It might even suggest why Jill had so many problems with remembering. I've heard that people with painful memories tend to try to suppress them, finding it more useful to concentrate on the present moment.

Ooh, that's interesting! They could even show Jill being intentionally evasive about her past, should Eustace or Puddleglum ask her anything about it.

One idea I had of how they might open the film is to start with her arriving at the school and then have short sort of a montage of the bullies tormenting her that spans a few days or so, show thing getting progressively worse and worse for her until she can't take it anymore and go's behind the gym to have her cry, they could also briefly show some of the incidents mention in the book where Eustace studio to the bullies.

I wouldn't be at at all surprised if the filmmakers did that. With bullying being a popular theme in kid's movies, I'm definitely expecting them to play it up some in the film. It will also make the bullies' comeuppance at the end more satisfying if we've been witnesses to their cruelty.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:
It might even suggest why Jill had so many problems with remembering. I've heard that people with painful memories tend to try to suppress them, finding it more useful to concentrate on the present moment.

Ooh, that's interesting! They could even show Jill being intentionally evasive about her past, should Eustace or Puddleglum ask her anything about it.

Glumpuddle's posts in this thread about Jill's trust issues and the fact that her family is never mentioned, as well as waggawerewolf27's thoughts on when she finally learns to trust, have gotten me thinking... is it possible that the filmmakers will present Jill as being an orphan?

I've had an idea in my head for a few days and didn't want to be insensitive because so many people have experienced this, but it really ties in with the current discussion about Jill's past. What if Jill's parents were in the process of separating, and that was why they sent her to boarding school? Divorce used to be more of a rare thing, and I can easily see the bullies finding out and really tormenting her with it. That would really tie in with Jill's trust issues, or problems with authority, or obedience as fantasia_kitty suggested in the SC Theme topic.

@Anfinwen, you are quite right about divorce and separation and it being one of the reasons for children being placed in boarding schools, even quite wealthy and well-known ones, such as Downes House (girls), Marlborough College (co-ed) or Eton (boys). And a particularly painful reason it is, as well. Involving lawyers, welfare and even charity in some cases.

And you are right about such things being more of a scandal in the 1940's and 1950's, especially in UK. Gossipy bullies, searching for such details, ties in also with Eustace's refusal to give away "the secret about Spivvins, even under torture". But it is only one reason among many, and that is precisely why it may not be a good idea to delve too deeply into such matters in a film. Leaving Jill's parents as possible war victims, and herself as an orphan, does give the producers a good deal more leeway than tying themselves down too closely with some elaborate scenario about Jill's past, which might introduce characters that weren't mentioned in the book.

Boarding schools (including the one I went to, based on an English one) catered for orphans and half-orphans, of course, but they also catered for not only orphans but also dysfunctional families, family breakdown, and those families with an ill or disabled parent, or those left for grandparents to cope with them. Very often, boarders could just have parents who were busy with their careers, possibly like Mr Pevensie, who seems to have been a university lecturer who went on lecture tours. Or people like Harold and Alberta Scrubb, who seem to enjoy following fashions.

Famously, the UK Royal family ends up sending their children to boarding schools, often because of the demands put on their parents to travel a lot for the UK Government and for the Commonwealth of Nations, among other things they have to do. The Duchess of Cambridge went to Downes House for a while, but as a 14 year old day student, she was bullied, and felt out of things, because the boarders weren't friendly to the day students. In her case, that school was merely a local school with a good reputation for helping its students get into university. When she was transferred to Marlborough College, following that experience, it was further away, so she boarded there.

Someone like Eustace, who has reformed his character, somewhat, to the point where he endured some degree of torture to protect Spivvins' secret, might well have realised that why children were at Experiment House was really between the school and the children's parents, or whoever had made provisions for their being there. Blabbing about those sorts of things and making a big deal out of them only encourages bullies who like to make others miserable.

I've had an idea in my head for a few days and didn't want to be insensitive because so many people have experienced this, but it really ties in with the current discussion about Jill's past. What if Jill's parents were in the process of separating, and that was why they sent her to boarding school? Divorce used to be more of a rare thing, and I can easily see the bullies finding out and really tormenting her with it. That would really tie in with Jill's trust issues, or problems with authority, or obedience as fantasia_kitty suggested in the SC Theme topic.

That's a very intriguing thought, Anfinwen! Based on what we see in the book, it seems like it might be the most likely explanation. (There is no obvious struggle with the concept of death, for instance, but it does seem quite apparent to me that she is really struggling with having anyone to turn to, and that would certainly imply that she's estranged from her parents one way or another.)

From a movie-making perspective, going through a divorce is something that a lot of kids can unfortunately relate with nowadays. I can imagine the filmmakers possibly taking Jill's story in that direction in order to make her emotions more accessible to the audience. On the other hand, though, I get the sense that at Experiment House, a lot of the kids may have come from broken or unorthodox homes, so I'm not sure if her parents being separated would account for the bullying. (And the bullies seem to bully everybody who isn't currying favor.)

I think it might be best dealt with if the filmmakers left Jill's backstory as very ambiguous... if I were writing the script, I think it would set it up in such a way that you couldn't quite tell whether or not Jill was wrestling with the death of her parents, their splitting up, or just simply being disinterested in their little girl and sending her away to a boarding school so they didn't have to think about her. One reason I think the filmmakers might go in this direction is because more people may be able to relate to her feelings of abandonment if they don't know exactly what those feelings stem from.

On the other hand, though, I get the sense that at Experiment House, a lot of the kids may have come from broken or unorthodox homes, so I'm not sure if her parents being separated would account for the bullying. (And the bullies seem to bully everybody who isn't currying favor.)

The bullying might have gone on anyway, for a myriad of reasons, not only dysfunctional family backgrounds. Lack of discipline and boundary setting by means of enforcing set school rules, seems to be the main factor at Experiment House, and also lack of tolerance for anyone who is deemed as "different" from the bullies, plus a liking of having power over other children. Not only those brave enough to defy them, but also over their "hangers on". The Experiment House bullies, too, can be tinpot dictators in their own lunch time, mimicking the people they see in the news. Or on TV if they had access to it.

And in communities world wide, at whatever level of society, especially where it was still considered a man's right to beat his wife whenever she annoyed him in any way, domestic violence, defined as controlling and mistreating other family members by using against them verbal, physical, and other forms of abuse, could also be a reason for bullying when children go to school. Including in boarding schools like Experiment House. The point about the 1940's and 1950's when Jill and Spivvins were there, was that so much that you might consider as "unorthodox" or "dysfunctional" was not at all unusual, but was often swept under the carpet, for fear of the press and "what the neighbours thought", even when marriages remained intact. I suspect that Experiment House is just another microcosm of wartime and postwar society, bullying and all. And that it was also a relevant backdrop to enable Jill to meet Eustace, whose character and family life we already know about.

From a movie-making perspective, going through a divorce is something that a lot of kids can unfortunately relate with nowadays. I can imagine the filmmakers possibly taking Jill's story in that direction in order to make her emotions more accessible to the audience.

That is a fair point. On the other hand, when divorce and family breakdown is so frequent, there is a danger that mentioning Jill's parents in such a scenario, might merely be so commonplace that the audience lose interest. I like your idea of keeping her background a bit vague, also the suggestion that in some way or another she is estranged from her parents. On the other hand, since Spivvins, a minor character, is already mentioned in the book, I wouldn't mind if Eustace's keeping his secret involved a recent family breakdown or loss of some sort, thus provoking the bullies to torment Eustace, instead.

The bullying might have gone on anyway, for a myriad of reasons, not only dysfunctional family backgrounds. Lack of discipline and boundary setting by means of enforcing set school rules, seems to be the main factor at Experiment House, and also lack of tolerance for anyone who is deemed as "different" from the bullies, plus a liking of having power over other children. Not only those brave enough to defy them, but also over their "hangers on". The Experiment House bullies, too, can be tinpot dictators in their own lunch time, mimicking the people they see in the news. Or on TV if they had access to it.

I think you make a pretty fair point about bullying. Also, I think because the filmmakers may want to make the audience really connect with Jill, they might want to do some scenes showing the bullying mentioned in the book rather than just having the characters mention it. This plus making her family a sore part (either not really in the picture or estranged in someway) may connect the audience to Jill right off the bat.

So a couple of posts have got me thinking...

[quote="wagga in Should Susan be excluded from 'The Last Battle'?":8wm6xors]The Pevensies may be no more than a memory in Silver Chair, but they were most likely at the party at the end of that book, when Jill wore her Narnian Costume.

[quote="Movie Aristotle in SC to release in 2018?":8wm6xors]Okay, so I know during VDT I made all sorts of false predictions, but, from the way that William was talking and from his confidence in the insider knowledge, it made me wonder if he might be involved himself...

Is it possible they might include the Pevensies/Friends of Narnia in an epilogue in The Silver Chair? While Will Moseley said that his character doesn't show up again until The Last Battle, he does seem awfully close to production for someone who technically isn't involved... and he and Anna Popplewell were pretty mum and coy about their cameos in VDT, if I remember correctly.

I've said before that I think there's an argument to be made for threading the remaining four films together with Friends of Narnia scenes in England, where stories about Narnia are shared until the events of The Last Battle. I also am quick to say that scenes like those could come across as hokey or disrupt the flow of the story, though. I think they could be very good additions if done well, but if I had my druthers, they wouldn't be in the films and each of the upcoming movies would be able to stand on its own feet as a standalone story. That said, I can certainly understand why Hollywood may feel the need to create some sort of overarching narrative linking the last four films together.

One thing I can imagine them doing in SC is having an epilogue at the end where Eustace and Jill are walking up to a house (the Kilns?!) at dusk and Jill is saying, "Come on, Scrubb, what's with all the cloak and daggers? Why won't you tell me what this is about? And why'd you tell me to wear my dress from Narnia?" And then he grins and says, "There are some people you really ought to meet..." and they enter the house and there are the Friends of Narnia seated around a glowing hearth. (A circle of Christian friends by a good fire, anyone?) A lot of fans of the Walden trilogy would go crazy to see the original Pevensies again, and if they plan on including Friends of Narnia scenes in MN and HHB, starting in SC might be a good idea.

Thoughts?

I'd agree with you more, Rose-Tree Dryad, if I hadn't been inclined to think the meeting might have been also Susan's homecoming party and that fancy dress had been just a way of making the occasion more fun. Susan could, should and would have had a ball at such an occasion however she dressed, herself, if she had just arrived home from America, the home of Hollywood, film stars, screen heroes, Gone with the Wind, Dorothy from Wizard of Oz and "cowboys and Indians". Ruby slippers for Susan, anyone?

Yes, the Kilns would be a good location for a party or a social get together, though C.S.Lewis' favourite pub might also be a good place. The Village pub or community hall is usually UK's answer to celebrations where Buckingham Palace or some other grand place is unavailable.

Not only the Friends of Narnia could link any remaining films together, as you suggest, but Susan's gradual and eventual absence from Last Battle would be less of a problem, judging by her reactions to the party. But a lot depends on which film of the series can be made next. If it is HHB, then definitely she has to show up at the party, and possibly Edmund as well.

That Friends of Narnia link might also help keep Jill and Eustace in the public eye if HHB is made before LB.

Yes, the Kilns would be a good location for a party or a social get together, though C.S.Lewis' favourite pub might also be a good place.

Maybe they could use that for another Friends of Narnia scene in a subsequent film, if they go that route! That would be neat.

Thanks to The Silver Chair reading group, I've been thinking about the blind poet and his tale of The Horse and His Boy at the feast during Jill and Eustace's brief stay at Cair Paravel. It's the sort of character and detail that I had always expected would be cut, or simply be part of the backdrop of a scene, but then it occurred to me: wouldn't it be a bad idea to cut or downplay this one preceding mention of the events of HHB, considering that HHB is already enough of an outlier in the series? And yet you wouldn't want to spoil the story, either....

One thought that came to my mind is that they could cut the part where Jill is falling asleep in her room before Glimfeather shows up (which I would kind of hate; I like that scene), and instead have her enjoying herself at the feast just as the blind poet begins his tale, and then Eustace drags her off into some alcove and tells her that Glimfeather is back and they've got to go while everyone is distracted. I can imagine them bickering as usual and Jill being cross and saying "But I wanted to hear the story!"—perhaps leaving the audience wondering about the story as well, and subsequently delighted when they find that the blind poet's tale is meant to become a film.

It would probably be a quicker exit for Jill and Eustace and thus save screen time, although it would also be difficult for the two guests of honor to sneak off unbeknownst to their hosts... but perhaps the blind poet is a truly enthralling storyteller!

Thanks to the Silver Chair reading group, I've been thinking about the blind poet and his tale of The Horse and His Boy at the feast during Jill and Eustace's brief stay at Cair Paravel. It's the sort of character and detail that I had always expected would be cut, or simply be part of the backdrop of a scene, but then it occurred to me: wouldn't it be a bad idea to cut or downplay this one preceding mention of the events of HHB, considering that HHB is already enough of an outlier in the series? And yet you wouldn't want to spoil the story, either....

Doesn't the spoiler effect depend chiefly on how much of the tale is told, and from which point of view? We don't know much about what happened during the Pevensie tetrarchy. Queen Susan's tale of romance with Rabadash, or some other unnamed suitor, and, maybe a somewhat less impressed Edmund's efforts to dissuade her from leaving Cair Paravel to visit that suitor, or just a part of any of it could be told without mentioning Shasta or Aravis or any sort of detail of the story in a poem. What about King Peter's marvellous displays to entertain yon perfidiously cruel suitor with ill-intent? Or how he left to fight giants whilst Susan dithered over her expedition to Tashbaan, leaving gallant Edmund to sort it all out?

On the other hand, we might get some information about Rilian, the missing prince. Maybe the poet might correlate the sadness of losing Caspian's Queen plus the disappearance of their son, with the sadness of other missing royalty, such as the missing twin from Archenland, whose disappearance broke King Lune's Queen's heart? Or how, when these misadventures did end well, then perhaps the romantic hope that the missing prince might also turn up alive, after so many years?

I had a crazy thought just now... I was thinking about how the filmmakers might find it a challenge to keep the audience emotionally involved in the scene with Caspian's resurrection, since a) it's been several years since VDT, and Ben Barnes may not even reprise the role, and b) Caspian is barely in the story.

So, because wild speculation is my specialty: what if they tried to swap out Puddleglum for Caspian in that scene? Have Puddleglum die somehow? Off the cuff, that does seem like something Hollywood might do. "They're weeping over their friend Puddleglum that the audience loves just as much, and he gets to join in on the beating of the bullies at Experiment House. He doesn't show up in the later books anyway, so it's a fine idea to go ahead and kill him off and send him to Aslan's Country." However, it would make a total mess of the last few chapters of the book: what would happen with old Caspian, how would Puddleglum die instead, et cetera.

Needless to say, I would hate it. And thankfully I think it's quite unlikely, especially with Magee on board, but he's not the only one involved with telling this story and you never know. (I'm still learning to trust again after VDT. )

To end this post on a saner note, here's one other idea: old Caspian could resemble a grandfather figure that cared for Jill until he died, and that's why the vision of death at the stream is painful for her. Near the beginning of the film you could show Jill looking at a picture or a locket of her late grandfather, and have her briefly reference him when talking to Eustace at Experiment House—perhaps explaining how she came to live at the school.

I had a crazy thought just now... I was thinking about how the filmmakers might find it a challenge to keep the audience emotionally involved in the scene with Caspian's resurrection, since a) it's been several years since VDT, and Ben Barnes may not even reprise the role, and b) Caspian is barely in the story.

I actually came back to this thread to post about the same thing. I think the resurrection scene could be awkward, especially to people who aren't familiar with the blood of Jesus type imagery used in the scene. Do you think they'll have no one die and just have a happy ending all round with Rillian and Caspian?

Something that has occurred to me recently about the Silver Chair, itself, and how it works. Obviously it causes Rilian pain, making him struggle to get away from his bounds, but in what way? Also the rest of the time he is not restrained he seems drugged in some way so that he loses his memory.

Does what he see when tied into the chair memories of what he knew in Narnia, the death of his mother, the process by which he met a seductive Lady of the Green Kirtle and his abduction underground? Does he relive it? Wouldn't this be a good place to put in some sort of backflash, explaining not only the reversal of Rilian's previous behaviour but also his relationship with LOTGK and how it could have changed from describing her as a nosegay of all virtues to describing her in somewhat less flattering terms.

Does Rilian realise which country just might be where he is heading if he follows the Witch's plan? And does he get haunted by thoughts of his father and other friends?

It is probably too late, but I wondered what anyone thought of this idea?

I actually came back to this thread to post about the same thing. I think the resurrection scene could be awkward, especially to people who aren't familiar with the blood of Jesus type imagery used in the scene. Do you think they'll have no one die and just have a happy ending all round with Rillian and Caspian?

That's a distinct possibility; it would definitely be easy to cut and just show Caspian on the brink of dying from despair before the return of his son renews his will to live. Aside from the fact that it would be a major departure from the book, though, it would also really take the shine off of the apple curing Digory's mother in MN.

If they went the Puddleglum-dies-in-Underland route, they might have Caspian die before Eustace and Jill ever arrive in Narnia. At the end of their quest, spirits are high in Narnia because Caspian's son has returned and they have a king again, but Eustace and Jill are sad about their friend's sacrifice, which then transitions to a resurrection scene where Puddleglum is in Caspian's place in the stream.

Those both seem like possibilities that Hollywood might dream up, but I really hope they don't go in those directions. I think there are far better ways to connect Caspian's death and resurrection into the overall arc of the story.

Does what he see when tied into the chair memories of what he knew in Narnia, the death of his mother, the process by which he met a seductive Lady of the Green Kirtle and his abduction underground? Does he relive it?

Hmm, I don't think that Rilian is reliving his past life when he's in the chair... at first, he only seems to remember hazy images of his previous life, and even those memories appear to come from right before his capture. (He seems to be describing the fountain, for instance.) And then it isn't until after the chair is destroyed that Rilian seems to realize that he's been talking to a Marshwiggle. He is also very quick to tell them that he is the lost prince at that point, but he couldn't find those words when he was still bound.

So instead of his memories, it seems to me that Rilian regains his own will and personality during the time he is bound to the chair. It's the only time of the day when he knows his true desires and might be able to escape from the witch's clutches. He still doesn't know his full identity and history, though. My guess is that the chair's re-enchantment process is preventing him from fully remembering his own past, and that's why we don't see him arguing with the questers and trying to prove that he's Rilian of Narnia. And why he's so increasingly desperate, because he can feel the magic seeping back into him and stealing his lucidity away. The effort of trying to fight it off is driving him to madness.

I've always found the exact nature of the silver chair to be a rather difficult puzzle to unravel, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the filmmakers try to make its use a bit clearer in the movie. It is the titular element, after all!

I actually came back to this thread to post about the same thing. I think the resurrection scene could be awkward, especially to people who aren't familiar with the blood of Jesus type imagery used in the scene. Do you think they'll have no one die and just have a happy ending all round with Rillian and Caspian?

That's a distinct possibility; it would definitely be easy to cut and just show Caspian on the brink of dying from despair before the return of his son renews his will to live. Aside from the fact that it would be a major departure from the book, though, it would also really take the shine off of the apple curing Digory's mother in MN.

If they went the Puddleglum-dies-in-Underland route, they might have Caspian die before Eustace and Jill ever arrive in Narnia. At the end of their quest, spirits are high in Narnia because Caspian's son has returned and they have a king again, but Eustace and Jill are sad about their friend's sacrifice, which then transitions to a resurrection scene where Puddleglum is in Caspian's place in the stream.

Those both seem like possibilities that Hollywood might dream up, but I really hope they don't go in those directions. I think there are far better ways to connect Caspian's death and resurrection into the overall arc of the story.

If you try either alternative there are a lot of other things you would miss out on as well. Puddleglum has to be alive to get them all out of Underland, though he still has a burned foot which keeps him in the cave. The other scenario mentioned would destroy The "Lord now let thy servant depart in peace According to thy word" aspect. It is essential that Caspian dies knowing that his son has returned and that he and Rilian have a few words together of reconciliation, and relief. For that is what was killing Caspian all along. There had to be a time for Caspian to hand over, you see.

This isn't strictly religious, either. It is what is inferred and what is expected in real life and C.S.Lewis who allegedly modelled Caspian on George VI knew this. In UK tradition a king can't be made king until the moment his predecessor dies. Then the cry goes up "The King is dead. Long live the King". For the Crown doesn't die even if the incumbent does. I hope they do the resurrection bit, though maybe a bit classier than the representation in the BBC version. That scene is too important to miss out altogether. I'd hope though that King Caspian is returned to the young man he was in VDT though, rather than a young boy.

Hmm, I don't think that Rilian is reliving his past life when he's in the chair... at first, he only seems to remember hazy images of his previous life, and even those memories appear to come from right before his capture. (He seems to be describing the fountain, for instance.) And then it isn't until after the chair is destroyed that Rilian seems to realize that he's been talking to a Marshwiggle. He is also very quick to tell them that he is the lost prince at that point, but he couldn't find those words when he was still bound.

So instead of his memories, it seems to me that Rilian regains his own will and personality during the time he is bound to the chair. It's the only time of the day when he knows his true desires and might be able to escape from the witch's clutches. He still doesn't know his full identity and history, though. My guess is that the chair's re-enchantment process is preventing him from fully remembering his own past, and that's why we don't see him arguing with the questers and trying to prove that he's Rilian of Narnia. And why he's so increasingly desperate, because he can feel the magic seeping back into him and stealing his lucidity away. The effort of trying to fight it off is driving him to madness.

I've always found the exact nature of the silver chair to be a rather difficult puzzle to unravel, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the filmmakers try to make its use a bit clearer in the movie. It is the titular element, after all!

That seems a realistic interpretation of what happens. The bit that I bolded is worth noting though as it is just the bit of the backflash that the audience does really need to see or hear described when Rilian is tied in the chair. Not the Queen being killed, though the place where it happened is important. Or Rilian riding away, either. But the moments before Rilian's capture are most definitely something the audience needs to see for themselves or hear about somehow, even if it is blurry. My guess is that LOTGK greets him when he arrives to see her, and she starts kissing him, cuddling him, hands all over him, winding herself around him, just like she did at the end. And then having him pinned down, he finds himself dragged down, maybe through the fountain, itself, to an Earthman reception. And when he struggles against them and LOTGK, by now as a snake, stuns him so that is the last thing he sees, as in a mirror. At that point he faints.