Thoughts on a Second Viewing After 45 Years
Okay, I promised to give the 1979 animated version of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe another chance and I've just now finished watching it for the second and likely last time this lifetime. It came as a crushing blow to those of us who had read and loved the book when it first aired on CBS on April 1 and 2, 1979. I clearly remember discussing it with fellow high school students (giving away my age) before and after so must have watched it but don't seem to have mentioned it in my diary. Rather than simply dismissing it as awful (which I think we all pretty much did at the time) I will go over it point by point.
Adaptation: Actually pretty darn good! Faithful to the story, probably moreso than the theatrical film, and faster paced than the BBC adaptation, bringing in the basics within a reasonable movie length. Some things were changed, such as the children were merely "visiting" the Professor, not sent to his house to escape WWII bombings, and their clothing seemed more modern than 1940s and more in keeping with the time the cartoon was made. Could have been almost anytime America. There were some omissions, such as Father Christmas giving the gifts, which in this version are given by Aslan to save time and save animating Father Christmas, and the giant, which was well done in the BBC adaptation, was left out. In fairness, this was also the first ever filmed adaptation of any Narnia work, so far as I know. (Wrong! Apparently there was a 1967 TV production.)
Characters: The Professor and Aslan had basically British accents, and Edmund somewhat British. All the others were American. Aside from the accents, voice work was very good except I didn't agree with the choice for Peter. Peter should be no older than 12, and if this kid was 16 he was a rather mature 16--he sounded if anything older than the kid in the movie, who was too old. The animation was fairly awful and didn't help with the characters. Adaptation was partly done by Bill Melendez, who did the Charlie Brown Peanuts specials, who also directed and whose production company was involved. For comparison, the animation was possibly a bit better than the Peanuts specials though not by much, and not as good as Frosty the Snowman. Not taking the awful animation into account, how they were drawn:
Professor: Pretty good
Peter: All right
Susan and Lucy: This is the only version which got them right! They were pretty much by the book. Not so in the movie and don't get me started on the BBC Lucy!
Edmund: Didn't agree. Either movie Edmund was good, except for BBC being a little too old and movie much too old, but I would never picture Edmund with glasses! Just totally wrong.
Tumnus: Absolutely awful. His skin changes from bright red to magenta from scene to scene, and green hair. What the HECK were they thinking?
Beavers: Well, there's only so much you can do with beavers. Much less clunky than the BBC version.
White Witch: Pretty good. Interesting little note on the pronunciation of her name. I always said Jay-dis. The British actors insist on saying Jah-dis, which is not nearly as scary. I fully expected the American actor playing Peter to say Jay-dis, but he said Jah-dis. Am I just plain wrong? Jay-dis is scarier!
Aslan's creatures: Actually better than the BBC version, in which the animation was just awful.
Witch's creatures: No good, cartoonish and not scary at all. They used the name Fenris Ulf rather than Maugrim for the chief wolf.
Aslan: Disappointing. Any number of better animated lions exist. All the animation was bad, but they could have done better and should have for such a vital character.
More watchable than I gave it credit for and I would recommend it to Narnia completists, to watch once. But probably just once.