Page 1 / 2
Next
I couldn't find a similar thread in the forum. So here goes. I've been working on a research project for the Chronicles. And I came across some letters [Collected Letters: Volume 3, ed Walter Hooper] on Lewis's fears about televising Narnia. MEMBERS: do you think Lewis's fears had any basis in reality? Why or why not?
To Jane Douglass, 19 June 1954, 491:
I am sure you understand that Aslan is a divine figure, and anything remotely approaching the comic (above all anything in the Disney line) would be to me simple blasphemy. But how are you going to manage any of the animals? I would welcome a fuller account.
Jocelyn Gibb to Lewis, 21 June 1954 [491-92]:
The trouble about these Radio and Television adaptations is that whereas you have some control over them in this country, you have very little in the United States. In fact I suggest you would not wish to commit yourself without knowing what would be involved and that you could not know until the whole thing was irretrievably on its course towards production.
Lewis to Mr. Gibb, 22 June 1954, 492:
I wrote to Miss Douglass emphasising the fact that Aslan is a divine figure and I sh[oul]d regard any comic element in the treatment of him as blasphemous. For the rest, I left it to you. I feel we sh[oul]d allow it only under safeguards which the T.V. people will almost certainly not give us: i.e. specimen photos of the characters and a full script with a right of veto on our part.
To Jane Douglass, 19 April 1958, 937-38:
I am sorry to have been so long returning your script. I can't judge it myself (I think I told you how un-film-minded I was).
There are, to be frank, things I don't like about it. I don't think there's any point in Lucy's feeling 'creepy' in the study: it was the long, empty passages upstairs that did that. And I don't like committing myself to exact ages for the children. But all these objections may only show my ignorance of the medium. A friend, better qualified than I to judge, read it and pronounced it 'un-cinematic': said there was too much static dialogue."
To Lance Sieveking, 18 Dec. 1959, 1111:
But I am absolutely opposed -- adamant isn't in it! -- to a T.V. version. Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare. At least, with photography. Cartoons (if only Disney did not combine so much vulgarity with his genius!) w[oul]d be another matter. A human, pantomime, Aslan w[oul]d be to me blasphemy.
TIMELINE: The Chronicles of Narnia: television and film
1967: televised 10-episode LWW [ABC Weekend Television], which "utilized people in animal costumes" and was a "live-action drama" [Collected Letters: Vol. 3, 1111n262].
On Television last night I saw the opening instalment of J's Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe by which I was agreeably surprised. . . .It's very promising and I think J would have been pleased with it -- no hint so far of what he feared, a touch of Disneyland.
1967-68: televised 10-episode PC [BBC]
1979: cartoon version of LWW [Children's Television Workshop]
1988: televised 6-episode LWW [BBC]
1989: televised 6-episode PC/VDT [BBC]
1990: televised 6-episode SC [BBC]
2005: film version of LWW [Disney/Walden Media]
2008: film version of PC [Disney/Walden Media]
2010: film version of VDT [Fox/Walden Media]
(edited)
Topic starter
Posted : February 20, 2010 11:11 am
wow that Lewis writing all that? I wonder what he'd think about these films...
Posted : February 20, 2010 11:31 am
The television serials the BBC did in late 80s were:
6-part LWW (plus half hour intro prog fronted by HumphreyCarpenter and looking at a number of earlier versions)
6-part PC/VDT (2 for PC and 4 for VDT)
6-part SC (I have the originals on video) - maybe your local tv showed two episodes at once.
There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.
"...when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."
Posted : February 20, 2010 11:39 am
@coracle: thanks for the extra info. I just went by what's on IMDB for Lewis. 
It said 5 for PC/VDT and 3 for SC. But just now, when I clicked on the individual titles, it said 6 for each, just as you listed above. Why the discrepancy? 
I'll correct the initial post. Thanks again. 
Topic starter
Posted : February 20, 2010 11:52 am
I wonder what Lewis means by 'vulgarity' in the Disney movies of his time? If anything, they were fun but rather sanitised. Maybe he sees them as trivial, rather than serious works of art?
I agree with Lewis on the idea of bringing Aslan to the screen. He's definitely the hardest character to do right. I'm not sure I would call it blasphemy (he isn't God, he just represents him) but it would certainly discredit his divine nature if done correctly.
As for the other animals, I think they can be done through a combination of animatronics and CGI. Of course Jules Verne probably didn't even forsee those future technologies.
I don't like Aslan in the cartoon LWW, nor the BBC version. The Walden Media Aslan is much better but still not what I pictured in my mind. I don't think it's possible to do Aslan justice on screen, so (Walden) did very well with what they had.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
Posted : February 20, 2010 12:39 pm
^^yes the cartoon Aslan was horrible, so was BBC. Walden's is tolerable. I don't think he's nearly big enough. I mean in LWW, in one scene, his head is like barely to Peter's shoulder...*sigh*. It would be hard to get Aslan right, that's probably part of the reason that Lewis was against a film adaption.
I wonder what Lewis means by 'vulgarity' in the Disney movies of his time? If anything, they were fun but rather sanitised. Maybe he sees them as trivial, rather than serious works of art?
I wonder too. Maybe he did see them trivial, or maybe not so professional or something.
Posted : February 20, 2010 1:32 pm
Yes, Aslan wasn't as big in the movies as he was in the books but let's remember that he was much larger than the average lion in real life. Also, having an overly-large lion in a scene with the Pevensies wouldn't work so well on-screen. I don't know how to put it, but the only possible solution was probably to have Aslan much larger than a real lion but smaller than he's depicted in the books.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
Posted : February 20, 2010 1:42 pm
^^I suppose. I just always imagined him as this huge, massive, magnificent creature...
Posted : February 20, 2010 1:50 pm
Yes, me too. I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying what works for books doesn't always translate so well to the visual medium. The power of the imagination is a beautiful thing.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
Posted : February 20, 2010 2:23 pm
^^yes it is. I hope they do make him at least a little bigger in future movies though 
Posted : February 20, 2010 2:25 pm
I have always noticed that Aslan isn't nearly as big in the movies the way he is described in the books.....
NW sister - wild rose ~ NW big sis - ramagut
Born in the water
Take quick to the trees
I want all that You are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADBC57vKfQ
Posted : February 20, 2010 2:30 pm
^^that's what we were just discussing. What W4J was saying was that it probably wouldn't work out well on screen...it would look kinda wierd I guess...
Posted : February 20, 2010 2:31 pm
I think that it was mostly annoying in PC when Lucy says "You've grown!" to Aslan.....and he looks just the same......
NW sister - wild rose ~ NW big sis - ramagut
Born in the water
Take quick to the trees
I want all that You are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADBC57vKfQ
Posted : February 20, 2010 3:17 pm
well I think he was a little bigger...not much though...
Posted : February 20, 2010 3:20 pm
Lucy was still taller than him.....and she had grown since LWW, so Aslan was almost shorter than ever!
NW sister - wild rose ~ NW big sis - ramagut
Born in the water
Take quick to the trees
I want all that You are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADBC57vKfQ
Posted : February 20, 2010 3:25 pm
Page 1 / 2
Next
Forum Statistics
31
Forums
4,936
Topics
353.6 K
Posts
61
Online
2,223
Members
Latest Post: Yum or Yuck Our newest member: Nightmare Recent Posts Unread Posts
