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.
And does Lewis really do Christianity any favors by literalizing the metaphor of Jesus as Lion? Christ gains power by his metaphorical reach, while Lewis’ metaphors are leaden; since Aslan is just an old lion with a smarmy voice, reeking of calm superiority (thank Liam Neeson for a voice performance as piously stiff as his roles in The Haunting and Batman Begins), why take him seriously as anything but the handmaiden for English children, born to power and privilege? The unflappable English servant who brings the tea tray while the V2 rockets are falling on London. Very good, sir. Do Americans really like this stuff? Or do they read it and see it, out of the same inferiority complex that requires them to view the BBC news as “superior”? If this is the first book of seven, what goes on in the other six? How is this deadly allegory puffed up for so long?
As I said, I found this movie entertaining enough–and it is, as the phrase goes, “well-made”–but only when I firmly squashed the allegorical implications and took it as straight fantasy. But the fantasy elements pale in comparison with, say, Tolkien or Roald Dahl. For allegory, I’ll take the Road Warrior, where the folks convince Mad Max that he is their savior in order to trick him into unwittingly protecting their oil–he’s unself-consciously heroic, baffled and human (which the latent Protestant in me thinks are essential to the characterization of Christ). I’d love to hear from people who know more about Lewis, but it seems to me that he’s best taken as a terminal case of the last gasp of Englishness, where Christ, King and Toast are placed at the same level of power.
After seeing both this movie and King Kong this weekend, I have to ask why the right-wing continues to denounce “Hollywood” when most of its products are so conventional and old-fashioned these days? And not a trace of irony in the re-telling of stories already well-aged in their first manifestations.
Just a quick response to your last question, “why does the right wing continue to denounce Hollywood?” Well, Pat Buchanan announced yesterday, on PBS’s “McLaughlin Group,” that The Chronicles of Narnia and Cinderella Man were his picks in the “Best Idea of 2005” category. He quickly added that he had not yet seen The Chronicles of Narnia.
Don’t ask me why I was watching “The McLaughlin Group.”
I didn’t know Pat Buchanan was an Anglican royalist. But I did know that he’s a dumbass.
was al di meola on?
No, but Paco de Lucia was. And Eleanor Clift was doing the taranto.
This film is no more Christian than ET: The Extraterrestrial. I think the film keeps things relatively secular (though it has been magnificently marketed to capture the Passion crowd and the marketing has paid off as Aslan the Lion has smacked King Kong upside the head, monetarily speaking). Will it reach 300 million domestic? I’m pretty sure the big ape won’t be seeing that number.
How is this film “no more Christian than ET???” It features a crucifixion and then a remarkable resurrection, the concept that “deep magic” has been repressed by a figure who has also banned Christmas, the sacrifice by the figure (who gets “crucified”) in order to redeem the sins of a figure of betrayal (Aslan sacrifices himself to redeem the kid who goes over to the side of the witch), the concept of predestination–that Aslan was going to sacrifice himself and be reborn, though the realization of the prophecy by the 3 kids, etc. etc–Jeff, are you either smoking or not smoking something? not to mention that the Lewis’ series has been regarded as a Christian allegory for some time. If I take the film simply on a secular fantasy level, it’s fine–but I think Aslan’s resurrection in particular is hard to ignore and it’s hard to repress the aspects of the film that make a rather convincing royalist-Anglican ideology. the scenes that lead up to Aslan’s promise, then his suffering and finally his rebirth seem to me to parallel almost exactly the scenes in the New Testament where Pilate washes his hands, Jesus is tormented by the soldier, killed and then resurrected. Am I crazy or does anybody else see this?? It is not only the marketing of the film that appeals to the Passion crowd but the film itself, its concepts of sacrifice, prophecy, magic, devotion,etc. And for all I know ET is a christian allegory too, though I haven’t seen it for over twenty years.
You see Jesus everywhere. You’re a real Charlie Church. Churcchy LaFemme – that’s you, that is.
Well, ET does indeed die a rather frightening death (house wrapped in plastic; CIA and FBI and NSA and NASA agents running around; military doctors finding alien DNA and giving him electric shocks in order to save him. But he dies anyway. “All you’re gonna do is cut him up,” Elliot mumbles to Keys. But then the mothership phones in and ET’s heart glows and he is resurrected. The father figure leaves Earth (into the heavens) and Elliot is left to figure things out on his own. Still, ET will always be “right here” (finger to heart) and Elliot is redeemed and moves forward with faith and hope. And his mom might actually get some action but I’m not sure I can spin that into Christian allegory.
ET can perform miracles (like healing the sick or symbiotically feeling his new boy friend’s feelings), and he has the power to levitate objects and make people fly. And he loves nature, seems to command it, and while he doesn’t turn water into wine, he does get drunk and hundreds of frogs are liberated from tyranny.
jeff, you need to spend more time reading the bible.
I read it once and that was enough. Still, I think you underline my point . . . Narnia is no more allegorical (at least on film) than ET. Now the discourse surrounding Narnia is far less secular in certain interpretive communities but that says more about the marketing campaign than the film itself, which was in no way heavy handed and quite charming.
i haven’t seen the film so cannot comment but from my michael’s description of the plot the allegory seems entirely obvious. whether you need to get it to enjoy it is, of course, a different matter–and i don’t think that’s michael’s point anyway. now e.t i have seen, and if you think that’s a christian allegory i’m a better christian than you. well, i did sing in my boarding school choir.
ok, here goes, one more chance to convince Jeff and seal my status as Churchy McChurch (a relative of Boobie McBoobs): it is obvious to me that Narnia is quite an overt allegory, if by allegory we mean that there is a fairly one-to-one correspondence between characters, events, etc., in the film and another set of meanings—It’s hard for me not to see this allegory with scenes in the film exactly paralleling the “passion” in the New Testament.
Whether it’s heavy handed (which I actually find it to be) or charming or not is really irrelevant to the question of its allegorical aims. Some allegories are charming, others aren’t. ET is not an allegory, far as I remember, because it doesn’t have a consistent one-to-one correspondence between itself and its meanings–rather ET has qualities you could call mystical or even “Christlike” but that’s not enough for an allegory unless other elements have a corresponding significance too.
The marketing campaign for Narnia may be more overtly allegorical than the film, leaning more heavily on Christian messages, but that doesn’t mean the film’s content is totally separate from its marketing. I think most Christians–at least those with a temperment close to Lewis’s–who may be drawn to the film by its marketing campaign will find that it fulfills their expectations fully, especially the second half where Aslan features most. I think it’s perfectly possible for people to enjoy the film as a straight fantasy but that doesn’t mean the allegorical elements aren’t there or are at most a matter of interpretation. I’d say more about it, but I don’t think I have the strength to see it again. And, Jeff, perhaps to annoy you further I thought the film was also an allegory of WWII, a sub-allegory to the Christian allegory–good Brits versus evil Nazi’s (there’s even a bombing campaign on the witches’ forces). I support such religious-patriotic conflation is understandable in a time of war–but I still find Lewis’s politics (to the degree they are accurately portrayed in the film) to be questionable and anti-democratic.
now…don’t get me started on Bullitt as an allegory about graduate school…..
watched it last night. i found it terribly dull. and i say this as someone who normally is a sucker for fantasy sagas (i even watched antonio banderas in the thirteenth warrior, though i am glad to say i cannot remember any of it). even sunhee, who has read all the books and has a strong affection for them, fell asleep halfway through and announced today that she had no interest in watching the rest.
i have not read the books so cannot say if the film is being faithful to a fault, but really this should have been far more creepy and eerie, and if the books don’t contain any of that, well, then the adaptation should have added some. tilda swinton’s performance is the only thing worth watching this movie for, and even she only reminded me of hans christian anderson’s “the snow queen” and made me wish someone would make a film of that.
and jeff, i don’t know how much more nakedly allegorical this film could be.
I watched it last night after the Lakers beat the Suns in overtime. Tough act to follow. Though I imagine I’d be less forgiving of this film had the Lakers lost. I thought the film was crap. The special effects were sub-par, and the story was hard to stomach. I was bothered the moment Mr. Tumnus appeared. Lucy is captivated–even more so after he drugs and kidnaps her. Why? Perhaps the film moves too fast. The ice floe sequence, the only action sequence I can even recall, was dull. Griffith’s ice floe sequence from Way Down East is a thousand times better–which is saying a lot. Why didn’t Santa run those kids down?
I have to say I liked Edmund. Those nasty lies and betrayals. It was shame he had to come around so quickly (after that ridiculous confession scene–one of the film’s many moments of forced solemnity).
Note to C.S. Lewis: more beaver!