quote:Originally posted by Bevis: I don't think it mattered hugely in terms of the plot but it did make the whole Aslan coming back to life thing a little... well, maybe not confusing but not terribly clear. OK so it's a Christian allegory but in the books at least you get an explanation of the spell on the table and stuff which I thought got short thrift in the film.
I don't get all the talk of Christian allegory, Aslan as a metaphorical Jesus. We read comic books, characters come back to life constantly. When I was in college, I use to watch Days of Our Lives, and I don't know how many times characters have returned from the dead there. But in a magical land of talking animals...?
I get the "son of Adam" bit does suggest some form of Judeo-Christian bias, and Lewis' other writings have a certain leaning. Because Aslan dies and is reborn mysteriously, he's Jesus?
It's not my intention to rile anyone up. Folks are welcome to read and enjoy the books and take what they want from it. This particular topic has surfaced almost everytime Narnia is discussed and I've yet to see a well documented arguement for the arguement.
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Lewis, of course, denied that Narnia was a Christian allegory. But he also was said to use a strict definition of the word allegory:
quote:Is Narnia an allegory?
All readers of Narnia must realise that Aslan the Lion, who is the Son of the Great Emperor Across the Sea, who breaks the power of the White Witch by his death and resurrection - and who, as C.S. Lewis pointed out to one of his young readers 'arrived at the same time as Father Christmas' - is a picture of Jesus Christ. Does it follow that the books as a whole are allegories?
C.S. Lewis used a very strict definition of the word 'allegory' - after all, one of his most important academic books was a study of this subject. He wrote to some Maryland fifth graders in 1954:
'I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia'; I said 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen'.
'The whole series' wrote Lewis in another letter 'works out like this:
The Magician's Nephew tells the Creation and how evil entered Narnia,
The Lion etc. - the Crucifixion and Resurrection,
Prince Caspian - restoration of the true religion after a corruption,
The Horse and His Boy - the calling and conversion of the heathen,
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep),
The Silver Chair - the continuing war against the powers of darkness,
The Last Battle - the coming of Antichrist (the ape). The end of the world and the last judgement.'
So, in today's loose terminology the books can probably be said to be 'allegorical'. If you want to use that term, then a number of characters might be said to be allegories:
The White Witch represents the Devil, as does Tash.
Peter represents the valiant and wise Christian.
Reepicheep is the very soul of chivalry with both its virtues and its failings.
'Edmund,' wrote Lewis 'Is, like Judas, a traitor and a sneak. But unlike Judas he repents and is forgiven (as Judas no doubt would have been if he'd repented).'
Father Christmas - who gives gifts to Aslan's followers to help them fight the powers of darkness - may be a picture of the Holy Spirit.
posted
TLTWATW isn't quite as much a Christian allegory (accepting that Lewis didn't like the word 'allegory') but a lot of the other Narnia books are very much so (Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle especially). The Christian message in TLTWATW is... well, not quite muted, but it's not as extreme. However it's still there and in a way an important part of teh story. Aslan is to a certain extent a Jesus figure (because of the whole resurection thing) but in fact is much more of a Jaweh figure, certainly when you read the books (it's slightly downplayed in the film). I don't think the message is so strong that you can't read the books and enjoy them without being Christian, but it's certainly there. Chris did wonder whether the bit with Aslan walking acrioss the sand and the pointed shot of his footprints was a reference to the poem about the footprints in the sand, but if it is that's the only obvious Christian image in the film (ignoring the whole 'son of Adam' bit). Quite how far Lewis intended to take that allegory is hard to say, it could be something as extreme as the Christian children (the only 'real' people in the books) saving the pagan lands with the help of the almighty king, or it could just be an adventure story influenced by Lewis' own religious beliefs. Either way though the message is there (as it is in a lot of other literature to be fair) but it's easy to see why Christian groups are so eagerly looking to the film as a way of getting people interested in the Christian faith.
Like I say though all that being said doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the books and the film as something non-religious. I think the strength of both is that they're well written enough that you can enjoy them just a story or as something deeper depending on your world view.
-------------------- Truth and Justice shall Prevail! (Unless Tamper Lad Screws it up...)
From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I thought the movie was terrific, and I wasn't going in expecting that I would like it so much.
I understand that a lot of people characterize it as "LOTR-lite" -- and the movie does invite those comparisons, to some degree, with some of the epic shots of the kids marching over snowy crevasses -- but all in all I thought it did well on its own. It wasn't meant to be, nor did it really attempt to be, truly epic. It was a story about four kids caught up in something larger than themselves, and it had a few appropriately epic elements here and there.
I thought that the parts they added to flesh out the book worked well -- the Blitz and other parts at the beginning did a good job of giving us a peek at Edmund's personality and the interaction among the kids generally. And I thought they did a good job of setting up Susan for what happens to her in The Last Battle. She's the one who says "Impossible!" when they arrive in Narnia, which is echoed later in the movie by the White Witch at Aslan's return...
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out this really good essay about the issue of Christian "allegory" in the Chronicles of Narnia. The author seems to have a good perspective on the whole matter and cites some pretty solid references.
I finally saw LWW yesterday. It was...okay. I find it interesting that all of the concerns I raised above were allayed, only to be replaced by a slew of new ones. As with LotR, I was generally less bothered by what they left out than by what they added in. I didn't like how they changed the flight from the wolves. I didn't believe that the wolves wouldn't just kill them without conversation. I didn't like that they took out the almost-execution of Edmund. His rescue by the loyal Narnians at the point of death makes his predicament much more immediate in the book. I didn't like the attention paid to the battle. It went on too long and took too much time away from the more important scene of Aslan rescuing the captives at the witch's castle. I was sorry that we didn't get the moment of Aslan needing to remind Lucy of her responsibility to the other wounded; it adds a bit of humanity to Lucy's character, showing that she isn't always so bloody perfect. I wished that the Narnians hadn't been so overwhelmingly humanoid. The sense I gained from the movie was that most of the inhabitants of Narnia are fauns and centaurs, along with a few talking animals; I really wanted a feeling of a large population of animals, accented by a few mythological creatures. And I was terribly unhappy that they took out the parallel concepts of "Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time" and "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time," replacing them with simply "Deep Magic." How utterly boring.
Still, there were things I did like. The prologue in London goes a long way toward establishing the childrens' situation and relationships with each other. When Lewis wrote the book, British audiences wouldn't need to be told what the wartime situation was like; modern American audiences need the leg up and the movie accomplished it well. I also loved Tilda Swinton's portrayal of the White Witch. Spot on, as our British cousins might say. Many moments from the book really leapt out in a nice way: the first shot of the children in the coats; the children sitting around in the Professor's house. The dwarves were also well done; better than LotR actually. I really enjoyed Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Professor, especially the short epilogue scene in during the credits. He was exactly the kind of understanding adult that the character should be. I also liked that they added a bit more of a hint that the Professor had himself been to Narnia.
Overall, between the good and bad choices, I felt the movie lacked a certain soul. It was like a rock skipping over the surface of the novel, hitting moments from the story without really immersing itself until the very end. I enjoyed it, but I hope that for Prince Caspian they get a little closer to the real heart of the stories.
From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having never read the books (I tried; his style didn't draw me in) I myself was worried the Christian subtext would be too annoying. It wasn't.
It was a fun movie; well-done. I didn't appreciate wolves being bad-guys; I think we have all seen enough undeserved treatment on that account. But I'm not going to hold a grudge against the flick for it.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would've been nice to see some wolves (and Minotaurs and polar bears) on Aslan's side- and cheetahs and centaurs on the White Witch's.
Other than that, I loved the movie. It's been YEARS since I've read the book, so whatever was left out or skimmed over wasn't at the forefront of my brain.
I thought Tilda Swinton was perfect. Fierce, coldly seductive, owning the costume and the character.
I found the ice palace set quite impressive- and the winter scenery. I even liked Father Christmas- which I remembered as a bit out of place when I read the book.
I thought the casting of the children was terrific. They all looked and acted the way I remembered the characters in the book. I really liked the kids portraying Peter and Lucy.
LOVED the fox! Rupert Everett!! Cool. My aunt gave me this book when I was tennish-- telling me that there was a character in it from which my name comes from. She meant the fox. Since then, I've loved the animal.
From: Knoxville, TN | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
