InsaneJournal

There have been two live action Narnia film franchises and one animated movie. The animated movie will not be discussed because I barely remember it and neither does anyone else. I guess it didn’t have much to offer. There’s also a stage play, but that won’t be coming in to this either.

The first set of movies were done as installments on British television in the late 1980s/very early 90s. The BBC filmed up to “The Silver Chair” and inexplicably stopped.

The second set are being filmed as a joint Walden Media/Walt Disney production and the first one was released in 2006. The second one was released in the spring of 2008. They hope to film all seven books, VotD is in production right now.

The first thing you’ll notice is that the current movie versions emphasize WW2 a lot more. As in, they consistently remember that there is a war going on. The books mention on the first page of the first chapter, that they’ve been evacuated because of the air raids in London. Later, there’s a mention of not wanting to get in so much trouble that their mother has to write to their father (implying that he’s fighting). Much, much later, in another book, Jill mentions ration books. That’s it. I found this confusing as a child because it never explains the war, it just assumes you know, and that it’s not terribly important to the characters or their motivations. It’s the Curse of the Period Piece, I suppose. Like I was saying regarding Indian in the Cupboard, authors writing *in* a period don’t always think “someday, people will care that it took place in this specific period” unless they write name dropping soap operas for teenage girls, where everything must be up to the minute because they’re meant to be selling a lifestyle.

The new filmmakers thought the audience would perhaps need a bit more context. So we get Blitz scenes, and WW2 related angst. Instead of being bullied at school like he is in the book, Edmund is acting out because he misses his dad and resents Peter’s authority. But it doesn’t contradict the book explanation, it merely adds to it.

I will add though, that neither the books nor any of the movies remember that the Pevensies would likely have stayed with the Professor for up to a year, and that if the war didn't end before they were old enough, at least Peter would likely have been drafted into some kind of military service. The Disney movieverse, because it ages everyone up slightly, makes this even more of a possibility.

There are war parallels, using the Narnian battle scenes as a way for the children to become empowered. *This* war they can do something about. We also get to see them using battle tactics from our world, but with Narnian twists (without turning it into a joke). As I've previously mentioned, the book of LWW didn't even show the battle scene, it focussed all the attention on the girls so even though the girls don't fight in LWW, Lewis seems to consider the battle as unimportant anyway compared to the Easter scenes taking place in the woods. It's the movie that makes the battle a big deal.

The new versions acknowledge the details of war in a way that the BBC ones didn’t, too. The male actors do weight training and intensive sword fighting practice so that their battle scenes look relatively realistic. The BBC versions were especially bad at this-the battle scene in LWW was clumsy, staged so badly it was like a bunch of kids playing in their backyard. No…kids playing in their backyard would have done a *better* job. In the fight scene in the BBC Prince Caspian, they are pretty clearly using a stunt double for Peter, a stunt double who still can’t fight well. In the Disney version, they’re not doing *all* their own stunts and fighting but they are doing a lot of it and that’s pretty impressive for a bunch of kids, their skills look on the same level as most adult actors in these types of films. They trained Anna Popplewell in archery so she’d look right in that one scene, and then decided not to waste that in the second movie and put her in battle. A lot of bookverse fans were confused by that, because Susan was not a fighter but it’s very easy to see how what works in a book can look off balance and awkward onscreen. A book written half a century ago can get away with removing the girls from a battle scene (technically, Edmund didn’t fight in the PC bookverse battle either, there wasn’t much of a battle at all)but a contemporary movie that introduces a girl character old enough to pick up a weapon and then pushes her out of the way so we can spend the next fifteen minutes watching three boys fight wouldn’t be nearly as well received, at least not by fantasy fans. Well, I give them credit for noticing that and believing that anyway.

They are all seasoned combat veterans. They are good at fighting, they’re proud of their skills, their time in war has defined them. They are especially good at fighting together, they instinctively fight like a team, leaping in to protect each other without a second’s thought (Edmund doesn’t try to stop the fight in the train station, he tries to back Peter up). They are a mini army, right down to the way they walk in a group-it’s not Peter and Edmund in front, it’s Peter in front and Edmund bringing up the rear, just in case they get attacked.

Even Lucy jumps right in with her knife. Of course, if you have read the books, you should know that Lucy is far more likely to join in than Susan. Lucy was the one who was actually a part of the Narnian military like her brothers and Susan was “like a regular grownup lady”. But like, half the people who claim they’ve read the whole series never got to the end of Horse and His Boy (I know, I used to be one of them, then I read it and everything makes so much more sense now).

The filmmakers used real military and historical advisors. They took this project seriously, as if they were making a movie for grownups that would be graded on its accuracy. The clothing, the hair, the furniture, the music, the colors. In the BBC version, the color of Susan’s outfit and makeup in one scene is ridiculously late 1980s even if the pattern looks 40s. The props. Oh, the props. In the LWW train scene, Peter is apparently reading a Biggles book. In the PC train station scene, Susan is reading a magazine with Princess Elizabeth on the cover, and there is a poster on the wall behind them further on that displays wartime era safety information. Random soldiers are sprinkled through the English crowd scenes. They use actual signs and such to underscore subtext and foreshadowing in various scenes (“Way Out”, “Beware of Trains”).

The pseudo medieval world of Narnia comes with art and costuming inspired by Renaissance and medieval art and heraldry, especially religious artwork (I have already pointed out Lucy’s “Battle of Beruna” costume is a pretty close riff on a typical Mary Magdalene outfit and provided some side by side comparisons).

The Narnian armor is the same armor from the first film, but beaten down, scratched and aged to look centuries old.

The Telmarines have a specific look to their own clothing and armor. The filmmakers seem to be going for fourteenth/early fifteenth century Spanish (interesting to note that the BBC didn’t go for Spanish but they *did* go for late fourteenth century in the VotD costumes). In choosing to portray the Telmarine culture as very Spanish, it makes them distinctive and exotic, making it clear that this is not Narnian culture anymore. Even though, in the books they come off as more Standard Anglo Ren Faire Rejects, this other choice is very in keeping with the books and their alleged subtle British nationalism, plus then you get your Lucy the Virgin Queen holding them off at the river with the power of Aslan and then your Elizabeth/Elizabeth link. Basically whacking you over the head with something that was barely a light tap in the books and possibly not even that. Apparently, according to some Narnia bookverse timeline, the Telmarines came to Narnia in the 1920s, which doesn't really fit with why they'd decide to dress and talk like people from the 14th century.

They’ve done a better job with the casting this time around. Granted, Lewis wasn’t always clear on what his human characters looked like-but they’ve done a pretty decent job with it. No, Lucy is not a blond but she, oddly enough, resembles a much, much thinner version of Sophie Wilcox who played Lucy in the BBC installments. Susan is properly dark haired. Edmund isn’t a blond but I don’t think the books ever explicitly stated he was supposed to be and anyway, I’m certainly not complaining. These kids are a little more Hollywood than the previous ones but they are still so incredibly *English*. Not just English though, they look so much like English children from the past- gaps in their teeth, ivory pale skin, and Anna Popplewell is actually a healthy weight (I'll bet they were actually telling her not to lose weight while she was in that role). They come off as intelligent, well brought up kids who genuinely like each other. It’s a real sibling dynamic, caring intensely about each other even when they’re fighting.

The Disney relationships are a lot more intense. In the LWW book, as well as in the BBC movie, Edmund and Peter shake hands when they make up. In the Disney version, they have an intense hug. Shaking hands in that situation is one of those things that doesn't really make sense, even for 1940s British schoolboys. I'm a New Englander and we're not big on hugging either (it's a place founded by people who were asked to leave England because the British thought they were a bunch of prudes) but your little brother nearly died, you wouldn't just shake his hand.

Both movie franchises had the same problem with at least three of their actors hitting puberty during filming. This results in the actors being different heights in different scenes. The Disney version made this work for them by cutting the film so it looks like the kids are taller in Narnia (which is a neat way to communicate that Narnia makes them confident and mature) and using earlier takes of scenes for the parts set in our world. The BBC version, well, their Edmund hit his growth spurt before their Peter did. There’s this scene where they’re arguing and Edmund looks like he’s inadvertently physically intimidating Peter because he’s taller than him. He’s also a better actor so he’s completely taking over the scene.

Compare that to the similar scene in the Disney version. Peter is properly larger than Edmund, which makes it more effective. Edmund is aggressively arguing with him, he is not afraid to get all up in your face even if you are bigger than him, but the drastic difference in their sizes just underscores Edmund’s powerlessness. Because of course, the fact that Edmund feels powerless is the whole root of his…everything.

By the BBC “Prince Caspian” the actors are back to reasonably matched heights again. I am noticing as I write this that the new versions have borrowed a lot of ideas from the older versions. Including a moment in LWW when they find Edmund dying on the battlefield, and Susan is the first to rush over and hold his head in her lap. That's not from the book, that's from the older version of the movie. Huhh. The BBC also do a scene where the kids kiss their mother goodbye and get on a train and argue about why they have to go away. They also have the same discussion of how they were going to explore the grounds, and then it rains the next day.

BBC Edmund has a really high voice in LWW. I mean, Skandar didn’t exactly have a deep voice either (they did have to use his sister for overdubbing at one point) but this guy has a *very* squeaky voice. Their Lucy is too old, but that’s understandable. She also has a hilarious listhp.

The BBC Witch takes Edmund to a random tent in the woods to talk to him, because, I dunno, they thought a change of scenery would fix the dragging pace? Or because they only had limited use of the sets available? Because when the Witch shows Edmund where her house is, she basically shows him a picture projected on the wall of her tent.

The BBC follows the book in having them hide in the wardrobe to escape Mrs. MacCready’s tour group, rather than because Edmund broke a window.
Both the LWW book and the BBC version state clearly that there aren’t any other humans in Narnia and that there never really have been. Which totally contradicts every other book in the series.

Now I understand what people meant when they said that BBC Edmund was “schizo”. While he’s walking to the Witch’s castle he keeps seeing doubles of himself that talk to him and warn him to go back.

Another big difference between the BBC versions and the Disney versions is the distribution of lines and character relationships. In the BBC versions, the Ed/Caspian ‘ship is given an earlier start because the characters have a lot more dialogue together. In the Disney version, they actually never speak to each other. I noticed that while I was working on a C/E fic. Never, not once. He talks to everyone except Edmund, and the only time Edmund comes close to talking to him is when he addresses a comment vaguely aimed in Caspian’s direction but mostly addressed to the whole group. But then, toward the end when Aslan says “Kings and Queens of Narnia, rise” Edmund and Caspian exchange this really intense look, like:

Edmund: All I wanted was for you to notice me.
Caspian: I’ve never noticed you quite like I’m noticing you now. Meet me in my rooms back at the palace?


There’s a lot of good foreshadowing regarding Susan in the Disney version. The BBC mostly ignored her, she might as well have not been there at all. In the Disney LWW, Susan and Lucy are walking through Aslan’s camp, and Susan asks why all the animals are staring at them.

“Maybe they think you look funny!” Lucy giggles. But Susan does not laugh, in fact, she looks worried and uncomfortable.