This is sort of changing the subject from gender flipping but I wanted to hearken back to what Icarus and I were discussing about Gerwig being interested in religion. I never really was worried about a secular director or screenwriter having a problem with forgiveness being a theme in Narnia. There are a lot of people, not just Christians, who value forgiveness. In fact, there are stories downright hostile to Christianity that portray forgiveness positively. Maybe it's not quite a universal value but it comes close. 

I know I said there were some messages in Narnia that I think a non-Christian director might not feel comfortable with sending and... well, I have to stand by that. But forgiveness being a good thing is not one of those messages. (If I recall correctly, the message I specifically mentioned was obedience being a good thing. I'd be surprised if there are any directors out there who want to send that message. Even Christians and people with similar religions don't really like it. They just believe in it anyway.)  

On the subject of religion and Greta Gerwig, while just a small thing, I saw that the NarniaWeb Twitter page retweeted this clip from one of her interviews:

https://twitter.com/APEntertainment/status/1682374871878336514?s=20

Posted by: @icarus

I personally have seen nothing in Greta Gerwig's works or quotes that suggest anything too far beyond this intellectual position anyway - certainly nothing close to the man-hating sociopath that many corners of the internet would paint her as.

Posted by: @rilianix

It's about having the choice of living a life you want regardless of gender and not feeling like you're being held back. I think that's what Barbie is doing. It's not about exploring why the gender roles should be reversed, but the pros and cons to each "extreme" and creating a middle ground, where both can feel included and equal.

I don't really want to read or listen to every argument on the internet about whether or not The Barbie Movie is misandrist. (For one thing, that would mean the internet would keep giving me advertisements for the movie and I don't need more of those, whether I agree with its message or not.) But your descriptions of the controversy kind of remind me of another provocative film. The comparison is itself provocative, but I really believe it might help expand the minds of people on both sides of the controversy. 

When the Christian movie, God's Not Dead, came out there were a lot of Christians who enjoyed it and a lot of atheists who were insulted by its bitter portrayal of them as oppressive villains who need to be crushed. Christian fans of the film responded with two counterarguments. 

Counterargument 1 was that atheists vilified Christians and other social conservatives in their movies all the time, so they deserved the portrayal. Significantly, they didn't give any specific examples that I remember. I imagine the defenders of The Barbie Movie, who would argue that misogynist movies are made all the time and we need misandrist ones to balance them out, don't give examples either. All of the examples of really misogynist stories I've encountered are really old ones that people have to read for college, not mainstream works of entertainment that impact how your average Joe sees the world. 

Counterargument 2 was that while the movie took a negative view of atheism, as was its privilege, it also included a moment or two where the Christian heroes have a hard time answering the villains' arguments and it had moments that humanized those secularist villains, giving them problems of their own that hopefully made them sympathetic. The response from the atheist critics was those things were belied by the underlying bitterness of the movie and that the even those humanizing elements reinforced stereotypes of atheists that they found tiresome like that they all became atheists because they blamed God for some personal tragedy. They also argued that it was a demeaning portrayal since the villains were only redeemed by becoming Christians after being humbled by the heroes. 

Having seen GND (and disliked it), I would say that the detractors and the proponents were both right. The fact that they agreed with the overall message of the film and enjoyed its aesthetics allowed its proponents to see what others couldn't: that the filmmakers really were trying to throw their strawmen some bones, if only because they believed on an intellectual level that this would make for more mature storytelling. But the fact that the detractors disagreed with the overall message and didn't enjoy the aesthetics allowed them to see what the fans couldn't: that these bones were thrown in a very begrudging and insincere manner which just reinforced the sincerity of the filmmakers' spitefulness and vindictiveness. 

It wouldn't surprise me if much the same thing could be said for controversy about The Barbie Movie. 

Posted by: @col-klink

And I feel like the idea that the kind of feminists who teach "women's studies" and write for academic papers are inclined to dislike the Narnia books is demonstrably true enough that I don't feel the need to apologize for the stereotype.

*puts on mod hat* I think I need to be more clear about this.

On NarniaWeb Forum, we don't allow people to make unsubstantiated claims or assumptions about individuals, based on stereotypes or otherwise (see the respect rule).

Feel free to discuss what Gerwig has said about Narnia or C.S. Lewis or talk about her other films and interviews, but please do not make unsubstantiated claims or assumptions about her (e.g., "Greta Gerwig cannot like Narnia because she is a feminist.")

If anyone has any questions about this, please PM me or @Dot.

Posted by: @icarus

I get the impression that one problem we are going to face as a forum going forward, is that it is perhaps impossible to talk about Greta Gerwig's art without also talking about feminism, and given that feminism is a highly contentious topic, I can see it becoming difficult issue to moderate, whilst still keeping the conversation productive with respect to Narnia.

We're working on an update to the section rules that will hopefully clarify things for everyone and improve this going forward.

@rose Gotchya. But will you permit me to say in my defense that I never said, "Greta Gerwig cannot like Narnia." What I was trying to say was I see no reason to expect her to like it. Of course, it's hard for you and I to understand anyone not liking the books.

Here are some thoughts that sort of involve girl characters but which I don't think will offend anyone.  

Lindsay, why do you feel that Lucy has a feminine role in the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? (OK, maybe that will offend someone. ) She's not a love interest or a mother or anything. I think boys and girls both relate to her. EDIT: Is it because she and Susan get rescued by Peter at one point? That's not super important to the plot. I'd be OK with cutting it...well, actually I wouldn't be OK since that would render Peter and Susan's Christmas gifts pointless, but I think adapters can find a compromise that would keep the essence of the scene without offending people who don't like damsel in distress stories.

Icarus, I would describe Alice or Dorothy as iconic heroines from children's fantasy. I'm not sure about Lucy. While the image of her entering Narnia and seeing the lamppost for the first time is iconic, the emphasis is on the situation, not the character. If you asked everyone to describe what Lucy looks like, I imagine there wouldn't be much overlap among their descriptions like there would be if you asked them to describe say Tumnus or the White Witch or Aslan or even the beavers. (Those are the characters from LWW I'd describe as iconic.) Reading about Lucy, I don't think about her as an individual much unless I'm in literary analysis mode. It's more like I'm imagining what it would be like to be in her situation. 

I'd also question how deliberate or provocative it was for C. S. Lewis to have an equal number of girl and boy protagonists. From what I understand, he was modeling his premise on the children's stories of E. Nesbit which he grew up reading. Of course, she was a feminist (from what I understand) so you could say that C. S. Lewis was trying to be feminist in that he was imitating her.

Posted by: @col-klink

Lindsay, why do you feel that Lucy has a feminine role in the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? (OK, maybe that will offend someone. ) She's not a love interest or a mother or anything. I think boys and girls both relate to her. EDIT: Is it because she and Susan get rescued by Peter at one point?

OK - this would take some time to answer - however I think each of the four children are - to a certain extent - Biblical-types. Lucy is - in part - a female Biblical-type who has nothing to do with being a love interest or a mother.  For example, there is a female in the Bible who is not described as having children or being a love interest who has a pretty important role - first witness to the resurrection. She ran and told the disciples about it - making her the evangelist to the evangelists.  She is known for carrying a fancy bottle. That should be enough hints.

In any event - I think each of the children carries important associations having to do with the early Christian church - and completely apart from any contemporary post-war notion of gender roles.  But let the movie makers do what they want.      

Posted by: @lindsaydoering

Lucy is - in part - a female Biblical-type who has nothing to do with being a love interest or a mother.  For example, there is a female in the Bible who is not described as having children or being a love interest who has a pretty important role - first witness to the resurrection... She is known for carrying a fancy bottle...

There is actually a good argument to be made that Mary Magdalene did not carry a fancy bottle (Why Mary Magdalene gets a bad rap - Decent Films) but that's not super important right now. 

Frankly, I'm cynical about interpretations of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that make each Pevensie out to be a specific disciple of Christ or other biblical figure. (Peter as Peter, Edmund as Judas, etc.) Not that there aren't characters who correspond to biblical figures in it! Aslan corresponds to Jesus Christ and, to a lesser extent, the White Witch is a Satan figure in how she tempts characters, mainly Edmund. But to make every single character and plot point represent something feels contrary to the spirit of the book to me. The story wasn't crafted just to teach a lesson. It's supposed to function as a piece of entertainment that makes dramatic sense in its own right. 

Posted by: @col-klink

Icarus, I would describe Alice or Dorothy as iconic heroines from children's fantasy. I'm not sure about Lucy. While the image of her entering Narnia and seeing the lamppost for the first time is iconic, the emphasis is on the situation, not the character. If you asked everyone to describe what Lucy looks like, I imagine there wouldn't be much overlap among their descriptions like there would be if you asked them to describe say Tumnus or the White Witch or Aslan or even the beavers. (Those are the characters from LWW I'd describe as iconic.) Reading about Lucy, I don't think about her as an individual much unless I'm in literary analysis mode. It's more like I'm imagining what it would be like to be in her situation. 

Sure, I guess that's what I mean... That if you were to ask people what comes to mind when they think of Narnia, it would probably be the image of Lucy entering the wardrobe for the first time, the image of Lucy meeting Mr Tumnus by the Lampost, and also then Lucy (and Susan) riding with Aslan. These tend to be the visuals which gets used most on book covers, movie posters etc.

As for Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz, i can't really comment since I've never read the books, and wouldn't be able to tell you which moments of visual iconography come from the books, and which come from the famous movie adaptations, but I take your point - if someone went in Cosplay to a party as Alice or Dorothy everyone would know who they were - probably less so with Lucy (unless you were accompanied by a Lion, a Lampost, a Wardrobe, or Mr Tumnus)

Still, with LWW we are talking about a book which regularly places in the top 3 rankings of all time children's literature, and Lucy is front-and-center in all of the major visual iconography associated with the story. That to me is the anchor on which I would expect Greta Gerwig to build her adaptation from.

Posted by: @col-klink

Frankly, I'm cynical about interpretations of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that make each Pevensie out to be a specific disciple of Christ or other biblical figure. (Peter as Peter, Edmund as Judas, etc.) Not that there aren't characters who correspond to biblical figures in it! Aslan corresponds to Jesus Christ and, to a lesser extent, the White Witch is a Satan figure in how she tempts characters, mainly Edmund. But to make every single character and plot point represent something feels contrary to the spirit of the book to me. The story wasn't crafted just to teach a lesson. It's supposed to function as a piece of entertainment that makes dramatic sense in its own right. 

I'm glad this has come up, because it's one of my pet peeves too, and something that too many fans as well as critics of the Narnia books get wrong. We can say "wrong" for sure because this is one topic where C.S. Lewis himself gave a whole lot of quite clear explanations and corrective statements about his intentions in writing the books and the ways they're meant to be read (or not). The Chronicles of Narnia are not allegories — they are not stories in which each character and situation has a hidden significance (Biblical or otherwise) that has to be decoded in order for us to understand the author's message. Having some symbolic elements doesn't make a story an allegory — that is, it doesn't mean that every single thing in that story "stands for" something else — and reading the Narnia stories as "allegory" is definitely contrary to the spirit of them. Lewis was really explicit about that, repeatedly, in statements he made about his own writings.

To get this back a bit more on topic, I'd say that's one reason why future Narnia movies may actually be better off in the hands of a director like Gerwig, who (as far as we've seen) has a largely sympathetic and positive view of Christianity but isn't personally religious, rather than a wearing-one's-heart-on-one's-sleeve, card-carrying-Christian director — who might actually overplay the Christian elements of the stories and introduce obvious theological agendas in a way the books were never meant to do. However any adaptations of Narnia are done, they surely need to be accessible to and enjoyable by a wide general audience, the way the books are — not something that can be pigeonholed as for devout Christians only.

Posted by: @icarus

As for Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz, i can't really comment since I've never read the books, and wouldn't be able to tell you which moments of visual iconography come from the books, and which come from the famous movie adaptations, but I take your point - if someone went in Cosplay to a party as Alice or Dorothy everyone would know who they were - probably less so with Lucy (unless you were accompanied by a Lion, a Lampost, a Wardrobe, or Mr Tumnus)

I'm guessing Alice and Dorothy are "iconic" characters in themselves because there's a really strong visual iconography associated with both books. Sir John Tenniel's original illustrations for the two Alice books are very famous, and Disney's animated Alice in Wonderland, while it didn't parallel the illustrations or the original plots ultra-closely, definitely kept the same kind of "look" for Alice — the dress and pinafore and long blonde hair — and I'm pretty sure all subsequent adaptations have done the same. The Oz books have had many illustrators and their original artwork isn't really "iconic", but the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz definitely is, and Judy Garland just completely established the image of Dorothy that we all recognise. (Dorothy in the original book does wear a blue gingham dress, but her magic shoes were actually silver — apparently they were changed to "ruby slippers" for the movie so they would show up better against the yellow brick road!)

On the other hand, while Pauline Baynes' illustrations for the Narnia books are definitely classics, she didn't do a lot of very close-up, highly detailed drawings of the child characters — I'm pretty sure that wasn't her forte, or at least not her style — and the books themselves don't tell us much about what the children look like and what they wear and so on. (Except that Lewis mentions Lucy being "golden-haired" a couple of times, which Baynes ignored and so has nearly every screen adaptation since, but it's not actually important to the plot.) So although the image of a girl in a snowy wood looking up at a lamppost is definitely iconic, Lucy herself doesn't have a specific outfit or a "look" that everyone recognises her by in her own right, unlike Alice and Dorothy.

In fact, I'd say that image of Lucy and the lamppost, and/or Lucy with Mr Tumnus, is the only image from the seven books that is so famous as to count as iconic. I can't think of any other scene in the Chronicles (or even from LWW itself) that would have anywhere near the same level of recognition from a general audience worldwide. So yes, that would definitely be the obvious place for Gerwig to build her adaptation from — unless she decides (or has been asked) to start with a different book entirely! We just don't know yet.

Posted by: @courtenay

...unless she decides (or has been asked) to start with a different book entirely! We just don't know yet.

While not expecting anything, I still personally feel like The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is the best place to start. The introduction of the Pevensies just is and will always be, to me, the most appropriate introduction to Narnia and its characters. Now maybe part of that is just familiarity with the book and its other adaptations, but again I just think the story works so well in terms of what it achieves as an introduction. Plus, even with the possibility being The Magician's Nephew, I still think publication order is best. While I love TMN as its own story, to me, it works extremely well as a prequel and I feel the stories exploration needs to be earnt through an already invested interest in Narnia. What I would say though is that TMN and A Horse And His Boy are interchangeable in terms of what order they're adapted, but both would work best in my eyes as coming between The Silver Chair and The Last Battle like the publication order.

Posted by: @courtenay

I'm glad this has come up, because it's one of my pet peeves too, and something that too many fans as well as critics of the Narnia books get wrong. We can say "wrong" for sure because this is one topic where C.S. Lewis himself gave a whole lot of quite clear explanations and corrective statements about his intentions in writing the books and the ways they're meant to be read (or not). The Chronicles of Narnia are not allegories 

A couple thoughts - 

My comment was more about typology - not allegory. On this topic - according to Walter Hooper, CSL had a specific meaning in mind when he used the word "allegory".

In the dedication to LWW, CSL suggest that Lucy Barfield would someday take LWW down from the shelf (when she is old enough to start reading fairy tales again) and she will tell him what she thinks of LWW (and he will be too old to understand).  We know he considered re-reading books to be the true mark of a literate person. Isn't the dedication an INVITATION to read the books as an adult?  

When you read a book as an adult - do you find new meaning that might not be available to children? How would you characterize that new meaning? 

Posted by: @col-klink

There is actually a good argument to be made that Mary Magdalene did not carry a fancy bottle (Why Mary Magdalene gets a bad rap - Decent Films) but that's not super important right now. 

Frankly, I'm cynical about interpretations of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that make each Pevensie out to be a specific disciple of Christ or other biblical figure.

I am equally cynical on that point - all the characters in LWW are definitely not a one-to-one correspondence with Biblical figures they way that - for example - Animal Farm is a one-to-one allegory of the Russian revolution.  (Even though CSL greatly admired that book).

As far as Mary goes - for better or for worse - Pope St Gregory's sermon has been pretty influential over the years (as your article notes) - her attribute is often a fancy bottle. It is possible that the Gregory was finding allegory in the Bible where there was none - but if that were the case - he is following a pretty well-worn path followed by - among many others - St Augustine.     

I guess what I mean by Lucy not being iconic (for me) is that when I picture scenes with her (stepping through the wardrobe, looking at the lamppost, maybe watching Aslan's death), I always picture the back of her head, not her face. The emphasis in my visual imagination is on what she's seeing, not her reaction to it. Similar to what Courtenay said, there also isn't one single adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that is a big part of pop culture like there is for those other children's stories to which I alluded. (Well, you can argue the 2005 movie is part of our culture but not as much as, say, the 1939 Wizard of Oz or the 1951 Alice in Wonderland.) Lucy looks a little different in each of the visual adaptations of Narnia. 

That being said, this is probably a good time to acknowledge that just because I don't think of a character or a scene as being iconic doesn't mean no one else should think of them that way. And it is certainly true that LWW is the only entry in the Narnia series that everyone knows about, and Lucy prominently features in the first two chapters which everyone remembers.

Posted by: @col-klink

Frankly, I'm cynical about interpretations of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that make each Pevensie out to be a specific disciple of Christ or other biblical figure. (Peter as Peter, Edmund as Judas, etc.) Not that there aren't characters who correspond to biblical figures in it! Aslan corresponds to Jesus Christ and, to a lesser extent, the White Witch is a Satan figure in how she tempts characters, mainly Edmund. But to make every single character and plot point represent something feels contrary to the spirit of the book to me. The story wasn't crafted just to teach a lesson. It's supposed to function as a piece of entertainment that makes dramatic sense in its own right. 

I even heard that some argue that Tash is supposed to be Satan. I think he's more on the lines of Baal and Ashtorath (if they were real). Trying to turn Aslan and the White Witch or even Aslan and Tash as equal opposing forces would go against Christian teachings. If you think about it, Satan is not even in equal to God or Jesus.

Posted by: @courtenay

To get this back a bit more on topic, I'd say that's one reason why future Narnia movies may actually be better off in the hands of a director like Gerwig, who (as far as we've seen) has a largely sympathetic and positive view of Christianity but isn't personally religious, rather than a wearing-one's-heart-on-one's-sleeve, card-carrying-Christian director — who might actually overplay the Christian elements of the stories and introduce obvious theological agendas in a way the books were never meant to do. However any adaptations of Narnia are done, they surely need to be accessible to and enjoyable by a wide general audience, the way the books are — not something that can be pigeonholed as for devout Christians only.

I'm sure Greta Gerwig will be able turn Narnia into movies that will be successful with both Christian and secular audiences, and appeal to both kids and adults. I guess you could argued that Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame is kind of religious. It has a lot of "mature content" for a kids movie, though it's animated. I don't see Greta Gerwig necessarily taking that route (though I do feel that The Last Battle has bit more of a mature feel to it, in comparison to the six other books). I think it will be interesting to see on how she will turn Narnia films that will be successful with both Christian and secular audiences.  

Posted by: @courtenay

So yes, [The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe] would definitely be the obvious place for Gerwig to build her adaptation from — unless she decides (or has been asked) to start with a different book entirely! We just don't know yet.

Just as a purely academic exercise, I've ranked the Narnia stories below in terms of which ones i feel would have the greatest appeal to Greta Gerwig as a director, given the themes which seem to be important to her overall artistic vision, based on her previous 3 movies. This include things we've already talked about at length in this thread, such as childhood, the female perspective on growing up, the transition into womanhood, as well as inter-generational reflections and expectations. Also, the more i read about how her Catholic upbringing factors into the movies she's made so far, I would also consider general religious values and religious iconography as being something worthy of consideration. 

Anyway, my ranking is as below (but keep in mind that this isn't necessarily anything to do with the order in which Netflix would make them).

• 1. Silver Chair - It has the most singularly focussed story with respect to its female protagonist, as well having a villain whose femininity also factors into the plot (in the manner in which she lures Rilian away). It is also quite a small and intimately focussed story, and I can see that appealing to someone looking to tell a more personal story. Plus the two book-end scenes being set in a school works well to the overall theme of growing up. Really though, its the character of Jill Pole which puts this at the top of my list, as i think she just has one of the most interesting character journeys in the books, which i can see really appealing to Greta Gerwig's sensibilities.
• 2. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - As mentioned before, i see LWW as being primarily Lucy's story. Yes Edmund perhaps has the stronger character arc, but by and large I feel that Lucy has the greatest agency in driving the plot forward, and most of the critical moments are centred on her point-of-view. I think i've also mentioned before that i see this as being a story which is not only about childhood, but is also a classic of children's literature in-and-of-itself, which gets it extra points. I also think this book has some of the strongest religious iconography in Aslan's sacrifice, which i can see resonating with Greta's Catholic upbringing. That pushes LWW into a close second behind SC for me.
• 3. Voyage of the Dawn Treader - This is at number 3, but largely because unlike the ones below it has nothing counting against it. In general though, as with all of the first three books, the Lucy plotline would play well with Greta i think, and the ending with the children being told they cant come back to Narnia scores it high on the "growing up / adulthood" theme. Also having seen how well Greta delivered on the whimsical elements of "Barbie" I think she would be more likely to lean heavily into the more absurdist moments of VDT like the Dufflepuds, rather the self-serious and grounded approach the Walden movies took, so that would be a huge plus for me.
• 4. Magician's Nephew - This scores some points for being a fairly intimate character journey, and having some of the most personal stakes of the entire series (saving Digory's mother's life), but loses points because Polly is undoubtedly the secondary character. Still, I think the general childhood aspects of this are quite strong, but maybe that's just me since i cant really justify why i feel that. Also, given some of the genuinely inventive visuals Greta conjured up for the Barbie movie, I can see the "Aslan Singing Creation" scene being something that would work for her visual sensibilities as well as her Catholic ones.
• 5. Prince Caspian - This is the first book where i would be conflicted about. On the one hand, the Lucy half of the plot has some really interesting moments that i think fall right into Greta's wheelhouse.... yet i cannot see the Caspian half of the plot appealing at all - restoring the male heir to the throne of a hereditary monarchy? Just doesn't seem her thing at all.
• 6. Horse and His Boy - Another one I'm conflicted about, since on the one hand you have the Calormen who are the living embodiment of the repressive male patriarchy, and a strong female narrative for Aravis and Hwin. However on the whole i still see this as being primarily about Shasta and Bree, therefore it loses points in the "female perspective" category. I also think HHB comes with a tonne of baggage in terms of having to address the socio-cultural aspects of the Calormen's depiction head-on, which i feel like instantly pulls the thematic focus in an entirely different direction to one she would be interested in.
• 7. The Last Battle - This one for me is a hard pass on the Greta Gerwig front. The story is far too big in scope and too overly focused on bigger, grander themes, that I just can't see it appealing at all. You've also got the thorny issue of Susan to deal with, though I would contend that its such a minor and insignificant plot point that not even CS Lewis bothered to give it more than a single throwaway line of dialogue in the book. Still, all round this one is a low score on the Greta-o-meter for me.

Any thoughts, opinions, disagreements, let me know - would love to know what other people think the most / least likely candidates for her two movies are.