@courtenay 

Aslan’s introduction had to be shortened in the audio versions, but it was still there. In fact the whole story is shortened on the LP records to a little over an hour. But I think even having a few sentences of Aslan’s introduction is better on audio than none at all or a brief scene would work on film or video. The BBC series scene of just showing the children’s reaction to Aslan’s name was too short, but it was better than nothing. At least the Beavers were given a chance to talk about the Lion and describe  him with some reverence, which the first Walden film didn’t do with so much depth. I thought the children’s visit with the Beavers in their lodge could have been done better since it was the first real description of Aslan in the book.

@narnian78 Yes, but my point was: in an audio version, we have a narrator who can tell us specifically — quoting Lewis, even if in abridged form — what each of the four children feels inwardly on first hearing the name of Aslan. In a movie, we don't have that.

I absolutely love Lewis's descriptions at that point in the book as well, but I just can't think of any way they could be incorporated effectively into a screen adaptation. The BBC version spending several seconds focusing on each child's face, with the series theme tune ("Aslan's Theme" by Geoffrey Burgon) playing softly but stirringly, gives us a sense that we're meant to think something significant is going on here. But without the verbal explanation that the book narrative gives — which an audio drama can include, and a visual one can't — viewers are left with no idea what's actually going on in the Pevensies' heads and why this moment is something special. (Unless we've read the book, of course — but a truly good movie needs to cater equally well for those who haven't.)

I really can't think of any way in which any screen version could include the children's reactions on first hearing Aslan's name, not in any meaningful way. As I said, having any or all of them voice their feelings out loud, just at that moment, would surely just sound silly and break any specialness that that moment has. And they can't even discuss their feelings amongst themselves as they follow Mr Beaver afterwards, since he's warned them very strongly to keep quiet because of the Witch's spies, so putting in some extra dialogue there wouldn't work.

It's possible that during the conversation after dinner at the Beavers' house, some of the children could say something about how even just the name of Aslan makes them feel. But it would be hard to do it without it sounding a bit  laboured or even forced — too much like We Need to Tell You, the Audience, Just How Significant This Is — and I'm really not sure how a script writer could do it while making it seem like a natural part of the conversation. I really can't think of any other way than that.  

@courtenay 

It would be hard to put the first introduction to Aslan in a movie and get it right. I’m not sure if it would be impossible though.  The BBC series attempted it in few seconds for each of the Pevensies.  It was too brief and probably could have been better, but I wouldn’t say it would be impossible for a movie even with a brief visual version of the scene. 

@narnian78 "Too brief", perhaps, but how could they have done it better without holding up the action of the film or making it look even stranger than it already did? That's what I'm wondering.

Edited to add: I'd still also be very interested to hear anyone's thoughts on how we'd like (or not like) to see Aslan's introduction handled in The Magician's Nephew, if that turns out to be the first film in the Netflix adaptation! 

I'm really interested in the discussion of whether a movie or TV adaptation could ever capture the moment in LWW when the Pevensies react strongly to hearing Aslan's name for the first time. Does anyone else want it to have its own thread? Or should we keep discussing it here?

I'm interested in keeping on discussing it too, but am happy to go with whatever the majority (or the moderators) prefer for where that should happen. It is still in the category of "Aslan's introduction", but it's the specific moment of the introduction of his name in LWW and how the children react, not how he himself should be introduced visually when he first appears on screen (in either LWW or MN). Perhaps it would be better to have a different thread for each one... I'm not sure. 

Posted by: @courtenay

I'm interested in keeping on discussing it too, but am happy to go with whatever the majority (or the moderators) prefer for where that should happen. It is still in the category of "Aslan's introduction", but it's the specific moment of the introduction of his name in LWW and how the children react, not how he himself should be introduced visually when he first appears on screen (in either LWW or MN). Perhaps it would be better to have a different thread for each one... I'm not sure. 

I feel I should mention that when I made this thread, I was specifically talking about Aslan’s actual first appearance.

That’s part of why I keep bringing up the fact that the Walden film doesn’t specifically say he’s a lion until he actually first appears.

Posted by: @bismdweller

To be honest, I didn’t even think of that scene when I started this thread. If I had, I would have been clearer that I meant Aslan’s first actual appearance, which I personally feel is more important. Especially if they’re going to go the way of the Walden film by not clarifying he’s a lion (not that a lot of fans are probably pick up on that difference, but still).

Since so many people are talking about the scene with Mr, Beaver, though, I guess I’ll add my two cents worth. I think either narration or inner-monologue would probably work best if they want to convey the kids’ thoughts, but it might be tricky to do that without it coming across as odd.

Posted by: @aslanthelion

That’s part of why I keep bringing up the fact that the Walden film doesn’t specifically say he’s a lion until he actually first appears.

FWIW, I did notice no one told the Pevensies that Aslan was a lion in the movie, and it bugged me because it meant cutting the great exchange about being scared of him. But other than that, I don't have a huge problem with it. (And they eventually worked some variation of "not safe but good" into the dialogue so I was somewhat reconciled even if I would have written it differently if I were adapting the book.)

Posted by: @col-klink

FWIW, I did notice no one told the Pevensies that Aslan was a lion in the movie, and it bugged me because it meant cutting the great exchange about being scared of him. But other than that, I don't have a huge problem with it. (And they eventually worked some variation of "not safe but good" into the dialogue so I was somewhat reconciled even if I would have written it differently if I were adapting the book.)

Good point there. I don't remember even noticing that that dialogue was cut out — I think by that stage in the film I was already so preoccupied with fuming over all the other huge and unnecessary changes to the dialogue that it just didn't register with me that they hadn't talked about Aslan being a lion, let alone about him being not safe but good!!  

That does underscore for me, though, that the creators of the Walden series really didn't understand or appreciate Aslan's significance at all (we've just had a reference to this in another current discussion here). The "'Course he isn't safe. But he's good" discussion has a lot of depth of meaning — even if readers / viewers aren't religious, there's plenty in there to think about. (I've read a very interesting Narnia commentary, The Lion's World by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in which he spends a whole chapter on that one concept and how it plays out in the books and what it might mean for one's own life.)

Maybe the film-makers were assuming viewers would either already know Aslan is a lion (the book had already been around for 55 years by the time the movie came out, and this wasn't the first screen adaptation!), or else they'd guess from the words of the prophecy and the fact that the title begines with "The Lion", as we've already discussed? Or did they really think it ought to be such a huge surprise for newcomers to the story as they see Aslan emerge from the tent — ooooh, he's a lion!! It just seems such a strange way of handling it, especially considering that Lewis clearly didn't intend for it to be a surprise. I really hope the next adaptation of LWW, whether it's the first one in the Netflix series or not, includes that whole exchange in the Beaver's house about who Aslan is and him not being "safe".

Posted by: @aslanthelion

Since so many people are talking about the scene with Mr, Beaver, though, I guess I’ll add my two cents worth. I think either narration or inner-monologue would probably work best if they want to convey the kids’ thoughts, but it might be tricky to do that without it coming across as odd.

Yes, that's what I was saying earlier. Having a voice-over narrator is very uncommon in film and TV, unless the entire show is meant to be the diary or reminiscences of one particular character who's adding narration here and there as the story plays out. That doesn't work with any of the Chronicles, since the narrator in the books clearly isn't any of the characters. It's always implied to be Lewis himself, as if he were telling these stories to us personally, with his characteristic little interjections and asides — that works well enough in a book (at least, I like it; I know there are some readers who don't), but it would be really strange in a screen adaptation.

And switching to inner monologue can work OK for short bursts, especially when a character is alone and we "hear" his or her thoughts — spoken aloud by the actor as a voice-over (i.e. they're not moving their lips on screen at the time), usually with a sort of echo effect added to the sound recording to indicate this is what's going on inside this person's head. However, in this scene with the Pevensies reacting inwardly to the name of Aslan, I can't imagine that coming across well, especially if it's with all four of them in succession. I mean, imagine their voice-overs as the camera cuts to a close-up of each one of them... what are they supposed to "say" in their thoughts?

Edmund: "Ooer. I don't like that name. It gives me the horrors. I don't know why."

Peter: "Oh wow! I just feel brave all of a sudden — like I'm all ready for an adventure!"

Susan: "Mmmm. Did I just catch some beautiful scent floating past... or was it the loveliest music? I'm not sure now..."

Lucy: "Oh! I feel like I've just woken up and realised it's the beginning of the holidays — the beginning of the summer holidays!" 

See, all those are interesting and intriguing responses they have to that name — and they each suggest something about the character of each of the four children — but as soon as one tries to put those reactions into words and have the actual characters voice them, even in that "inside their heads" fashion... it sounds a bit odd and rather twee, and in a way, I think it rather trivialises their feelings, having them put them in words like that. I really think it would just be hokey, and would also signal far too heavy-handedly to the audience that Aslan Is Supposed to Be Something Special.

In short, I still can't see any way in which the four children's specific reactions to Aslan's name could be included in a screen adaptation at all. To me, it's just one of those things that unfortunately does not translate from a written narrative to a visual one. I can only think they'll simply have to find other ways of conveying that sense of horror or wonder or excitement.

One more thing I will say, though — I can think of just one point in the whole series where a voice-over narrator (the third-person omniscient sort, not the voice of any of the characters) might be necessary: the very ending of The Last Battle. This is the point where we, along with the characters themselves, discover that they have (literally) died and gone to heaven, and the last words spoken by an actual character are Aslan's: "The dream is ended; this is the morning." (For the final visuals we see there, I can imagine the screen filling with brighter and brighter light (coming from Aslan himself) as he says those words, until everything else is hidden by the brilliance.)

But to actually finish off the story properly, we really need at least some of what Lewis-as-narrator then tells us in the final paragraph — that "the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful" that they can't be described, and that "now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on for ever: in which every chapter is better than the one before."  Logically, that could only be spoken by an omniscient "outside" narrator, not any of the characters (unless maybe it's done in adult Digory / the Professor's voice, but then how is he speaking to us from beyond the grave?? ) — so could that narrator also be used in other places throughout the whole series of Narnia films?

If they did manage to make it a feature of all the movies that there is a narrator's voice every now and then, it might not be such a bad thing; it's an unusual choice for films, and would also run the risk of sounding twee or coming across as if these shows are for little kiddies who need someone to fill in the story for them. But if somehow they could do it really well — this would take an exceptionally skilled director — so that the occasional "narrator moments" just become part of the overall quirkiness of Narnia (as indeed they are in the books)... hmmm, I'm sort of starting to change my mind about the whole idea, even as I write this...  

I would have been more satisfied with the Walden film if the dialogue in the Beaver’s lodge had been more like the BBC series. It could not have been copied exactly, but the Beavers’ talk about Aslan could have been much more similar and closer to the book.  And that could have included introducing Aslan more respectfully as the “Lord of the whole wood” as he should be and not calling him the “top geezer”.  Mr. Beaver should have been more reverent.  We don’t get enough sense of awe in the Beavers’ talk about Aslan. I think that mistake stood out the first time I watched the Walden film. I had liked the Beaver’s appearance, but I thought their dialogue could have been so much closer to the book. 

This is the scene which I thought could have been so much better:

And considering it is supposed to be an important introduction scene to the Lion I was really was kind of disappointed, although I still like the film and have enjoyed rewatching it many times.

Posted by: @narnian78

I would have been more satisfied with the Walden film if the dialogue in the Beaver’s lodge had been more like the BBC series. It could not have been copied exactly, but the Beavers’ talk about Aslan could have been much more similar and closer to the book.  And that could have included introducing Aslan more respectfully as the “Lord of the whole wood” as he should be and not calling him the “top geezer”.  Mr. Beaver should have been more reverent.  We don’t get enough sense of awe in the Beavers’ talk about Aslan. I think that mistake stood out the first time I watched the Walden film. I had liked the Beaver’s appearance, but I thought their dialogue could have been so much closer to the book. 

Ouch, thanks, yes... even that short clip was a huge reminder of why I simply cannot understand how anyone who loves the story that C.S. Lewis wrote can think that this particular film is a faithful adaptation of it.   Again — as a film, in and of itself, it's fine, and most of the visuals are spectacular. But in changing almost all the dialogue, and the attitudes of a lot of the characters along with it, they just went SO far off the mark of what the original story is like and the atmosphere it creates.

I mean — Mr Beaver's accent is jolly awful, for a start. I actually can't quite pick it, despite having lived in England for so long, but it definitely screams "rough boorish uneducated working class bloke". All the grammatical oddities and minced oaths like "bloomin'", which Lewis would never have used in a kids' story. (Mrs Beaver, interestingly, sounds significantly more refined.) And worse, as you say, absolutely no reverence for Aslan — "top geezer" indeed — and on top of that, the Beavers' sheer jarring thick-headedness in not realising the four children know almost nothing about Narnia and have never heard of the prophecies. Shouldn't that be obvious to them, as indeed it is in the book, where they explain everything thoroughly with appropriate respect for their guests, as well as for Aslan?

What's more, the children's apparent horror and reluctance to go along with this is a big contrast to the book as well. By this stage in the original story, they're right into what's happening — Peter in particular agrees with Lucy that they owe it to Mr Tumnus to try to rescue him, since he saved Lucy's life, at such risk to his own, by not handing her over to the Witch as he was supposed to. Even Susan, who in the book has stated earlier (at Tumnus's wrecked house) that she wishes they hadn't come, soon admits it's the right thing to do and never tries to back out again. I can imagine them still having some fears and doubts at this stage, but not the outright "sorry, we're leaving" attitude.

Oh yes — and here's something I didn't pick up the first time I saw this film, never having been to London back then — Susan's non-canonical line "We're from Finchley!" is another clanger. I assume it's supposed to imply "We're just ordinary suburban kids", in a rather self-deprecating way, but apart from the fact that the name-drop wouldn't mean anything to a pair of Narnian Beavers anyway... Finchley is a very well-off area of London, so that immediately paints the Pevensies as upper middle class, the sort of people who in early- to mid-20th-century Britain would generally be expected to step up and do the right thing when called on to help a noble cause — especially in wartime, as it is for them right now. Another example of the script writers trying to be smart and failing entirely.

(Now if she'd said "We're from Bromley!", that might make more sense with the self-deprecation... Only kidding. Bromley is on the outer eastern fringes of Greater London and is a lot less upmarket, though it was probably nicer before it got swallowed up by suburbia. I lived just a little further east of it myself for about 9 years, so I can joke about that area all I like. )

Back on the topic of the Pevensies' reactions to Aslan's name — I do notice that in that particular scene from the film, when Mr Beaver first mentions Aslan, the camera pans across three of the siblings' faces as they look quite interested, and then up to Edmund, who isn't sitting down yet, and who then asks rather uncomfortably, "Who's Aslan?" We don't really get any sense of wonderment from the other three, but at least there's a hint that they're intrigued by the name and Edmund is unsettled by it. But with the total lack of reverence in the way Mr Beaver then speaks about Aslan, that throws away any chance that we as viewers might get a feeling of awe about that name ourselves.

Here's hoping the next movie version will do a better job!!!

@courtenay 

Of course you could expect Mr. Beaver to use bad grammar (even Lewis said that), but I think his voice could have been more gentle in the movie. Mrs. Beaver was better and sounded more genuine like in the book.  But I actually think the BBC Narnia had better voice acting for the Beavers even though the costumes were ridiculous. At least they sounded like gentle hard working Beavers.  The people who chose the actors for the Beavers had different ideas of their characters, although I really liked Liam Neeson’s voice for Aslan (it was at least as good as Ronald Pickup).  But his talents were somewhat underused in the Walden films. 

This is a tricky scene. I appreciate the BBC's attempt and I think it works better than the Walden version. I don't think a big dramatic moment with the music swelling (as Walden feebly attempted) would work very well when Aslan's name is mentioned. I think it would be more dramatic if there was little or no music. I would want something similar to a scene in BBC's Silver Chair. The moment that Eustace reveals Aslan's name to Jill, there is slight trumpets notes in the distance, and Jill repeats the name in awe and wonderment. I think BBC also does this well in LWW (I think someone mentioned this already) when Mr. and Mrs. Beaver recite the prophecy of "Wrong will be right" Aslan's theme is heard in the background.

Posted by: @narnian78

@courtenay 

Of course you could expect Mr. Beaver to use bad grammar (even Lewis said that), but I think his voice could have been more gentle in the movie. Mrs. Beaver was better and sounded more genuine like in the book.  But I actually think the BBC Narnia had better voice acting for the Beavers even though the costumes were ridiculous. At least they sounded like gentle hard working Beavers.  The people who chose the actors for the Beavers had different ideas of their characters, although I really liked Liam Neeson’s voice for Aslan (it was at least as good a Ronald Pickup).  But his talents were somewhat underused in the Walden films. 

I agree! The BBC Beavers sound more sincere than Walden's. I do like Liam Neeson's voice, but to me he sounds mostly just like a big nice lion than Aslan THE Lion. He sounds tame, is what I'm trying to say.

Posted by: @narnian78

Of course you could expect Mr. Beaver to use bad grammar (even Lewis said that)

Ah, now Lewis's one reference to "bad grammar" there is actually a grammar pedantry in-joke. I've just been reading through this part of the book again and there really aren't many noticeable places where Mr Beaver outright uses "bad grammar" — a few slightly unusual sentence constructions, but mostly the sort that give his speech a somewhat old-fashioned, "regional dialect" flavour. The part where Lewis calls him out, though, is:

"It's all right," he was shouting. "Come out, Mrs Beaver. Come out, Sons and Daughters of Adam. It's all right! It isn't Her!" This was bad grammar, of course, but that is how beavers talk when they are excited; I mean, in Narnia — in our world they usually don't talk at all.

What Lewis is picking on there is actually a normal English sentence construction, but sticklers — probably dating back a few centuries to when grammarians thought "proper" English ought to follow the grammatical conventions of classical languages like Latin and Greek — will insist that the sentence construction "X is Y" (or in this case, "X isn't Y") needs both nouns to be in the nominative case. The silly thing about that "rule" is that unlike those classical languages, English doesn't actually use noun cases any more (it hasn't since some time before the Norman Conquest!), except with personal pronouns.

So Lewis is insinuating that Mr Beaver should have said "It isn't She!" in order to be grammatically correct. But he was also obviously aware that that sounds like a terribly awkward and unnatural sentence construction by the standards of ordinary spoken English, even back in the 1940s and '50s, when he was writing. So he does his best to have it both ways, by having Mr Beaver say the perfectly natural-sounding thing — "It isn't Her!" — AND giving his readers a teacher-ish aside about "bad grammar, of course..." (He does the same thing once again in Prince Caspian, where Susan, speaking to Lucy, rather unnaturally "corrects" herself in mid-sentence: "I really thought it was him — he, I mean...")

Mind you, it's worth noting that Lewis, even while doing this, doesn't blame the so-called bad grammar on Mr Beaver being "lower class" or poorly educated or anything like that; it's supposedly just because he was "excited". There's still nothing there that suggests the rough and almost crass way he's portrayed in the Walden film.

And now I promise to close the Grammatical Garden... of Pulverulentus Siccus* and let this discussion get back to more interesting and relevant topics!  

* Another scholarly in-joke from Lewis there, in the name of the author of Caspian's grammar textbook. It's simply Latin for "Dry as Dust".