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. :)

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:
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:
Gotta love those moments.... ;)

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

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

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.

The Lady of the Green Kirtle is clearly the Fairy Queen. Anyone who knows the ballads Tam Lin & Thomas the Rhymer 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.

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...

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.

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

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

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. :)

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

Indeed, and as for her eyes...it looks almost as if they added snowflakes to her eyelashes, to make her the ultimate snow queen. The effect was truly frightening. There's really something humanizing behind eyelashes, but it's hard to notice until they're defaced like that.