![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingThis is part 1 of a rambling compare-and-contrast on the BBC miniseries and Disney feature film versions of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. As of yet, I have no preference for one version over the other, since both have elements that make me happy and elements that annoy me to no end.
link to part 1
link to part 2
link to part 3
link to part 4
link to part 5
jump to some thoughts on Prince Caspian
-----
Opening:
The Disney version starts by showing us the London Blitz, giving a very clear sense of what the Pevensies are being sent away from, and also illustrating the strained family dynamics. The train scene is also emotional, and they have Peter look at some soldiers nearby, again highlighting the war theme (and maybe some 'responsibility to defend your land/the innocent' stuff).
The BBC version starts at the train station, and it seems as if the Pevensies are going on holiday rather than being evacuated from a warzone. I suppose that fits better with the tone of Lewis's book -- which is very much a wish-fulfillment adventure rather than a realistic war story -- but it does feel odd.
Both films get Lucy's hair wrong -- she's meant to be blonde, not auburn or brown-haired. The BBC version also gets Susan's hair wrong, making her blonde instead of black-haired. Peter and Edmund do not have canonical hair colors. However, Peter and Edmund have an age difference of at least three and possibly as many as five years. This is immediately obvious in the Disney version. In the BBC version, they look one year apart at most, and Edmund sometimes even looks older than Peter. In fact, all four BBC children look to be two or three years apart at most -- as if Peter is 10 months older than Susan who is 10 months older than Edmund who is 10 months older than Lucy -- which is ridiculous. So Disney wins there.
I like Disney's Mrs. Macready better. The BBC version feels out of place as a country housekeeper; she seems much more like a department secretary at a university. On the other hand, the BBC Professor Kirke wins hands-down. I can believe him as a human being and specifically as an older version of Digory. The Disney Professor Kirke looks like an overgrown Christmas elf; whoever did his hair and makeup design should be shot.
The intra-family dynamics are done fairly well in both versions so far. Peter's in charge and a little strained by the responsibility; Susan is playing mother and peacekeeper; Lucy is innocent, enthusiastic, and determinedly cheerful; and Edmund is throwing monkey wrenches into everything for the hell of it, though you can see by the way his siblings are disturbed and upset and still care about him that he probably hasn't always been that way.
Interestingly, while the BBC hews close to Lewis and has Edmund be a pain for no reason, Disney's portrayal of the strain of war (and the way Peter can't express concern for Edmund and so expresses anger instead) makes Edmund, while still beastly, seem notably less at fault. That also knocks off some of Peter's canonical nobility. I think that is part and parcel of the greater realism Disney is aiming for all through the story, whereas the BBC sticks more to the wish-fulfillment aspect of Lewis's story.
-----
Lucy and Mr. Tumnus:
The Disney version is helped by a much larger budget; their Mr. Tumnus has proper goat legs instead of giant furry trousers with a horribly fake-looking tail. On the other hand, the Disney Tumnus is out in the woods in the snow without a coat, which strikes me as peculiar.
The mechanics for getting Lucy into Narnia are different in the two versions. The BBC sticks to the book and has the siblings simply exploring the house; Lucy stays behind to investigate the spare room more closely. Disney skips right to the game of hide-and-seek that in the book and BBC versions is what gets Edmund into Narnia. I am not at all sure why Disney made that change; it seems pointless.
Hmm. The Disney version portrays Tumnus as younger and more awkward/uncertain. He feels more believably oppressed; his cave is snug and warm, but small, and the furnishings, while nice, are minimal. The BBC Tumnus comes off as more of a schemer and profiteer. I am therefore much more inclined to believe the Disney Tumnus when he has a change of heart. Also, I think the Disney version stages Lucy and Tumnus's initial meeting better, and has a smoother segue from tea into playing the flute. The fire figures are nifty, and I love the effect where Tumnus's little conjuring changes to Aslan's image and all the lights go out.
On the other hand the BBC version highlights a plot point by having Tumnus mutter that there shouldn't be any danger from only one human, and I like the little montage of summer in Narnia. It reminds me of the Beethoven Pastorale sequence in Fantasia, with the fauns and nymphs and grapes and winged horses. And BBC Tumnus has a change of heart completely of his own volition -- he sees Lucy helpless and sleeping and can't go through with his betrayal -- whereas Disney Tumnus is pricked both by his own conscience and a supernatural warning.
So, you know, tomayto, tomahto. *grin*
-----
Lucy's return:
The BBC makes an odd staging choice and has Lucy open the spare room door before shouting that she's come back. Since her siblings are walking away exactly as they'd done when she entered the wardrobe, without any signs of panic, her subsequent shouting that she's come back makes little sense. Disney does that better; she shouts first and sees her siblings second. (I suppose the BBC was trying to cue audiences that no time had passed, but that gets explained in dialogue anyway, so I'm baffled by that staging.)
Both versions do well with the intra-family dynamics, with Susan logically touching the back of the wardrobe, Edmund ragging on Lucy, and Peter shutting Edmund up and doing the next best thing to ordering Lucy to say she was joking. The BBC version then does a bit of thematic anvil dropping in an awkward conversation between Lucy and Susan wherein Lucy reminds Susan that she doesn't lie. Disney has Lucy say she wouldn't lie "about that," which is an interesting shift away from saying she's invariably truthful. In fact, the way the family argument progresses in both versions highlights their varying approaches to psychological realism vs. wish-fulfillment. The BBC is faithful to Lewis's occasionally two-dimensional characterization -- Edmund is a complete pig and the others are all completely noble (though sometimes misguided) -- whereas Disney shows all the siblings angry and at fault in the squabble.
The BBC gives a small reminder of the war as Peter looks at a map of Europe with battles marked by red flags; I think this is equivalent to the way Disney Peter listened to war news on the radio earlier. The BBC stages a boring puzzle game; Edmund and Lucy squabble, with Susan unable to stop them; then Peter decides that everyone's going to play hide and seek. (Susan cheats on her counting, incidentally.)
Disney, on the other hand, has Lucy wake in the middle of the night and sneak off to the wardrobe; Edmund, who was in the bathroom, sees her walking down the corridor and follows her. I suppose this is more suspenseful than a game of hide-and-seek, just as hide-and-seek is more suspenseful and high-energy than simply exploring, but honestly, not everything needs to be constantly going at fever pitch! In retrospect, this departure from the book is a bad sign of the liberties Disney will later take with the plot in order to cram in more action scenes.
-----
Edmund and Jadis:
The BBC neglects to have Edmund shut the wardrobe door. Odd; that's a telling character moment. Also, while he sounds the right age, I still think BBC Edmund looks far too old in relation to Peter. Disney has Edmund close the wardrobe door, but instead of doing it simply from lack of common sense, he shuts it deliberately to scare Lucy, whom he thinks is still in a small, enclosed space with him. So they keep the action, but change the motivation. (Actually, I think I like their version better than Lewis's...)
Disney has reindeer. The BBC makes do with white horses. This is obviously a budget issue, so I don't mind. *grin*
Disney's Jadis is blonde; the BBC Jadis has black hair. I prefer her with black hair, and I think the BBC does a better crown and wand as well. So the BBC wins on costuming (except for the blue eye shadow, which is too dark and looks stupid). On the other hand, I think Tilda Swinton does a bang-up job playing the Witch, whereas the BBC actress, Barbara Kellerman, overacts in a way that I think is common among theater actors (who are trying to project to the back of the house) but that comes across inadvertently hilarious on screen. So Disney wins on acting. By a mile.
Both Skandar Keynes and Jonathan R. Scott do a good job as Edmund, but the BBC hews more closely to the book dialogue at first, which I like. Of course, then they go off and invent a tent and telekinesis and other bits of filler, which is annoying. They also show Lucy and Mr. Tumnus's second meeting, which is not described in the book. It's an interesting focus shift -- this sequence is meant to be all about Edmund, the way Lucy's first visit was all about her, but now they split the screen time. In that respect, Disney sticks closer to the book.
The book and Disney versions of Jadis's sledge-driver are relatively put-upon. The BBC version is practically her equal collaborator at a couple points, and they exchange a lot of sly, significant glances over Edmund's head. Of course, then he gets shut out of the tent in the cold. Edmund comes off much denser in the BBC version, for not realizing that the Witch is not his friend, but then again, that's actually more accurate to the book in some ways... Eh. I still can't get past Kellerman's acting, though.
-----
The second return to England:
Both versions do a good job of showing Edmund realizing Jadis is probably evil and then rationalizing that knowledge away -- because he's been tempted, because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong, because he doesn't want to follow Lucy's lead in anything. Actually, I get a sense all through his conversation with Jadis that he's at least half-aware that something is fishy and dangerous, but he keeps shoving that awareness down.
Lucy, of course, is whole-heartedly willing to accept his half-hearted apology and never doubts that he'll support her. Which makes his betrayal all the more painful. (Edmund is a traitor twice over, you know -- there's his dramatic betrayal of his family to the Witch, but there's also the smaller, more personal betrayal of Lucy's trust when he denies Narnia's existence.)
The BBC version shows Peter and Susan's full conversation with Professor Kirke, which the Disney version dramatically condenses and alters. The BBC version therefore automatically wins. *grin* But in all honesty, they stage and act this whole interlude very well. (As does Disney, within the limitations of their abridgement.)
It hadn't struck me until now, but the bit where the Professor lists three options -- 1) Lucy is lying; 2) Lucy is mad; and 3) Lucy is telling the truth -- is a recapitulation of Lewis's 'lunatic, liar, or Lord' supposed proof of Christianity's truth. It therefore shares two of the same logic problems: first, that nobody is ever completely truthful, and second, that mental illnesses are not necessarily all-consuming nor always immediately obvious.
[Side note: The main problem with the 'lunatic, liar, or Lord' theory is, of course, that it depends on the accuracy of Jesus's supposed words and actions as reported in the New Testament. This runs into the minor issues that A) the Gospels weren't written until at least 40 years after Jesus's death, and after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem threw Judaic theology and practice into crisis; B) they disagree with each other -- yes, even the three Synoptic Gospels; and C) their authors were essentially writing missionary propaganda. The Gospels are not what I would call a reliable biography. Lucy's report of her time in Narnia does not share those particular problems; she tells her story in her own words immediately after it happens. But I am trying to analyze Narnia, not Lewis's apologetics in general.]
I further note that when Peter says that they checked the wardrobe and didn't find a gate, and says that if things exist, then they always exist and should be consistently discoverable (i.e., scientific rationalism), the Professor essentially dismisses this as hogwash. So teaching children to believe in Narnia within the framework of the story is meant to teach children to believe in Jesus in everyday life. Huh. Well, it obviously didn't work on me, since I'm only just noticing that when I'm twenty-seven years old!
-----
Into Narnia:
The BBC follows the book and has Mrs. Macready leading a tour group through the house and the Pevensies simply trying to avoid her. Disney has Edmund break a window with a cricket ball, so the Pevensies have to hide from Mrs. Macready's wrath. Disney's version is more dramatic, but I don't think the drama was necessary. It does make a bit more sense to hide somewhere very out of the way to avoid punishment than it does to bring a tour group up to a dusty attic room, but I prefer the tour group, if only because it makes more sense at the end of the story. If Mrs. Macready is leading a tour group, she has every reason to go away and not bother the Pevensies after their return. If she's chasing them to yell about a broken window, she's not going to give up and turn around when they've only been gone for a couple seconds.
Disney adds an intra-family moment with Peter giving Edmund a woman's coat, which is a good way of playing up that he and Susan are still ticked off at Edmund. The BBC makes Peter less petty, which is more true to the book; besides, they've already shown Peter and Susan's annoyance in the previous scenes, so they don't need the characterization shorthand the same way Disney does.
Ha! BBC Susan is thinking; she makes everyone put on boots as well as coats! (I did always wonder about that in the book.) Score one for the BBC. *grin* Oddly enough, Disney has Peter be the one who points out they aren't technically taking the coats out of the wardrobe; that ought to be Susan's line.
The confrontation over the revelation that Edmund has been to Narnia before is done differently in each version. Disney has both Peter and Susan get angry and chew him out, until Lucy mocks him and they (more or less) let the matter drop. The BBC has Peter get angry, but not hot anger; he gets cold, says one line, and then turns away. Susan and Lucy follow, wordlessly, so it's as if they're ostracizing Edmund. And then poor Jonathan Scott is forced to swear revenge aloud instead of letting his face and body language get the message across. *sigh* So points to the BBC at first, but then to Disney for trusting Skandar Keynes to act without crutches.
As a side note, Disney emphasizes the age difference between Peter and Edmund by putting Peter in trousers and Edmund in shorts. The BBC has them both in shorts. This is yet another example of Disney's general superiority at showing the relative ages (and positions in the family authority structure) of the four children.
-----
Mr. and Mrs. Beaver:
I like Disney better for exploring the wreck of Tumnus's home, but I have a great fondness for the BBC decision to have Maugrim take over reading the letter halfway through Peter's recitation. He's clearly a man in a fur suit (and the nose is absurd), but I do like that effect. (Also, I presume this is the source of the name 'Maugrim' as the captain of the secret police, which Disney also used. In the book, the captain is named Fenris Ulf. I confess I am baffled at the change.)
[ETA: Apparently Lewis changed the wolf's name from Maugrim to Fenris Ulf when revising the series for American publication. When the rights were bought by a new publisher around 1994, they went back to the British texts and also changed the series arrangement from publication order (LWW, PC, VDT, SC, HHB, MN, LB) to so-called 'chronological' order (MN, LWW, HHB, PC, VDT, SC, LB). I think both changes were stupid. Lewis did not Americanize the books; he made edits to things he wanted to have written differently. The changes in VDT, especially, were good ones that should not have been ignored. But the Maugrim vs. Fenris thing is just cosmetic.]
BBC Mr. Beaver is also obviously a man in a fur suit. I note that both versions largely cut out the 'follow the robin' sequence, though Disney has them notice a bird outside Mr. Tumnus's house, and the BBC keeps a bit of Edmund and Peter's conversation where Edmund tries to cast doubt on Mr. Tumnus's version of events in Narnia. Since the conversation is more important than the bird, I like the BBC take better, stupid fur suits notwithstanding. Nonetheless, Disney does a nice bit of staging during this meeting -- Lucy grabs Susan's arm, Susan grabs Peter's shoulder, and Peter grabs Susan's hand in return... while Edmund stands alone and slightly behind them. It makes the family dynamics and allegiances very clear.
Another point in the BBC's favor: they don't turn Mr. Beaver into a cheap, annoying, tacky, loud caricature of himself. (I cannot stand the Disney version of Mr. Beaver.) The giant fur suit is still tacky, but what the heck, you get used to it after a while. I never managed to get used to the Disney version's mischaracterization. Furthermore, the BBC version shows the Pevensies' reaction to hearing Aslan's name for the first time, which is an interesting trick to pull off in a visual medium.
I still want to know how Mr. Beaver dammed a frozen river, but I suspect this is one of those things you're not supposed to think about too hard. *grin*
This is perhaps the moment to mention that I believe much more in Disney's Narnia as a magical, otherworldly country, and as a country in the grip of an enchanted winter. Their scenery is far more convincing. The BBC version is far too much like everyday English countryside -- the forest and falling snow just aren't thick enough, and the snow doesn't consistently stick to the ground and build up. This is a budget issue, of course, so I don't hold it against the BBC, but it does mean Disney doesn't have to work quite as hard to make me suspend my disbelief.
Oddly, the CGI animals don't help in that respect. They're not quite smooth enough to be natural, which leaves them almost as distracting as the BBC's giant fur suits. You see, I don't expect giant fur suits to be realistic, so they're relatively easy to mentally edit around. Disney's CGI, on the other hand, is just close enough to realism that it hits a sort of Uncanny Valley. Anyway, when you're facing two slightly 'wrong' physical presentations of characters, what sells the performance is characterization, and there, so far, the BBC is winning on the Talking Animal front. (Have I mentioned that I cannot stand the Disney version of Mr. Beaver?)
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Huh. All that, and I don't think I'm even halfway through the story. Anyway, more to come at some point.
link to part 2
link to part 1
link to part 2
link to part 3
link to part 4
link to part 5
jump to some thoughts on Prince Caspian
-----
Opening:
The Disney version starts by showing us the London Blitz, giving a very clear sense of what the Pevensies are being sent away from, and also illustrating the strained family dynamics. The train scene is also emotional, and they have Peter look at some soldiers nearby, again highlighting the war theme (and maybe some 'responsibility to defend your land/the innocent' stuff).
The BBC version starts at the train station, and it seems as if the Pevensies are going on holiday rather than being evacuated from a warzone. I suppose that fits better with the tone of Lewis's book -- which is very much a wish-fulfillment adventure rather than a realistic war story -- but it does feel odd.
Both films get Lucy's hair wrong -- she's meant to be blonde, not auburn or brown-haired. The BBC version also gets Susan's hair wrong, making her blonde instead of black-haired. Peter and Edmund do not have canonical hair colors. However, Peter and Edmund have an age difference of at least three and possibly as many as five years. This is immediately obvious in the Disney version. In the BBC version, they look one year apart at most, and Edmund sometimes even looks older than Peter. In fact, all four BBC children look to be two or three years apart at most -- as if Peter is 10 months older than Susan who is 10 months older than Edmund who is 10 months older than Lucy -- which is ridiculous. So Disney wins there.
I like Disney's Mrs. Macready better. The BBC version feels out of place as a country housekeeper; she seems much more like a department secretary at a university. On the other hand, the BBC Professor Kirke wins hands-down. I can believe him as a human being and specifically as an older version of Digory. The Disney Professor Kirke looks like an overgrown Christmas elf; whoever did his hair and makeup design should be shot.
The intra-family dynamics are done fairly well in both versions so far. Peter's in charge and a little strained by the responsibility; Susan is playing mother and peacekeeper; Lucy is innocent, enthusiastic, and determinedly cheerful; and Edmund is throwing monkey wrenches into everything for the hell of it, though you can see by the way his siblings are disturbed and upset and still care about him that he probably hasn't always been that way.
Interestingly, while the BBC hews close to Lewis and has Edmund be a pain for no reason, Disney's portrayal of the strain of war (and the way Peter can't express concern for Edmund and so expresses anger instead) makes Edmund, while still beastly, seem notably less at fault. That also knocks off some of Peter's canonical nobility. I think that is part and parcel of the greater realism Disney is aiming for all through the story, whereas the BBC sticks more to the wish-fulfillment aspect of Lewis's story.
-----
Lucy and Mr. Tumnus:
The Disney version is helped by a much larger budget; their Mr. Tumnus has proper goat legs instead of giant furry trousers with a horribly fake-looking tail. On the other hand, the Disney Tumnus is out in the woods in the snow without a coat, which strikes me as peculiar.
The mechanics for getting Lucy into Narnia are different in the two versions. The BBC sticks to the book and has the siblings simply exploring the house; Lucy stays behind to investigate the spare room more closely. Disney skips right to the game of hide-and-seek that in the book and BBC versions is what gets Edmund into Narnia. I am not at all sure why Disney made that change; it seems pointless.
Hmm. The Disney version portrays Tumnus as younger and more awkward/uncertain. He feels more believably oppressed; his cave is snug and warm, but small, and the furnishings, while nice, are minimal. The BBC Tumnus comes off as more of a schemer and profiteer. I am therefore much more inclined to believe the Disney Tumnus when he has a change of heart. Also, I think the Disney version stages Lucy and Tumnus's initial meeting better, and has a smoother segue from tea into playing the flute. The fire figures are nifty, and I love the effect where Tumnus's little conjuring changes to Aslan's image and all the lights go out.
On the other hand the BBC version highlights a plot point by having Tumnus mutter that there shouldn't be any danger from only one human, and I like the little montage of summer in Narnia. It reminds me of the Beethoven Pastorale sequence in Fantasia, with the fauns and nymphs and grapes and winged horses. And BBC Tumnus has a change of heart completely of his own volition -- he sees Lucy helpless and sleeping and can't go through with his betrayal -- whereas Disney Tumnus is pricked both by his own conscience and a supernatural warning.
So, you know, tomayto, tomahto. *grin*
-----
Lucy's return:
The BBC makes an odd staging choice and has Lucy open the spare room door before shouting that she's come back. Since her siblings are walking away exactly as they'd done when she entered the wardrobe, without any signs of panic, her subsequent shouting that she's come back makes little sense. Disney does that better; she shouts first and sees her siblings second. (I suppose the BBC was trying to cue audiences that no time had passed, but that gets explained in dialogue anyway, so I'm baffled by that staging.)
Both versions do well with the intra-family dynamics, with Susan logically touching the back of the wardrobe, Edmund ragging on Lucy, and Peter shutting Edmund up and doing the next best thing to ordering Lucy to say she was joking. The BBC version then does a bit of thematic anvil dropping in an awkward conversation between Lucy and Susan wherein Lucy reminds Susan that she doesn't lie. Disney has Lucy say she wouldn't lie "about that," which is an interesting shift away from saying she's invariably truthful. In fact, the way the family argument progresses in both versions highlights their varying approaches to psychological realism vs. wish-fulfillment. The BBC is faithful to Lewis's occasionally two-dimensional characterization -- Edmund is a complete pig and the others are all completely noble (though sometimes misguided) -- whereas Disney shows all the siblings angry and at fault in the squabble.
The BBC gives a small reminder of the war as Peter looks at a map of Europe with battles marked by red flags; I think this is equivalent to the way Disney Peter listened to war news on the radio earlier. The BBC stages a boring puzzle game; Edmund and Lucy squabble, with Susan unable to stop them; then Peter decides that everyone's going to play hide and seek. (Susan cheats on her counting, incidentally.)
Disney, on the other hand, has Lucy wake in the middle of the night and sneak off to the wardrobe; Edmund, who was in the bathroom, sees her walking down the corridor and follows her. I suppose this is more suspenseful than a game of hide-and-seek, just as hide-and-seek is more suspenseful and high-energy than simply exploring, but honestly, not everything needs to be constantly going at fever pitch! In retrospect, this departure from the book is a bad sign of the liberties Disney will later take with the plot in order to cram in more action scenes.
-----
Edmund and Jadis:
The BBC neglects to have Edmund shut the wardrobe door. Odd; that's a telling character moment. Also, while he sounds the right age, I still think BBC Edmund looks far too old in relation to Peter. Disney has Edmund close the wardrobe door, but instead of doing it simply from lack of common sense, he shuts it deliberately to scare Lucy, whom he thinks is still in a small, enclosed space with him. So they keep the action, but change the motivation. (Actually, I think I like their version better than Lewis's...)
Disney has reindeer. The BBC makes do with white horses. This is obviously a budget issue, so I don't mind. *grin*
Disney's Jadis is blonde; the BBC Jadis has black hair. I prefer her with black hair, and I think the BBC does a better crown and wand as well. So the BBC wins on costuming (except for the blue eye shadow, which is too dark and looks stupid). On the other hand, I think Tilda Swinton does a bang-up job playing the Witch, whereas the BBC actress, Barbara Kellerman, overacts in a way that I think is common among theater actors (who are trying to project to the back of the house) but that comes across inadvertently hilarious on screen. So Disney wins on acting. By a mile.
Both Skandar Keynes and Jonathan R. Scott do a good job as Edmund, but the BBC hews more closely to the book dialogue at first, which I like. Of course, then they go off and invent a tent and telekinesis and other bits of filler, which is annoying. They also show Lucy and Mr. Tumnus's second meeting, which is not described in the book. It's an interesting focus shift -- this sequence is meant to be all about Edmund, the way Lucy's first visit was all about her, but now they split the screen time. In that respect, Disney sticks closer to the book.
The book and Disney versions of Jadis's sledge-driver are relatively put-upon. The BBC version is practically her equal collaborator at a couple points, and they exchange a lot of sly, significant glances over Edmund's head. Of course, then he gets shut out of the tent in the cold. Edmund comes off much denser in the BBC version, for not realizing that the Witch is not his friend, but then again, that's actually more accurate to the book in some ways... Eh. I still can't get past Kellerman's acting, though.
-----
The second return to England:
Both versions do a good job of showing Edmund realizing Jadis is probably evil and then rationalizing that knowledge away -- because he's been tempted, because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong, because he doesn't want to follow Lucy's lead in anything. Actually, I get a sense all through his conversation with Jadis that he's at least half-aware that something is fishy and dangerous, but he keeps shoving that awareness down.
Lucy, of course, is whole-heartedly willing to accept his half-hearted apology and never doubts that he'll support her. Which makes his betrayal all the more painful. (Edmund is a traitor twice over, you know -- there's his dramatic betrayal of his family to the Witch, but there's also the smaller, more personal betrayal of Lucy's trust when he denies Narnia's existence.)
The BBC version shows Peter and Susan's full conversation with Professor Kirke, which the Disney version dramatically condenses and alters. The BBC version therefore automatically wins. *grin* But in all honesty, they stage and act this whole interlude very well. (As does Disney, within the limitations of their abridgement.)
It hadn't struck me until now, but the bit where the Professor lists three options -- 1) Lucy is lying; 2) Lucy is mad; and 3) Lucy is telling the truth -- is a recapitulation of Lewis's 'lunatic, liar, or Lord' supposed proof of Christianity's truth. It therefore shares two of the same logic problems: first, that nobody is ever completely truthful, and second, that mental illnesses are not necessarily all-consuming nor always immediately obvious.
[Side note: The main problem with the 'lunatic, liar, or Lord' theory is, of course, that it depends on the accuracy of Jesus's supposed words and actions as reported in the New Testament. This runs into the minor issues that A) the Gospels weren't written until at least 40 years after Jesus's death, and after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem threw Judaic theology and practice into crisis; B) they disagree with each other -- yes, even the three Synoptic Gospels; and C) their authors were essentially writing missionary propaganda. The Gospels are not what I would call a reliable biography. Lucy's report of her time in Narnia does not share those particular problems; she tells her story in her own words immediately after it happens. But I am trying to analyze Narnia, not Lewis's apologetics in general.]
I further note that when Peter says that they checked the wardrobe and didn't find a gate, and says that if things exist, then they always exist and should be consistently discoverable (i.e., scientific rationalism), the Professor essentially dismisses this as hogwash. So teaching children to believe in Narnia within the framework of the story is meant to teach children to believe in Jesus in everyday life. Huh. Well, it obviously didn't work on me, since I'm only just noticing that when I'm twenty-seven years old!
-----
Into Narnia:
The BBC follows the book and has Mrs. Macready leading a tour group through the house and the Pevensies simply trying to avoid her. Disney has Edmund break a window with a cricket ball, so the Pevensies have to hide from Mrs. Macready's wrath. Disney's version is more dramatic, but I don't think the drama was necessary. It does make a bit more sense to hide somewhere very out of the way to avoid punishment than it does to bring a tour group up to a dusty attic room, but I prefer the tour group, if only because it makes more sense at the end of the story. If Mrs. Macready is leading a tour group, she has every reason to go away and not bother the Pevensies after their return. If she's chasing them to yell about a broken window, she's not going to give up and turn around when they've only been gone for a couple seconds.
Disney adds an intra-family moment with Peter giving Edmund a woman's coat, which is a good way of playing up that he and Susan are still ticked off at Edmund. The BBC makes Peter less petty, which is more true to the book; besides, they've already shown Peter and Susan's annoyance in the previous scenes, so they don't need the characterization shorthand the same way Disney does.
Ha! BBC Susan is thinking; she makes everyone put on boots as well as coats! (I did always wonder about that in the book.) Score one for the BBC. *grin* Oddly enough, Disney has Peter be the one who points out they aren't technically taking the coats out of the wardrobe; that ought to be Susan's line.
The confrontation over the revelation that Edmund has been to Narnia before is done differently in each version. Disney has both Peter and Susan get angry and chew him out, until Lucy mocks him and they (more or less) let the matter drop. The BBC has Peter get angry, but not hot anger; he gets cold, says one line, and then turns away. Susan and Lucy follow, wordlessly, so it's as if they're ostracizing Edmund. And then poor Jonathan Scott is forced to swear revenge aloud instead of letting his face and body language get the message across. *sigh* So points to the BBC at first, but then to Disney for trusting Skandar Keynes to act without crutches.
As a side note, Disney emphasizes the age difference between Peter and Edmund by putting Peter in trousers and Edmund in shorts. The BBC has them both in shorts. This is yet another example of Disney's general superiority at showing the relative ages (and positions in the family authority structure) of the four children.
-----
Mr. and Mrs. Beaver:
I like Disney better for exploring the wreck of Tumnus's home, but I have a great fondness for the BBC decision to have Maugrim take over reading the letter halfway through Peter's recitation. He's clearly a man in a fur suit (and the nose is absurd), but I do like that effect. (Also, I presume this is the source of the name 'Maugrim' as the captain of the secret police, which Disney also used. In the book, the captain is named Fenris Ulf. I confess I am baffled at the change.)
[ETA: Apparently Lewis changed the wolf's name from Maugrim to Fenris Ulf when revising the series for American publication. When the rights were bought by a new publisher around 1994, they went back to the British texts and also changed the series arrangement from publication order (LWW, PC, VDT, SC, HHB, MN, LB) to so-called 'chronological' order (MN, LWW, HHB, PC, VDT, SC, LB). I think both changes were stupid. Lewis did not Americanize the books; he made edits to things he wanted to have written differently. The changes in VDT, especially, were good ones that should not have been ignored. But the Maugrim vs. Fenris thing is just cosmetic.]
BBC Mr. Beaver is also obviously a man in a fur suit. I note that both versions largely cut out the 'follow the robin' sequence, though Disney has them notice a bird outside Mr. Tumnus's house, and the BBC keeps a bit of Edmund and Peter's conversation where Edmund tries to cast doubt on Mr. Tumnus's version of events in Narnia. Since the conversation is more important than the bird, I like the BBC take better, stupid fur suits notwithstanding. Nonetheless, Disney does a nice bit of staging during this meeting -- Lucy grabs Susan's arm, Susan grabs Peter's shoulder, and Peter grabs Susan's hand in return... while Edmund stands alone and slightly behind them. It makes the family dynamics and allegiances very clear.
Another point in the BBC's favor: they don't turn Mr. Beaver into a cheap, annoying, tacky, loud caricature of himself. (I cannot stand the Disney version of Mr. Beaver.) The giant fur suit is still tacky, but what the heck, you get used to it after a while. I never managed to get used to the Disney version's mischaracterization. Furthermore, the BBC version shows the Pevensies' reaction to hearing Aslan's name for the first time, which is an interesting trick to pull off in a visual medium.
I still want to know how Mr. Beaver dammed a frozen river, but I suspect this is one of those things you're not supposed to think about too hard. *grin*
This is perhaps the moment to mention that I believe much more in Disney's Narnia as a magical, otherworldly country, and as a country in the grip of an enchanted winter. Their scenery is far more convincing. The BBC version is far too much like everyday English countryside -- the forest and falling snow just aren't thick enough, and the snow doesn't consistently stick to the ground and build up. This is a budget issue, of course, so I don't hold it against the BBC, but it does mean Disney doesn't have to work quite as hard to make me suspend my disbelief.
Oddly, the CGI animals don't help in that respect. They're not quite smooth enough to be natural, which leaves them almost as distracting as the BBC's giant fur suits. You see, I don't expect giant fur suits to be realistic, so they're relatively easy to mentally edit around. Disney's CGI, on the other hand, is just close enough to realism that it hits a sort of Uncanny Valley. Anyway, when you're facing two slightly 'wrong' physical presentations of characters, what sells the performance is characterization, and there, so far, the BBC is winning on the Talking Animal front. (Have I mentioned that I cannot stand the Disney version of Mr. Beaver?)
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Huh. All that, and I don't think I'm even halfway through the story. Anyway, more to come at some point.
link to part 2
