Posted by: @impending-doom

 

The question, to me, becomes why do this at all? What storytelling benefit is gained? 

I'm definitely with you on the inherent charm of a period setting and I would also agree with you that there is very little narrative gain to be had from modernisation.

There is however the fairly significant budgetary benefit of setting it in the present day... Costumes, hair, locations, set dressing, CGI, etc... it all adds up.wjen you are having to maintain period authenticity.

That said, if they stay true to the books, most of the real world scenes would be minimal to none for a lot of the stories, so they would only have themselves to blame if they blew a large proportion of the budget doing unnecessarily lavish WW2 openings.

Posted by: @gp

Because over 70 years have now passed since the book was published, there is a certain "remove" that was not intended by the author. The people Lewis was writing for had an instant sense of proximity to the characters, which immediately gave the story a feeling of reality despite its simplicity. 

The first readers of LWW were able to easily insert themselves into the story right away because most of them had memories of how the war affected their lives. But today, when we read about the children being sent away during the war 80 years ago, it feels like "long ago, far away..." which I think somewhat dilutes the feeling of "this could happen to you."

Does it really, though? 

For what it's worth, I first encountered LWW as a child in the mid-1980s when my mum read the book to me, so that made it a more than 40 years' remove from the period in which the book is set. I know I did have some sense that this story was set in "the past", though I would have been only very vaguely aware of which war was being referred to in that second sentence of the book. But that had absolutely no effect on its impact on me. I was definitely right there with Lucy all along as she opened that wardrobe and stepped inside, and in everything that happened from there on in. 

At the risk of labouring a point I know I've made several times already, because WW2 plays absolutely no part in the original story apart from being the plot device that puts the children in the Professor's house, it is really not necessary for readers to have personally experienced being evacuated during wartime in order to be able to relate to the characters. That simply isn't part of the story that Lewis is telling.

And even if it was, why would that be any reason in itself to change the time period of the Narnia stories? Does anyone here reckon we should take another children's classic like Goodnight Mister Tom by Michelle Magorian — which is entirely about the experiences of a young boy from London who is evacuated to the countryside during WW2 — and argue that this story needs to be updated to be about a child refugee from a present-day conflict, because today's young readers just won't be able to relate to it in its original setting? Somehow I think not...  

I actually probably watch/read more stories set in the past than in the present. Maybe it's a form of escapism. Reading about all the horrible problems in the past distracts me from the ones in the present (though, to be sure, a lot of them are the same or at least very similar.) 

Beginning with the air raids was emphasized in the Walden film of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I think it was done quite effectively, although there actually was more about it and the dangers of it to the children than in the book.  But I think it was a good idea to include the “Blitz” scene in the film, and it did not take away anything from the original story.  The viewer knew immediately what time the film and book were set in.  I don’t think brief additions are necessarily bad as long as there aren’t too many of them and the context of the story is not changed. 

@narnian78 

I don't necessarily dislike the Blitz sequence on its own, and as you say it doesn't necessarily take anything away from the original story (though I guess one could argue that it's exciting action sensibilities somewhat clash with the book's intended juxtaposing of the mundane real world and the joyful Narnian world)

But ultimately I think the problem with this scene is more practical - it takes up 3 minutes of the runtime which could have been better spent on an extended "Winter to Spring" sequence later on in Narnia.

I know 3 minutes doesn't sound like a lot (it's 8 minutes if you include the entire pre-Professors house intro) but in movie terms it's sizeable enough, especially when studios are so hyper conscious of runtime impact on box office (perhaps less of a concern for Netflix). Therefore every second counts, and it's imperative to use them wisely.

Then there is also the fact that this scene probably took up a decent enough chunk of the budget which again could have probably been better spent elsewhere (the extended dance sequence that got cut perhaps).

Again, not a massive thing, but in the grand calculus I'm not sure the cost-benefit was worth it on this one.

I'm fairly sure I see the time period as being essential. This may be due to me being an American in the 21st century, but the English private-schools-and-mansions setting was nearly as much part of the Narnia aesthetic for me as the Narnian world itself, simply because of its foreign-ness. I also think it could possibly be harder to directly use much of the book dialogue if the dialect had to be modern (not being a Brit myself, I'm unsure if folks in the UK still say "By Jove!" very much these days; I at least doubt Gen Z would say it unironically. That being said, I'm trying to remember any times the Walden films directly quoted the books' more old-fashioned lines...)

While there are some valid points being made about the immediacy of WWII in LWW being easier to understand for people back then, I think even a solution as simple a quick narration from the book or a simple scene of the Professor and Mrs. Macready discussing the arrival of the children from London could introduce the period setting without departing too much from the material. 

Also, Eustace's "progressive" ideas would also be difficult to re-contextualize into the modern day without him appearing like a caricature of any number of various groups or movements operating today, thus possibly causing a colossal uproar...

Posted by: @the-mad-poet-himself

I also think it could possibly be harder to directly use much of the book dialogue if the dialect had to be modern (not being a Brit myself, I'm unsure if folks in the UK still say "By Jove!" very much these days; I at least doubt Gen Z would say it unironically.

I can assure you and anyone else unfamiliar with modern-day Britain that "By Jove!" has NOT been part of any normal person's vocabulary over here since... well, actually, it would have sounded a bit affected and silly even to young readers in the 1950s. Lewis was in fact recycling the upper-middle-class schoolboy slang he remembered from his own school days in the 1900s and 1910s!!  

 

While there are some valid points being made about the immediacy of WWII in LWW being easier to understand for people back then, I think even a solution as simple a quick narration from the book or a simple scene of the Professor and Mrs. Macready discussing the arrival of the children from London could introduce the period setting without departing too much from the material. 

Also, Eustace's "progressive" ideas would also be difficult to re-contextualize into the modern day without him appearing like a caricature of any number of various groups or movements operating today, thus possibly causing a colossal uproar...

Very good points. I think another of my main concerns about the idea of updating the setting of the Narnia books is that as they're written, precisely because Lewis doesn't do a lot of referencing of contemporary events, there's a timeless feel about them, certainly for me and probably for a lot of readers. I'm guessing that even for young readers in the 1950s when they were first published, there wouldn't have been a lot in there that made these books feel "bang up to date" (to use a modern British cliche). Apart from the throwaway reference to "the war" as the reason why the children are sent to live with the Professor, there aren't any references to rationing (which continued till 1953), or to bombed-out streets (plenty of towns and cities affected by the Blitz weren't fully rebuilt until years afterwards), or to loved ones having been killed or injured, or to contemporary politics, or anything else that would have been very much part of the lives of the earliest British readers of the Chronicles.

And I have a feeling that's one good reason why these books have remained so popular over the past 8 decades. Whereas if some future adaptation insists on setting them in the present day — which would have to mean, to some extent, using modern-day language and throwing in topical references and visuals just so we can tell this is set in "our" time — I suspect there's a pretty good chance that it won't age well.  

I think that people talked more formally in the time the Narnia books. Children would call the Professor “sir” as the Pevensies did in the BBC production.  Adults were usually not referred to by their first name when they are addressed by children.  At that time children were taught to show more respect for adults.  Let’s hope that is preserved in the new Narnia productions. 

Posted by: @the-mad-poet-himself

.This may be due to me being an American in the 21st century, but the English private-schools-and-mansions setting was nearly as much part of the Narnia aesthetic for me as the Narnian world itself, simply because of its foreign-ness.

To be fair, the specific locations you mentioned there would likely be more or less the same in terms of aesthetics, regardless of what decade you set it in:

- Old English Manor Houses of the type described in LWW (circa 1700s?) haven't really changed much since they were built.

- Private schools are still quite often based in old Victorian and pre-victorian buildings, so there doesn't necessarily need to be a massive change there either. School uniforms have mostly done away with caps and long socks, but broadly speaking most school uniforms still consistent of shirts, ties and blazers.

- Rural railway stations (Book PC) and quite a lot of Underground stations (Walden PC) still look the same as they did when they were built, so again there doesn't need to be any massive change there.

- The Scrubs spare bedroom in a Cambridge-based Town House, again probably doesn't need to look any real different.

The biggest aesthetic changes would likely be in the costumes and hair styles (especially female characters). For someone like Peter however, he turns up to the Professors house in the movie wearing a shirt, trousers and pea coat from what I recall. He wouldn't look out of place walking around modern day Britain to be honest. 

Overall, there are still enough subtle aspects of the 1940s aesthetic I love, and my preference would still be to keep the books in the correct time period, however other than MN we don't really spend enough time in the real world for it to matter to any of the stories in my opinion.

You could have it be in any decade since 1900 probably and still keep the same timeless quality (any further back in time and the contrast between the real world and the Narnian world becomes less distinct and therefore less interesting overall).

Posted by: @icarus

The biggest aesthetic changes would likely be in the costumes and hair styles (especially female characters).

I think it would depend on what hairstyles were popular when filming actually started. My 14 year old niece currently looks exactly like Pauline Baynes' illustrations of Susan Pevensie and the little girl who lives across the street from me doesn't look that dissimilar to the illustrations of Lucy Pevensie. 

Costuming would of course be more expensive for a period setting but could probably be kept within a reasonable budget if less emphasis was placed on the scenes set in our world. One thing that I fear would be jettisoned if the stories were moved to a present day setting are the fur coats, which would disappoint me, they are just as iconic as Turkish Delight in my opinion.

I think it would be interesting to see them all walk around in parkas...

But, I think a modern setting would just make the story more complicated. Having the 1940s setting, when kids were in some ways more sheltered and naive, helps the reader ignore the issue of why the kids didn't question the oddness of a wardrobe leading to another world with talking animals in it, and why they didn't miss their parents.

Posted by: @icarus

 

To be fair, the specific locations you mentioned there would likely be more or less the same in terms of aesthetics, regardless of what decade you set it in:

- Old English Manor Houses of the type described in LWW (circa 1700s?) haven't really changed much since they were built.

- Private schools are still quite often based in old Victorian and pre-victorian buildings, so there doesn't necessarily need to be a massive change there either. School uniforms have mostly done away with caps and long socks, but broadly speaking most school uniforms still consistent of shirts, ties and blazers.

- Rural railway stations (Book PC) and quite a lot of Underground stations (Walden PC) still look the same as they did when they were built, so again there doesn't need to be any massive change there.

- The Scrubs spare bedroom in a Cambridge-based Town House, again probably doesn't need to look any real different.

 

True enough. i suppose other aspects of modern culture are what may be more intrusive on the aesthetic (I'd rather not see Edmund with a cell phone or Professor Kirke working on a PC) but the actual settings wouldn't necessarily be that distorted. However, considering these modern devices are much more prone to change and obsolescence I think the series would be more starkly dated in the future if they include things like that, whereas the more distant setting might help it feel more timeless (hopefully that makes sense ).

And along with everything else, I still really can't see how setting the (relatively brief) "this world" scenes in the present day would actually enhance the Narnia stories. The only reason that's been put forward so far is that it could make the stories more relatable, more "this could happen to you", for today's younger viewers. But give it another 15 years (or possibly less than 10) and, given how quickly fashion changes for clothes and hairstyles, and how quickly any current technology that's shown on screen will be superseded... the "present day" adaptations will themselves start to look dated before too long and no longer meet this aim of looking fresh and contemporary for the next generation that comes along. So is it really even worth trying? 

They made the mistake of trying to modernize the 1979 animated production of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The Pevensies were made to look like they came from 1970’s, when the production was made. Hopefully Greta Gerwig will not even attempt to make her movies look like the present day. In a sense the Narnia books are like period fantasy, and movies based on them should follow their time period just like with films that are based on Dickens’ novels.

Posted by: @cobalt-jade

But, I think a modern setting would just make the story more complicated. Having the 1940s setting, when kids were in some ways more sheltered and naive, helps the reader ignore the issue of why the kids didn't question the oddness of a wardrobe leading to another world with talking animals in it, and why they didn't miss their parents.

I've been thinking about this too — does the 1940s setting make it more believable from the standpoint of the children being (presumably) "more sheltered and naive"? — and I'm not so sure it's a huge factor. For a start, three out of the four siblings DO heavily question the oddness of a wardrobe leading to another world with talking animals in it. We're told in the first chapter that Lucy, on first finding herself in Narnia, "felt a little frightened, but she felt very inquisitive and excited as well" — presumably she can't deny what she's seeing and feeling all around her so clearly, so it doesn't occur to her to question it. She is the youngest and most innocent in the family, but I think it's significant that we never have any indication that she's an unusually imaginative, head-in-the-clouds kind of child who's given to playing "let's pretend" and making up wild stories. Quite the opposite, actually. She only steps into the wardrobe in the first place because she loves the smell and feel of the fur coats; there's no hint that she ever expected to find anything else in there, let alone a magical world, right up until the moment she discovers she's entered one.

That's very important to the story, because at the start, the three older siblings don't believe her at all when she tells them where she's been. They're convinced "she was telling a lie, and a silly lie too". Being kids in 1940 doesn't automatically make them naive and credulous. Lucy's story is as impossible to believe for them as it would be for anyone today, until they also see Narnia for themselves. Peter and Susan are of course so concerned about Lucy's behaviour — coming from someone who they know is always very truthful — that they worry she may be going out of her mind. That of course leads to their surprise when the Professor has no problem with the idea that there could be "other worlds" all over the place, and concludes that as things stand, the only logical possibility is that Lucy is telling the truth!

It's an interesting inversion, really, of the more usual trope in children's fantasy stories — that the kids are willing to believe in magical things and the stuffy old grown-ups aren't. Lewis could have played it along those lines, but he doesn't. So at least in the story he's writing, it's implicitly as hard for kids in the 1940s to believe unquestioningly in a world like Narnia — until they've actually been there — as we would expect it to be for kids today.

As for the Pevensies not missing their parents — do you mean not missing them while they (the children) are at the Professor's house, or not missing them once the four siblings become Kings and Queens and live in Narnia long-term? While they're living with the Professor, we just aren't given many details of the four children's emotional lives (except with how Lucy feels about Narnia and the others not believing her), or of the conversations they may have had amongst themselves. They could have been missing their parents, but we're not told whether or not they are, presumably because that isn't important to the story. Real-life accounts from WW2 evacuees show that some of them had a wonderful time and treated it like a holiday, some of them had horrible experiences and missed their parents terribly, and everything in between. The Pevensies are shown as greatly enjoying their stay at the Professor's house right from the start, except for the upset over Lucy and her unbelievable claims.

(Incidentally, I just noticed Peter's remark that the Professor will "write to Father if he thinks there is really something wrong with Lu", which may be an indication that the children's father isn't away at the war in the armed forces — it would be a lot harder for anyone to contact him directly, and for him to take any action regarding his daughter's welfare, if he was.)

Or if the odd thing is that the Pevensies don't miss their parents during the years they spend in Narnia as its rulers, that's an issue that came up recently in another discussion thread here, I forget which one. It's established very clearly from early on in the story (right from when Lucy first returns through the wardrobe) that any time spent in Narnia takes up no time in our own world, and anyone coming back from Narnia will find themselves returning to this world at the moment they left it, no matter how long they spent in Narnia. So all four of the children would have known the whole time that their parents won't be missing them and won't even be aware that the kids had gone anywhere. That makes it completely logical that they can live in Narnia for years without missing the folks at home or wondering what they would think.

So I really don't see that the era in which the stories are set has any major bearing on either of those factors. But again, I also don't see any way in which changing the setting to the present day would improve the stories or make them more interesting, so I'm still not for it!