I think it will be possible to start the movie in a compelling way so that people will become hooked on it and will want more. Digory is very sad about his mother’s severe illness and that would be enough to get people interested. The movie needs something sad from the book to draw people in.  A problem that has to be solved like someone’s life in danger would be enough to get people to care about the story. Since the wardrobe  will have to wait until another film there will have to be something else that is a strong attraction for the viewers.

@narnian78 This sounds to me like you would like a pretty straightforward presentation of the opening interaction between the children, as a first scene. Or would you like to see some of Digory's life situation shown in a brief flashback?

@coracle 

I think a flashback would work effectively or at least a scene with Digory weeping would be enough to get people interested. The sadness is straight from the book and it could be presented either as saying something painful or briefly looking back into the past. The audience will at least have to feel sad at the beginning and possibly even cry with Digory. At that time boys were discouraged from crying and having girls see it. But it will be interesting to see how well Polly’s reaction to it is portrayed by a fine actor.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

You'd be surprised at just how interchangeable the "very staid & proper" Church of England hymnary in 1900 could be with hymnaries from other denominations, including American imports, when Charles Wesley, the famous Anglican cleric who wrote many hymns still in usage, including "Hark the Herald angels sing", was a prominent member of the Methodist movement, who died in March 1788. Though I don't remember ever hearing the harvest song you mention, the popular 1874 American Gospel hymn that I am familiar with, might well be right up there in that hymnal, in use, before 1900, along with Fanny J Crosby (Frances Jane Alstyne)'s well-known hymns - "Blessed assurance" for instance.

Fair enough, but the only way to know for sure would be to go over all hymn books that were in use in the Church of England in 1900 and see which hymns are actually in them, which I don't have the means or time or energy to do!  

I could add "and in the Methodist churches as well", since that's the other main British denomination of the time that Frank could possibly have belonged to, but Lewis himself was C of E and he absolutely loathed hymns — "fifth-rate poetry set to sixth-rate music", I believe he called them, or words to that effect   — so I can't imagine him placing Frank in any other denomination and then picking through that church's hymnary to find the perfect thing for him to sing before Aslan's song of creation begins.

Anyway, having now found a hymn that a) definitely was around as a C of E hymn in 1900; b) is a harvest hymn; and c) most clinchingly, contains the words "safely gathered in", I would say we can say with 99.9% certainty that "Come, ye thankful people, come" is the hymn Lewis meant Frank to be singing in that scene. But as it's just a brief moment in the book and it doesn't have any effect on the plot — I think it's simply there to establish the Cabby as a good man and a churchgoer before we (and he) unexpectedly discover that he's going to be the first King of Narnia — I won't be overly upset if the upcoming movie doesn't include it.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

But when you visualise, your pan shot over terraced houses in remaining places like Bayswater, in particular, Suffolk Gardens and Paddington, where some terraced houses may well still exist, though I wasn't counting at the time

Oh, so you were around in London in 1900??  

it might be a good idea, before singling out Polly in her back garden, to take a peek into other (all right) "back gardens", perhaps with a maid hanging out the clothes, for instance, one of the many other activities back gardens - or backyards - are supposed to cater for, don't they? 

In ideal conditions, yes, but the weather in Britain is not always conducive to such activities (and we're told it was a very wet summer when this story takes place). It always amazes me, every time I go back to Australia, how we have this magical thing there called "sunshine" that makes clothes dry outside really fast, all by themselves, free of charge.  

And yes, a shot of Big Ben & the adjacent Houses of Parliament & even Buckingham Palace, would be a good idea, just so we know that it is supposed to be "the" real London where the story begins.

If they do that, it'd need to be digitally altered to show those landmarks and their surroundings as they were in 1900. Not impossible or even too difficult these days, but something the filmmakers will need to take into consideration.

To be honest, I never worked out where the back gardens for these houses actually were, when the only garden - mostly grass, & not much of a garden - I saw, was in the centre of the square in front of the Bayswater Inn where I was staying. 

Most terraces in the innermost suburbs of London wouldn't have back (or front) gardens at all — there's just no room for them. I'm guessing the Plummers' and Ketterleys' terrace is a little further out, where there would have been more space to build, and in a fairly affluent area, since both families are obviously quite upper middle class. Lewis doesn't name it or give details, but then, he wasn't a Londoner himself and I don't get the impression he visited there very often, except on business (presumably when he was recording his talks for the BBC that became the basis of Mere Christianity, and so on). I don't think he wanted or needed to go into too much detail about the exact location and being accurate to a particular real-life area, when the real point at the beginning of the story is the developing friendship between Polly and Digory, Digory's grief over his mother's terminal illness, and the mystery of what his uncle is up to. The setting is really just background.

(And even the famous Jadis in London scene, which we've been discussing elsewhere, really only takes place in the street outside the Ketterleys' house — in the book, at least, we don't see or hear of her rampaging all over any famous London locations. Other than Digory's fears that she might be "blasting" the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham Palace and reducing policemen to heaps of dust, but that's just in his imagination, and he's unaware that she has in fact lost her power to do things like that.)

As for how the film itself should begin... I don't know. Sweeping aerial shots of the well-off London suburb (again, probably with some digital alterations to remove anything obviously later than 1900), eventually "landing" in Polly's back garden just before Digory puts his head over the fence? Flashback to Digory's home life, as @Narnian78 suggested, when he hears his mother's prognosis and breaks down in tears, and then maybe Aunt Letty arranging for Mabel and Digory to come and stay with her and Uncle Andrew? I don't know. There are several ways it could be done, depending on what tone the director wants to set from the start, and how and in what order she wants these elements of the plot to be revealed.

Ooh, and by the way — this is off topic, Wagga, but I've just worked out why I never seem to get an email notification when you quote me your posts. If you put a colon directly after the person's user name with the @ before it, like you did here...

@Courtenay: I hadn't heard of the one you linked to there, Wagga, but I've just looked at it and it's described as "a popular American Gospel song", written in 1874.

... this particular discussion forum, for whatever reason, doesn't recognise it as a "tag". So if I write your user name as @waggawerewolf27 — with no other letters or characters attached to it — you'll get an email to say I've quoted you or mentioned you. But if I write @waggawerewolf27: — with the colon directly touching it — it won't register as a "mention" of you and you won't get a notification. (You can see it doesn't get highlighted in red, either.)

Just a little thing I noticed and I hope you won't mind it being pointed out, as possibly others are having the same issue.  

@Courtenay

Fair enough, but the only way to know for sure would be to go over all hymn books that were in use in the Church of England in 1900 and see which hymns are actually in them, which I don't have the means or time or energy to do!

In any case, if it is at all necessary, even for the producers of Magician's Nephew, to fuss about a particular harvest hymn, hunting through 1900's hymn books, would be a job for a British Library reference librarian, or an archivist for hymn books. Perhaps the Bodleian library, in Oxford University?  Or perhaps try asking Lambeth Palace?   For us ordinary folk, we might have to supply a good reason for our search, and shock, horror! pay a fee!  . It is more up my alley, anyway, if I have nothing better to do, if I can't get the info from Wikipedia, & when I much prefer information management to information technology. 

@Courtenay Oh, so you were around in London in 1900??

My great-grandparents married in Melbourne on Federation Day, 1901, so obviously not.   But, I definitely was around in London in 2009, in the very area I listed.  My husband & I could tell you about the Bayswater Inn, & a suburb or so away from it there was a highly similar-looking establishment in Sussex (Suffolk?) Gardens which my husband insisted on showing me. My husband, his 3 sisters, a niece and a brother-in-law were staying there in 2007 when these Scottish ex-Pats returned to their native land, without me. I remained in Oz to earn the wherewithal to finance my husband's trip down memory lane to the land of his childhood. Although that September 2009 day, we went to Paddington, near the station, where surely there would be something like the milk bars we used to have in Sydney, I was more interested in some place for my hubby & me to have some lunch, than in counting terrace houses, & when it was VDT in production, the following year. 

If they do that, it'd need to be digitally altered to show those landmarks and their surroundings as they were in 1900. Not impossible or even too difficult these days, but something the filmmakers will need to take into consideration.

Plenty of old footage around in archives, I would imagine, when photography, & even cinematography had both been invented by the 1890's. Around Westminster Abbey, the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, hasn't changed all that much, unlike the East End areas around Canary Wharf, Deptford, or the South Bank areas like Whitechapel etc. The East End areas are the very ones bombed heavily, in World War II, and also affected heavily by post-war slum clearances. Of course, no London Eye or The Shard, or any of these new whiz bang London buildings, though St Pauls would be a good suggestion to make, as would Caxton Hall. 

Most terraces in the innermost suburbs of London wouldn't have back (or front) gardens at all — there's just no room for them. I'm guessing the Plummers' and Ketterleys' terrace is a little further out, where there would have been more space to build, and in a fairly affluent area, since both families are obviously quite upper middle class.

Or some of their relatives or parents had been wealthy, a decade previously. However, London had cleaned up its act a bit since the 1858 Great Stink and though front gardens weren't thought about, with front doors opening directly, onto the footpath or even the street, out the back there was generally something you might laughingly call a back garden, that is to say, enough space for garbage collection, for a laundry and for an outhouse, the entry to which was thoughtfully concealed by sweet pea vines, or else some sort of more useful sort of vine. If it was big enough, there would be provision for a clothesline, at least, and maybe even a proper little garden. That is also what we'd see in Sydney, during the same turn-of-century era, in Redfern, Ultimo, Surry Hills etc, & yes, I've also been inside such terrace houses, myself. 

@Courtenay Just a little thing I noticed and I hope you won't mind it being pointed out, as possibly others are having the same issue.

Thank you for your explanation, so thaat's why I keep on getting notifications in my email? I've never had a twitter account, you see, & don't go on Facebook often at all. I can't see myself twittering like an Owl, 🦉  even in a parliament of Owls. However, I've been trained to acknowledge quotes whenever possible, as a matter of good manners, if nothing else. I hope I have been accurate. I've cut out using colons, so does that help? 

Here's my somewhat controversial take on period authenticity ...

When we were discussing whether the period setting of the Narnia stories was a necessary component of the stories, the most compelling argument I always heard was that the period setting contributes to the overall vibes of the story, rather than necessarily being important to the narrative structure.

Therefore I would rather have period details which 'feel' authentic to the time period, even if technically they aren't, rather than having period details which are 'technically' authentic, but feel historically anachronistic... If that makes sense.

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Around Westminster Abbey, the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, hasn't changed all that much...

... except for tarmac on the roads, electric wiring, modern cars and buses, and other such paraphernalia...  

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

I've cut out using colons, so does that help? 

Yes, I did get an email notification to say you'd quoted me this time, so it worked!  

Anyway, back on topic — talking about the London 1900 setting — and also in reply to this...

Posted by: @icarus

When we were discussing whether the period setting of the Narnia stories was a necessary component of the stories, the most compelling argument I always heard was that the period setting contributes to the overall vibes of the story, rather than necessarily being important to the narrative structure.

Therefore I would rather have period details which 'feel' authentic to the time period, even if technically they aren't, rather than having period details which are 'technically' authentic, but feel historically anachronistic... If that makes sense.

I've just been thinking — although Lewis does make the point clearly that the beginning of the story is set in London at the time of Sherlock Holmes and the Bastables, London itself really doesn't play a major role in the actual story. All the scenes that take place in our world are in London, but they're confined to Polly's back garden, inside Digory's house (including Uncle Andrew's study), and the street directly outside those two houses. We really don't see anything more of London than that.

Of course, if Lewis had been going for a different angle on the Jadis-in-London episode, he could very well have had Jadis trying to "blast" the Houses of Parliament, or riding her chariot-hansom up Pall Mall and scattering the Royal guardsmen left and right, and maybe confronting Queen Victoria herself (who, while elderly and reclusive by this time, would definitely have been Not Amused ). But he doesn't do that — thank goodness, really, or that almost certainly would have turned the story from serious fantasy adventure to farce. (It could of course have been quite funny, but it wouldn't suit the tone of the Narnia Chronicles at all.)

As it is, though, the London setting is more window-dressing and atmosphere-creating than an intrinsic part of the plot. I'm not saying it could or should be changed, although setting it a couple of decades earlier than 1900 would, as I've said before, then be more consistent with Digory being a "very old man" by the time we meet him again as the Professor in LWW. But that's a minor detail.

So, while perhaps a couple of quick "establishing shots" in the opening, showing one or two familiar London landmarks to indicate where we are before the action begins with Polly and/or Digory, I don't think there's a need for the new movie to lay on the period London scenery with a trowel, so to speak. Not unless they do change the story to add more London scenes, in which case I hope they don't do that to the point where it becomes a distraction from the main plot.

I was also wondering: why London, in particular? Is there any particular need for the Earthly parts of this story to be set in London? Actually, no, not purely from the standpoint of the plot. All the London-based scenes could technically take place in any large English city in that same era, since all we actually need for the story is a well-off Victorian-era terrace row in an urban setting that Digory, coming from the country, classes as a "hole" (and Polly doesn't).

So why London, and not Birmingham or Manchester or Liverpool (the main other candidates I can think of that would have been urban enough in 1900 for the setting)? Or why not even Belfast, where Lewis himself grew up? I'm guessing he chose London because it's such a large and internationally famous city that it would somehow feel familiar to the biggest range of readers, most of whom would have a good idea of London from other stories and pictures and films, even if they hadn't been there themselves. (His mention of Sherlock Holmes living in Baker Street, and the Bastables hunting for treasure in Lewisham Road, just underscores that with famous literary references that many young readers would know.)

That's definitely how it was for me even as a 7-year-old Australian reading MN for the first time in the late 1980s — I'd never been to London then, but I already felt I "knew" it somehow from the number of times I'd already seen it in other books and media. Whereas if the opening of the story had been set in any of the other cities I've just mentioned above, I would have been thinking "Er, yeah... where's that, and what does it look like??" — not able to picture any kinds of scenes from those places in my imagination, whereas I definitely could with London.

Anyway, after saying all that, I reckon the period London setting will be one of the easiest for Gerwig and her team to portray, precisely because most people already have a good idea of what it "should" look like. I'm more intrigued at how this new film will portray the Wood between the Worlds, and Charn, and of course, Narnia itself, during and after its creation. Those locations are the most important for atmosphere-setting in this story, much more than London ultimately is.

@courtenay my reply would be that people are used to seeing London location images, and are familiar with the most famous buildings.

However there's little in Central Manchester that the rest of the world could be expected to recognise (I might, after living there for over a year, recently), and I couldn't name any landmarks in most other English cities. 

The only non-London presentation of a Narnia story I've seen on stage is the one that premiered in Leeds, Yorkshire, and the Pevensie actors used local accents. The set and script didn't identify which city they were being evacuated from.

Posted by: @coracle

@courtenay my reply would be that people are used to seeing London location images, and are familiar with the most famous buildings.

Yeah, that's what I said.  

However there's little in Central Manchester that the rest of the world could be expected to recognise... 

There's very little in Central Manchester that the rest of the world would want to recognise. If Digory thought London was a beastly Hole...   (I live just outside Manchester and am therefore entitled to say it's the most unsightly and generally boring city I've ever laid eyes on. If only it had a few proper parks and gardens and general green space... but it barely has any. ) 

@icarus Therefore I would rather have period details which 'feel' authentic to the time period, even if technically they aren't, rather than having period details which are 'technically' authentic, but feel historically anachronistic... If that makes sense.

Fair point, especially when the century between 1899 & 1999, especially in London, is one of the most heavily documented centuries in human history, now I come to think about it. There must be heaps of photos, especially in newspapers, not only those of Queen Victoria's funeral when she died on 22nd January 1901, if any extra detail really is necessary. 

@Courtenay ... except for tarmac on the roads, electric wiring, modern cars and buses, and other such paraphernalia...

Not to mention crowds of protesters around the front of the Houses of Parliament, obscuring the pavement in front of them, - but wait! There were the suffragettes at the time, at the very least. I know for a fact from the sore, swollen feet I developed when I was there, that cobblestones definitely still remained intact on Edinburgh's Princes Street, as late as 2012 as well as elsewhere in UK. But obviously that would be unsuitable, when Edinburgh is just too noticeable to miss, & on one memorable occasion, much to my amusement, I heard it described as a hole of a place, just like Digory said about London. Believe it or not in 2009, we found it quite possible to walk around Westminster's Parliament Square without any vehicle in sight, not even a bus, and as for electric wiring, it is only one iron bar torn from a vandalised lamppost that we are really concerned with, and surely, that lamppost will be constructed for the occasion. 

Here's a bit of trivia: When did London get electric lighting? It was 1878, believe it or not.    

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Here's a bit of trivia: When did London get electric lighting? It was 1878, believe it or not.    

I think that's a good example of what I'm talking about. If the most compelling reason to set MN during the Victorian period (or any of the books during their respective period) is for the general aesthetic qualities it brings to the story, and for the overall vibes and tones of the cinematic experience, then I'd actually rather they double down on vibes and tones, and give me gas lanterns, rather than try and be too clever about it and go for technically accurate electric lighting.

There's actually even a term for at least part of this issue, and that is the "Tiffany Paradox":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Problem

From Wikipedia: The Tiffany Problem, or Tiffany Effect, refers to the issue where a historical or realistic fact seems anachronistic or unrealistic to modern audiences of historical fiction, despite being accurate. This often occurs with names, terms, or practices that, although historically accurate, feel out of place because of modern associations. E.g....the name Tiffany derives from Theophania, a name for girls in medieval England and France. The old French form c. 1200 was Tifinie, and the spelling Tiffany first appears in English c. 1600.^[2] However, if a historical fiction writer were to name an English character Tiffany in an Early Modern European setting as early as 1600, the audience would likely perceive it as inaccurate, associating the name with contemporary times or the 1980s in particular when the name reached peak popularity...  Or, Nicola, which was historically used as a male name in Italy and was borne by notable figures like the 12th-century Nicola de la Haye. 

But Aucassin et Nicolette is a French chantefable, in which the heroine, Nicolette, does much of any necessary rescuing, much like C.S. Lewis' Polly, Jill and Aravis. However, people these days, when Nicole is a popular name, automatically think of Nicole Kidman, rather than its long classical Greek origins for both men and women.

@icarus  ..give me gas lanterns, rather than try and be too clever about it and go for technically accurate electric lighting.

But back to the Lamp Post. Of course, wouldn't you agree that first & foremost, the London Lamp Post has to adhere to Pauline Bayne's illustrations, regardless of how it was powered? And regardless of whether it was in London or Narnia? After all, light bulbs don't last forever, nor does gas supply.  

@waggawerewolf27 I think once the lamppost had 'grown' in Narnia, it retained whatever magic Aslan chose it to have. Since  MN was written after LWW, it had to be still shining in 1940, and we know that would be a problem in our world.

(anachronisms still abound in modern film and TV: the lamplighters in Mary Poppins Returns are well out of date, with street lamps mostly converted to lamps that turned on and off by clockwork; but they were fun and cheerful, so they are mostly forgiven)

@coracle (anachronisms still abound in modern film and TV: the lamplighters in Mary Poppins Returns are well out of date, with streetlamps mostly converted to lamps that turned on and off by clockwork; but they were fun and cheerful, so they are mostly forgiven)

Just as well, considering that in Sydney, we already use portable solar power panel units for night road workers. Nice to know that Aslan would be one step ahead.   

I'd imagine, though, that when London streetlamps were mostly converted to lamps that turned on & off, the old design of streetlighting would be retained as much as possible, to save money, just saying. 

Just weighing in on the whole gas-vs-electric-lighting thing... I've done a bit of searching online to confirm it, and while electric lighting indeed began to be used in London in 1878, along the Thames Embankment, it was several more decades before streets all over London had electric lights rather than gas lights. In fact, gas for street lighting wasn't phased out completely in London until after WW2. (And there are still some gas lamps in use in a few parks and gardens in London to this day, apparently — I didn't know that!)

So it's not inherently an anachronism for there to be a gas lamppost in the street outside the Ketterleys' home in 1900. Or there's a possibility that it was an electric lamppost but made in the style of a traditional gas lamp to keep the aesthetic appeal of the street. (I'm not sure if existing gas lamps could be converted to electricity in those days, but it wouldn't surprise me if some were.)

And then of course the lamppost that grew in Narnia, out of the bar that Jadis wrenched off from its London "parent", couldn't have run on either gas or electricity (neither of which they had laid on in this newly created, non-industrialised world!). It was actually a living thing that grew from the soil — the version of it in the Walden film of LWW even has roots at its base, so somebody on the design team must have read MN as well! — and so it must have had its own capacity to produce light. Maybe, just as ordinary plants take in and store energy from the sun through photosynthesis (which is how they make their own "food"), the living Narnian lamppost took in and stored up solar energy to power its own light! Makes sense to me.