**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[Lalwendë]

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? ) 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]

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]

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

[davem]

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...-strategy.html
http://store.yahoo.com/biblestudies/liwiandwa.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article...ia.mania/1.htm
http://www.christianitymagazine.co.u...1&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]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Luthien Elven Princess

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.