**Comparing Narnia and LotR** - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 12-13-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

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 · 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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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!

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.

12-13-2005, 11:46 AM	#2
Hilde Bracegirdle Relic of Wandering Days Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: You'll See Perpetual Change. Posts: 1,480	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. Last edited by Hilde Bracegirdle; 12-14-2005 at 06:30 AM.

12-14-2005, 04:56 AM	#5
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,779	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. __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling

12-14-2005, 05:23 AM	#6
Hilde Bracegirdle Relic of Wandering Days Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: You'll See Perpetual Change. Posts: 1,480	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! Last edited by Hilde Bracegirdle; 12-14-2005 at 07:04 AM.

12-14-2005, 08:28 AM	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!