if I was a film-maker I would remember that this particular Narnia story does indeed have a villain - or two. And I would emphasize that.

So you're saying that they should change the story so that it focuses on the villains. Personally, I suspect that's exactly what they will do, but that would require some dramatic alterations, especially in the part of the book that takes place in Narnia. Basically, the problem that makes MN so hard to translate is that the story goes through 3 stages, each with a very different "goal" (quest isn't quite the word for it) and tone.

The first part of the book - the confusion and exploration stage - deals with the kids and the fact that their curiosity takes them from one misadventure to the next until they end up in Charn. The villain of the first stage is Uncle Andrew. The goal of the first stage is (sort of) rescuing Polly.

Then they meet Jadis and stage 2 starts. Suddenly, Uncle Andrew is no longer an effectual villain, but a cowering comic relief figure. The goal of the 2nd stage is getting rid of Jadis.

Then they end up in Narnia and Stage 3 begins. The focus immediately shifts from Jadis to Aslan. Jadis finds herself frightened and enfeebled. Rather than dominating everything around her she is reduced to begging and pleading. She is essentially defeated as soon as she meets Aslan. Digory only has to plant an apple tree to prevent her from growing to power again, much in the same way that you might plant mint in a garden path, so that weeds won't come up. The goal of stage 3 is for Digory to make peace with Narnia, and the villain is his own weakness.

All of this shifting in purpose and tone, makes perfect sense when you read the book, and you can see clearly how everything relates to Digory's inner journey, but that sense of perspective will be lost in a literal interpretation of the book. It will seem like some one took segments out of three different movies and spliced them together.

The film makers will most likely focus on Jadis. They'll trim down the first stage in the book significantly so that in functions more as an introductory sequence. Everything about stage 2 will likely be prolonged and exaggerated. Stage 3 will be changed beyond recognition. The creation will either be curtailed or cut out all together, so that the gang shows up and Jadis can start making mischief right away, perhaps gathering followers among the animals. They'll find some way for Jadis to function as a proper villain, probably with fighting (because that's what villains are supposed to do in movies, don't you know ).

if I was a film-maker I would remember that this particular Narnia story does indeed have a villain - or two. And I would emphasize that.

So you're saying that they should change the story so that it focuses on the villains.

Just because they emphasize the villains, that doesn't mean the villains are the main focus. For example, in LWW, they emphasised a lot of things: the fight between Lucy and Edmund, the friendship between Lucy and Tumnus, the emotional pain World War II brought to the people in England. But I wouldn't say any of those things were the main focus of the movie. A movie can emphasize multiple things, all of which are not the film's main focus.

~Riella

@Anhun, I do think you are right to an extent. I doubt the filmmakers will waste much time in Polly and Digory getting acquainted before they blunder into Uncle Andrew's study. And yes, I am sure the filmmakers would ramp up the menace of Jadis at Charn and in London. FotF Magician's Nephew has Uncle Andrew complaining about an ostentatious and expensive lunch, so it would be at somewhere upmarket, like the Hotel Savoy, not any old Queenway or Paddington eatery. Same with the jeweller and the chaos Jadis imight inflict when rampaging in London.

In the third stage some of the incidents in that part of MN may go, I agree. I am predicting that we won't see much of Uncle Andrew's adventures as Brandy the animals' pet. I'm not sure we will see the coronation of Frank and Helen or Digory and Polly's toffee tree, either. We will see Jadis hitting Aslan with the iron bar and the planting of the apple tree, and what Aslan has to say about it, not to mention Digory and Polly's return to London. These are the things that need explaining from LWW, after all.

Then they meet Jadis and stage 2 starts. Suddenly, Uncle Andrew is no longer an effectual villain, but a cowering comic relief figure. The goal of the 2nd stage is getting rid of Jadis.

I thought the goal of stage 3 is also to at least neutralise Jadis. It is Aslan's goal at any rate, and the reason why he calls a council and questions Digory. I don't agree either that Uncle Andrew is not an effectual villain after meeting Jadis. He is simply outgunned and outmatched by her, facing consequences he never envisaged for his messing around. He still has the same selfish attitudes at heart. The really funny part of Uncle Andrew is his thinking that Jadis might hold him in any sort of esteem.

Then they end up in Narnia and Stage 3 begins. The focus immediately shifts from Jadis to Aslan. Jadis finds herself frightened and enfeebled. Rather than dominating everything around her she is reduced to begging and pleading. She is essentially defeated as soon as she meets Aslan.

I don't agree with this interpretation of Jadis either. The only place Jadis is enfeebled and reduced to begging and pleading is in the Wood between the Worlds. Jadis isn't the sort of person who can happily vegetate anywhere living and peaceful, where it is enough to just be . She is extremely powerful in Charn, and able to destroy everyone in her world. In London she is still powerful, but her magic doesn't work the way it did in Charn. In Narnia, she is also put at a disadvantage, and just as Uncle Andrew is no match for Jadis, Jadis, herself, is forced to recognise that Aslan is more powerful than herself, the reason why she dislikes Aslan's song of creation.

When she throws the bar from the London lantern, Aslan isn't even hurt, and so she runs away. But that isn't the end of her, and I think in a movie they will show her snooping around or something like that, to lead up to her meeting Digory in that garden. She seems to be quite strong in Narnia to get to that garden at the same time as Digory.

As a matter of interest, why can't she petrify people or use the deplorable word in our world? Why didn't she petrify people in London, or any humans in Narnia, including Digory, and Edmund later on?

Just because they emphasize the villains, that doesn't mean the villains are the main focus.

Agreed, but I don't think you understand the conversation the wagga and I are having. To sum it up:

My position is that MN is uncinematic because,

1. The central thread that ties the various events of the story together is Digory's internal journey. This is easily conveyed in the book, which is almost entirely told from Digory's perspective. His emotional impressions are always front and center. We don't just "look" at the events through Lewis' physical descriptions, we FEEL them through Digory's reactions.

2. This sense of perspective would be extremely difficult to translate to film, especially with all of the visual distracters (Jadis carrying on, Aslan creating Narnia, etc.). Without that, the events of the story will seem random and disjointed, like a series of unrelated special effects scenes. It will be hard for audiences to get emotionally involved.

wagga's position is that MN IS cinematic because,

1. The central thread of the book is Digory's ongoing struggle with Jadis.
2. That good versus evil struggle is easy to convey on film. (I agree with point 2, by the way).

Ah, I see. I think I agree with your take on it then, Anhun, that it's Digory's internal journey.

But I don't think it would be too hard to portray that on film. Portraying feelings are not, in any way, limited to books. There are also many movies that are about emotional/spiritual journeys. And feelings can be portrayed very well through the right expressions, music, lighting, etc.

~Riella

if I was a film-maker I would remember that this particular Narnia story does indeed have a villain - or two. And I would emphasize that.

So you're saying that they should change the story so that it focuses on the villains.

Just because they emphasize the villains, that doesn't mean the villains are the main focus. For example, in LWW, they emphasised a lot of things: the fight between Lucy and Edmund, the friendship between Lucy and Tumnus, the emotional pain World War II brought to the people in England. But I wouldn't say any of those things were the main focus of the movie. A movie can emphasize multiple things, all of which are not the film's main focus. ~Riella

I agree and also with your other post. Yes, music etc does help to explain an internal journey, but much of such explanation should also come out in the interactions between the actors's characters as well.

Some while back I learned that the most challenging role in a play or movie is to be a believable villain. There are so many nuances to it. Exactly what makes them a villain, how do they interact with others, when do they appear and for what reason? Do they get others to do something unethical? Or is it just their own behaviour that is on the nose? Where do they come from, what is their work, if any, and how do they spend their spare time? Basically what makes them the villain? And in which shade of darkness do we paint them?

In most films we soon find out. In HP, for instance, it is possible to dislike Snape or Draco, but we find out eventually that in each case the characters have some redeeming quality, a good side in contrast to the main villain, Voldemort. On the other hand, I think that we can all agree that VDT's main weakness as a film was the lack of anyone we could recognise as a proper villain who was intrinsic to the book VDT.

Although Digory's journey might be an internal one, as you and Anhun agree, clarifying the exact nature of the villain and his/her relationship with Digory, himself, is also part of his character arc. Clarifying what other people do and say, not to mention their attitudes, also helps to define not only Jadis but also the other characters, such as Uncle Andrew, Aunt Letty, Polly, the Cabbie and even Fledge. Digory's journey is also defined by his responses to others like Polly or the Cabbie, and Aslan, in particular.

At the beginning of MN, Digory is grieving over his mother's impending death. Now why is he so grief-stricken, anyway? Is it only because of his understandable love for his mother? Or is it partly because he also fears for his own safety and well-being? Maslow's hierarchy of needs lets us know that the most fundamental needs of anyone is food and shelter. This is something Digory is not lacking since his mother has turned to her own family for help in her dire situation. But the circumstances he is in are far from ideal. Aunt Letty cares about her sister enough to take her in to care for her. But she is fully occupied in trying to keep the Ketterley household together. Including mending mattresses, not something I'd like to do without a lot of help.

Now Digory's dying mother is a catalyst for much of Digory's attitudes and his interaction with other characters. Polly is sympathetic enough to befriend Digory. Letty of course takes her own sister in. Aslan, when we meet him, will share Digory's grief. The trouble is, Digory's mother is also Uncle Andrew's sister. But what is his reaction to this sister? Or that of Jadis, who is also in a position to know about Digory's situation?

What do we learn about Uncle Andrew before he spirits Polly away? What financial or other contribution does Uncle Andrew make to the household? How did he come by the wherewithall to make those rings? Does he care about living things like guinea pigs, or other people? Why does Digory have to share a room with this adult? What harm is there in his having to do so? And what might be hidden in Uncle Andrew's wardrobe or in his study that is best left out of range of children? ?

I expect that these things will be demonstrated deftly in the film, by whoever acts Uncle Andrew. We need to see Digory compare Uncle Andrew with Jadis, noticing how similar their attitudes are, and that the difference between the two is merely one of degree. Uncle Andrew is not particularly wealthy, nor does he influence others, as Jadis observes. However, the fact she is a ruler makes everything she does or say so much worse than anything Uncle Andrew could do.

Digory, himself, has to learn to face his own bad behavour in Charn, and to apologise to Polly. He has to learn to face down his own resemblances to Uncle Andrew as part of his struggle with Jadis. The true test of his character is at the garden when he obeys the sign on the gate, to do what Aslan wants, despite his worries about his mother.

But I don't think it would be too hard to portray that on film. Portraying feelings are not, in any way, limited to books. There are also many movies that are about emotional/spiritual journeys. And feelings can be portrayed very well through the right expressions, music, lighting, etc.

Could you give examples? When in previous movies have they taken an internal journey and presented it in film in a way that made sense? I'd be most interested in stories that have structural similarities to MN (lots of hoopla going on with other characters while the hero is off at the side undergoing internal progress).

much of such explanation should also come out in the interactions between the actors's characters as well.

But that doesn't really apply to MN. Digory spends most of stage 2 as a spectator to Jadis' antics, rather than interacting with her. He spends a significant chunk (though not most) of stage 3 watching Aslan and the creatures of Narnia, rather than interacting with them. In the more visual medium of film, this will likely mean that, in those parts of the film, Digory will be all but forgotten. He will be seen as flimsy, contrived connecting device, rather than a character that we should invest in.

Could you give examples? When in previous movies have they taken an internal journey and presented it in film in a way that made sense? I'd be most interested in stories that have structural similarities to MN (lots of hoopla going on with other characters while the hero is off at the side undergoing internal progress).

Um, Harry Potter? In those films it isn't just Harry Potter that has an internal journey. It is Ron, Hermione, Draco and others who also need to learn things about themselves and each other. Why do you think that Dumbledore always has the last word to Harry in each movie, even when he is dying or dead, and even when Harry is merely an onlooker as in Harry Potter and the Half-blood prince? The films have left out the hospital scenes that finished most of the books. These are the characters' chance to piece together what happened and what they learned. In MN something similar happens with Digory and with his interaction with Aslan, at any rate.

Or LOTR? There is not only an outward journey for each of the characters, but internal ones as well. What about Boromir's internal journey where he is being tempted by the ring, what makes him attack Frodo, and how he dies defending the other two abducted hobbits? And why does Frodo, after all that way, find it so difficult to surrender the Ring to the volcanic Mountain of Doom?

Nor do I agree that Digory is a mere observer in Stage 2 and 3. In Stage 1, Digory and Polly meet up in the Wood between the Worlds. Digory is angry with what his uncle has done with Polly. But in learning they and the guinea pig are in no danger in the Wood between the worlds, the children explore the possibilities they see in the pools as well as learning how the rings really work.

Here we see Polly's caution and that Digory can be as headstrong and careless of other people's welfare as is Uncle Andrew, once an idea gets into his head. When they both reach Charn, it is Digory who insists on exploring further, even though Charn gives both of them the creeps. Digory's internal journey culminates in the second crisis of the book so far, when he rings the bell, doing violence to Polly whilst he does so. The remainder of the book is how Digory deals with the consequences of what he did, and this is not entirely an internal journey either.

They found out what Digory ought to have guessed from the line of sovereigns seated in the hall of statues. That Jadis is definitely not a nice person. However, it is Digory who spills the beans that Jadis needs: that there are younger and more vibrant worlds where Jadis can live - and dominate. Digory should have been a bit more cautious about what he says. I can just see the actor playing Digory looking as you do when you've gone and put your mouth in it, as we say in Oz.

Whilst the children try to escape this unwelcome new acquaintance, she fills them in on exactly what she did to destroy Charn, and exactly what sort of place it became. The children seize a moment to escape her, but Jadis ends up with them in the Wood between the Worlds. Polly is not the sort of person who would waste compassion on someone like Jadis, who, like Uncle Andrew, has shown so clearly her lack of compassion for other living people. Unlike Digory, who hesitates when he sees the effect the place has on Jadis, giving her a chance to escape with them.

So when they all arrive in London, for Stage 2, Digory might have left Uncle Andrew stuck with Jadis, but he still had things to do, himself. He had to repair his relationship with Polly for a beginning. He has to say he is sorry for what he did in Charn to Polly. And again he has to appeal to what Jadis might do to Digory's dying mother before the essentially kind-hearted Polly will consent to help him out of his predicament.

So Digory has to be mindful of when Uncle Andrew and Jadis would return. He has to be aware of how his mother is. FoTF has him taking her lunch to her. BBC, like the book, has a neighbour calling with a particularly nice bunch of grapes to give to Digory's mother. So Digory learns about the 'Land of Youth', and I expect we will see him examining the rings with dawning wonder on his face as he realises their potential for his mother.

Polly, who had been serving detention because of her muddy clothes, returns just in time for the fracas over the lamppost outside of Digory's place. Digory and Polly put into operation their plan of action, but find in the Wood between the Worlds they have brought along not only Jadis, but the horse, the Cabby and Uncle Andrew. In Stage 3 it is the horse which takes them all into Narnia. But it is the responses each of the humans and Jadis have to the wondrous creation going on around them which defines their own characters and internal journeys at that stage. The Cabby, who initially sings a harvest hymn, is entranced by the unfolding creation, like Polly and Digory, who start matching parts of the music to what is happening around them. Jadis understands what is going on better than anyone, but she hates all of it, and throws the iron bar she tore from the lamp post at the approaching Aslan.

Digory is not left in peace to watch anything. He has to avoid Uncle Andrew who keeps sidling up to him to get at the rings to escape this place. Uncle Andrew is quite happy to leave Polly and the Cabby there in Narnia. Up until they notice the lantern growing from the iron bar, and both realise the possibilities of this new world, a veritable 'Land of Youth', Digory is arguing with Uncle Andrew about his lack of concern for Digory's mother, Uncle Andrew's sister, among other things.

Digory decides to appeal to Aslan who, however, questions him about the presence of Jadis, and who says he must atone for what he did. That is why he has to go after the apple, which turns out to be the very thing that Digory needs for his mother. This is where Digory's internal journey bears fruit. As in Charn, he is tempted to do the wrong thing, by no less a person than Jadis, but resists, seeing the lack of concern for others that underlies everything she says.

When he returns to Aslan, Digory plants the new tree that will protect Narnia, but is allowed a fruit to take back to his mother. And to conclude Stage 3 Aslan tells us what might have happened if Digory had given into Jadis. Aslan has others to consider as well as Digory's grief for his mother, after all. And we also learn that there are worse things than death. As we also do in HP, by the way.

But I don't think it would be too hard to portray that on film. Portraying feelings are not, in any way, limited to books. There are also many movies that are about emotional/spiritual journeys. And feelings can be portrayed very well through the right expressions, music, lighting, etc.

Could you give examples? When in previous movies have they taken an internal journey and presented it in film in a way that made sense? I'd be most interested in stories that have structural similarities to MN (lots of hoopla going on with other characters while the hero is off at the side undergoing internal progress).

Do you mean examples in the Narnia movies? I don't know if I could give one from those because I don't think they have, as of yet, really delved into a character's spiritual/emotional progress with too much depth. Certainly not as much as they could have. Which, I suppose, is one reason I haven't connected with the Narnia films as much as I have with other movies.

But you can find, in pretty much any movie, that what a character is thinking and feeling is portrayed through their expressions, the atmosphere, the music, the dialogue. That's just a basic part of filmmaking. Movies aren't all about outside things and actions. (unless it's something like Transformers or an action movie, where that sort of thing is the main point).

Watch any good drama piece. Even in a children's movie like Bridge to Terebithia, you can feel the mourning and loss the main character goes through. If you want to see an emotional journey amidst chaos, try checking out movies about wars, or Jews in concentration camps.

It's all up to the filmmakers and what direction they take it. They can make mostly anything work, if they have the talent and filmmaking know-how.

Emotion and Spirituality are not limited to books, and movies are not limited to outside action and scenery. Filmmaking is an artform just like books, paintings, music, and poetry, and it can express internal feelings and progress just as much as the others; though each artform has its own, unique way of expressing it.

~Riella

Um, Harry Potter?

Perhaps I should have said "internalized" development to make it clear that I was specifically talking about internal development that is not connected to any action or dialogue (though I thought I said that repeatedly already . . .). In Harry Potter, the internal development is so tightly linked to outward events that one imagines Rowling had started out visualizing how it would play out on film. In the case of the later books, we know this for a fact. Even the scene where Dumbledore is killed, is just one scene, not a succession of scenes. At least that's how it plays out in the book; haven't seen the movie.

Contrast this with MN. Now, Stage 1 (chs 1-4) focuses mainly on Digory, and sets up his character nicely. Then, we get to stage 2 (chs 5-7, and the first half of ch 8), and, in a literal film interpretation of the book, Jadis is suddenly the focus. Why do I say that? Let's look at the events of stage 2:

1. After a bit of introduction, Jadis launches into a monologue (or this could be played as a flashback), as the kids listen.
2. Some brief transitional action/dialogue as the kids try to escape back to England.
3. Jadis confronts Uncle Andrew, while the kids watch. By the way, if you don't understand what I meant by Andrew no longer being an effectual villain, it is best explained in the words of Lewis himself: "One good thing about seeing the two together was that you would never again be afraid of Uncle Andrew, any more than you'd be afraid of a worm after you had met a rattlesnake . . ."
4. Jadis leaves and Digory and Polly have a heart-felt conversation in which they make up.
5. Andrew acts ridiculous, no kids around.
6. Jadis confronts Aunt Letty, no kids around.
7. A brief amusing interlude in which Polly returns home and has to explain to her parents where she's been. No Digory around.
8. Aunt Letty dusts herself off and takes charge of the situation, as Digory watches.
9. Digory waits at the window for Jadis and Andrew to return, overhearing a conversation in which Letty talks about a Land of Youth.
10. Jadis causes a commotion in the street. Towards the end of the scene, Digory sneaks up and grabs her heal.
11. Some transitional action and dialogue as the group makes their way to Narnia.

To sum up, out of 11 scenes, there are three scenes in which Digory isn't there, 3.5 scenes in which he is merely a spectator, and 2 transitional scenes. That leaves 2.5 out of 11 scenes in which he is an active, vocal player (the apology scene, the window scene, and the street scene). Jadis, on the other hand, only has one scene (Polly going home) in which she doesn't dominate the action/dialogue, or she is the focus of the dialogue.

But as far as my own person opinion on what changes will likely be made, I think the movie will be fairly close to the book until right after Aslan creates the world of Narnia. After that, I think we'll see some changes.

Interesting, because for years I have been thinking exactly the opposite. The third act of MN is so long, devoid of action, and difficult to visualize that it's hard to imagine not seeing big changes or at least significant cuts to liven things up.

The first two acts of MN seem pretty straight-forward. Two kids meet. They find a creepy room. They are transported to another world. They meet a strange, evil person. They accidentally bring that person back to our world. They finally manage to get her back..... After that, the book takes a very unconventional (translation: awesome) turn.

There is so much originality in the third act of MN..... which probably means they'll find a way to dumb it down and make it more conventional.

Perhaps I should have said "internalized" development to make it clear that I was specifically talking about internal development that is not connected to any action or dialogue (though I thought I said that repeatedly already . . .).

Yes, you do say that repeatedly, but when do you think that Digory's internal journey actually began? At what point did it change direction, and at what point is the journey at when Digory finally meets Aslan? Remember, that when he meets Aslan, Digory is still making excuses for his behaviour in Charn, even after Jadis' frightening rampage in London, and even after saying he was sorry to Polly for the way he treated her. Even when assigned the job to get the apple, he still thinks that doing anything in recompense is beyond his ability.

It isn't during the first Wood between the Worlds episode at all, to my way of thinking. Yes, Digory is concerned about his mother, and he deplores what his Uncle Andrew did to Polly. We get a monologue from Uncle Andrew also, not just the later one from Jadis, and get an idea of Uncle Andrew's methods of manipulating both Polly and Digory, much as we get a view of Shift's manipulations towards Puzzle. And when Digory is listening to Uncle Andrew he is impressed by Uncle Andrew's dictum that 'Ours is a high and lonely destiny', and that 'rules are for women and children', not great thinkers like himself. How like Shift, who in the BBC audio version of LB, keeps telling Puzzle to leave the thinking to himself!

The trouble is, that in the Wood between the Worlds, Digory doesn't think much beyond his grief towards his mother at that point. If he had gone back directly to Uncle Andrew's study with Polly there wouldn't have been a story, or not the same story. Instead, he wants to explore. It is Polly who keeps reminding him to mark the home pool so they can get back, and it is also Polly who is careful to ensure they can really return before they try the Charn pool.

When in Charn, Digory is really pushing it. He even talks like Uncle Digory when he quarrels with Polly and he hurts her when he insists on ringing the bell, playacting that he is bewitched, to excuse his breaking ethical rules. And it is at this point I think that Digory's real internal journey begins, when he awakes Jadis and finds out not only that he has awoken a monster but there are consequences to pay, not only to himself but others, not only the mother he cares about, and only one of which is the ruination of the friendship he has with Polly.

When Polly and Digory return to London, once Uncle Andrew and Jadis are out the way, Digory is still saying 'what did I do'? What indeed! Polly has to really spell out what stupid things he had done, doesn't she? As well she might. At any time, if Digory had behaved differently, there would not have been any story to tell, even as late as their second visit to the Wood between the Worlds.

I don't see how Digory's internal journey can be divorced from both actions and dialogue when the beginning of his internal journey is what is driving what he says and does up to this point, where he still has to realise the full ramifications of what he had done in Charn. Though I agree that at that point Digory is not in a good position to be aware of what sort of harm he has unleashed and what Jadis is up to, in an era which was lacking in most modern means of mass communication, unlike the viewer, or Harry, himself, in the Harry Potter books and films. Perhaps a newspaper boy? They had them around in those days, in 1901, I believe, when news was already sent by Morse code.

In Harry Potter, the internal development is so tightly linked to outward events that one imagines Rowling had started out visualizing how it would play out on film. In the case of the later books, we know this for a fact. Even the scene where Dumbledore is killed, is just one scene, not a succession of scenes. At least that's how it plays out in the book; haven't seen the movie.

The scene where Dumbledore is killed is also in different stages, similar to MN, in both book and film. Remember, this scene follows on directly from Harry's and Dumbledore's return from the cave where Dumbledore has been drinking bitter waters indeed, and though he revived, he is already weak. Then when they arrive on the tower, Harry is told to fetch Snape. In the book he is then immobilised. In both book and film he is thus a witness to the conversation Dumbledore has with Draco, where we are confronted with the realities of Draco's internal journey, which, like Harry's own, is not yet complete. But if you read the book, they are then joined by the Death Eaters and then by Snape, himself. Dumbledore says only two words - Severus, please, before with a look of hatred and revulsion, Snape kills him.

Harry is as much of a witness as is Digory in MN but it isn't until the next book that he gains a different perspective of these events, after having witnessed Snape's death and having examined his memories. MN, I agree, doesn't have the luxury of a second book or film to show how Digory, himself changes perspective, but I still think that it is possible, within the context of the book we have.

Perhaps I made a better comparison with LOTR, where Frodo's internal journey is undertaken far from events and dialogue carried out by others, whether friend or foe? I do know what you meant when you said "One good thing about seeing the two together was that you would never again be afraid of Uncle Andrew, any more than you'd be afraid of a worm after you had met a rattlesnake . . .", quoting C.S.Lewis. Digory's real trouble with Jadis is that although Jadis is only saying exactly the same things as what Uncle Andrew has already said, but this time when she considers herself above the rules, which only apply to minions and slaves, she has demonstrably had the power and authority in Charn to back it up, unlike Uncle Andrew, fooling around in an attic study.

And yet, the sentence you quote, in a more homely way, echoes, a little, Tolkien's (through Treebeard) comparison of Saruman and Sauron - Sauron was the big menace, like Jadis. Saruman, humiliated and with his staff broken, might seem relatively harmless, like Uncle Andrew. So long as people take no notice of either. The main difference is that. unlike Saruman, Uncle Andrew is still a kinsman, a human, and too vain and silly to be really evil..

Having just finished the audio book version of The Magician's Nephew (which is, by far, my favorite of the Chronicles), I personally feel that it will be the easiest novel to translate to the screen since LWW, and is also the one novel that doesn't require much tweaking to fit modern sensibilities and in order to avoid turning off certain parts of the general film-going audience.

The only part of Digory's character journey throughout the story that isn't going to be able to be conveyed as easily on film as it is in the novel is his dilemma over whether or not to give in to Jadis' temptation when he encounters her in the garden, but, with the right actor in the part, I have confidence that the filmmakers will be able to get across the main point of that scene effectively and without its meaning and significance being lost.

The central thread that ties everything together takes place in the hero's mind. It's very much an internal journey. If they are completely faithful to the book on a literal level, keeping the exact same action and dialogue, it will be a horrible, confused movie, and largely unfaithful to the spirit of the book as well. I don't think anyone wants that.

I think you are probably right. This is a good observation. I appreciate you adding "on a literal level." I agree that accuracy and faithfulness are not always the same thing.

This doesn't mean MN can't be made into a good film and a satisfying adaptation. It just means the book needs to be, well, adapted. They have to take Digory's internal journey and find ways to convey the essence of it visually. Here's the issue: This can only be done by filmmakers who understand the story at the deepest level. They have to understand the book so much that they are able to strip apart the whole thing and put it back together without losing the essence.

That's good adaptation in a nutshell. Take a story that worked well when told with words, and find a way to tell it visually.

How do you think this movie will play out if and only if its made? Will they go with the book? Or turn it into another Hollywood (force feeding) production?