Lewis versus Narnia movies?

[Paul F. Ford]

[larry gilman]

Thanks to Mr. Ford for clarifying the provenance of the letter from Lewis about his view of Narnia films. That's exactly the kind of detailed testimony we need: just seeing a text pop up on the Internet is, of course, not enough.

By the way, if Lewis was against the idea of a Narnia film, I bet that he would have been taken ill at sight of the marketing spinoffs that inevitably accompany the creation of a major fantasy flick: "Arms of Valor, Ltd. is offering the official sword of Peter from the movie!"---for a mere $236 ( http://www.armsofvalour.com/miva/mercha ... ory_Code=F ). Cornball slogan about Aslan embossed on blade and all. And don't forget your bubble-packed Pevensey action figures from the Disney Store ( http://www.narniaweb.com/news.asp?id=716&dl=7650460)! Who made these nauseating gimcracks, and what country do they live in, and how old are they, and how much did they get paid? Is there an authentic plastic Narnian bucket for me to throw up into? But hey, when the rights get sold to Disney, one doesn't get to pick and choose---the whole lovely dream goes up on the block. It's an entertainment industry, after all.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman

[Larry W.]

[larry gilman]

[Larry W.]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Tuirgin]

[Tuirgin]

I don't have time for a proper post. But Tarkovsky talks about books that are ripe for adaptation for films, and others that simply aren't meant for it. He utterly rejects the notion of film as an illustration of a book -- the film must be its own work: stand on its own, fall on its own. He describes it as rising from the rubble of the book; i.e. it demolishes to rebuild for itself. Most adaptations are little more than illustrations, and lack the soul of which the cinema is truly capable of bearing.

Look at what he did with Stanislaw Lem's Solaris -- Lem hated his movie -- but T's movie stands, flawed though it is -- quite on its own.

I'm not sure that LOTR or Narnia are capable of being rendered in a film bearing the merits inherent in the art of film. And there is certainly a difference between a work being entertaining, and being mere entertainment -- and no, this doesn't suggest that art must be didactic, but that it must be art. FWIW. If anyone is interested in T's statements, contact me and I'll dig up the interview. His book, Sculpting in Time is also excellent.