, although I didn't think Metro's description of the battles as being like "LotR with Fuzzy Felt" entirely fair. The film is primarily aimed at children, as were the books, and so you would not expect to see terror and gore (there was enough terror with Tilda Swinton). The winter landscapes were particularly beautiful, and the costume for the White Witch was stunning.

I can second Kuruharan that the plot did not end up going off in stupid directions, and it was simplified just enough. The only thing which troubled me was there being mass evacuations after the blitz had started - I don't remember this in the book? Mass evacuation started a good nine months before the blitz. But hey, that's just me being pedantic....

Go and see it, it's good all round. And you might get a better seat than you would for King Kong right now. ;)

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-17-2005, 06:46 PM

Lalwende, did you get the impression that they took the highlights out of Tilda Swinton's eyes? A very disturbing effect, it looked dark and frightening behind those eyes! :eek: Stranger than Cate Blanchett's Christmas tree light highlights.

Valesse

12-18-2005, 01:30 AM

I just got back from watching the Narnia movie for the first time, and in my opinion it really has nothing on Lord of the Rings. C. S. Lewis' world was quite... original, I'll give it that. The idea of climbing into a wooden wardrobe past a few fur coats and into a snowy forest is something I can see myself dreaming about, but the story and scenes given to us by the film made me feel like taking out a religious text and making a check list.

I know that C. S. Lewis did base the story line on the Bible, but I was rather hoping that the magical wonderland appeal wouldn't be so easily shot down. Lord of the Rings really gave us these... allusions, and by gosh I have been spoiled! Tolkien didn't do any of that. He wrote in a letter, even, that there is no allegory in his series... Middle-Earth was entirely his own creation which made the story seem so purely whole. I didn't find myself searching for anything (other than those pesky deleted scenes, thankyouverymuch PJ).

Moving on: the acting was fine in both -- considering their ages and career lengths, but I couldn't STAND how much just...breathing there was in Narnia. Did anyone else feel like some lines were scraped just so the cast can collectively hyperventalate in the climax for five minutes? Elijah Wood has an interesting squeak on his part, so it never really got boring... just annoying.

Being a thespian I pick up on technical... "issues" a lot and won't put them down. The Witch's dress, for instance, appeared to have been made out of crackling grey/heat sensitive sillyputty in my eyes, and her eyebrows were NEVER made fully apparent. Kate was at least made slightly less repulsive even with her random green-wind scene in Lorien. ...Oh I shouldn't have even started on costumes, I'll rant like a mad woman.

I actually really, really liked the soundtrack for Narnia better than the Lord of the Rings one. Sure, it isn't John Williams (or at least I don't think it is) but there is really something mystic in the hallow notes that spoke to me and gave the world of Narnia it's shape.

In all... I'm not -that- impressed. Lord of the Rings really changed my opinion about the stories... Before I had seen the Fellowship I utterly refused to read anything by Tolkien (this is a super secret confession... thats why its on a public forum) and I really am not kidding when I tell you that two people had to CARRY me into the car to see it. Since then I have obviously been hooked. I really don't see that happening here with Narnia. I might read the books, but it doesn't look all that hopeful. There just wasn't enough "mphft"! here for me.

davem

12-18-2005, 06:32 AM

I know that C. S. Lewis did base the story line on the Bible, but I was rather hoping that the magical wonderland appeal wouldn't be so easily shot down. Lord of the Rings really gave us these... allusions, and by gosh I have been spoiled! Tolkien didn't do any of that. He wrote in a letter, even, that there is no allegory in his series... Middle-Earth was entirely his own creation which made the story seem so purely whole. I didn't find myself searching for anything (other than those pesky deleted scenes, thankyouverymuch PJ).
.

Lewis wrote the story (as I mentioned in an earlier post) to 'pre-baptise' children's imagination. The world of Narnia is intentionally a 'fairytale' world, with creatures from the various myths Lewis loved, as well as talking animals - stories of which he loved as a child.

Lewis & Tolkien both believed that Man was created by God with an 'innate' knowledge of what was to come (ie the Incarnation) - this is how they accounted for the presence in so many mythologies of dying & reusurrected gods, etc. Lewis was aware how the knowledge of such 'salvific' stories had been lost, so he wanted to invent a new 'mythology' which would put children in the same position/state as the pagans who were first confronted with Christianity - they would be 'reminded' of their own stories & so would be ready to accept the story of Jesus.

This is why LWW (both book & film) are not going to work very well (imo) as Christian allegories - I can't see anyone coming out of seeng LWW & wanting to run straight into their nearest Church. Lewis wanted children to be caught up in the wonder of Narnia, come to love Aslan, & then when they encountered Christianity later they would experience again that sense of wonder - Christianity wouldn't be about 'going to Church & hearing a sermon' but more to do with 'fighting alongside Aslan' to free Narnia.

What I dislike about the hyping of the movie by Evangelicals is that rather than making Christianity seem like that, they're trying to make Narnia like going to Church.

One of my favourite quotes about Narnia comes from The Western Way by John & Caitlin Matthews. They cite a comment by an unnamed reader: 'Jesus to me was just a man in a book, but I could have died for Aslan'. Lewis wanted to get his child readers to feel the same way about Jesus as that reader did about Aslan, but in order to achieve that he felt that encountering Aslan first as in the book would be most effective. That scene in the movie sums it up - Mr Tumnus says: 'He's not a tame Lion' & Lucy replies: ''No, but he is Good.'' Aslan is not a safe Lion - & that was Lewis's point, what he wanted to communicate - before children got all caught up in the 'theology', hymns & sermons.

That's how you have to approach the Narnia books, I think: like the Pevensey children, with innocent wonder, in a new, unexpected setting. Telling children 'Aslan is Jesus' will actually destroy that wonder, telling them 'Aslan is not a tame Lion, but he is good' will strengthen it.

Captain Grishnahk

12-18-2005, 10:13 AM

I saw The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe last Thursday... it was GREAT!!! First, because I am a Christian and the symbolism was so clearly seen. Second, because I was a Narnia fan before I even heard of LOTR. Watching the movie was like a great family reunion. I enjoyed the whole thing, 100% of it. My sisters think that I am insane because I still like LOTR better. The people who worked on LOTR special effects were the same people who worked on Narnia's.

I find them equal, and I also find it so awesome that my two favorite books and movies were written by two best friends. :)

-Cap

p.s. my mom is making me edit this post because the grammar was not correct... :eek:

Lalwendë

12-18-2005, 06:08 PM

Lalwende, did you get the impression that they took the highlights out of Tilda Swinton's eyes? A very disturbing effect, it looked dark and frightening behind those eyes! Stranger than Cate Blanchett's Christmas tree light highlights.

The Witch's dress, for instance, appeared to have been made out of crackling grey/heat sensitive sillyputty in my eyes, and her eyebrows were NEVER made fully apparent.

I think that's just how she looks - she's known for taking off-beat parts where they make the most of her unusual appearance (which isn't bad for 45 ;) ), which includes very fair eyebrows, which is why they weren't very prominent. I noticed that the make-up they put on her gave her skin a chalky, dusty quality which was very odd too. The costume was designed so that it would change colour according to how strong her hold was over Narnia (hence why it was black towards the end).

Lewis & Tolkien both believed that Man was created by God with an 'innate' knowledge of what was to come (ie the Incarnation) - this is how they accounted for the presence in so many mythologies of dying & reusurrected gods, etc. Lewis was aware how the knowledge of such 'salvific' stories had been lost, so he wanted to invent a new 'mythology' which would put children in the same position/state as the pagans who were first confronted with Christianity - they would be 'reminded' of their own stories & so would be ready to accept the story of Jesus.

I always find it odd that not long after I read LotR (and Narnia) I decided to give up going to church; I think that LotR was one of the catalysts in my change of belief at the time. I'm not sure how either writer would take that, but I found that what I was discovering in these works was not something that could be fulfiled by following a creed, more by discovering for myself what was 'truth'. I actually thought that this film brought across a broader, more 'ecumenical' message about goodness and honesty rather than act as a 'recruitment' campaign film, something it most definitely was not.

Captain Grishnahk

12-18-2005, 09:20 PM

The witch's eyes were wicked! I'm glad they did not make her wonderfully beautiful, she has more of a dangerous look about her if you follow me.

Estelyn Telcontar

12-19-2005, 01:25 AM

I'd been puzzling for several days over the Witch's familiar look until I finally realized whom she resembles - the Borg Queen in one of the Star Trek films! The pale, unearthly appearance is quite similar.

To compare to LotR's palest female character - Galadriel never looked like that. I wonder if your observation about the eyes and eyebrows might not be a key; I'll have to look more closely.

Valesse

12-19-2005, 11:00 AM

The costume was designed so that it would change colour according to how strong her hold was over Narnia (hence why it was black towards the end).

Is that it? I thought that it was changing to reveal her "true" self (IE: dark influences) -- at least thats what I thought. I've already mentioned that I haven't read the series, but... well its kind of an easy assumption.

*cough*

Rather like Gandalf's color scheme! Seeing as he died and returned as they White, reflecting his positive influence and... good-ness and replacement of Saruman.

The Queen's battle armor was reminesent of orkish wear, what with it being covered in Aslan's mane. (I'm pleased to say that I didn't see any 'creative' costume peices on or near her :rolleyes: ) ... (Esty, you know what I'm talking about!) I think, along with that wicked looking crown the entire Valkyrie look really took off. Though I doubt orcs look like Valkyries...
_______
Please forgive me if none of this made sense; I had about two hours of sleep last night.

Captain Grishnahk

12-19-2005, 11:52 AM

I was a Narnia nut before i saw LOTR... and i must say that it is ASLAN, not Aslar! Come on! Get it right! YOU GET ME SO MAD!!! Get with the program, sista!

Ok, i'm just kidding, my dad calls him Ashlan for crying out loud... it doesn't bother me at all, i thought i might just irritate you. ;)

-Cap.

Tuor in Gondolin

12-20-2005, 12:35 PM

I was struck by how much more Narnia was consistent
with the book then PJ's LOTR. But the brief battle
scene at the end didn't seem to have much "oomph."
And, presumably because LWW is aimed at a younger
audience, it was interesting to see the way they cut away
just before graphic violence, such as the witches'
death, which are implied more then seen- as opposed to
PJ's not infrequent over the top shots going a bit too
much the other way.

Btw, it's been a while since I read them, is the
professor Eustace Clarence Scrubb?

Estelyn Telcontar

12-20-2005, 12:45 PM

... is the
professor Eustace Clarence Scrubb?
Nope, it's Digory, the Magician's Nephew, IIRC.

Lalaith

12-20-2005, 02:06 PM

always find it odd that not long after I read LotR (and Narnia) I decided to give up going to church

Interesting. I have to confess I found Narnia - or at least the Last Battle - rather alienating. I really enjoyed the story but I was appalled at Susan being excluded from Aslan's kingdom because as a young woman she was too interested in "lipstick, stockings and invitations." Even though I was still a child, I suspected that I too would be very interested in these things pretty soon, saw nothing wrong with that and felt the author's religious viewpoint was extremely unreasonable. (Also one of the examples Eustace's parents' silliness was their support of feminism...I was a very emancipated little girl and this made me cross :) )
I never felt 'distanced' by Tolkien and Middle Earth in this way.

Anyway, I shall be seeing Narnia on Boxing Day, and looking forward to it, especially comparing the battle scenes which I always found the most thrilling part of LotR. Tilda Swinton is an extremely interesting actress, the parallels with Cate Blanchett are valid, I think, and I'm intrigued to see what she makes of Jadis. I also wonder how the film compares to an RSC stage production of Lion, Witch and Wardrobe I saw in London few years ago, which was excellent...

Elu Ancalime

12-20-2005, 08:28 PM

I havent had time to read every post, so if i repeat something, forgive me. I find it interesting of the christian related hype. The Chronicels of Narnia do have the christian themes, obviously, but credit goes to Tolkien also.
CS Lewis and Tolkien were in the same 'book' group', of authors that compared their storys. I belive this was before they were 'huge' successes. Tolkien was a christian, and Lewis was an athiest. Lewis became a christian, party with his affiliation with Tolkien, and became one of the biggest christian childrens story authors. What i suppose was never mentioned to much or just over looked were the christian themes in LotR.
-Mordor is seen as a hellish place that 'none return from', and those who enter suffer.
-A dark lord who corrupts men against the true Powers (substitute Eru for God, although that is not a true comparison between them)
-The Return of the King" Jesus could be seen as Aragorn returning to the 'throne' to unite the ppls against the dark power, in a time of apocolyptic destruction.
-Gandalf, as a physical representation of Jesus. He,, as a wizard, seem slike a great physical appearance of Jesus, even though he was crucified in his thirties. Gandalf sacrificed his life to save others(balrog-fellowship) and was sent back by (God-Eru)
-The Dagor Dagorath. The Last battle in which Melko will be defeated for the last time by Manwe, and the world of Arda will be broken. agsain seen as the apocolypse.
-Ar-Pharazon. Leading his people against the (Valar-God), but only because of the (corruption of sauron-temptation of Satan)
-Aman and Heaven. This is Vauge like Eru-God relationship, but can be seen, as no mortals enter it. (as in you die before you can enter heaven)
-The Gospel According to Tolkien explains this well

Since this is a religous post, i expect a lot of contrversy and negitive feedback. I myself am a methodist, which is cristian, so my post might be biased. This isnt agsint any religoin, or to promote chritianity, but what i've observed in Tolkiens works. I dont belive everything the bible says; i just havent decided. However this my bias my post.....Many books have cristian themes such as good vs evil, or a hellish dark lord vs a savior fo peple, but i think there is a lot of symbolism in the books. Tolkien meant to create his own literary world, and while his books have christian allusions in them, he did not intend for them as directly as Lewis did. I assume because he was christian, he was biased all the same in a way he might not have realized until after writing hisbooks; he just wrote his won works, with what e had been taught.

Other than that, i am interested in what you think of this. Sorry if it might be off topic.
________
Ferrari 312 Specifications (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_312)

Lalwendë

12-21-2005, 03:43 AM

Since this is a religous post, i expect a lot of contrversy and negitive feedback. I myself am a methodist, which is cristian, so my post might be biased. This isnt agsint any religoin, or to promote chritianity, but what i've observed in Tolkiens works. I dont belive everything the bible says; i just havent decided. However this my bias my post.....Many books have cristian themes such as good vs evil, or a hellish dark lord vs a savior fo peple, but i think there is a lot of symbolism in the books. Tolkien meant to create his own literary world, and while his books have christian allusions in them, he did not intend for them as directly as Lewis did. I assume because he was christian, he was biased all the same in a way he might not have realized until after writing hisbooks; he just wrote his won works, with what e had been taught.

I think the essential difference is that Tolkien explicitly states that LotR is not allegorical. We might find elements of Christian symbolism in it (equally we might not), but they are not there in order to tell us anything about Christianity, they are simply there. After this matters start to get muddier. Whether they are included intentionally and what they might suggest to us are controversial - and we can argue about this. But in the work of CS Lewis such symbols are much more clear and are there to tell us something about Christianity.

So I think its a case of rather than the Christian 'themes' in LotR being overlooked, they are debatable in the first place, while in Narnia they are much more explicit and they are intended to be taken that way. I suppose the way I look at it is that while a writer may be a devout Christian, it does not necessarily follow that his or her work all includes a 'message' about Christianity. The work of Lewis does include that, but I think the work of Tolkien is more influenced by that.

Elu Ancalime

12-21-2005, 09:11 AM

[QUOTE=Lalwend?]The work of Lewis does include that, but I think the work of Tolkien is more influenced by that.
QUOTE]

Exactly was I was trying to say,heh, but couldnt put in one sentence.
________
Bmw motorcycle owners of america history (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_Motorcycle_Owners_of_America)

Parmawen

12-24-2005, 12:19 AM

First off, I'm SO glad to see this thread, because since I saw Narnia for the first time I have been dying to talk about this!

A major thing I noticed was the whole horn idea. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were friends, correct? I remember reading that they were, and maybe they bounced ideas off each other? I'm not sure but I did notice a symmetry in Boromir's horn and Susan's horn. Both were supposed to bring help in times of need, and in the movie they sounded pretty similar. Plus there was the whole gift-giving sequence with Santa Claus that was very reminiscent of Galadriel's gifts.

And is it just me, or is the little gnome guy serving the witch (Kiran Shah or something like that) the stunt double for Frodo in LOTR? I thought I recognized his voice and face from those behind-the-scenes documentaries.

Hilde Bracegirdle

12-24-2005, 06:16 AM

And is it just me, or is the little gnome guy serving the witch (Kiran Shah or something like that) the stunt double for Frodo in LOTR?

Ah ha! I knew he seemed familar! :D

Parmawen

12-25-2005, 02:27 PM

Okay I looked it up at IMDb.com and Kiran Shah is definetely Ginarrbrik in Chronicles of Narnia, as well as Frodo's stunt double in Lord of the Rings! :D

Elu Ancalime

12-26-2005, 10:20 AM

This is late for the whole religous concept of Narnia and LotR, but i realized Deagol and Smeagol were Old English names for Cain and Abel, opesed to Narnia's Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve
________
Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

Bêthberry

12-26-2005, 09:09 PM

Well, I have seen Narnia and so now I can commit an actual comparison of it with LotR on Estelyn's thread. And if, in attempting a coherent view, I go over ground already covered, please overlook the repetition.

Narnia is visually intoxicating. It is beautiful as LotR is beautiful visually, but more consistently so. I also really appreciated how the movie is, as best a movie can be, faithful to the tone and style of Lewis's work, which Jackson's LotR was not. imho. I came away wishing that LotR was more Tolkien and less Lucas or perhaps that should be, more consistently Jackson's own vision rather than piecework.

I also thought the acting in Narnia overall was several notches above that in LotR. I didn't sense any miscues as happens in LotR, with silly jokes at Gimli's expense. The humour is in keeping with the aesthetic vision of the movie. Nor did I feel there was a host of unnecessary plot/character changes. (I am not impressed with the Arwen/Aragorn dynamic in LotR and the horse snogging.) Tilda Swinton was magnificent as the White Witch; I never once was reminded of her other more iconoclastic roles such as in Orlando, but often thought of how much the character reminded me of Bodeacia, the ancient British queen. For me, she carried the role more convincingly than Kate Blanchett did Galadriel.

So, a stunningly beautiful re-creation of Lewis' work. There were times, however, when I felt the pacing could have been swifter--extended camera pans of the children's faces to mark their emotional reactions after awhile became tedious and I found myself ruminating upon the shape and form of children's dental development. I also wondered why the White Witch had to have hair that ressembled the Rasstafarians' way with coils and curls.

That said, the movie could not escape some of my regrets over Lewis's work--and this is a matter of personal taste. Like Tolkien, I dislike the style and form of the allegory, both in terms of some the direct 'meaning' and in terms of some of the symbols chosen for various representations. I understand that most members of the audience would need some historical background to explain why the children are shipped off from their mother but the context of the war with the Nazis has a particularly unpalatable effect of providing a historical context which I wouldn't support--and one which Tolkien himself clearly disagrees with. Secondly, why winter has to be something terrible I can't understand. Perhaps this is natural for an Englishman, but the Canadian in me knows it is part of the natural order of things so why should it become a fixture of the evil witch? I wouldn't want to live in an endless spring or summer; it is the variation which is valuable.

Similarly, I found myself wondering why foxes were good but wolves--wargs?--are bad. Farley Mowat trumps Lewis here as far as I am concerned. Nor can I accept as a condition of movie belief that the male god Aslan must triumph over the female goddess. Yes, I understand that this is a feature of Lewis's ideology but it is one which limits the books for me and thus the movies. Tolkien's books are not so limited as they eschew such a direct alleogorical interpretation.

I also question the concept of putting a medieval world with colourful banners and gorgeous tents and kings and queens and lovely gowns into the context of children's fantasy world, one distanced from the real world they live in. Don't get me wrong--I love the idea of a wardrobe full of adventure--but ultimately the fantasy is diminshed by it being something outside the children's real world, despite the Professor's willingness to listen. It is dressup. This does not happen with Tolkien's fantasy world because of how he has placed it as historically prior to our time.

All this said, I wonder if Narnia will lack the wide ranging audience which LotR was able to grab. There were a good many families with children in the theatre with us and fewer adolescents or adults there on their own.

Lalaith

12-27-2005, 07:56 AM

I also thought the acting in Narnia overall was several notches above that in LotR
I totally agree, Bethberry. Firstly, I thought the four children acted the socks off the four hobbit performers in LotR. I find Lewis a "cheesier" author than Tolkien, but the films were the reverse, LotR was I felt often marred by "cheesy" performances, but in Narnia, a lot of the acting was interesting and even subversive. I´m particularly talking about James McElvoy and Tilda Swinton. Swinton´s White Witch was no caricature villainess, at times she verged dangerously close to provoking admiration and even sympathy. (I wonder what her real life children made of her creepy maternal act...) McElvoy created a more complicated Tumnus than the cuddly faun of the books and I liked his performance very much.
The beasts of Narnia were beautifully done and the various monsters better characterised than the grubby rabble of LotR.
However, despite everything, I still prefer LotR. I enjoyed Narnia but I didn´t immediately want to see it again, which was my reaction to LotR.
Of course, I much prefer Tolkien´s work so that could have something to do with it. But I also felt that despite all the flaws there were moments of real grandeur in the Jackson films which the Narnia film, almost, but not quite attained. (The flying battle gryphons were the closest it got, I think.)
A couple of things about both films: I wish I could force any modern film director making a film set or written in the 1940 and 50s, to watch Brief Encounter ten times before he starts the cameras rolling. There was a better attempt to recreate the "stiff upper lip" in this film than in LotR, but there is still too much 21st century emotional incontinence going on. This is especially important in Narnia - a wild and natural country which liberates the Pevensie children from their 1940s uncomfortable and rigid clothes, food, manners and behaviour. Too much was made of the war, not enough of the rigidity.
Also, I think the transition from child to hero, which occurs in both Tolkien and Lewis, was not done convincingly enough in the films.
This was particularly bad with Frodo in LotR, who went straight from child to psycho with very little heroism in between. But the children in the Narnia film were whinging about going home, even in the midst of battle. I´m sure that didn´t happen in the book. I thought of the children, only Peter made a fairly convincing transition, I would have liked to have seen the other children change more, too, in bearing and manner.

Lalwendë

12-27-2005, 11:06 AM

I also wondered why the White Witch had to have hair that ressembled the Rasstafarians' way with coils and curls.

I was reminded more of cybergoth hairstyles; look this up on google and you'll see what I mean. ;)

I've also been wondering if Narnia will catch on as a film 'phenomenon'. It seems to lack what it takes to get the youthful 'fanboy' element into the cinema, mainly it has to be said through the nature of the tale itself; the characters are children, which might not be seen as 'cool', sadly. Even Peter is worlds apart from a contemporary youth. I wonder what there is to identify with for the broader teenage market (not including those on the 'downs who of course have impeccable taste ;) ).

However, it seems that Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire was the number one film in the UK in 2005 (which surprised me, even though I thought it was a great film), thus proving that once a series has caught on then audiences will flock to see the latest installment. If Narnia can catch on in this way then there's hope they will make films through to the end of the series. And I have to add that I've seen a lot of kids looking at Narnia books in the shops over Christmas!

I also question the concept of putting a medieval world with colourful banners and gorgeous tents and kings and queens and lovely gowns into the context of children's fantasy world, one distanced from the real world they live in. Don't get me wrong--I love the idea of a wardrobe full of adventure--but ultimately the fantasy is diminshed by it being something outside the children's real world, despite the Professor's willingness to listen. It is dressup. This does not happen with Tolkien's fantasy world because of how he has placed it as historically prior to our time.

I do have a slight problem, as an adult, accepting 'transition fantasy' such as this. As a child, I firmly believed that if I sat on the rug for long enough then it would turn into a magic carpet or that the old chair would turn into Blyton's Wishing Chair, but nowadays I know that if I spend any time poking around in the back of old wardrobes all I'm going to find is a load of wonky MDF and some nails that want replacing. I just can't help thinking "did they just imagine it all?", which spoils things. I even have this sense with Harry Potter, that there's something about the Hogwarts Express that's too transitional, which is why I think I've enjoyed the later books with dementors in suburbia and the like much more.

I think that's why Tolkien's world is so satisfying. There is no jumping off point, as it's all there from the first page and there is no need to suspend my rational mind. Likewise Gormenghast.

Bêthberry

12-27-2005, 11:49 AM

. . . a lot of the acting was interesting and even subversive. I´m particularly talking about James McElvoy and Tilda Swinton. Swinton´s White Witch was no caricature villainess, at times she verged dangerously close to provoking admiration and even sympathy. (I wonder what her real life children made of her creepy maternal act...) McElvoy created a more complicated Tumnus than the cuddly faun of the books and I liked his performance very much.

Lalaith, I think you are quite correct to see a subversive depiction of the maternal influence there; this would be quite in keeping with Swinton's acting history. As I watched Peter, I found myself thinking of how the teenage boy must dissociate himself from the mother image in order to grow up. And I agree about McElvoy. He shares in the credit for making Narnia so successful, for it is his character which gives not only Lucy but us entry to it.

A couple of things about both films: I wish I could force any modern film director making a film set or written in the 1940 and 50s, to watch Brief Encounter ten times before he starts the cameras rolling. There was a better attempt to recreate the "stiff upper lip" in this film than in LotR, but there is still too much 21st century emotional incontinence going on. This is especially important in Narnia - a wild and natural country which liberates the Pevensie children from their 1940s uncomfortable and rigid clothes, food, manners and behaviour. Too much was made of the war, not enough of the rigidity.

What a fascinating expression, "emotional incontinence"! One of the most difficult things for adolescents to develope is, I think, a sense of historical perspective and an understanding that in the past behaviour and social decorum had different expectations. But your reading of how the children are liberated from the wartime limitations is very interesting. Makes me think of Tolkien starting his legendarium in response to his own wartime experiences.

I was reminded more of cybergoth hairstyles; look this up on google and you'll see what I mean.

Ah ha! Yet I suppose my main point remains. Why must the villainess have dreadlocks, of whatever cultural style? Merely to suggest her rebellion against the right order of things? Or is that part of her attractiveness, that she is unusual?

I think that's why Tolkien's world is so satisfying. There is no jumping off point, as it's all there from the first page and there is no need to suspend my rational mind. Likewise Gormenghast.

Exactly. Why should fantasy and imagination be regarded solely as children's play?

Mireiel

01-01-2006, 12:50 AM

I'm going to inerject some randomness here since I didn't have time to read the whole thread....I caught myself comparing Narnia to Lotr, but....it's just not the same story. Yes, Tolkien and Lewis were friends and their writing styles are similar, but Lewis wrote so that people would understand that he was writing from a Christian perspective....Tolkien kinda leaves it up to the reader to figure out the connections with the characters and those characters of religion.

Cailín

01-05-2006, 05:21 PM

I don’t think I have much to add, but I’ll give you all my personal opinion (a bit late because the Narnia movie here was not released till the 23rd):

Well, the Narnia movie was certainly interesting. Actually, I loved it. I have seen it twice now and still would not mind seeing it again. It was even better than seeing Lord of the Rings, since I was far more familiar with the Narnia books than I was with Tolkien’s work at the time.

They followed the book very closely – as close as I have ever seen a movie follow a book – which I can only admire. The few additions did not seem over the top or in anyway degrading. The special effects were marvellous. Especially the talking animals greatly exceeded my expectations. I was quite impressed with the performances of all the children, the youngest girl in particular, and found the overall casting very well done. The humour sometimes seemed a little cheesy and I heard many people complaining about the length – two of my friends admitted to being bored during the first half of the movie -, but that did not bother me. I must say I agree with Valesse about some of the costumes. Honestly, that dress was awful.

It is interesting how this movie has awakened a hype in Holland, but I fear it is a hype mostly limited to the fantasy fans and people my age. The books were not very well known here at all and there are still many people who look surprised when I tell them The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was originally a book. As for the general public, the movie was not well received here. The reviews were pretty bad – some downright awful - and since practically none of the parents knew the book, most were rather apprehensive to take their children to see a movie that might possibly be violent. Of course, I have done my best to promote it – and the books, too, but even my parents rather believe the critics than me.

Compared to Lord of the Rings, I still think Peter Jackson wins. His challenge was far greater, of course, and his movies were revolutionary, whereas Narnia is merely entertaining. But I do feel that Narnia has really shown that a book can be adapted to the screen without doing serious damage to the contents. For example, this adaptation was endlessly superior to the Harry Potter movies, which make me cringe every time I watch them. And of course - as books, Lord of the Rings is far better than Narnia. When reading Narnia, I sometimes feel a little patronised, while in Lord of the Rings - even though it has its own moral - I never feel like someone is trying to force me to think in a certain way.

As to the religious theme: I’m not really a Christian myself – just a little, every once in a while- , but I guess davem used the right quote:

'Jesus to me was just a man in a book, but I could have died for Aslan'

I guess I’m not that surprised that evangelists seize the opportunity to do some promoting, and they have the right to. I fear that they will mostly get puzzled looks from confused children, though.

Azaelia of Willowbottom

01-12-2006, 03:06 PM

I usually hesitate in posting in a thread that has been inactive, even for a little while, for fear of just making things drag on and on, when the discussion is really over.
So forgive me if this thread is "dead"... ;)

Anyway...
The movie Narnia did evoke LOTR at times. I remember experiencing a jolt out of the world of the movie (never a good thing) when the White Witch said, "We have work to do" to one of her minions. I was reminded of Saruman in the movies, I admit.
I have never seen a movie stick so close to the book as Narnia did.
That being said, I feel that Narnia was more like popcorn. Sure, it had depth, but...I dunno. There was something about it that didn't evoke as much emotion in me as the LOTR movies did.
Part of it may be the religion. Don't get me wrong, I am christian, but I like my symbolism subtle, when it's there at all. I have the same problem with the books. I also do not agree with many of C.S. Lewis' ideas about the faith: male-dominated, etc. Also, before seeing Narnia, I went back and re-read the series, since I hadn't read them since I was about seven years old...and couldn't BELIEVE that Susan wasn't allowed back into Narnia because she was interested in lipstick and invitations, and is dismissed as always trying to be too grown up. If Narnia is supposed to signify heaven, I guess that most of us are destined for hell, then, because that shift in interests happens to most people. So that and the anti-feminism in the books may have ruined the movie for me.
It was still a good show, but I do disdain allegory now that I'm old enough to see through it.

OK, so enough of my ranting. I guess what I missed in Narnia was the magic. LOTR drew me in, and I could really believe in Middle-Earth. I guess it's more of what other people were saying about transition fantasy. It's not like I had a hard time suspending disbelief (the special effects and acting were amazing, in both movies), it's more that I didn't feel as invested in the story with LWW as I did in LOTR, and the difference may have been that with LOTR there is nothing in between. You open the book and you're there. No transition necessary. Narnia was a mostly fun movie (though the Stone Table scene was downright scary, I do admit), but LOTR felt much more consistantly serious.

And another interesting note about the White Witch's costume... Did anyone else pick up on how she dressed with a lion-like theme at the battle, down to the makeup at the inner corners of her eyes? I thought that was a great costume choice, really rather spooky.

Firefoot

01-12-2006, 03:39 PM

All your opinions here have made me really excited to see the movie again... once it comes to the cheap theatre here in town, whenever that is...and couldn't BELIEVE that Susan wasn't allowed back into Narnia because she was interested in lipstick and invitations, and is dismissed as always trying to be too grown up. If Narnia is supposed to signify heaven, I guess that most of us are destined for hell, then, because that shift in interests happens to most people. So that and the anti-feminism in the books may have ruined the movie for me. A couple of people have mentioned this now, I believe, and I find it interesting how many people this bothers. I have always taken it a different way, that Susan was not excluded because she was interested only in lipstick and invitations, but because she could no longer believe in Narnia. Perhaps it is put in a bad way, but I don't think that the emphasis is meant to be where it has been put. Susan's problem isn't that she has new interests, but that her new interests exclude the old.

To use a rather unlikely scenario as a comparison, it would be rather like Frodo saying to Sam after the WotR, "Oh, you actually still think about the Ring and Elves and those old stories?" If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

davem

01-12-2006, 04:51 PM

If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

Or able to?

Durelin

01-12-2006, 05:38 PM

I've always preferred looking at Narnia as encompassing innocence (rather than being 'heaven,' whatever exactly that is), the childlike wonder we have when we enter the world, newly created. And about how we lose that innocence. So saying that Sarah could not return to Narnian because she became interested in 'lipstick and invitations' I think is more of a reference to her losing her childlike interest as she becomes more focused on the 'real world' and its materialistic nature, than any other one. Or, perhaps it is her that she has entered a state of complacency when it comes to the actual nature of the world, and simply lives out her daily life based on more 'trivial' things, which could very well be just about anything we humans busy ourselves with on earth, when we consider the larger picture.

Of course, in using the word 'innocence' I risk so much equivocation that I was reluctant to post. ;)

The other quick point I'd like to make is simply that I believe allegory in itself is only dislikable so long as you read too much of what the author has to say about his/her story, and don't simply enjoy what you'd like to think about it. :)

-Durelin

davem

01-15-2006, 07:12 AM

Lalwendë

01-15-2006, 07:57 AM

Estelyn Telcontar

01-15-2006, 10:35 AM

If those two articles were satires, they'd be brilliant. As they are apparently meant to be serious, I can only hope that people reading them will be discerning. I have seldom seen such a threadbare collection of arguments. It also seems to me that this author belongs to those persons who give God's opponent(s) more honour than he/they deserve. The only thing we can do about this kind of "journalism" is to ignore it; the test of time will show what it's worth.

mark12_30

01-15-2006, 04:50 PM

I found the exchange between Edmund and Philip to be pretty funny as well.

I thought it was a perfect little offhand addition, in line with Lewis' themes, understated-- unlike some of the additions that made it into PJ's movies. It was like a foreshadowing of The Horse And His Boy... really well done.

What interests me is the way Evangelicals have grabbed onto Narnia but didn't bother with LotR (ok, some did, but not to any extent in the same way).

Heh! Latecomer. ;)

Mister Underhill

01-15-2006, 07:58 PM

Ah, but according to the same writer, LotR is also evil (http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract11.html):Those articles evoke nothing so much as pity. I mean, you have to be pretty out of it to think that this little bit of satire (http://humourhumour.com/article/bin/bushseigneur2.jpg) is the real deal.

Thinlómien

01-16-2006, 08:09 AM

I'm maybe a bit late to comment the Narnia movie, but I hope that it doesn't matter. It's also been a while from the day I saw the movie, so I might do mistakes about the plotline etc.

Generally, the movie was okay, in my opinion. I didn't like emphasizing in every turn, that Edmund was different. The book doesn't do so, why should the movie? I think there were too many close shots from the children crying; they (especially the girls) were crying all the time. It was annoying. Only after seeing Narnia I realised how well had Peter Jackson managed with crying in Lotr movies.

The battle was well made, and after seeing other fantasy or historical movie battle scenes (LotR, Troy, King Arthur etc.) it was really amusing with all the colours and beautiful creatures. The humour (as said before) was also better in the LotR movies. I, too, really liked the Philip-thing. I was also left wondering, why on earth do they hunt the white stag? Didn't animals speak in Narnia and be equals with them? That they were chasing an evil stag, wouldn't be a good theory.

Maybe something about the movie may also tell that when going back home from the movies, I, my sister and my dad were talking about the creatures. I said: "I liked the bat-creature in the scene where Mufasa was killed". You can only imagine how hard they laughed. There were actually very much same in movie-Aslan and Mufasa. And the scene where Aslan tells Peter (they're standing on a cliff) what to do if he won't be there and so on, it's just like the scene in lion king where Mufasa shows his kingdom to Simba and tells about being king. (I'll stop here, because this isn't Comparing Narnia and Lion King -thread...)

Anguirel

01-17-2006, 09:36 AM

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/narnia%5Fchronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie :eek:

Interesting to compare with ranting of this type (and with the more serious and widely accepted persecution of the Harry Potter series) is this comment about the Morte D'Arthur of Malory by the Puritan preacher Nathaniel Baxter (c.1550-1635)-

"This prophane and frivolous book...details the horrible acts of those whoremasters, Lancelot du Lake, Tristram de Lionesse, Gareth of Orkney, Merlin, the lady of the Lake, with the vile and stinking story of the Sangreal..."

Particularly remarkable is the description of the Lady of the Lake as a "whoremaster", and of the Grail Quest story, a pious, spiritual tale elaborated by Church propagandists, as "vile and stinking."

It seems people like Nathaniel Baxter and Pastor I'm-A-Former-Witch-And-Books-Are-The-Work-Of-Satan have always existed. The same emotions shine through-violently suppressed interest in the works they condemn, prurience, and lack of any understanding or knowledge of their target texts whatsoever...

Frodo Baggins

01-28-2006, 10:24 AM

Oh Valesse, you are such a pest at times (thespians can be SO annoying)! ;) :rolleyes:

Thinlomion: They were not chasing the stag (who I am certain was a talking stag) to kill it. It was said if you caught the stag it would give you wishes. I assume that after you got your wishes you let the stag free.

Kuruharan said it before I could, Narnia wins hans down as the least stupid plot derivations. I have seen many movies adapted from books and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is by far the most faithful. I say we have dear Douglas Gresham to thank for that.

There were a few derivations but they did not detract that much. My friend Puddleglum and I agree that the white witch did not look right. Her face should have been whiter and her hair black.

The stone table whas what I had the biggest problem with, it looked just not right. To stonehengey not tabley enough. That and the tree people. I thought they were supposed to look more like people and not like blossoms blowing around.

Mr. Tumnus was already a stone when Edmund got there. (I think Edmund saw him did he not?) But Tumnus has always been one of my favourite characters so I liked seeing more of him. And James McCavoy makes an adoreable Faun anyway. (and no that was not a fangirly statement)

I know the children being chased by the witch on the way to Aslan was not in line with the book but it was kind of cool when they thought they were being chased but it turned out to be Father Christmas. I was so caught up in the movie that I had completely forgotten about Father Christmas (even though I had finished the book that morning) and really thought he was the witch until Mr. Beaver said "It's not her!" and then I went "Oh yeah! Of course"!

The humour in the film certainly seemed more natural, less forced than LOTR. Like when Father Christmas says "I have been driving reindeer longer than she has." (Ok that was a paraphrase) Or the Centaur says to Peter "Numbers do not win a battle." and Peter says "No, but I bet they help." The Edmund/Philip excange was priceless.

I'm not that familiar with Liam Neeson, but my mom likes him a lot. I actually thought he was a pretty good voice for Aslan. When Aslan roared I wanted to fall on my knees and cry out "Aslan! Aslan!". It is so moving when he gives himself in Edmund's place. I cried then. And I cried at the coronation too.

As for the battle.....Oh...my....goodness!!! It was so amazing! I won't call it better than LOTR but certainly it had more detail. It was probably one of the best battle scenes I have seen. Certainly it was more optomistic than those of LOTR but as stated before, the people in Narnia had nowhere to go but up while Middle earth was going downhill fast.

There was certainly as much if not more showings of relationships in Narnia, but that may come with the main characters being siblings, although Lucy and Mr. Tumnus become quite close. Being a girl who likes stories where bad guys get their heads handed to them, I still like to see good guys (and girls) in said stories having relationships with each other (comes with being a girl). I am glad there was no unnecessary romance secenes involving rebellious dryads and overprotective fathers. :D

In all, I just love both Narnia and LOTR, for the same and different reasons. Were I asked to chosse which was better, I don't think I could.

HerenIstarion

01-31-2006, 06:02 AM

Just a tidbit - I've got the impression that Professor and Polly and the rest of them thought that Susan would not be allowed into Aslan's Kingdom. They've had good grounds to think so, but for two points: 1. She did not die with the rest of them in the railway accident, so there was still time for her to change. 2. Throughout the books, Aslan always answers questions about others that 'nobody is told anybody's story but their own'. Susan as she was than and there, maybe, but there is no knowing what may have happened/will happen later

Caunwaithon

02-11-2006, 03:35 AM

I'd like to point out, that C.S. lewis, an aethiest, designed the " sons of adam- and daughters of eve" story-

And that J.R.R. Tolkien, a stalwart catholic, created the whole christian like religion that is LOTR.

And the two were close companions, the would go to cafes and get coffee together.

I have a question, however-

Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belong to a society of writers. I remeber this, but I do not remeber the name of it. There were (I think) around 12 members.

If you get this, could you PM it to me?

Estelyn Telcontar

02-11-2006, 12:01 PM

At the time C. S. Lewis wrote the Narnia books, he was no longer an atheist. Tolkien was instrumental in his decision to become a Christian. Both were members of the Inklings, a literary society. You can find out more on this forum by using the search function for 'Inklings', or from other sources by googling the word.

Caunwaithon

02-11-2006, 12:35 PM

AH! The Inklings! Thanks.

And I never knew that C.S. lewis became christian. Cool fact there.

alatar

03-13-2006, 06:02 PM

Finally saw LWW. We'd taken the kids to an indoor waterpark, and, as is our tradition, we rent a movie for them to see while in the hotel. The kids had seen the animated version of LWW more than a few times, and so the story, characters, etc needed little explanation. Note that my children, being my children, all have watched the LotR PJ films. Also note that I read LWW somewhere back in the depths of time, and am not a big fan of Narnia.

Some points of interest (or not ;) ):
The kids thought, when the movie started with the Blitz, that it *was* LotR. No clue.
Mr. Tumnus creeped me out. Not sure if it's his resemblance to Elijah Wood's Frodo or the fact that he wanted to kidnap Lucy.
The kids liked the beavers and other talking creatures.
Edmund seems to be beat up a bit, and to me is more sympathetic. Older brother Peter could be a bit more understanding and wise, and even when these two siblings reconcile at the end, I would have preferred a 'hug' or a shoulder slap to the joking comment.
The death of Aslan wasn't as scary as the cartoon version.
With the exception of the "jump-out-and-scare-you" things, my children, aged 6 years and less, didn't find the film spooky at all. No nightmares, which was a plus.
Lucy receiving a dagger was saddening.
I too got a bit fixated on the gapped teeth.
The battle scene at the end was whitewashed, unlike TTT and RotK, but as I guess that this film is aimed at children, that would be expected. It wasn't as good (well shot or emotional) as in LotR, but that could be because I'm not a child and that we never really 'zoom in' to the battle. For example, I couldn't care less if that centaur dude got stoned by the White Witch, but Haldir's death still saddens me.
Although already noted, I too saw 'Uruk at Helm's Deep' in the minotaur at the last battle.
Did anyone else think about the "Footprints" Jesus parable when Aslan walks up the beach at the end?
The coronation at the end was anti-climatic. The girls of the house would like the crowns and the dresses, but the ceremony meant nothing to them. My one daughter would have preferred a marriage ceremony. And, of course, the boy would have stayed at the battle playing with swords.
I noted that when the Witch Witch fights Peter, using two swords after her wand/spear is destroyed by Edmund, that she really looks like she can swing the swords and that was cool.
I found Santa Claus unexpected (forgot that) and inappropriate. Talking horses and beavers and witches and swords, and now for something that not only is pretty pedestrian (Santa sells cars) but slowing to the film.

LWW is a good film, but it's not as good as PJ's LotR, but it's apples and oranges.

Tuor of Gondolin

03-16-2006, 11:29 AM

So are more Narnia films planned? PJ wisely did all
three at once, and I assume the HP movies continue
because of the books and movies success.

As for LWW, it was overall much more consistent to
the book then I expected, including Santa Claus, which
could have been cut but presumably wasn't for young children.
And if the White Witch was so evil, why didn't she have her
minions cut up/blow up the good guys when they were stones?
It didn't seem all that much scary. I thought the ruined/deserted
palace in Willow was scarier.

alatar

03-27-2006, 04:52 PM

Can't help but post this thought after watching (yet again) the animated version of LWW (soon to be the new version when the Easter Bunny drops off the DVD).

Knowing what I know about PJ, having watched his take on LotR, I just shudder to think what he would have brought to LWW:
Aslan would have jumped out of the brush a few times at the humans to 'increase tension.'
The White Witch's sleigh would have been three times as big.
During the scene where Susan and Lucy grieve over the lifeless body of Aslan, PJ surely would have added a belch (one of the rats, perhaps) to lighten the mood a bit.
At the last battle, Peter would have faced a four-armed White Witch who'd swing four huge swords.
During the negotiations over the fate of Edmund, someone would have lost a head.
Mr. Beaver would have had a drinking contest with the fox.
Edmund, having slain some minion of the WW, would have defiantly stated, "I AM no overlarge beardless dwarf!"
"Hand over the humans, He-faun!"
etc...

Samwise

03-27-2006, 05:00 PM

Personally, having read all 7 books, (though not in a long time) I thought Narnia was great as a movie. :) I enjoyed it thouroughly. :D Watching it, as I did LOTR, I found myself thinking that many things were just as I would have imagined them to be. Granted, they cut the end part a bit short because of time, but other than that I thought it was quite good.

edit: Thankfully, alatar, PJ did NOT. :rolleyes:

Kuruharan

03-27-2006, 05:35 PM

Knowing what I know about PJ, having watched his take on LotR, I just shudder to think what he would have brought to LWW

Don't forget that prior to the battle, the Dufflepuds would have miraculously arrived to assist the Narnians and even out the numbers a little!!!

Of course, in order to highten the dramatic tension of this duffer ex machina, all the good creatures would have to be cut from the movie so that Peter and Edmund could face the Witch's army all by themselves.

The Beavers would have taken the children on a little side trip to Calormen so that they could...actually, we don't really know why.

Okay...I must stop before I get really carried away... ;)

Ellewen

03-27-2006, 06:43 PM

Few words, Like like niether better than the other... I think Narnia is less "dark" in more ways than one. LotR has cooler swordfights, and Narnia has cooler creatures... In my opinion at least...

alatar

03-28-2006, 10:25 PM

Not sure how I forgot to add these:
After his resurrection, the new Aslan leans more on Peter, ever asking his advice and also hopes to glean information from the Witch's dwarf, and almost does get the deep magic information that he needs but at the last is thwarted as the dwarf meets an untimely end on a spikey lamp post.
The returned Aslan cowers when confronted by the Witch-Queen, and it's only the horns of the centaurs that save his mane.

Tuor in Gondolin

03-29-2006, 11:48 AM

But you've forgotten PJ's having Peter being shoved
into the river by the wolves, drifting down unconscious
and being awakened by a unicorn!

(While some PJ changes were understandable, I
think he would have been better served staying, as was
frequently possible, more to the book. It would have
meant the movies standing up better in the long run,
as FOTR does more then the two other films).
And as I suspect the LWW will.

Parmawen

04-13-2006, 11:56 PM

This is a similarity I found between the books actually, but it seems to fit in this thread.

In the Magician's Nephew (the first book of the Chronicles of Narnia) the world is created by Aslan singing it into being. I always thought that was incredibly creative: he sang as he thought of the trees, flowers, and people to live there. As well, in the Silmarillion, in the Ainulindalë part, the Ainur sing Arda into creation out of the void.

So I don't know if they both had the idea of singing of creation, or if they discovered it together, but I think it's a really neat similarity. Does anyone else know any myths involving singing to create?

davem

04-14-2006, 02:08 AM

Not much time to reply now but certainly the Kalevala has a sung creation.

Boromir88

04-26-2006, 03:15 PM

Well I received The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe for my birthday and watched it...and I must say it is absolutely wonderful movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly (probably not as much as I enjoyed LOTR, but definitely great movie).

I guess I will start off with an interesting occurence that happened. I was reading some thoughts on Narnia, and it happened that this person was the exact opposite from me. He had read LOTR probably 2-3 times and had read LWW, a countless amounts. For me, it's the complete opposite, where I recently read LWW probably a couple months ago. What was interesting about it is I said that from what I remember it felt like the movies were more accurate to the books than what LOTR was to it's books. And I said, probably because Narnia is much less complex and much shorter than LOTR where it would be easier to work with. And this person had responded with kind of shock, thinking...wow I thought it was so altered and changed from the books. Which again, was exactly opposite of how I felt. But, since I was less familiar with LWW I felt it was closer to the story, where this person was less familiar with LOTR and felt like it was closer. It was just interesting on getting someone who had been a big fan of Narnia and me, being just acquainted with it, and how we felt about the accuracy of the movies compared to the books...as well as Jackson's accuracy to the books.

I was impressed with Narnia, and when Aslan was first mentioned in the Beaver's home I actually got a chill...the same feeling I got when Theoden arrived to Gondor's aid. I think you all know that "chill" feeling you get when the Chutzpa scenes hit you...that's the same feel I got when Aslan was being talked about in the Beaver's home...kind of interesting I thought. Especially since Lewis talks about hearing the name and the "lifting" one gets from hearing Aslan, yet they know they should also fear the name.

I also felt like Peter was similar to Aragorn (in the movies). Both were reluctant to become who they were meant to become...and that was a King. But when the time came, both were able to make that decision and were able to become the "King" as they were meant to be.

Those are just some thoughts I've had after watching the movie. :)

Samwise

04-26-2006, 08:05 PM

Wow. Thank you for posting your thoughts. I, myself, found the LWW movie quite close to the book, though, as I think I've said earlier, part of what they did cut was due to lack of time. However, to parallel, I smiled at the moments when direct quotes were used from the LWW book, just as I smiled when allusions were made to the books in LOTR, particularly in FOTR:
"Oh, a long expected party."
"Riddles in the dark."
"It's 'A shortcut to mushrooms!' "

I haven't read LWW and the other six books for some time, but I still smiled (and quoted the line out loud) when Tumnus is on the balcony with Queen Lucy as she watches him walk down the beach, and Tumnus (and I) said:
"He's not a tame lion, you know...."

Gotta love those moments.... ;)

davem

06-10-2006, 02:05 PM

Interesting comments from Tilda Swinton, on how she approached playing the White Witch (interview in Vogue of Dec '05)

Swinton, who joined the Communist Party in Britain in her 20 s & uses phrases like 'advanced capitalism' & 'industrial film-making' in conversation without blinking, found an appropriate political dimension to bring to the role which departs from Pauline Baynes illustrations for CS Lewis' original book, by having the White Witch be blonde. Lewis' novel, which was set during the London Blitz, is widely interpreted as a Christian parable, but Swinton's reading was different, with an overtly racial slant: 'I wanted her to be an Aryan. As far as I'm concerned she's the ultimate White Supremicist & I wanted to make the character somewhat modern. I felt it a little irresponsible, particularly at the moment, to portray the epitome of evil as either a Jew or an Arab' she said, referring to the Witch's famously dark hair.

Interesting that she appeared to see a danger in playing the Witch with dark hair - how many viewers would have made a connection between a dark haired Witch & the current political situaltion?

I'm reminded of the way some right-wingers attempted to use the movies as propaganda for the Iraq war. Interesting also, is the way the Communist Swinton can find such a clear 'non-Christian' interpretation of the story.

Anguirel

06-10-2006, 02:13 PM

Fascinating. I thought Miss Swinton was better than that. From dark hair to Semitic-aimed slur is one of the wildest leaps I've ever seen.

However, entirely by accident, I don't think she's far wrong in classing Jadis as an Aryan. Particularly in the Magician's Nephew in the scenes of the dying empire of Charn, the Empress Jadis does seem Aryan, in a way which does not preclude dark hair.

Aryan in the sense that the Great Kings of Persia (with more ethnic accuracy than that upstart Fuhrer) imagined themselves as Lords of an Aryan master race, who had naturally been ordained to subdue the natives of Iran, and form there, the world. Jadis has that air of absolute, terrifying Eastern grandeur, despotic and compelling even when at the point of death.

They'd better not give the Lady of the Green Kirtle dark hair. But of course it doesn't work that way round...

Lalaith

06-10-2006, 04:18 PM

Oh, I *love* the Lady of the Green Kirtle. I wonder who they'll get to play her?

I also love Tilda Swinton but I think she'd scare the bejaysus out of me if I was sat next to her at a dinner party.

Nogrod

06-10-2006, 05:49 PM

Aryan in the sense that the Great Kings of Persia (with more ethnic accuracy than that upstart Fuhrer) imagined themselves as Lords of an Aryan master race, who had naturally been ordained to subdue the natives of Iran, and form there, the world. Jadis has that air of absolute, terrifying Eastern grandeur, despotic and compelling even when at the point of death.
If my memory serves me right, the Aryans came to be known by the civilised world when they conquered the northern parts of India first - from there they spreaded to Persia (nowadays Iran / Iraq). They were the ones to introduce the caste-system to india, but ethnically very far from Hitler or his compatriots. I remember one of my former student, of Iranian origin, laughing at it, saying, that he was the most Aryan of the whole class (here in Scandinavia!). And I do think he was right in that. The Aryan myth by the Third Reich is not the same thing as the question of the real Aryans in history. So being an Aryan does not mean - in the history - of being yellow-haired, pale-skinned, blue-eyed or having high cheek-bones. That's the popular image, but as the popular images generally go, so wrong!

So the white witch / wizard (Narnia's baddie or Gandalf) being a blonde is just a North European (nazi-idea or simultaneous with it - going with the same current of thought anyway) preoccupation - that Tolkien seemed to share. So hard as it is to admit this one for a Scandinavian...

I think this has been discussed in other threads already, but surely there is something very interesting in the fact that a story told by "a racist and a chauvinist" (to put it bluntly) still arouses this much of interest and admiration all over the world. I can relate to it fully as it is part of my own cultural inheritage and we might discuss the general standards of Heroism, the battle between the good and the evil and so on. But still, I see the the points of my tradition to prevail in his stories, not to my liking in all the cases (womens subordination, the east being the bad - as well as dark people of the south, the individualistic ethos with a catholic writer, the most common symbolism - bearing a strict relation to real symbolic world of the "people of the north" etc.).

I love Tolkien's stories and the world he has created, but at the same time I can see, that he could be blamed to forestate a lot of things that are wrong in this world right now (you just take the right-wing populistic movements around Europe and think whether Tolkien could be taken up with their campaigns - well, surely he could).

Conservatism, when it talks of the ties between people and the communal feeling, is the most wealthiest of ideologies. But it is also the most dangerous one: giving birth to hate, disgust and the overall distaste for differences. I hope and believe Tolkien was fighting for the first ones, but am afraid, that many people choose to think good of him because of the latter ones (not in this Forum, I believe, but sadly in the RL).

davem

06-11-2006, 02:15 AM

But still, I see the the points of my tradition to prevail in his stories, not to my liking in all the cases (womens subordination, the east being the bad - as well as dark people of the south, the individualistic ethos with a catholic writer, the most common symbolism - bearing a strict relation to real symbolic world of the "people of the north" etc.).

As to the 'east being bad' thing, it is inevitable. In Northern myths the West is the place of Paradise/the Otherworld, so Tolkien starts with that (in Beowulf Scyld comes out of, & returns to, the West; when someone dies (or an object stops working), we in England at least say they/it has 'Gone west'. The Immrama of the Celts involve journeys over the Sea into the West). So, Tolkien has his Earthly Paradise in the West.

Now, because there is a geographical location of 'Holiness', which in Tolkien's myth is symbolised by Light, the further away away one moves from that Light the greater the Darkness becomes - hence the decreasing 'enlightenment' of peoples as one moves eastward.

In a Quest story the hero must move into dangerous territory, things must get darker & more perilous. Inevitably with the set up Tolkien has chosen the direction the questing heroes must take is eastward, because that is the direction that moves them away from the Light, & into the Dark. Its not that Tolkien decided 'Right, everybody knows those people in Eastern Europe/Asia are wicked & immoral, so I'll have the baddies in my world in the same geographical location.

Having said that, Tolkien was attempting to use real world Northern European myths & legends, & write 'what really happened', & the greatest threat in the early medieval period were the Huns under Atilla - who does pop up in various legends. Enemies 'invading' from the east & threatening the West with destruction is a common theme in western legend even into the Christian period. Muslim armies swept up into Europe during their early expansionist phase. So, I think Tolkien is mainly using Light/Dark symbolism & overlaying that on his map, but we can't discount the very deep, if mainly unconscious, symbolism of invasion from the East on the Western European mind. The two greatest threats to European civilisation came in the form of violent & unprovoked assaults from Eastern forces bent on conquest & destruction. From this Perspective for a Western audience a threat of destruction coming from the East would feel 'right', because the East is the direction our ancestors always felt was the place of greatest danger. (If one wanted to start an argument one might suggest that Christianity also came from the East & swept away a thriving & highly advanced Western civilisation as well, but I've always tried to avoid controversy on these boards....)

As to 'Women's subordination' well, inevitably that's a result of both Tolkien's cultural background & of the particular type of 'medieval' world he is writing about. Having said that, in comparison to other writers of fantasy of the same, or earlier, period Tolkien's female characters are far ahead of any others in complexity & freedom of action.

Lalaith

06-11-2006, 02:20 AM

Agreed, davem. It is much easier (despite the presence of Lucy as the central character in LWW) to argue a case for CS Lewis being a sexist writer than Tolkien. The fear of feminine power (Jadis, the above-mentioned Lady of the Green Kirtle enslaving men etc), for starters. There's no Galadriel figure in Lewis, at all, let alone Elbereth. It's patriarchy all the way.

davem

06-11-2006, 02:37 AM

The Lady of the Green Kirtle is clearly the Fairy Queen. Anyone who knows the ballads Tam Lin (http://www.tam-lin.org/front.html) & Thomas the Rhymer (http://www.tam-lin.org/texts/thomas.html) can have no doubt that Lewis is making one of his usual assaults on Pagan things. The Fairy Queen was one of the most powerful figures in Western Magic & tradition. Lewis very cleverly twists Pagan images to serve his purpose.

Anguirel

06-11-2006, 03:24 AM

The Lady is a bit more complicated than that. She is a Faerie Queene, but she's a rationalist Faerie Queene. When she's trying to entrap the children underground she uses atheist invective, and is driven off by Puddleglum's faith. She also, of course, changes into a serpent, and so seems to represent temptation.

Worldly temptation, paganism and atheism equating to the same thing and encapsulated in one villainess. Perhaps.

I agree; the Lady of the Green Kirtle is so compelling because she has great and terrible strength of basic myth behind her. She's much more subtle than the simply imperious and cruel Jadis; she's pushing an agenda other than domination.

Though Jadis is wonderful too.

I actually would really like to see Miranda Otto as the Lady. I think she could do the warm friendliness and the scariness...

davem

06-11-2006, 04:00 AM

The Lady is a bit more complicated than that. She is a Faerie Queene, but she's a rationalist Faerie Queene. When she's trying to entrap the children underground she uses atheist invective, and is driven off by Puddleglum's faith. She also, of course, changes into a serpent, and so seems to represent temptation.

Of course, but Lewis is clearly twisting the Archetype for his own purposes. Its more than interesting that the great villains of Narnia are female - 'anti-Great Goddess' figures. Lewis clearly equates maleness with the Good & femaleness with Evil. I also note that of the four original Pevensey children it is only Susan who 'succumbs' to worldliness & is not 'saved' in the end. Lewis does not give us the 'true' Fairy Queen, he gives us the 'warrior god' Aslan. The 'Goddess' in Narnia is a Margaret Thatcher figure, the 'God' is a George Bush clone. Lewis was not subtle.

Lalaith

06-11-2006, 12:01 PM

The Lady of the Green Kirtle is also reminiscent of La Belle Dame sans Merci.

Lalaith

06-11-2006, 12:18 PM

Oh, and Lamia, too. Although Keats had a far more interesting attitude to these matters than Lewis, IMO.

ninja91

06-11-2006, 12:34 PM

I have absolutely nothing against the LWW movie. I loved it. But you have to admit, the battle scenes were exactly like LOTR. When that minotaur gets on that rock and points forward, and his legions come forth, that is exactly like what happens in the movies at Helm's Deep. I remember there being a couple more... let me get back once I look at it again. :)

Thinlómien

06-12-2006, 11:29 AM

First, thanks davem for a very good post. I agree. I would like to add a point, however:

In a Quest story the hero must move into dangerous territory, things must get darker & more perilous. Inevitably with the set up Tolkien has chosen the direction the questing heroes must take is eastward, because that is the direction that moves them away from the Light, & into the Dark. Its not that Tolkien decided 'Right, everybody knows those people in Eastern Europe/Asia are wicked & immoral, so I'll have the baddies in my world in the same geographical location.I think it was actually logical that the "bad people" were un-"Aryan". I think it is very significant here, that when going nearer the Evil, things are getting more unfamiliar. I think the dark-skinned men are just one way of emphasisng the strangeness and unfamiliarity of the hobbits' situation and a way of making them feel less "home", if you follow me.

Noggie dear, see this thread on racism (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=794&), if you're interested. Especially posts #7, #8 and #9 are worth reading.

And to be even a bit on-topic, I can say that with the TV-series and the pictures in my LWW-book, I've never imagined Jadis as blonde, but it worked very well in the movies.