**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

. . . 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.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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.

Originally Posted by Lal

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?

Originally Posted by Lal

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

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

Or able to?

[Durelin]

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