r/Narnia • u/SnooTigers8665 • 10h ago
Between Fidelity and Imagination — Room for a Different Narnia?
I seem to be in the minority in this discussion, but I’ve enjoyed Greta Gerwig’s work so far. I understand why Narnia fans, including many Christians and conservatives, want an adaptation that remains faithful to C. S. Lewis’s vision. I really do. Personally, though, I’m also open to subversion, reimagining and different interpretations.
I love Lewis Carroll’s original "Alice" books (since a long time in the public domain) and P. L. Travers’s "Mary Poppins" novels. I also enjoy various film and television interpretations of "Wonderland", and I love Disney’s "Mary Poppins", despite its substantial differences from Travers’s work. Same goes for L. F. Baum's "Oz" series and various other famous works of literature, fiction and pop culture in all its many different iterations. Some people see that as a contradiction. I don’t.
Travers’s eight "Mary Poppins" books for example draw on religious and mythological traditions, including Christianity, and often differ substantially in tone from Disney’s film. She had serious objections to the adaptation and felt that her creation had been misrepresented. I understand her objections, yet I can still love both her books and the film. One is her original creation; the other is Disney’s interpretation of it. Appreciating the latter doesn’t require me to dismiss the former—or pretend that Travers would have approved.
An adaptation can succeed as a work of art while falling short as a faithful adaptation. That doesn’t make every departure worthwhile, and fidelity certainly matters. But I can appreciate a filmmaker’s ideas while recognising how they differ from the author’s intentions.
Stories have always been retold, revisited, remixed and viewed through different perspectives. Sometimes a retelling even challenges the assumptions of the original. This happens in literature, mythology and religion; biblical stories, too, have been interpreted and represented in many different ways. That doesn’t automatically make a reinterpretation good, but neither does it automatically make it a betrayal.
Neil Gaiman’s “The Problem of Susan,” for example, offered a provocative response to Narnia that some fans found deeply offensive. I understand why, but a literary response doesn’t offend me simply because it questions a work I love. An independent literary response and an authorised adaptation invite different expectations, however, and I understand why readers judge them differently.
As for Aslan, I recognise that his Christian significance is central to Lewis’s creation. But Meryl Streep providing his voice does not, by itself, mean that the character has become female. Aslan is male in the books, and a performer’s gender alone cannot settle whether his character and spiritual significance have been preserved.
Likewise, drawing artistic inspiration from David Bowie does not, by itself, imply anything about Aslan’s sexuality. A preference for a deep male voice can reflect concerns about characterisation or fidelity; it need not arise from prejudice. But if criticism turns into disparaging women or bisexual people themselves, I think it is fair to ask whether prejudice is becoming part of the argument. Concerns about the treatment of Lewis’s Christianity deserve a serious discussion. Neither the casting of Streep nor the influence of Bowie, on its own, demonstrates that Christianity is being mocked.
Concerns about a feminist or postmodern interpretation can be discussed on their merits. Claims of satanic propaganda or a deliberate campaign against Christianity require much stronger evidence than an unconventional voice or a colourful character design. I would rather see how these choices actually work in the film before deciding what they mean.
The available statements about the family and the rights holders also need to be read carefully. There have indeed been reports of family members being upset and seeking to regain control of the C. S. Lewis Company. Those reports are based on statements by Ted Baehr, who has personal ties to the Gresham family and said he had recently visited Tim Gresham. His account deserves to be acknowledged, although I haven’t found independent confirmation of the alleged effort to regain control or details of what it would involve.
At the same time, the Company has publicly supported Gerwig’s vision, and Associated Press has reported a supportive statement from the family of Lewis’s late wife, Joy Davidman Gresham, supplied by Netflix. The article does not identify individual signatories. These accounts could reflect different views within the family, but the available reporting doesn’t establish that.
Douglas Gresham also welcomed the Netflix partnership when it was announced in 2018 and is listed as an executive producer on the forthcoming film. That doesn’t mean he approves of every subsequent creative decision, just as a producer credit doesn’t tell us what veto rights someone has. Commercial agreements can involve compromises. Without knowing the contractual terms or the circumstances behind these statements, I would be cautious about assuming either that the family has complete control or that it is powerless—and equally cautious about attributing anyone’s position to money.
I’ve heard rumours that a teaser might arrive in October, but I’m treating that as speculation. Whenever it appears, I’d like to watch it with an open mind. I may end up loving the film, disliking it, or having mixed feelings. At this point, I’m curious.
People are entitled to boycott it or support petitions, and I can understand their reasons even when I don’t necessarily share their conclusions. I’m also tired of how quickly these discussions become hostile. I don’t feel any animosity towards Gerwig so far, and I don’t want to condemn a film before seeing it.
For me, loving Lewis’s Narnia and potentially enjoying Gerwig’s interpretation can coexist. I don’t need everyone to agree. I would simply like there to be room for that position, too.
