I'm not going to assume what Magee's interpretation of the scene is—we've had some differing opinions here on NarniaWeb, after all—but even if Puddleglum's speech is lifted from the book verbatim, it's entirely possible for an executive to look at that scene and think, "Oh, living like a Narnian even if there isn't any Narnia is about standing up for yourself and being true to yourself and not letting bullies control your world or tell you how to live your life. This is about teaching Jill how to deal with bullies. If you're just focused on making sure that Puddleglum's speech is in the film, you may be losing sight of the importance of how that speech is interpreted on screen. (And, as I've said, the "correct" interpretation is somewhat up for debate.) "

And while I do believe that Gresham is keen on making sure that SC doesn't end up like VDT... the meaning of a film hinges on how the script is interpreted, not just the strength of the script itself.

I'm not understanding the concern. The exact same scene can have several different interpretations like you've pointed out. Why is being brave and standing up for oneself inherently the wrong one? A film can effectively balance different themes. Standing up for ones self against tyranny/bullies (LOTGK) and trusting Aslan by learning to follow the signs even in the face of danger are not opposites and can be tied together. Films don't have to be so black and white.

I'm sure if you ask Douglas Gresham what he thinks the main thrust of the film is, it will be different than what Johnston and Minghella say to general audiences. It's marketing.

I think it actually is fairly prominent. Scenes with the bullies may only be at the beginning and the end, but Jill's experience with the bullies influences almost every single thing she does. Her insecurities and fears and difficulty trusting all come back to being bullied and unable to trust authority figures to help her.

Bang on. This is what I'm referring to when weaving themes together. Everything about Jill's character boils down to this. What Minghella says seems very based in C.S Lewis' Silver Chair. It just comes down to how it's presented on screen.

Obviously bullying is right there in the book and there is no need to grab the torches and pitchforks. But...

At this point, all the news I hear is being filtered through my assumption that they're trying to make a mega-epic blockbuster and launch a new franchise/trilogy to compete with the likes of Star Wars, Fantastic Beasts, and Marvel. That's the way things seem to be shaping up... So, when I hear talk of bullying and standing up to tyrants and knowing who you are, I am inclined to imagine the execution feeling pretty generic and shallow.

If I was still expecting a lower-budget film that wasn't too concerned about appealing to every person in the universe and their dog, I would probably be interpreting all this in a more optimistic light.

I'm not understanding the concern. The exact same scene can have several different interpretations like you've pointed out. Why is being brave and standing up for oneself inherently the wrong one? A film can effectively balance different themes. Standing up for ones self against tyranny/bullies (LOTGK) and trusting Aslan by learning to follow the signs even in the face of danger are not opposites and can be tied together. Films don't have to be so black and white.

Because Hollywood has a current track record of fixating on one single point and ignoring all others especially when it comes to what can be seen as family or kids movies. Bullying is a big topic currently, so it tends to be shoved at us in films.

Wonder Woman suffered a bit from this. Except through some facial expressions, they focused heavily on her being a woman in a world of men and the defeating Aries storyline. They took little to no time to develop the secondary characters including Steve Trevor. Captain America was a bit better, but it still suffered from the secondary character development issue. It also tended to wash out the Howling Commandos. Marvel corrected that to some extent with Agent Peggy Carter as they came back to the Commandos. I quite liked both films. They do have their shortcomings though.

Yes, I know film is a very limited story telling tool and there is only so much that they could do within a short amount of time, but if they focus on Jill and on the bullying aspect, how much will the character of Eustace and Puddleglum suffer? Not to mention how will the scenes with the giants come off? Puddleglum acted as the caretaker and guide through that and it was one of his step up to shine type moments.

I think that's what everyone is a bit worried about. If one thing is being pushed as the primary focus when there are so many underlying moments that can be missed due to the way Hollywood currently tells stories, a lot of things will get dropped in favor of that one thing and we will end up missing several pieces of what is one of the more beloved of the Chronicles.

I do agree with you that Minghella is trying to put the film in marketable terms at this stage, but... why not a fearful, bullied girl learning to be brave, to trust and do the right thing even when she's scared? Why put the focus on standing up for herself?

I think what you are saying and what Minghella is saying is actually pretty similar. You've just stated is more eloquently and thought out. Isn't standing up for yourself another way of saying brave?

At this point, all the news I hear is being filtered through my assumption that they're trying to make a mega-epic blockbuster and launch a new franchise/trilogy to compete with Fantastic Beasts and Marvel. That's the way things seem to be shaping up... So, when I hear talk of bullying and standing up to tyrants and knowing who you are, I am inclined to imagine the execution feeling pretty generic and shallow.

I'm not sure where you've gotten those ideas from. Just because they've hired a director whose been involved in bigger productions and he misspoke about a new trilogy? The Silver Chair was always going to a big production (blockbuster). I don't get how you can equate a script from David Magee with "generic and shallow". I guess it's down to perspective and how you choose to view the production but there is way more positives to be excited about.

I'm not sure where you've gotten those ideas from. Just because they've hired a director whose been involved in bigger productions and he misspoke about a new trilogy? The Silver Chair was always going to a big production (blockbuster).

Those would be the biggest factors, yeah. Joe has a history of doing blockbusters. And he said "trilogy" a few times. At the very least, he meant SC is setting the stage for more movies in a franchise. This all has a very blockbustery feel to me so far.

Obviously it's still a little too early to say for sure, but that's vibe I'm getting so far. And if that's the case, we can probably expect more screenwriters to come in and do punch-up (add more humor, etc.).

Hopefully I'm wrong.

Because Hollywood has a current track record of fixating on one single point and ignoring all others especially when it comes to what can be seen as family or kids movies. Bullying is a big topic currently, so it tends to be shoved at us in films.

How much will the character of Eustace and Puddleglum suffer? Not to mention how will the scenes with the giants come off? Puddleglum acted as the caretaker and guide through that and it was one of his step up to shine type moments.

I think that's what everyone is a bit worried about. If one thing is being pushed as the primary focus when there are so many underlying moments that can be missed due to the way Hollywood currently tells stories, a lot of things will get dropped in favor of that one thing and we will end up missing several pieces of what is one of the more beloved of the Chronicles.

Sure. I can see why that would be worrying but I don't think this one quote should trigger one to think that. Joe Johnston even talked about additional themes that adress your concern about individuals having their time to shine.

I think that there are a few things that run through this. And for me, it’s about hope. It’s about working together and recognizing what others can, how you can share responsibility with others, and how you can work together.

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the concern but let's just react in light of what we already know.

Obviously it's still a little too early to say for sure, but that's vibe I'm getting so far. And if that's the case, we can probably expect more screenwriters to come in and do punch-up (add more humor, etc.).

Hopefully I'm wrong.

If no additional writers were brought on, what would that signal to you? I'm assuming it would be a positive but I'm wondering if that would change your view on the production.

If no additional writers were brought on, what would that signal to you?

David Magee being the sole credited writer would definitely be a positive sign. That would probably signal confidence and unity.

As for overreacting... I'm still very excited about David Magee as scriptwriter, I'm still excited for Joe Johnston's artistic vision, and I feel positive about TriStar as a company. I'd just rather overreact now and be vocal about my opinions than regret not doing so at a later date.

I will say that one major positive about Hannah Minghella's comments is that she is describing a film that's essentially centered around a damaged girl who goes through a journey of personal growth. That's a far cry from a "save the world" blockbuster, and that's a good thing. We want a character-driven film.

I think it actually is fairly prominent. Scenes with the bullies may only be at the beginning and the end, but Jill's experience with the bullies influences almost every single thing she does. Her insecurities and fears and difficulty trusting all come back to being bullied and unable to trust authority figures to help her. And, as you said, at least it's in the book unlike everything Peter did in PC.

I agree with you to a point, but one thing that's concerning me between Johnston's discussion on themes and Minghella's recent comments is that they seem like they might be conflating the bullying at Experiment House with the LotGK's tyranny, and I think those are two very different things. The Experiment House gang seems more like a stuff-you-in-a-locker kind of crowd, whereas the LotGK attacks the core of your being: what you believe in. Puddleglum breaks the LotGK's enchantment with words (and a froggish foot), whereas Caspian, Jill, and Eustace teach the bullies a lesson with the flats of their swords.

It kind of reminds me of The Bridge to Terebithia, which I haven't seen but I do remember hearing about because it was a Walden film... I recall it being described as a story where two bullied children escape to an imaginary world, and in that fantasy world they were able to learn how to deal with their bullies in the real world. So these kinds of comments make me wonder if they're approaching SC from a similar angle.

As Impending Doom pointed out, we know that Puddleglum's speech is in the film...HOPEFULLY spoken by Puddleglum himself.

Honestly, one of the first things I thought of when I was trying to figure out Minghella's comments was the fact that they gave one of Ron's best lines in The Prisoner of Azkaban ("If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too") to Hermione in the movie... so that sort of thing is not without precedent in Hollywood, but I think they'd have to tie Gresham up in a broom closet somewhere to get away with it.

I'm not understanding the concern. The exact same scene can have several different interpretations like you've pointed out. Why is being brave and standing up for oneself inherently the wrong one? A film can effectively balance different themes. Standing up for ones self against tyranny/bullies (LOTGK) and trusting Aslan by learning to follow the signs even in the face of danger are not opposites and can be tied together. Films don't have to be so black and white.

No, I agree with most of what you've said here. Perhaps this is just semantics, but I don't think of the conflict with the Witch as being about standing up for yourself... she's not attacking them, she's attacking the truth and their beliefs. And some people may say that standing up for what you believe in is the same as standing up for yourself, but it doesn't feel like that to me. (I mean, if you were having a debate with someone who was denying the existence of the sun, I don't think you'd feel like you were standing up for yourself either.) If Minghella had said standing up for what you believe, I'd feel a lot better, but I would still be puzzled because that's not Jill's defining character moment; it's Puddleglum's. It's also not what I would describe as her arc, but I'll get into that in a moment.

I think what you are saying and what Minghella is saying is actually pretty similar. You've just stated is more eloquently and thought out. Isn't standing up for yourself another way of saying brave?

(Ah, thanks @more eloquently and thought out. )

Standing up for yourself can be a very brave thing to do, but it's different from the kind of bravery that involves self-sacrifice, and to me, that theme is much more central to Jill's character arc.

At Experiment House, we don't get the sense that what made Eustace different from everyone else was that he was talking back to the bullies when they made fun of his name. (As a random example.) Instead, Eustace tells us that he stood up to Carter about the rabbit (animal cruelty?) and kept a secret about another student under torture. It doesn't sound like he's been standing up for himself, but rather standing up for others.

On the other hand, we don't get a sense that Jill has been sticking her neck out for anyone. She seems like she's more focused on self-preservation to me: hiding behind the gym and wanting to be left alone, or longing for the creature comforts of Harfang. And yet that same girl, at the end of the quest, is the one who makes the choice to free a madman, not knowing if it will mean the death of all of them. I think that is the crucial moment in Jill's character development, and the decision she makes there isn't at all in line with standing up for herself... she is acting against her immediate self-interest by potentially putting herself in grave danger.

People have brought up how Captain America: The First Avenger deals with bullying, but there's also a scene in that movie where

. That kind of bravery is more in keeping with what I consider to be Jill's defining character moment. I do agree with Minghella when she talks about Jill learning to have courage, but I don't agree that it's courage to stand up for herself. Rather, to follow Aslan's signs and to do the right thing... no matter what the cost.

I will say that one major positive about Hannah Minghella's comments is that she is describing a film that's essentially about centered around a damaged girl who goes through a journey of personal development. That's a far cry from a "save the world" blockbuster, and that's a good thing. We want a character-driven film.

I think it actually is fairly prominent. Scenes with the bullies may only be at the beginning and the end, but Jill's experience with the bullies influences almost every single thing she does. Her insecurities and fears and difficulty trusting all come back to being bullied and unable to trust authority figures to help her. And, as you said, at least it's in the book unlike everything Peter did in PC.

I agree with you to a point, but one thing that's concerning me between Johnston's discussion on themes and Minghella's recent comments is that they seem like they might be conflating the bullying at Experiment House with the LotGK's tyranny, and I think those are two very different things. The Experiment House gang seems more like a stuff-you-in-a-locker kind of crowd, whereas the LotGK attacks the core of your being: what you believe in. Puddleglum breaks the LotGK's enchantment with words (and a froggish foot), whereas Caspian, Jill, and Eustace teach the bullies a lesson with the flats of their swords.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Rose, about the bullying in Silver Chair at Experiment House being different from what LOTGK does. Yes, Experiment House does explain a lot about Jill from start to finish. But a lot depends on what everyone means by bullying. This is why in the Reading group I asked in the second chapter how everyone defines bullying. Daughter of the King put it best that when someone like Jill is bullied, the effects can be to warp everything she does and how she thinks, so that the person is very cautious indeed about trusting anyone. That includes disclosing beliefs, and also attitudes to fear, engendered by bullying, and understanding that Experiment House bullies, just like LOTGK, like to enjoy and exploit power over others. Bullies get a kick out of frightening their demoralised victims, and feed on their fear, despising any display of it, even when such fear is warranted. And bullies also betray trust, especially when an unwary person confides in such people, just like LOTGK did in sending the children off to Harfang and lying about not knowing where the Ruined City was.

Not all bullying is the "stuff-you-in-a-locker" bullying you mention, Rose. Bullying isn't always that random, especially in prisons, and other facilities and institutions, including educational and defence establishments. Things sometimes come to light in the press about hazing, and initiation ceremonies, where newcomers undergo humiliation and are forced to do dangerous, even illegal things to prove they are fit to be accepted into the crowd dominating that environment.

We see in SC that Eustace, once a talebearer and a hanger on of the Experiment House mob, has thereby disqualified himself from their midst, and that girls like Edith Jackle are also involved in chasing Jill and Eustace into Narnia. The sort of bullying LOTGK does at the climax to both Eustace and Jill, as well as the newly disenchanted Prince Rilian, is essentially just the sort of bullying, girls, in particular, have been known to do to others in the schoolyard, even if such bullying doesn't involve physical force, music or weird perfumes. And yes, such bullying can go to the core of a victim's self-respect, undermining beliefs, and warping that victim's values and sense of reality.

The perpetrators of such bullying ostracize and isolate their victims, they repeat what is said either when the victim speaks at all or what was previously said even in confidence. Or they snigger at whatever their victims say. They insist that black is white, or that wrong is right, just like LOTGK insisted that everything is her shade of green, and that green is the new black. And yes, whether boys or girls, the bullied are to do as they are told by the bullies if they are to be accepted by them. That is one of the good reasons why school children down here are put into school uniforms which does avoid some of the more overt bullying by girlish "fashion police". Yes, I can see how The Bridge of Terebithia might resonate with this SC production, especially as the bullied children in that story actively turned to Narnia to create the world they escaped to.

Just because LOTGK's aim is to take over a peaceful Narnia through her bullied husband-to-be doesn't make her any the less a bully than the Experiment House mob. What was that famous saying that Pastor Niemoller said in WW2? About "First they came for the Communists, then the Christian Democrats etc etc. And then they came for me?" The White Witch was a bully who in Charn simply ran out of victims and supporters alike, having destroyed all life. And in Narnia she killed, froze and petrified those who disagreed with her. LOTGK has different tactics. She uses hypnosis and manipulation to squash dissent. Different tactics don't make her any the less of a bully, either. Nor does it change anything that in Underland LOTGK was targetting the entire group, not just Jill in particular.

Now it seems that this Hannah Minghella, the President of Tristar Corporation, at least knows that there is a story about a place called Narnia and a character called Jill, who has been bullied, even though I don't agree either that Jill "learns to stand up for herself and ultimately all Narnia". Or whatever she said in the opening post. I rather thought that what Jill is also being taught in Narnia, is to get on with the job, not to be sidetracked by discomfort, or fear of what everyone else says, and to have the courage to stand up for what is right, the way Puddleglum does, without fear or prejudice. But if I was in Ms Hannah Minghella's shoes I'm not sure I would have said anything different from what she did, since I'm not a head honcho, or any other sort of honcho anywhere else. Presidents of companies have to consider their own positions as well whenever they open their mouths, I expect.

I do agree I want to see the best job done, and also I most emphatically agree with you all that Puddleglum's speech, so important to the book, should not be spoken by any other character but Puddleglum. Because in that story, Puddleglum, with his faith in Aslan, is the one Narnian character they all do learn to trust as being worthy of that trust. He is the real hero of the story, even if he isn't human at all. Puddleglum's terrific example is how Jill can learn to deal with the world, according to her own beliefs in what is right, rather than meekly submitting to what some bully says.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Rose, about the bullying in Silver Chair at Experiment House being different from what LOTGK does. Yes, Experiment House does explain a lot about Jill from start to finish. But a lot depends on what everyone means by bullying.

Well, it's true that we don't know a great deal about the bullying at Experiment House because Lewis intentionally avoided discussing it, but we do know that Eustace describes keeping a secret under torture and then of course he and Jill are running for their lives later in the chapter. I don't think Lewis would have ended the story with Jill, Eustace, and Caspian applying corporal punishment if it weren't a proportional response. Also, the gang of bullies is made up of both girls and boys, but the girls are physically chasing Jill and Eustace along with the boys... that's very unusual for female bullies, who tend to use more manipulative, non-violent tactics. So I think the type of bullying tends to be of the physical sort at Experiment House, although I'm sure there is some verbal bullying as well.

Different types of bullying aside, I wouldn't categorize LotGK as any kind of bully unless bully is supposed to be a synonym for any hostile person. While bullying is a serious offense, it still seems too weak a term to apply to someone like the LotGK. She kills a queen with poison, deliberately sends two children and their companion to giants with the intent that they will be eaten by them, and attempts to use magic and psychological manipulation to make them and her captive prince stop believing in everything they ever held true or dear so that she can proceed with her violent attack on a peaceful country. Bully is not a word I think of describe someone like that... murderer, psychopath, or even dangerous cult leader all come to mind. Plain villainy, to quote Rilian.

I wouldn't compare what she does to schoolyard bullying perpetrated by girls, either... as you said, they ostracize and isolate their victims, whereas the LotGK is trying to lure and brainwash more people into her cult, if she doesn't kill them instead. She also doesn't come across as having a bullying manner in her debate with the questers and Rilian: while she uses a half-mocking tone at times and at the end says they're all being silly, it's all done in a very coaxing, gentle way as though she's speaking to a child who is making up stories and won't go to bed.

So no... still not on board with linking the LotGK to the bullies at Experiment House.

I wouldn't compare what she does to schoolyard bullying perpetrated by girls, either... as you said, they ostracize and isolate their victims, whereas the LotGK is trying to lure and brainwash more people into her cult, if she doesn't kill them instead. She also doesn't come across as having a bullying manner in her debate with the questers and Rilian: while she uses a half-mocking tone at times and at the end says they're all being silly, it's all done in a very coaxing, gentle way as though she's speaking to a child who is making up stories and won't go to bed.

Well, actually the boarding school matron, who had asked us if we'd talked enough, did give me a bit of a hiding for rebelliously saying no when she wanted us all to say yes at lights out.... And stronger girls did practise on me half Nelsons and Chinese burns at that place.... I hope they thought they were only playing. Should I mention the boxing gloves I once tried, or the fencing the girls got to learn at sport there? What I am really saying is that men don't have the monopoly on even physical violence, even back in the "good old days" when women rode sidesaddle and wore long gorgeous houppelandes and kirtles, leaving much of the dirty work to men and underlings (earthmen?).

Actually I wouldn't necessarily call the giants bullies either. Yes, they look and sound fearsome, but they were playing a game hitting a cairn with rocks, on Ettinsmoor, just like a troop of soldiers on garrison duty might. If they clobbered someone with a rock or two, and thereby provided themselves with dinner, it wasn't personal, and if they squabbled among themselves and ended up crying like babies, they weren't very disciplined. No wonder Peter and then Caspian beat them in war in previous Narnia stories, if these were the giants they were fighting. And while their Harfang colleagues seemed to be just like LOTGK, treating Jill, Eustace and even Puddleglum like absolute babies, which of course even the King and Queen Giant knew about, since they at one time were babies, themselves, they were only hoping to serve them up as the first course at dinner.

But just because LOTGK sounds nice, with nice clothes, nice music and perfumed incense doesn't mean she was nice, and wasn't coercing the children, Puddleglum and Prince Rilian into staying under her absolute control. And one form of bullies that people meet either at work or at play, as at Experiment House, are those who can be considered control freaks - micromanagers is the technical term. Jadis also lured Edmund with no doubt "legal" Turkish Delight to get him to do what she wanted, in LWW. And yet, surely, you may agree with me, that the White Witch, at least, whose attitude was "My way or the highway" could fairly be called a bully. But deadly and bullying as Jadis was, I wouldn't call her a control freak. She merely petrified everyone and called them lawbreakers, to keep it simple.

But I would call LOTGK a bit of a control freak. The sort of person who needs people's allegiances, and their admiration to her specifications. The sort of bully who not only wants to control their victims' bodies but their minds as well. Remember those sickly gallant compliments Prince Rilian showered LOTGK with? You see, unlike Jadis, LOTGK knew she had to keep her temper, if she wasn't to throw away all her hard-gained control. Outside she was just as gentle-looking, beautiful and seductive as, say, Kylie Minogue (an Australian singer) performing on stage can be. But inside the act she was seething with anger and poison - poisoned honey, just like one Dolores Umbridge in another series I have clearly read. And yes, that anger and poison was personal. Directed at Prince Rilian, who could never entirely be coerced into lavishing all those beautiful compliments on her, 24/7, thus becoming her tale-bearer and hanger-on, and whose dissent and knowledge of his own kidnapping and 10 years of imprisonment was controlled by being bound into a silver chair for an hour every evening. Much more serious "knock-em-into-a-locker" tactics than you say the Experiment House bullies might have used, possibly on Jill.

And yes, like so much of the bullying we see at Experiment House her intention was to demoralise, humiliate and to control others to suit herself. Just like any other micromanaging bully that people sometimes come across. Only she doesn't nag or back-seat drive, the bullying methods often associated with women, not girls, usually by men who are quite as capable of such behaviours, themselves. If really annoyed LOTGK turns into a snake and kills people. She wanted to turn all those annoying interlopers, including the Prince, into her prisoners and obedient puppets to do her bidding, without any right to answer back or to live differently to what she said. If she turned into a snake to kill Prince Rilian like she already had done to his mother, the game was up.

Just because LOTGK can coo and coax doesn't mean she wasn't putting on an act just like Experiment House bullies putting on an act for the teachers. And playing innocent doesn't mean that Experiment House bullies and LOTGK alike weren't out to lord it over and control everyone else. She would have needed the Prince to oversee Narnia, since he was the rightful heir. But her methods of keeping him her prisoner, drugging him and confining him to a chair, no matter how valuable that chair was, or how brief the time, weren't the ways to get him to truly love her as a husband might, nor does Prince Rilian's seeming "Stockholm Syndrome" justify her reasons to rule anyone, or absolve LOTGK from being a bully.

Hannah Minghella probably has several other films to think about besides SC. It is something in her favour that she can articulate as much as she did what Silver Chair is about. And I hope that I am right in expecting that everyone concerned wants the best possible outcome.

I think my worry from this quote came from the fact that I felt she was trying to sum up the plot of the book. I feel that the plot of the book would have little to do with bullies if I were to sum it up in a sentence or two. In fact, I might not mention she was bullied at all, because although Jill Pole and somewhat Eustace do overcome being bullied I felt it had little to do with the story as a whole.

Gotta mention: I love that the interviewer calls SC the fourth book in the series and this is not questioned at all.

Having seen some of Magee's work in the past, (namely Finding Neverland) I have fairly optimistic hopes of his being able to interpret and utilize a main theme as well as include others masterfully. Combining my impression of Magee's and Johnston's works, I'm rather hopeful of a strong, heartfelt storyline. If bullying is their main engine, and themes of courage, teamwork, etc. help to propel the story forward and provide an antithesis to the negative theme of tyranny and it's effects, I think it still has the potential to be a good film. It's also encouraging to see continuity across the board so far regarding the direction of the story.