(Welcome to the forums, JillianP! )

I was thinking this morning about why I think that the LotGK is, in my opinion, the scariest villain in the entire series. (Not counting the werewolf in PC... that guy gives me the creeps. ) Sure, Jadis will terrify you, fight you, turn you to stone, kill you, but she leaves you alone. You're still you, even if you're just a statue in her garden. The LotGK, on the other hand... she takes away who you are and replaces it with lies. She makes you forget everything and everyone that you love. She substitutes everything you believe with her own worldview. She takes away your will to do anything but what she says. I'd rather live under Jadis's tyranny any day of the week.

So, my point. If the fundamental reason why I think that LotGK is an effectively terrifying villain is the fact that she takes away who you are... maybe I've been on Minghella's case a little too much about her saying Jill learns to stand up for who she is. (And Joe Johnston's comments about knowing who you are, for that matter.) So it's possible we're more in agreement than I realize.

Thanks, The Rose-Tree Driad! Excited to join such an awesome group of folks!

Welcome JillianP. It is really nice to meet someone else who can share our concerns at this site.

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

And yes, it is just as good that both interviewer and interviewee took the trouble to do their homework, or at least some homework, in preparation for the event.
Either could have learned that SC was the fourth book, and the fourth Narnia film, by consulting the relevant IMDb board.

I was thinking this morning about why I think that the LotGK is, in my opinion, the scariest villain in the entire series. (Not counting the werewolf in PC... that guy gives me the creeps. )

Rose, I agree that LotGK definitely has to be one of C.S.Lewis' scariest Narnian creations, an expansion of a legendary figure, based on his knowledge of British mythology, in particular, and especially his acquaintance with English medieval history and literature, including Shakespeare's Hamlet. That encompasses the historic period between 1066AD to the accession of James 1 & VI on 24th March, 1603 AD. C.S.Lewis, as one of the Inklings, was interested in what myths and legends had to tell us about ourselves.

You and I, amongst others, had a quite extensive discussion on this very forum, across a few threads, on which mythological creature LotGK might be related to, as well as matters such as the symbolism of silver, mirrors and the moon in SC. And we did discuss LOTGK's possible derivation from Melusine, who was alleged to have turned into a snake when her bathing or birthing was unfairly interrupted by her husband, Raymond of Poitou, a very real historic figure, related to any amount of European historic figures of the time. Melusine was also allegedly an ancestor of the St Pol family of Luxemburg, of which Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, the mother of Elizabeth Woodville belonged.

If you want similar usage of Melusine in literature, you would have to investigate the historical fictitional works of Philippa Gregory, in which she enlarges on this very theme of British monarchial descent from Melusine to explain, most entertainingly, how the Plantagenets gave way to the Tudors, and how karma just might have been involved in Henry VIII's horrible marital history. By contrast, C.S.Lewis seems to have based LOTGK on this obscure and half-forgotten mythological figure but making of her a more terrifying figure of literature than poor slandered Melusine ever was. This is mainly my own opinion based on my own reading, and I don't know if scholarly reading would bear me out, especially as those I've read seem to be too busy analysing C.S.Lewis' attitudes to women, rather than his knowledge of mythology.

But, Rose, given that my NarniaWeb moniker has more to do with this werewolf, is there any need to be so frightened of me? Yes, the werewolf from PC was just the sort of creature who would want to carry out what Nikabrik was suggesting about the White Witch in PC but when Peter and Edmund arrive with Trumpkin, he was soon demolished. Caspian, who was bitten by that werewolf, didn't go on to be a werewolf, himself, the usual fate of bitten humans. As we see at the end in Silver Chair.

Werewolves, themselves, are Northern Hemisphere mythical constructs who destroy others by biting them. There aren't any proper wolves of any sort in Australia outside of zoos, let alone werewolves. Unless you count wolfhounds and other doggy relatives of wolves. Or, Australia's very own native dog, the dingo. Besides, our government, with some of the strictest biodiversity laws in the world, would not approve of illegally imported werewolves, or their like, running around the countryside, especially if they started feasting on native fauna.

Meanwhile, whilst listening to the podcast, I remembered that Hannah Minghella is the President of a company that markets films other companies produce, that marketing a movie isn't the same thing as actually making that movie, and that the movie isn't totally about Jill, herself, but whether or not she, Eustace and Puddleglum succeed in the journey they take to rescue Rilian, despite LOTGK.

And we did discuss LOTGK's possible derivation from Melusine, Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, the mother of Elizabeth Woodville
If you want similar usage of Melusine in literature, you would have to investigate the historical fictitional works of Philippa Gregory, in which she enlarges on this very theme of British monarchial descent from Melusine to explain, most entertainingly, how the Plantagenets gave way to the Tudors, and how karma just might have been involved in Henry VIII's horrible marital history. By contrast, C.S.Lewis seems to have based LOTGK on this obscure and half-forgotten mythological figure but making of her a more terrifying figure of literature than poor slandered Melusine ever was.

Melusine - I know her from reading Philippa Gregory's books over the last two years. I got into these when I was in a production of Richard III in 2015.
The actress who played Elizabeth Woodville (Queen Elizabeth) would make an excellent LOTGK as I told her in 2016 when I was one of her servants in King Lear - she played Regan, a nasty piece of work who could seem so sweet!
I really hope she will at least audition!

Yes, Coracle, I would imagine that someone who played Elizabeth Woodville in a production of Shakespeare's Richard III would be a most competent performer to act the part of LOTGK in Silver Chair. The references to this period of English history in SC are inescapable to tell the truth, from Jill Pole's own name, so like Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who was executed by Henry VIII, to the manner of how Elizabeth Woodville became Edward IV's queen in the first place. And then there is the style of LOTGK's speech, and Rilian's Hamlet-like attire when Jill, Eustace and Puddleglum arrive in the Dark Castle.

Margaret Pole was, of course, the daughter of George, Duke of Clarence, the brother of both Edward IV and Richard III (Duke of Gloucester), whom Shakespeare paints as the eponymous villain in the play he wrote, to explain the accession of the invading Henry VII (Tudor) who took the crown in 1485. Her father had been executed for treason before Richard III took the throne, by being drowned in a butt of malmsey, a variety of red wine popular at the time, which, in the Reading Group, irresistibly made me think of ways to reduce the muddy flavour of marshwiggles. Descendants of Margaret Pole, the last Plantagenet, still exist, by the way.

However, the way Elizabeth Woodville allegedly met Edward IV is quite similar to what Drinian saw when he accompanied Rilian to the glade from where Rilian vanished the following day. Not to mention how her often unrecognised secret marriage became a bone of contention which finally brought down the house of York, at the hands of the invading Tudor, Henry VII, at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

In those days marriages were not supposed to be love affairs, but were all too often ways and means to fortune and power, especially for women, who endured enormous risks to even survive, themselves. Prominent widowed Queens and duchess' influence as wives and mothers was feared by jealous in-laws, and any woman who exercised any power at all could often be accused of being a witch, whether it was true or not. Whilst Catherine of Valois married Owen Tudor after the death of Henry V, thus founding the Tudor line of monarchs, Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, Henry's widowed sister-in-law, went on to marry Richard Woodville, the Duke's master of horse, and later faced charges of witchcraft, brought about firstly by Warwick in 1470, and then Richard III.

Having read Philippa Gregory's books, myself, I am intrigued by Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother, whose unremitting ambitions for her only child ensured that Henry Tudor would succeed. And that his mother would retain a lot of influence during his reign as Henry VII to the detriment of Elizabeth Woodville's daughter, his wife. Although Philippa Gregory did not link Margaret Beaufort to Melusine, I would imagine Margaret Beaufort, Philippa Gregory-style would certainly be a suitable pattern of ruthlessness to base LOTGK on.

The trouble with Shakespeare's plays referring to the Wars of the Roses, in English history, barely mention Yorkist Edward IV at all, and since he wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I, Elizabeth Woodville and Henry VII's great granddaughter, what Shakespeare wrote had to appeal to a Lancastrian and Tudor point of view, so Margaret Beaufort would have been seen as untouchable. Not unlike the Queen of the Underworld being worshipped by her earthmen underlings.

This is all background information, of course. I don't know how helpful it would be to those discussing the production of a film of SC to explain why someone we call LOTGK would so fearsomely kill a Queen Consort and then entice and then imprison her grieving son into the dungeon-like place where Jill and friends found him.

David Magee's comments on the bullying aspect made me feel better. When he talked about the themes initially, he didn't mention bullying at all. He only talked about it after I specifically asked.

And his explanation made perfect sense. The way I interpreted his words: Lewis summarizes the fact that Jill is being bullied through narration. In a film, it makes more sense to actually show Jill being bullied. Which, as filmmakers, forces you to fill in details like what exactly she is being bullied about. You need that information to create a scene (as opposed to just broad narration).

Thank you, Glumpuddle, for conducting that interview with David Magee. Now I'm curious as to just how Jill might have been bullied. I expect we'll just have to wait and see.

EDIT 22/8/2017: I've just listened to the podcast where Glumpuddle and Rilian have been discussing the necessity to show what Jill is being bullied about in the film. But I find myself wondering if the reason for her being bullied has any relevance to the rest of the movie or if this matters at all?

In the BBC TV version which I have been watching, it seems the producers must have come to the same conclusion. The first episode of this production has Jill Pole surrounded by boys in cricket gear and girls in summer uniforms all yelling her surname at her. I agree that everyone at that school calls everyone else by surnames only. But "Pole" is a surname with much history attached to it, and nothing to bully people about for merely having it. Surnames like Spivvins, Scrubb and Jackle are just as easy to ridicule, if schoolchildren want to be that nasty.

I do hope our SC production does come up with something better, that is all.

I'm not a fan of the idea of making bullying the main theme of the movie for reasons other people have mentioned. (Also I don't think hitting bullies with swords or switches is a great example of how to stand to stand up to them.

But I'm willing to keep an open mind. The director for the LWW movie said he wanted to movie to be about a family triumphing in a difficult situation by sticking together. That sounds totally sappy and not like the book in theory. But I actually found that theme pretty touching in the final movie. I'll even say it added emotional power to the story that wasn't in the book. (Don't panic. I'll still prefer the book on the whole.)

On the other hand, I didn't like how they made temptation the main theme of the VODT movie. Though that may be less because of the idea and more because of the execution. It came across like they heard somewhere that resisting temptation is part of Christianity and decided to make it a big theme in a last ditch effort to appeal to Christian audiences. So, the characters kept saying "Temptation! It sure is bad, isn't it?" They didn't really have anything to say about the reality of temptation or the psychology of it.

It would be interesting to see if the theme of bullying in SC would turn out like that. Since it still hasn't been greenlit, I fear we'll never get to find out.