Elizabeth Culmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
edenfalling) wrote2009-10-12 02:29 am
edenfalling) wrote2009-10-12 02:29 am
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Disney vs. BBC, part 5
This is part 5 of a rambling compare-and-contrast on the BBC miniseries and Disney feature film versions of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, with extensive reference to the book (since the book is my only true canon). As of yet, I have no preference for one filmization 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
-----
The aftermath:
The BBC's battle staging also makes no emotional sense. Lucy and the others are leaping about cheering instead of rushing to Edmund's side, even though the place where he fell is clearly visible from the place where they arrived on the scene, and they even saw Peter bending down to check on him just after he was stabbed. But the bit where Aslan reminds Lucy about her cordial, and then rebukes her for wanting to stay with Edmund when so many others are wounded, is nicely done, and there's a good silent montage of Lucy healing another soldier, Aslan de-stoning a faun (or satyr? honestly, I can't always tell the difference), and someone feeding an animated pegasus, to show the aftermath by representative example.
The BBC reproduces most of Lucy and Susan's conversation about whether Edmund knows what Aslan did for him, and whether he should be told. And then they insert a couple continuity scenes, where Edmund asks what happened to the Witch, and Aslan says they'll go to Cair Paravel the next day.
Meanwhile, Disney has Susan and Lucy rush to Peter's side, hug him, and then immediately ask where Edmund is. Peter's face tells the story; they all look horrified and rush off as fast as possible. Jadis's sledge driver is creeping up to attack Edmund with an axe; Susan shoots him, probably fatally (the arrow looks as if it hits him on the left side of his chest, and he topples right over). Lucy does her thing with the cordial, and all three siblings wait while Edmund stills... and then coughs and opens his eyes. He looks puzzled at being surrounded by worried faces; Peter, obviously on the ragged verge of tears, promptly gathers him into a relieved hug. "When are you going to learn to do as you're told?" he asks, echoing the start of the movie, but he's finally learned to express concern instead of anger, and Edmund has finally learned to see beyond Peter's words to to the love and fear driving his actions. Yay!
Disney Edmund notices Aslan walk up and restore a nearby statue to life, after which Lucy picks up her cordial thoughtfully, smiles at Aslan, and hurries off to heal the rest of the wounded. Then we pan up over the stony battlefield, the grey stone morphs into dark, sun-streaked water, and mermaids swim into view; we have skipped right over the rest of the aftermath to the coronation.
I find it interesting that Disney Aslan allows the drawn-out reunion scene instead of reminding Lucy to consider others beyond her immediate family. It's moving, it's beautifully shot and acted, it's a nice way to wrap up Peter and Edmund's joint emotional arc... and I cannot shake the feeling that Aslan would not have stood for it. I suppose he does interrupt, in a way -- by restoring the statue, he tacitly reminds the Pevensies that there's a whole army still to consider -- but he's much more indirect than I expect. And I still keep coming back to the book, where he sends Lucy off before Edmund so much as coughs and opens his eyes. (Nothing is said about Peter and Susan, though; they may well have stayed for a proper reunion.)
-----
The coronation:
The BBC opens this section by showing everyone marching along the road to Cair Paravel. It's a pretty continuity marker, but it's not strictly necessary. Also, their version of Cair Paravel is fairly small and run-down in appearance. It's pretty, but it doesn't feel like a magical castle of prophecy. It feels more like an old castle that simply got lucky and didn't suffer much ice damage during the century of the Witch's rule.
Disney pans up from the ocean, over cliffs, to show a whole castle complex. Their Cair Paravel is massive and shining; it feels bright with new potential, which reinforces the idea that the Pevensies' reign will be a new beginning for Narnia.
The BBC has the Pevensies approach their thrones in a sort of procession, complete with random falling flower petals; apparently Cair Paravel is filled with living trees and vines. They are wearing white shifts (the girls) and white tunics (the boys), covered by very tacky and awkward looking gold cloaks that mostly serve to drown them and remind viewers how ridiculously young they are. Their order from left to right (as seen from the audience facing them) is Peter-Susan-Edmund-Lucy. I also have to say the thrones look kind of fake and/or hastily assembled, not four magical thrones of prophecy. (I seem to keep coming back to that, don't I? Ah well, budgetary limitations!) It's a remarkably quiet ceremony at first. Then four crowns float down from beams of sunlight, which is honestly kind of tacky, especially since the crowns are the puffy cloth-filled kind that I think make the most beautiful person in the world look like a doofus. Then we get the cheering.
Disney opens with centaurs blowing trumpets, after which the Pevensies and Aslan process under an aisle of raised swords. Disney springs for proper costumes. Each Pevensie has a different colored cloak and an individualized outfit: if you care, Peter's cloak is gold, Edmund's silver, Susan's dark blue-green, and Lucy's red. Their throne order, from left to right, is Edmund-Peter-Susan-Lucy. Aslan then proclaims them kings and queens, from youngest to oldest, associating each with a direction (east-west-south-north, in order), and giving their canonical epithets at the same time. That seems a bit early to me; I was under the impression that the epithets were something they earned over time. (Also, within the context of this movie, calling Susan 'the Gentle' makes no damn sense. *sigh*)
Disney's crowns, which are brought forward by the Beavers and handed out by Mr. Tumnus, are metallic circlets, more delicate for the girls and more solid for the boys, but all decorated with flowers or leaves. That's the authentic Narnian style described in The Magician's Nephew, which pleases me. Random point of interest: Peter and Susan wear gold crowns, while Edmund and Lucy wear silver ones. I suppose they're coded by age. If I were coding by personality, I'd swap Lucy and Susan's colors; Lucy's a more vibrant, sunny type, while Susan is more reserved.
Oh! Oh! The cat on which Disney Edmund drew spectacles (which seems to have been a cougar or a lioness, not a lion), is at the coronation still with the spectacles. *dies laughing* Then we cut to Aslan walking on the beach as the sun sinks behind the cliffs. Lucy watches him, sadly, and Mr. Tumnus takes Mr. Beaver's lines and reassures her. Then he fishes out the handkerchief she gave him at the start of the film, and hands it back, repeating her line about, "You need it more than I do." Lucy turns to look at the sun (which, in a moment of massive geographic fail, is setting over the eastern ocean *headdesk*), and we segue into the adult Pevensies riding through the woods.
The BBC follows the coronation with a scene that properly should have occurred the day before; the Pevensies take off their shoes and go play in the ocean. Because this is being staged after the coronation, they are splashing around with their puffy crowns on. It's unintentionally hilarious. Meanwhile, Aslan stands on the bluff at the base of the castle wall, and then vanishes, after which Mr. Beaver gives his little lecture about Aslan coming and going and not being a tame lion. I suppose the reason for staging things this way instead of showing a great banquet was basically to reduce the need for extras and a banquet hall. Which is fair enough.
-----
The final return to England:
The BBC segues into Tumnus writing a chronicle of the Pevensies' reign, using some of Lewis's own narration. That fades into the kings and queens riding along a track through the woods as Tumnus gives them their official titles of Magnificent, Gentle, Just, and Valiant. I am okay with their costumes in general, but their ride is awfully sedate for a group meant to be out hunting. Then again, there has been no mention of the White Stag yet. But that does not excuse Lucy riding sidesaddle! Susan might, but Lucy does not; Lucy rides to battles. (Also, Susan looks younger than Lucy, which is just odd.)
The BBC does not reproduce any conversation to explain what the Pevensies are doing in the wood, nor Edmund and Susan's misgivings about the lamppost, nor why they press on despite those misgivings. Instead, the monarchs are suddenly walking back through the wardrobe with no explanation whatsoever. I cannot understand that, especially when I consider all the time the BBC has used for random shots of flowers. This is script fail of the highest degree.
Disney, on the other hand, dispenses with the history of the Pevensies' reign and segues directly to them through the woods in clear pursuit of a white stag. (Disney also dispenses with the overblown language Lewis uses in this scene.) Edmund slows, and we discover he's riding the same horse (Philip) that he rode in the battle against the Witch. His siblings come back to see what's keeping him, a bit of dialogue establishes which woman is Susan and which is Lucy, and then Peter swings off his horse, having spotted the lamppost. The Pevensies agree that it seems familiar, as if from a dream -- they've forgotten England -- but then Lucy says, "Spare Oom!" and charges off into the underbrush. Susan mutters, "Not again," and they all charge after her (abandoning their poor horses... but presumably Philip will herd the dumb beasts back to the castle and give a report on what's transpired).
Disney shows the initial transition from forest to coats, and the Pevensies are clearly adults at that point, but then we lose sight of them amidst the clothing, we hear them bickering about who's standing on whose feet, and they fall out the wardrobe door as children again, back in their old clothes. They are clearly bewildered, but before they have much chance to react, the door opens and the Professor walks in. (Once again, I can barely believe in him as a human being, let alone as Digory Kirke.) "What were you all doing in the wardrobe?" he asks. The Pevensies look at each other and kind of grin, and Peter says, "You wouldn't believe us if we told you, sir." The Professor tosses the cricket ball to Peter (thus implying that either no time or very little time has passed) and says, with a conspiratorial smile, "Try me." Cue end credits.
The BBC kids come out in better order; they are standing upright. They seem, at first, massively disconcerted -- Peter strokes his bare chin, turns over his smaller hand -- but then Mrs. Macready's voice distracts them and their childhood memories and personalities seem to rush back all of a piece. (Except Edmund is still reformed, of course.) Peter points out, in astonishment, that no time at all has passed since they went to Narnia...
Which segues seamlessly into the four siblings standing in the Professor's office explaining why the four coats are gone. (And the galoshes -- Susan remembers the boots again! Hurrah for continuity!) Once again, BBC Professor Kirke knocks the scene out of the park. I believe him as both a quirky, crabby old man and a grown-up version of Digory. He finishes his lecture by bending to his notebook and ignoring the Pevensies until they turn to leave, at which point he looks up and smiles after them, sort of proudly, sort of conspiratorially. I am convinced he didn't wait twenty minutes before phoning Polly and gleefully telling her the whole story.
-----
A short note on music:
I love the BBC credit music to bits. Their visuals didn't stick much from when I saw it around 1991, but that music? Oh, yes. To me, that is the sound of Narnia, always and forever. This is not to say that the Disney credit and theme music is in any way bad or inappropriate. It's just that the BBC already filled the 'Narnia' slot in my mental music library. No other music need apply.
Both versions do quite well with incidental background music during various scenes. I tend not to notice such music on a conscious level, so I can't say anything more specific than, "It worked to enhance the moods of the scenes," and, "None of it jarred me out of the story," which I think is all one can really ask for. *grin*
-----
Summing up:
If I were watching these productions without the book as a frame of reference, I think I'd prefer the Disney version. It hangs together better as a creation in its own right. It has running emotional arcs that resolve satisfactorily, most notably Edmund's redemption, and Peter and Edmund's reconciliation. It brings back various lines in altered form (Peter to Edmund: "Why can't you just do as you're told?" which means something quite different at the start of the story from what it means at the end; or Lucy and Tumnus trading comfort and the handkerchief), to tie the end of the story back to the beginning. Disney's film is also a more coherent visual experience, partly because the budget was bigger, and partly because sfx technology improved between 1989 and 2005. And, even though I do not like all of Disney's characterization choices, all the actors and voice actors performed competently to brilliantly.
But. I do have the book as a frame of reference, and while Disney's film works on its own, I cannot help comparing it to the book and constantly saying, "But that's not what really happened! Yes, it's nice and all, but it's not the truth." The BBC version is not always faithful either, but when they depart from Lewis's text, it's generally because of budgetary constraints (there were various scenes they literally could not stage, due to a lack of sufficient sfx technology), or to expand on points that are implicit in the story though not explicitly described in the text. And within the limitations of their budget and technology, the BBC does some things quite well, like Jadis's costumes and the petrifaction effect. They also win for creating versions of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver that don't make me want to claw my eyes out over mischaracterization.
Also, I would say that the BBC version of Narnia is likely to be much less distressing to small children. It still conveys a sense of darkness and menace, and of consequences, without being too violent. Disney's version is rated PG, but I am honestly astonished that it squeaked through under PG-13; it's extremely violent for a family movie, and the violence is fairly realistic, though oddly bloodless in most cases.
While Disney's film is a better technical product in many ways, I cannot give it my wholehearted support. It takes too many liberties with the book, and too many of them serve no real purpose. (Some, like the choice of battleground, are so stupid I want to go find the people involved and punch them repeatedly in the face. *headdesk*) I also cannot give the BBC miniseries my wholehearted support, because of bad sfx choices, because of bad acting (i.e., Kellerman *snarl*), because of general rambling, and because of utter ineptness at staging the occasional necessary violent scenes.
I wish I could mix and match elements from each production to create a more perfect film visualization of Lewis's world and story, but alas, that's impossible.
Fortunately, neither production can overwrite the book.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
And that is that! \o/
(Unless, of course, you want to read some thoughts on Prince Caspian, written as real-time stream of reactions while I watched the Disney filmization. I have not watched the BBC version of that story, though I may get around to it someday, once Disney's version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is released, since apparently the BBC combined those two books.)
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
-----
The aftermath:
The BBC's battle staging also makes no emotional sense. Lucy and the others are leaping about cheering instead of rushing to Edmund's side, even though the place where he fell is clearly visible from the place where they arrived on the scene, and they even saw Peter bending down to check on him just after he was stabbed. But the bit where Aslan reminds Lucy about her cordial, and then rebukes her for wanting to stay with Edmund when so many others are wounded, is nicely done, and there's a good silent montage of Lucy healing another soldier, Aslan de-stoning a faun (or satyr? honestly, I can't always tell the difference), and someone feeding an animated pegasus, to show the aftermath by representative example.
The BBC reproduces most of Lucy and Susan's conversation about whether Edmund knows what Aslan did for him, and whether he should be told. And then they insert a couple continuity scenes, where Edmund asks what happened to the Witch, and Aslan says they'll go to Cair Paravel the next day.
Meanwhile, Disney has Susan and Lucy rush to Peter's side, hug him, and then immediately ask where Edmund is. Peter's face tells the story; they all look horrified and rush off as fast as possible. Jadis's sledge driver is creeping up to attack Edmund with an axe; Susan shoots him, probably fatally (the arrow looks as if it hits him on the left side of his chest, and he topples right over). Lucy does her thing with the cordial, and all three siblings wait while Edmund stills... and then coughs and opens his eyes. He looks puzzled at being surrounded by worried faces; Peter, obviously on the ragged verge of tears, promptly gathers him into a relieved hug. "When are you going to learn to do as you're told?" he asks, echoing the start of the movie, but he's finally learned to express concern instead of anger, and Edmund has finally learned to see beyond Peter's words to to the love and fear driving his actions. Yay!
Disney Edmund notices Aslan walk up and restore a nearby statue to life, after which Lucy picks up her cordial thoughtfully, smiles at Aslan, and hurries off to heal the rest of the wounded. Then we pan up over the stony battlefield, the grey stone morphs into dark, sun-streaked water, and mermaids swim into view; we have skipped right over the rest of the aftermath to the coronation.
I find it interesting that Disney Aslan allows the drawn-out reunion scene instead of reminding Lucy to consider others beyond her immediate family. It's moving, it's beautifully shot and acted, it's a nice way to wrap up Peter and Edmund's joint emotional arc... and I cannot shake the feeling that Aslan would not have stood for it. I suppose he does interrupt, in a way -- by restoring the statue, he tacitly reminds the Pevensies that there's a whole army still to consider -- but he's much more indirect than I expect. And I still keep coming back to the book, where he sends Lucy off before Edmund so much as coughs and opens his eyes. (Nothing is said about Peter and Susan, though; they may well have stayed for a proper reunion.)
-----
The coronation:
The BBC opens this section by showing everyone marching along the road to Cair Paravel. It's a pretty continuity marker, but it's not strictly necessary. Also, their version of Cair Paravel is fairly small and run-down in appearance. It's pretty, but it doesn't feel like a magical castle of prophecy. It feels more like an old castle that simply got lucky and didn't suffer much ice damage during the century of the Witch's rule.
Disney pans up from the ocean, over cliffs, to show a whole castle complex. Their Cair Paravel is massive and shining; it feels bright with new potential, which reinforces the idea that the Pevensies' reign will be a new beginning for Narnia.
The BBC has the Pevensies approach their thrones in a sort of procession, complete with random falling flower petals; apparently Cair Paravel is filled with living trees and vines. They are wearing white shifts (the girls) and white tunics (the boys), covered by very tacky and awkward looking gold cloaks that mostly serve to drown them and remind viewers how ridiculously young they are. Their order from left to right (as seen from the audience facing them) is Peter-Susan-Edmund-Lucy. I also have to say the thrones look kind of fake and/or hastily assembled, not four magical thrones of prophecy. (I seem to keep coming back to that, don't I? Ah well, budgetary limitations!) It's a remarkably quiet ceremony at first. Then four crowns float down from beams of sunlight, which is honestly kind of tacky, especially since the crowns are the puffy cloth-filled kind that I think make the most beautiful person in the world look like a doofus. Then we get the cheering.
Disney opens with centaurs blowing trumpets, after which the Pevensies and Aslan process under an aisle of raised swords. Disney springs for proper costumes. Each Pevensie has a different colored cloak and an individualized outfit: if you care, Peter's cloak is gold, Edmund's silver, Susan's dark blue-green, and Lucy's red. Their throne order, from left to right, is Edmund-Peter-Susan-Lucy. Aslan then proclaims them kings and queens, from youngest to oldest, associating each with a direction (east-west-south-north, in order), and giving their canonical epithets at the same time. That seems a bit early to me; I was under the impression that the epithets were something they earned over time. (Also, within the context of this movie, calling Susan 'the Gentle' makes no damn sense. *sigh*)
Disney's crowns, which are brought forward by the Beavers and handed out by Mr. Tumnus, are metallic circlets, more delicate for the girls and more solid for the boys, but all decorated with flowers or leaves. That's the authentic Narnian style described in The Magician's Nephew, which pleases me. Random point of interest: Peter and Susan wear gold crowns, while Edmund and Lucy wear silver ones. I suppose they're coded by age. If I were coding by personality, I'd swap Lucy and Susan's colors; Lucy's a more vibrant, sunny type, while Susan is more reserved.
Oh! Oh! The cat on which Disney Edmund drew spectacles (which seems to have been a cougar or a lioness, not a lion), is at the coronation still with the spectacles. *dies laughing* Then we cut to Aslan walking on the beach as the sun sinks behind the cliffs. Lucy watches him, sadly, and Mr. Tumnus takes Mr. Beaver's lines and reassures her. Then he fishes out the handkerchief she gave him at the start of the film, and hands it back, repeating her line about, "You need it more than I do." Lucy turns to look at the sun (which, in a moment of massive geographic fail, is setting over the eastern ocean *headdesk*), and we segue into the adult Pevensies riding through the woods.
The BBC follows the coronation with a scene that properly should have occurred the day before; the Pevensies take off their shoes and go play in the ocean. Because this is being staged after the coronation, they are splashing around with their puffy crowns on. It's unintentionally hilarious. Meanwhile, Aslan stands on the bluff at the base of the castle wall, and then vanishes, after which Mr. Beaver gives his little lecture about Aslan coming and going and not being a tame lion. I suppose the reason for staging things this way instead of showing a great banquet was basically to reduce the need for extras and a banquet hall. Which is fair enough.
-----
The final return to England:
The BBC segues into Tumnus writing a chronicle of the Pevensies' reign, using some of Lewis's own narration. That fades into the kings and queens riding along a track through the woods as Tumnus gives them their official titles of Magnificent, Gentle, Just, and Valiant. I am okay with their costumes in general, but their ride is awfully sedate for a group meant to be out hunting. Then again, there has been no mention of the White Stag yet. But that does not excuse Lucy riding sidesaddle! Susan might, but Lucy does not; Lucy rides to battles. (Also, Susan looks younger than Lucy, which is just odd.)
The BBC does not reproduce any conversation to explain what the Pevensies are doing in the wood, nor Edmund and Susan's misgivings about the lamppost, nor why they press on despite those misgivings. Instead, the monarchs are suddenly walking back through the wardrobe with no explanation whatsoever. I cannot understand that, especially when I consider all the time the BBC has used for random shots of flowers. This is script fail of the highest degree.
Disney, on the other hand, dispenses with the history of the Pevensies' reign and segues directly to them through the woods in clear pursuit of a white stag. (Disney also dispenses with the overblown language Lewis uses in this scene.) Edmund slows, and we discover he's riding the same horse (Philip) that he rode in the battle against the Witch. His siblings come back to see what's keeping him, a bit of dialogue establishes which woman is Susan and which is Lucy, and then Peter swings off his horse, having spotted the lamppost. The Pevensies agree that it seems familiar, as if from a dream -- they've forgotten England -- but then Lucy says, "Spare Oom!" and charges off into the underbrush. Susan mutters, "Not again," and they all charge after her (abandoning their poor horses... but presumably Philip will herd the dumb beasts back to the castle and give a report on what's transpired).
Disney shows the initial transition from forest to coats, and the Pevensies are clearly adults at that point, but then we lose sight of them amidst the clothing, we hear them bickering about who's standing on whose feet, and they fall out the wardrobe door as children again, back in their old clothes. They are clearly bewildered, but before they have much chance to react, the door opens and the Professor walks in. (Once again, I can barely believe in him as a human being, let alone as Digory Kirke.) "What were you all doing in the wardrobe?" he asks. The Pevensies look at each other and kind of grin, and Peter says, "You wouldn't believe us if we told you, sir." The Professor tosses the cricket ball to Peter (thus implying that either no time or very little time has passed) and says, with a conspiratorial smile, "Try me." Cue end credits.
The BBC kids come out in better order; they are standing upright. They seem, at first, massively disconcerted -- Peter strokes his bare chin, turns over his smaller hand -- but then Mrs. Macready's voice distracts them and their childhood memories and personalities seem to rush back all of a piece. (Except Edmund is still reformed, of course.) Peter points out, in astonishment, that no time at all has passed since they went to Narnia...
Which segues seamlessly into the four siblings standing in the Professor's office explaining why the four coats are gone. (And the galoshes -- Susan remembers the boots again! Hurrah for continuity!) Once again, BBC Professor Kirke knocks the scene out of the park. I believe him as both a quirky, crabby old man and a grown-up version of Digory. He finishes his lecture by bending to his notebook and ignoring the Pevensies until they turn to leave, at which point he looks up and smiles after them, sort of proudly, sort of conspiratorially. I am convinced he didn't wait twenty minutes before phoning Polly and gleefully telling her the whole story.
-----
A short note on music:
I love the BBC credit music to bits. Their visuals didn't stick much from when I saw it around 1991, but that music? Oh, yes. To me, that is the sound of Narnia, always and forever. This is not to say that the Disney credit and theme music is in any way bad or inappropriate. It's just that the BBC already filled the 'Narnia' slot in my mental music library. No other music need apply.
Both versions do quite well with incidental background music during various scenes. I tend not to notice such music on a conscious level, so I can't say anything more specific than, "It worked to enhance the moods of the scenes," and, "None of it jarred me out of the story," which I think is all one can really ask for. *grin*
-----
Summing up:
If I were watching these productions without the book as a frame of reference, I think I'd prefer the Disney version. It hangs together better as a creation in its own right. It has running emotional arcs that resolve satisfactorily, most notably Edmund's redemption, and Peter and Edmund's reconciliation. It brings back various lines in altered form (Peter to Edmund: "Why can't you just do as you're told?" which means something quite different at the start of the story from what it means at the end; or Lucy and Tumnus trading comfort and the handkerchief), to tie the end of the story back to the beginning. Disney's film is also a more coherent visual experience, partly because the budget was bigger, and partly because sfx technology improved between 1989 and 2005. And, even though I do not like all of Disney's characterization choices, all the actors and voice actors performed competently to brilliantly.
But. I do have the book as a frame of reference, and while Disney's film works on its own, I cannot help comparing it to the book and constantly saying, "But that's not what really happened! Yes, it's nice and all, but it's not the truth." The BBC version is not always faithful either, but when they depart from Lewis's text, it's generally because of budgetary constraints (there were various scenes they literally could not stage, due to a lack of sufficient sfx technology), or to expand on points that are implicit in the story though not explicitly described in the text. And within the limitations of their budget and technology, the BBC does some things quite well, like Jadis's costumes and the petrifaction effect. They also win for creating versions of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver that don't make me want to claw my eyes out over mischaracterization.
Also, I would say that the BBC version of Narnia is likely to be much less distressing to small children. It still conveys a sense of darkness and menace, and of consequences, without being too violent. Disney's version is rated PG, but I am honestly astonished that it squeaked through under PG-13; it's extremely violent for a family movie, and the violence is fairly realistic, though oddly bloodless in most cases.
While Disney's film is a better technical product in many ways, I cannot give it my wholehearted support. It takes too many liberties with the book, and too many of them serve no real purpose. (Some, like the choice of battleground, are so stupid I want to go find the people involved and punch them repeatedly in the face. *headdesk*) I also cannot give the BBC miniseries my wholehearted support, because of bad sfx choices, because of bad acting (i.e., Kellerman *snarl*), because of general rambling, and because of utter ineptness at staging the occasional necessary violent scenes.
I wish I could mix and match elements from each production to create a more perfect film visualization of Lewis's world and story, but alas, that's impossible.
Fortunately, neither production can overwrite the book.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
And that is that! \o/
(Unless, of course, you want to read some thoughts on Prince Caspian, written as real-time stream of reactions while I watched the Disney filmization. I have not watched the BBC version of that story, though I may get around to it someday, once Disney's version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is released, since apparently the BBC combined those two books.)
no subject
Amen. I came to similar conclusions on the films - I prefer BBC's story, but Disney was a much better visual presentation, but Leave Thy Canonwhoreness at the Door. However, I think BBC won for Prince Caspian - the Disney version had me twitching WAY too much.
However, Disney's adherence to canon still wins when compared to things like to Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle and The Dark is Rising.
no subject
It's fun to think that a novel written in English became a favorite of a Japanese film maker and that the film was then translated back into English for a new audience to enjoy.
My only gripe was Michael becoming Markl. Poor shot at translation, that. Shows nobody on the translation crew read the novel.
no subject
no subject
While I did actually like the Disney version of PC, aside from the way it tripped my sympathetic embarrssment squick every time Peter opened his mouth, it's so different from canon that from about the second scene on I chucked it into the AU file and evaluated it from that assumption. Based on the few movie-canon Howl's Moving Castle fics I've stumbled across, I think I would have to watch that while doing the same mental "It's an AU, an AU, don't think about canon, just go with it and remember it's an AU," chant I used at the start of Prince Caspian. *sigh*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It was weird to hear the BBC credit music again after over 15 years. You would think I'd have forgotten in completely, but the moment the theme started playing, I sat up in my chair, gasped, and said something to the effect of, "Oh my god, it's Narnia!" On one level, that's extremely silly. Of course it was Narnia; that's why the music was playing! But on another level, it was as if the music reached down into my subconscious mind and said, "Pay attention; this story matters to you." It's a deep emotional jolt, not a logical response at all.
no subject
no subject
I love how you managed to pick up on all the differences between both films and the book as well! I hadn't noticed all the details that you saw but as I read your descriptions, I could somewhat pick up them up as I visualize the films in my head.
Like someone else has said, I agree with a lot of your points. I did find Kellerman's acting to be a bit much but I LOVED Jonathan Scott as Edmund -- it is him that I picture in my head as I read fanfic, though Skandar did an excellent job as well. To me, Edmund is blond both from Pauline Baynes' illustrations and from Scott's portrayal. I loved how his Edmund grew as we went from LWW to PC to Dawn Treader. In the latter, he seemed to embody the noble Edmund I pictured from the books.
BBC Peter was visually more to how I picture him from the books as well, and he seems to fit more into Lewis' descriptions. Please don't get me started on blonde Susan. As for BBC Lucy, I could not stand her at all; not only because she was brunette but she seemed rather obnoxious to me. Georgie Henley is quintessentially Lucy for me, except for the hair color. :-)
And like you, the BBC opening credits is so Narnia for me! There was something about that music that it managed to stay in my head after all these years. There are certain tracks from the Disney soundtrack that do have the magical qualities that conjure up Narnia and I love playing them over and over again, but that BBC track has a stronger association to Narnia to me since it was my first introduction to Narnia on the screen.
I'd like to see a hybrid of the BBC and Disney versions; that would be an ideal. With all the advances in SFX and a bigger budget, I wonder if the BBC could churn out a superior version to the Disney one.
no subject
I started this project mostly because I wanted to check the Disney version against the book, but it occurred to me partway through my initial write-up that I remembered liking the BBC version (and I may actually have seen the BBC version six months or so before I read the books), so I threw it into the mix as well. I think that was useful -- having both versions to hand made it clearer what Disney had changed because of the demands of their medium, and what they had changed for other reasons.
My problem with BBC Peter is nothing to do with him on his own; it is all to do with him in comparison to Edmund. I just cannot see a clear age difference among the BBC Pevensies, and that makes their intra-family dynamics much less comprehensible. I do prefer his characterization to Disney Peter's characterization.
I would love to see the BBC attempt another dramatization of the Chronicles in another decade or so -- I think that would put enough time distance between a new version and the current Disney film series. (Maybe that version could finally have Edmund fight his way through three ogres to break Jadis's wand? I would so like to see that dramatized someday. *wistful*)
Aslan BBC Prop
Firstly 2 large Aslan statues were made of Aslan. The main, which was a moving statue (Where he was controlled from within) and the second a still life version which you will see in my profile picture.
The head of the moving Aslan prop is hanging proudly on the wall of the artist/creators house (Vin Burnham) I do not know what happened as yet to the moving body and the second (The still statue) proudly sits in my lounge. He is massive and stunningly beautiful (Also made by Vin Burnham)
We were lucky enough to buy him from salvage 11 years ago.. If we had not he would have been destroyed. I cannot out into words how beautiful his face is and how realistic his eyes and whole structure is for the year that he was created.
We appeared on the Antiques Road show with him a few months back... it will be televised next month. Anyway long short... I have since been in contact with Vin who has offered to restore him (She was amazed and over joyed that he survived a sheperton film studio fire some years back)
I posted because allot of people have stated that the BBC adaptation was poor. We need to consider where we were with technology in that time. and I can honestly state that being an owner of the series and all films there is no contest on the winner with graphics and visual effects however looking at my Aslan (I can call Aslan mine btw lol) I can say that he is a pure work of art!
Thanks for reading :-)
Re: Aslan BBC Prop
I do think the BBC version was quite well done for its time and level of technology. My complaints, as you notice, are mostly about acting, fight scenes, and questionable script decisions rather than sfx... except for the animated sequences, where I wish they had gone with less technology and simply used fur suits and other costumes. The fur suits fade into the mental background after a while, and since they (and Aslan) are both unquestionably physically present in the same world as the human actors, they blend much better than the 2D animation, which looks as though it wandered over from a Saturday morning cartoon and couldn't figure out how to get home. *wry*