#walden media

[artist-issues]

About Greta Gerwig, Little Women, and Narnia

Greta Gerwig should not be in the Narnia realm at all. As anything.

The Narnia stories are inseparable from Christianity. Greta Gerwig is a Unitarian Universalist. This means she, in her own personal life, doesn’t believe in the saving work of Jesus Christ, which is a core belief of Christianity, and a core theme in Narnia. Everything in the Narnia books hinges on this, from the character motivations to the structure of the fantasy world to the way the magic in Narnia works.

Additionally, the women in Narnia do not adhere to post-modern or even antique feministic values. They are celebrated for their love and tender-heartedness and faith, all of which require self-sacrifice. Aravis of The Horse and His Boy starts out a proud warrior escaping an arranged marriage and ends up a humbled lady of Archenland court marrying the Prince. Susan Pevensie is at her best when she’s tender-hearted and at her worst when she doubts and becomes more concerned about her own identity than others. The school that Eustace and Jill go to in The Silver Chair is derided for it’s feministic views. By contrast, modern feminism is opposed to self-sacrifice, and that is the kind of thing Greta Gerwig demonstrates belief in throughout all of her works.

Am I saying that no person who isn’t a Christian or some type of conservative when it comes to feminism can ever work on Narnia? Absolutely not. I’m not saying that. Lots of people on the Walden Media Narnia movie (the first one), which was great, were not Christians and did not believe in the saving work of Christ. But they stayed faithful to the source material, even if they didn’t believe in the source material themselves. So the story retained it’s autonomy and power.

Greta Gerwig can’t do that. She has already demonstrated that she does not know how to make a story that hangs on to it’s integral source material if she, herself, doesn’t agree with that source material. She can’t be objective, and therefore, she can’t be faithful to what Narnia is.

How do I know that? Little Women.

I don’t care if you liked the Little Women movie by Greta Gerwig. I don’t care if the acting was “amazing” and I don’t care if Timothee Chalamet and Florence Pugh are great in it. I said exactly what I said. Greta Gerwig made a great movie—but she made a terrible adaptation of Little Women.

It was not Little Women. She made changes to Little Women. What changes, you ask? Changes to the specific pieces of the source material that did not reflect Greta Gerwig’s personal views.

That’s the cardinal sin for directors of adaptive stories or remakes—to make changes to the core themes of a classic tale, because you don’t agree with those core themes. That’s called mutilation, not “updates.”

Here’s how she did it in two major ways in Little Women:

She cut out Jo’s humble response to Friedrich’s gentle rebuke of sensation stories, and replaced it with a feministic self-pitying outburst from Joe and s borderline apathetic, cool piece of feminist advice from Friedrich. That takes all the continuity out of it and warps the characters. That scene is so pivotal in the book. It’s Jo, respecting a man who is much older and excellent in character than any other she’s ever known, and feeling immediately humbled by him calling her out. She’d never have responded that way if Laurie called her out. They would have argued. But this scene was supposed to show what Jo needed from a future romantic partner. She needed someone she respected, someone who could be wise and gentle—two things Laurie is not. She needed someone who would help her take her eyes off of worldly success and herself, and onto eternal benefits to mankind, specifically, the effect her stories might have on children. His gentle, respectful, wise love (and the love of characters like Beth) turns Jo from a self-absorbed writer into a selfless mother, like her own Marmee.

But Greta Gerwig never wanted Jo to be a selfless mother. She wanted, and I quote, “Jo’s love to be her work, and her romance with Friedrich secondary.” You know why?

Because that’s what Greta Gerwig believes in. Greta Gerwig’s life is her work. Watch any of her movies, you’ll see the smudge marks of that wholehearted belief all over them. She can’t even be objective when the whole point of a character is to make work secondary, as was certainly the case with the character of Jo March. No. She has to twist up one of the best American heroines ever into an automaton of herself.

The second way she mutilated source material is with Amy and Laurie. In the books, Amy and Laurie grow to love each other out of the character deficiencies that they make up for in one another. At the start of their courtship, Amy is ambitious and Laurie is lazy. Amy wants to marry for advantage, and Laurie wants to make much of his spurned love for Jo by giving up on life. And that’s it.

It’s Amy who first wakes up to feeling something romantic toward Laurie, not Laurie, and Laurie is not the first to make a move on her. Laurie does not know he is in love with Amy until well after she knows she loves him. Then, he does not make the first outward advance on Amy. They both come to the same conclusion together; when they do, she does not resist. In Greta Gerwig’s version, he’s back to falling in love with a girl who’s resisting, because that’s where Timothee Chalamet’s emotional acting shines or whatever.

But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that she adds a feminism speech from Amy, as a reason for her resistance, and she subtracts the scene where Laurie actually proposes. The scene where Laurie proposes, in the book, is so beautiful.

The two characters are in love, they know they’re in love, and neither of them is insecure about it. Amy has learned that she needs a life-partner who knows her and will protect her, like her old home-values did, and not some rich aristocrat or prince. Laurie has learned that he needs a life-partner who can stir him toward change, not through big explosive arguments and hope of conquered affection like Jo, but with gentle love and sheer inspiration, found in Amy.

So, in the most beautiful analogy for courtship that ends in marriage ever, he proposes to her while they’re rowing on a lake. She’s sitting next to him in the middle of the boat, she’s got one oar, he’s got the other, and she says, “How well we pull together, don’t we?” And he says, “so well that I wish we might always be in the same boat. Will you, Amy?” And she says “yes.”

That’s it. No argument. No big, passionate, sentimental explosion like he had with Jo. No wrenched and broken heart-strings. He didn’t have to convince her. She didn’t have to resist. Because entirely without force, and entirely without insecurity, they protected each other’s hearts and came to a conclusion that was based on something so much deeper and more eternal than fleeting passion.

Greta Gerwig cut that out and listened to Meryl Streep and put in another stormy lover’s-quarrel speech from Amy about why she couldn’t be with Laurie because she was in Jo’s shadow, and feminism and marrying for advantage, blah blah blah. It’s terrible. It’s mutilation. It ruins everything the original Little Women had.

it doesn’t matter if she got some of the characters right. It doesn’t matter if she got a lot of the quotes right. It doesn’t matter if all of Act 1 of the movie is mostly-book-accurate. If you change load-bearing themes or character motivations, you show that you can’t be objective and faithful to the source material.

It is fine if Greta Gerwig wants to make a movie about a woman who loves her work more than anything else. It is fine if she wants to make a movie about how women are under-appreciated for their minds and souls, and have characters that go on a journey to prove it. But it is not fine to use someone else’s story to say it. Make your own story, Greta Gerwig.

Oh, you already did? See: Lady Bird? See: Frances Ha? Then come up with something new. Don’t shoehorn your same beliefs into every franchise that is offered to you, like vomiting, then eating the vomit and regurgitating it over and over in new colors. Figure out how to tell someone else’s story in a faithful way, objectively, or else keep your stained hands off until you can clean them up. Especially, keep them off Narnia.

Greta Gerwig makes movies for Greta Gerwig, by Greta Gerwig. She can’t be objective, and for that, she can’t do Narnia. She can’t do it justice, she can’t do it faithfully, because she makes movies for herself, by herself.

[starr-angelofnarnia]

Some Things Should Be Left in the Past

I'm trying to distract myself from the hellscape that is my home country, so let's talk about Narnia.

I see things every so often in my Google suggested articles about the Greta Gerwig adaptation of Narnia and if fans think it's a good or a bad thing, what they'd like to see or not, and if more of the series will be adapted this time around.

Personally, I'm indifferent. I grew up with the live action (I guess from Disney?) film version and it'll always have a special place in my heart. (And Skandar Keynes will forever be my first celebrity crush). Before that, I had no idea there was another adaptation (BBC TV series apparently). So I really don't care either way.

The more interesting question to me is if more of the series will be adapted. The BBC series adapted The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe; Prince Caspian; Voyage of the Dawn Treader; and the Silver Chair. The Disney/Walden Media adaptations covered the same books minus the Silver Chair. As a child, I had a few picture book adaptations of only The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. And I think, if you asked the average person (not a fan of the series) what they know about the series, they would most likely be most familiar with LWW because it tends to stand alone.

Okay where I'm going with this now: I don't think any of the other stories beyond the three that feature the Pevensie's adventures in Narnia will be adapted because the rest of the series just kind of sucks.

Disclaimer: From here on out, there WILL be spoilers for the entire seven book series. I'm analyzing the plot and sharing my opinions on it. If you don't want anything spoiled, you should probably stop here.

Still here? Okay!

LWW will forever be one of my favorite stories. And it's because I loved the story so much I decided to read the entire series. But I found the rest of it (again, outside of the class 3) to be disappointing. And I think there are a few reasons for that.

LWW is the strongest book in the series because it was the first. It was written as a children's fairy tale. The book is even dedicated to C. S. Lewis' goddaughter, Lucy (I believe Lucy Pevensie is named after his goddaughter as well). And the religious connections, the fact that its a Christ-like tale is blatantly obvious. But the story works. The metaphor is clearly there, but you can enjoy it without being religious. Because here are these children who leave behind the tragedies of World War II and find themselves in a magical land, one they quickly become royalty in.

I honestly think from there though, Lewis sank too hard into the religious metaphor to make it believable. As a stand alone book, LWW is the story of Christ. But the more he adds on, the more it becomes apparent that this isn't just a metaphor but some type of parallel universe. From LWW, we get to Prince Caspian where the oldest two are now told they cannot return because they're too old. Then comes Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Lucy and Edmund are finally told the same thing; that they are too old. And at some point, Lucy expresses how much she will miss Aslan if she can't come back.

And now, its no longer a metaphor. Because Aslan tells Edmund and Lucy that he does exist in our world, but he goes by a different name. At this point, Aslan is no longer a metaphor for the Christ story, he expresses that he IS Jesus.

From there, the series takes a weird turn as it attempts to fill in gaps in the established lore. The Silver Chair is still chronological but I honestly don't remember much of it because by this point, I didn't care. I was just trying to earn my AR points. But after SC, the books aren't chronological. The Horse and His Boy takes place in Narnia during the Pevensie monarchy but this book isn't about them--they only appear briefly because of a plot against their country of Narnia. The Magician's Nephew finally establishes how Narnia came to be and sets up where the Wardrobe comes from that will eventually get the Pevensies to Narnia. And then the Last Battle sees the world of Narnia come to an end.

So, problem number 1: Lewis has established the four Pevensies as the protagonists, the heroes of the series. And by book three, we've cut out two and added a new one. While spin offs are lovely and expansions of the world, trying to expand on the same plot with a new cast of characters doesn't tend to sit well. This is why I think the SC isn't memorable. The Pevensies have no place in it; only their cousin who's just been introduced in the book prior. I don't care about the cousin.

Problem number 2: It's great to have an expansion to the lore of a fictional world but the following novels don't really do that. The closest thing to an expansion of the lore of Narnia is THaHB. But again, the Pevensies aren't the center of the plot. Introducing a new character in a familiar world without focusing on the familiar characters takes away from the enjoyment. The Pevensies are RIGHT THERE, but I'm following the story line of some random kid.

Out of the last four books, the most memorable to me is the Magician's Nephew because there is a lot of world jumping. In this book, we get to see the end of one world, the establishment of a new one (Narnia) and we get to see where some of the most memorable elements of LWW come from (the lamp post, the wardrobe, the professor, etc).

The Last Battle? I hate it. It shouldn't exist. In my [not so humble] opinion, LB ruins the series. And I've seen analyses into this that are fascinating takes, (that the train crash could make sense in a historical context; that the problem with Susan is she demonstrates that sometimes remaining alive [alone] is worse than death) but I think this just attempts to fix problems that are unfixable.

There is so much more I could say on the problems with the series but I'll save that for now. I'll conclude this accidental essay by saying there is a reason the book to screen adaptations have occurred as they have. The stories we know and love, those that persist and stand the test of time, do so because they remain relatable, they give us a glimpse into times past, and they have cultural significance. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe does show up on lists of Classic literature (it was required reading for me as a sixth grader). The rest do not. And there is nothing wrong with leaving the other books in a series behind; Lewis' Narnia would not be the first nor the last to have one story persist while the rest fall into a bit of obscurity. And that's okay.

If I can find them, I may go watch the currently available adaptations, both the BBC series and the films (though, again, I'm partial to the films). As Greta Gerwig takes up the mantle of readapting the series, of course LWW will be there and perhaps PC and VotDT as well. I think it would be fun to see the creation of the world we know and love with an adaption of the Magician's Nephew. But I think the rest should stay in the past.

[the-great-empress]

"It's just a family movie from a children's book"

The family movie from a children's book:

Me as a child and now as an adult:

[osamaman]

[elijones94]

🐺 One of my favorite dramatic scenes from “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe” 🦁

[whitewaterpaper]

Vad tror vi @kulturdasset? Du som läst boken?

--

Länkar från kommentarerna:

[warrenwoodhouse]

What Font is used for The Chronicles of Narnia film franchise Logo? (Entertainment) (Narnia Blog) (Fonts Blog) (What Fonts)

Logo ©Walt Disney Motion Pictures, Walden Media, C.S. Lewis Publishing Rights & Warren Woodhouse

Article and Font by @warrenwoodhouse #warrenwoodhouse

The font that is used for the Disney film franchise of The Chronicles of Narnia is called Narnia Font (Also Known As: NarniaBLL) by @warrenwoodhouse as Ænigmate Productions (Bajo la Luna Producciones) for @disneystudios as Walt Disney Motion Pictures and for Walden Media.

[alltrekvarnews]

Russell Crowe, Rami Malek y Michael Shannon se preparan para el drama histórico de James Vanderbilt 'Nuremberg'...

[relaxedstyles]

[sunflower-chai]

finished the silver chair. 5/5 stars oh my goodness it was wonderful. i can’t believe it took me this long to read it. eustace got to see caspian again! aslan and caspian briefly came to our world (and i love how aslan didn’t let jill and eustace return to the misery they were in before. he loved them enough to change things and help them). jill kept her narnian clothes <3

[houseofbrat]

I hate that reality is forcing me to agree with his point.

[wonderfulwest]

SHANE WEST on set of WALDEN (2023) 📸 olive_raine_drops

[movies-tv-more]

Movie Releases for April 16, 2024

[heir-less]

It is actually astounding how bad judges of character royals are.

[galavantmedia74]

Bridge to Terabithia (DVD, 2007) Josh Hutcherson, AnnaSophia Robb, Zooey Deschanel, Robert Patrick @ Galavant Media Emporium

[tarou-marus]

Anyways I need more stories where all the main romance subplots are wlw because last time I stumbled upon that I ended up finding priory and it is quite literally some of the best literature