**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[Parmawen]

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!

[Elu Ancalime]

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

[Bêthberry]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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!

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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]

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.