I believe people have posted on Chronicles of Narnia elsewhere, but I can’t find it, so I’m starting a new thread. I saw this tonight—again, like Kong, it was entertaining enough, but it made me wonder if C.S. Lewis is as much of an English dimwit as this film would indicate. is the film fairly true to its source? It seems like C.S. couldn’t make up his mind whether the English or Christ is more powerful or whether the King of Kings really trumps earthly royalty after all–since the result of saviour Aslan’s triumph is the coronation of not merely one royal power, but four. And is there anything those good English kids can’t do after some toast and tea? And wasn’t the sacrifice of Christ the result of a series of events put in motion by God himself, rather than a self-willed action? And where is the moment of doubt, the “Why have you forsaken me?” The whole thing is so bloodless and painless that Christianity comes off like some kind of ludicrous wish-fulfillment. The completely colorless Peter becomes the King Arthur figure–why? I guess merely because he’s the oldest male. If Lewis’ politics were any more conservative and royalist, the whole thing might be embraced by the National Front. It’s nice that the Beavers and the fauns know their place–to place eagerly the supernaturally-blessed crowns on the divinely-inspired Kings and Queens. In what century was this claptrap conceived? Perhaps it is the latent Protestant in me that protests at a religious view so smugly self-satisfied that Church and State are seamlessly integrated with the blessings given right down to the last stone of “nature.” Was Lewis’ series of books sponsored by the Anglican Church? T.S. Eliot is hard to take but he’s like a raving radical compared to this guy. Continue reading Bad Allegories….