The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe

[flynn]

One for you JonClark (A making off featurette)<br /><br />http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/trailers/trailer.asp?film_id=9975 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks Flynn! I only just saw it. The attention to detail looks good, but then so did LOTR at this stage. This could get screwed up so bad. I note with concern the focus on monsters and battles, which is not what LWW is about.<br /><br />but again, thanks.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I concur with your comments. The battles are significant, but not of overriding importance, and not as important as in LOTR. The Chronicles of Narnia are more allegorical in nature, and that's the crucial part for them to remember.<br /><br />They also have to remember that this is for kids, of course. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Unlike LOTR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Lewis, like Tolkien, always resisted the title of allegory for their work. Quite validly, allegory is a literary map of our world with direct one for one correspondences between the imagined world and ours. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a good example of this. Allegory should not be confused with applicability, as Tolkien also pointed out.<br /><br />Battles play an important role part in almost all the 7 Narnia books. But they are not what the sory is about. But then battles are not primarily what LOTR was about either, although they are very important. Something I wish Jackson had remembered.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[zavvy]

Nevermind.... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

A quote from Wilson's biography Isee. Not a well regarded source BTW, for either Lewis or his circle.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[zavvy]

Nevermind...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Lewis, like Tolkien, always resisted the title of allegory for their work. Quite validly, allegory is a literary map of our world with direct one for one correspondences between the imagined world and ours. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a good example of this. Allegory should not be confused with applicability, as Tolkien also pointed out. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, resist it they may, but of course the nature of art is that it becomes something new when the audience examines it. Art is more than just what it's creator intended; it is a communication with the audience, and that is what makes it so dynamic -- and unpredictable. So if it's an allegory to someone, then it is an allegory to them, even if the author didn't intend that.<br /><br />You're right, though, that I was not really right in using the word "allegorical", although Narnia does come closer to that than LOTR did. They are meant as parallel worlds, not metaphors for our own. But while Tolkien left it deliberately vague whether Middle Earth was in fact our Earth in the past or could somehow coexist with our Earth, Lewis was quite explicit that Narnia and Earth existed side-by-side, created by the same creator, and with a number of entities that travelled back and forth. The killing and resurrection of Aslan in "Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" doesn't just make Aslan into a Christ figure -- he *is* Christ, and God as well. This is more clearly explicated in "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader", "The Magician's Nephew", and "The Last Battle".<br /><br />I guess one thing that makes the two works so distinct is what they show about their creators. Tolkien was a linguist, with a tremendous love for ancient cultures, and with a very real sense that England had been robbed of a mythology and a cultural identity by various waves of Eastern invaders. This is heavily reflected in the tales of Middle Earth. His Christian beliefs also heavily <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree calli, as I am sure would the authors. Tolkien specifically said, I think in the forward to the 2nd edition of LOTR to the effect that the lack of allegory should not be taken as lack of applicability. Not that they were written to be applicable, but to tell stories from the wellspring of the author's imagination. The applicability comes from the resonance between the story and the reader's own life.<br /><br />As for the more overtly Christian tone to CoN, this arises because being set in a parallel world he had the freedom to imagine how specific themes could be expressed in such a world. ME on the other hand is specifically (though not explicitly) our world, in an imaginary past. Therefore Tolkien was constrained by the theological history of our world and had to be more circumspect. The clues are there though, in both the published works and the posthumous fragments.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see how directors handle the Christian themes in LWW. I suspect/fear the producers/directors will find the themes too much to handle and downgrade or even change them. Much as Jackson could not cope with the moral depth ofTolkien's characters and degraded them to stereotypes.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Wilson's biography has been generally panned as being inaccurate by other biographers and other who knew Lewis personally. But we digress from a useful discussion of this thread. If you want to follow this further, please contact me off line.<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>