is narnia that bad?

my sister loved the books as a kid and now (shes in her 20s) she would like to see the movie she, like my family, is pretty liberal and not the least bit religious(the last wedding after the prayer before dinner my cousin jokingly said "we're all going to hell")

That's like saying, "Is Toccata and Fugue in d that bad, since Bach was entirely inspired by God?"

Seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

misogynist and racist, and they were written as an allegory to promote Christian hegemony.

With that said, I see no harm in the movie.

Like many people, I read the books before I was old enough to realize that his description of the Calormans was thinly veiled racial denigration of Arabs. As a boy, I thought his treatment of girls as frivolous and powerless things was funny. I understand that these things have been excised from the movie.

With respect to the Christian hegemony, I am generally not bothered by allegory.

not your everyday political correct person either, but a great storyteller

and yes books tend to reflect the belief system of the author. The movie has the ability to recreate the story without racist themes (although the first book was fairly free of them) so more power to it.

That's the only "danger" I could see.

in my upbringing. Lewis himself was no fundamentalist, but going to see it might bring up painful memories. :shrug:

On the other hand, I am a vocalist and sing classical music, much of which is "sacred." Most painful music memories revolve around hymns and so-called "praise" songs, some which I won't sing to this day. It's a personal matter for me. That's all.

As for Narnia, I hope it's enjoyable for those who go. For me, the stories are too wrapped up in painful memories.

fall off the fence and onto the side of the holy. I swear, I hope a movie with a talking lion who represents Jesus never comes out, because that would TOTALLY make me a believer!

(sarcasm off)

Actually, I'm not gonna see Narnia because I hate science fiction/fantasy/special effects movies, especially if there's kids in 'em. Something about a bad experience with 'The Neverending Story" as a fourth-grader really turned me off to that whole sub-genre.

If people want to look at a lion and see Jesus, let them. After all, Jesus was a socialist, who wanted to feed the poor, clothe the naked, shelter those caught out in the elements...Jesus was a great guy, so that would make a fine story no matter how it was translated.

The only problem I have with that fellow Jesus is that a segment of people who claim to be his followers are rabid, batshit crazy, intolerant assholes who have perverted his message beyond belief....and that ain't HIS fault!!! I'm sure there are Nazis who like Rocky Road ice cream, but that doesn't make it an uholy indulgence!!!

This is another fake issue. If people want to go see the talking lion, let them. And they should enjoy it, if that is their thing. I doubt the lion is spouting off about choice, prayer in school, and some of the other horseshit that some of these Jesus warriors think Christ would have given a shit about...

I once applied for a job as a proofreader for a small publisher that specialized in "Christian" literature...one of the hard and fast criteria they had for any children's books submitted for publications was a ban on talking animals. I suppose such are considered tools of the devil. I don't think C.S. Lewis' Christianity has much in common with contemporary Murkan fundamentalism.

When you think about C.S. Lewis' Christianity taking the form of a book about a talking lion and minotaurs and stuff like that, compared with contemporary American Fundamentalist Christianity taking the form of a two hour film showing people beating the crap out of a person...I'd say there was a difference.

Leave my man Mel "What Holocaust?" Gibson out of this thread.





PS Yes, I am aware it is Mel's dad who disbelieves in the Holocaust. That was a joke (kind of)

You mean like in Genesis?

I remember in 1970 when rock music was "the devil's tool" -- now, of course, they are co-opted that to suit their own needs. Wouldn't susprise me if a whole talking zoo went on some homophobic rant.

You can read all the Christian stuff in it and see atonement, et al. But without all that symbolism you see a good story about betrayal and redemption, forgiveness and facing the consequences of your actions. I wouldn't hesitate to see it, and I'm no Christian.

Jumped up and applauded after a recent screening...

but then I missed the JarJar-whatever link too. I liked the Narnia books, good vs evil basic thing. I like to read books for the story, which often follows good vs bad. I was really angry at my highschool english teacher who made us disect Call of the Wild for religious overtones and completely ruined the book for me. Sometimes a dog is only a dog, doing the best he can. Sometimes a lion is majestic, sometimes a lion is a lazy beast hanging out waiting to be provided for. and a pig who doesn't fly is only a pig.

peace

JarJar is clearly a Christian interposition. :evilgrin:

One more reason to never see Phantom Menace ever again... ;-)

I think it was rasta, jamaican, something like that. Jar-Jar=Jesus, you may be right since they both start with a J and both need to be hung on a cross.

Aslan is the Christ figure. There's not even a question about it...but so what? Personally, I'm a nontheistic agnostic, but I want to see the movie. I don't believe in God, or Jesus, or Hercules for that matter, but I love movies about them. They have lessons that we can learn, even if we don't necessarily buy into any of the dogma. More importantly, they're frequently very good stories. Heck, if a story has lasted thousands of years, it's probably an interesting tale.

I don't believe in dragons, but I still like movies with dragons in them.

You'll get out of it what you take into it. You watch it as a Christian story, it might increase or encourage your faith. You watch it as just a story, and you might just enjoy it. For both it sorta depends on how well they made the movie though.

It's not an allegory, per se. Aslan isn't a "Christ figure". He's Christ. Lewis had described the stories before as a kind of "what if", basically speculating how God might play out salvation in a world other than ours.

That being said ... I wouldn't worry so much about Narnia's Xtian underpinnings, but rather its Xtian audience -- specifically, that its reputation will attract the whole Left Behind/Passion of the Christ crowds.

"Allegory 1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories. 2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice."

Aslan isn't literally Christ. Christ wasn't a lion. Aslan is a character that represents an abstract idea, that being Christ. As you say, even Lewis described it as 'what if' tales. Therefore they are allegorical.

As far as attracting fundies, at least they're taking their kids to a movie that isn't in essence a snuff film.

in fact I consider it heavy handed, read it for the first time last Saturday. The fundies can go gaga over it if they want. It should be fun even if you just take it as fantasy. I don't think we need to get our collective DU panties in a wad over this one. As for the symbolism, if you have been raised in a vacuum, and with no knowledge of Christ, Christianity, you won't walk out quoting scripture and with any great understanding of Christ. It can just be a story, if thats what you want. That is different from the mel gibson crucifixion's greatest hits movie, whatever it was called. That was a slap in the face, repent or die, type approach.

By making Jesus into a talking Lion they're masking him.

Anyway, we're basically agreeing on the main points.

Christ wasn't a lion here, on Earth. However, if you believe (as presumably Lewis did, being a Christian) that Jesus was essentially God, then it follows that (a) he wasn't always Jesus son of Joseph, either, but rather some eternal divinity and (b) he can be whatever he wants or needs to be as the situation warrants.

Aslan (at least in my understanding) wasn't intended as a symbol representing Jesus, but as an avatar/incarnation of that same divinity. In other words, yes, he is literally Christ. That understanding might be wrong, and I'll accept any contrary cite someone throws out -- but I do know what I'm saying (i.e. it's not that I'm misunderstanding the definition of "allegory").

In re "snuff film" ... hey, I remember the stone table sequence. ;-)

I know the whole thing. Lewis was a bit of a nutter in that regard. The creation of the literary term 'Supposal' because he was so religiously uncomfortable with using the term 'Allegory' among the nuttiness.

Why did Lewis say that it wasn't an allegory? Here's a good quote from him...

"I don't say. 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.'"

Notice that he's not actually saying that Aslan is Christ. While he specifically states that Aslan doesn't represent Christ, he uses the world 'Supposing' which is key. He calls this a Supposal.

So why isn't it allegory then? He's not claiming the story is real, he's saying 'suppose...'. How is this different from Orwell saying 'suppose Lenin and Marx were reincarnated as Pigs.'? In my mind, and in the minds of many, it isn't.

Which stone table sequence you think will give more kids nightmares? ;)

i started this thread after seeing something about it on the news. some religious guy, when asked why religious people like narnia and hate harry potter, he said something to the fact that "we live in a real world with real problems which need real solutions, these cant be solved with magic" i instantly thought oh yah cause we all know water changing into blood/wine being able to walk on water, and so forth is completely real world and 0% "magic"

like one of you said the wacos don't reflect the whole population. my girlfriend is a christian yet she loves the harry potter books and movies

There is no true "christ" figure in Harry Potter. That is, Harry did not die by Voldemort's blast only to be resurrected. Harry' mother, although she threw herself in front of Harry, did not die to save the entire magical population. If anything, Voldemort is the only character in the book which goes through such a life/death/resurrection phase. Since he is evil, this is quite a disturbing chain of events for fundamentalists.

There are, of course, other minor details in the Potter books which turn off the very religious people. Chief among them are the many references to pagan holiday and rituals.

I'm not sure if Lewis' Narnia series would be as well received by the religious community if it was not for the King giving his life to save Edward. For instance, if the the Lion King helped the other three children mount an attack against the witch which saved Edward, there would be no christ-like figure in the book... which seems to be its primary religious selling point.

In lieu of only creating a new world, Lewis took two of his life's greatest loves (fantasy and Christianity) and melded them together in the Narnia series. That work, in and of itself, is masterful.

in our lady peace's new album theres a song where one of the lyrics is "did jesus get it right, or is the devil behind the light"

ABC etc had news stories out about how Hollywood is marketing to Xtians. Like Mel Gibson's movie worked. So, if I go to see this movie, I will help make Xtian marketing a success. Xtian marketing includes Ford boycotting Gay and Lesbian media.

I have nothing against the movie or the book.

He even recounted getting letters from other christians telling him he was "going to Hell" for the things he wrote. Nice tolerant non-judgemental folks.

He even recounted getting letters from other christians telling him he was "going to Hell" for the things he wrote. Nice tolerant non-judgemental folks.

See what you want to see, enjoy what you want to enjoy.

you know, the males have their god-given roles, as do the females...

:puke:

C.S. Lewis was a wonderful writer and did not have even the remotest connection to fundamentalism

I don't think it's that bad. It seems pretty good. The only reason why the fundies like this one and not "Harry Potter" is because of the author even though JK Rawling is a Christian herself. :eyes:

a friend of ours worked on the movie -- he worked on the Minotaur and a few of the other critters...as well as operating the puppets

He has promised to send us pics - we're still waiting....

Tolkien was a Christian too. But his themes were more of a subtext than an outright metaphor. Lewis wanted him to make his Christian themes more blatant, but that's not how Tolkien wanted it. They were buds, and in fact I think it was Tolkien who may have introduced faith to Lewis, who was a late-comer to it.

There's a great story on that, which should alleviate some folks concerns about the story.

Can't speak to the film, though. Although I hear that it's pretty good.

Personally, I'm not going to let a bunch of fundie wackos ruin a good story for me. I won't give them even that little victory.

He & Tolkien were part of "The Inklings"--a group that gathered to talk, read works in progress, smoke & drink. During a discussion of Faith, Tolkien made Lewis see that he could believe. (From "The Inklings for Ee-jits"--I'm sure you can find a better account.)

Lewis almost immediately began writing about Christianity. His books sold well while Tolkien labored away on that endless "sequel" to the Hobbit. Tolkien famously hated allegory, although he did use it in some short fiction. He had a deep love for the old Pagan stories, as well as being a devout Roman Catholic. And Lewis loved the classical myths, for all his Christianity.

There's more to Lewis's book (& the movie) than allegory. Extreme Fundamentalists might be surprised.

The most glaring is Gandalf's rebirth. Tolkein took an awful lot from other literature and history as well. The Battle of Minas Tirith is based heavily upon the Siege of Vienna of 1683 as well as the earlier siege in 1529. In fact, there is even more to that than some think because after all they talk about the "men of the West" fighting against an "evil East" with the West being Europe and the East being the Ottoman Empire that was slowly encroaching on Europe.

you know, a Lion creating the world, acting all Godlike and all that jazz. Utterly blasphemous really :silly:

Its my favorite book series of all time, in fact I'm re-reading it at the moment.

Best of the bunch is The Final Battle.

I'm very liberal and my kids and I loved the books. Frankly, I didn't pick up the religious aspect until I read the last book (then it kind of hits you over the head).

There are religious themes throughout loads of movies and books, including Harry Potter (tell that to the fundies and watch their little heads explode!). Why should I deprive myself and my children of seeing what looks like a terrific movie based on one of our favorite books? :eyes:

OK, it's quite a lot anti-Islam. The people called the Calormenes in the books are looked down on by the Narnians. Those dark-skinned, dark-haired, turbanned, demon-worshipping, infidel Calormenes....

actually, I thought the filmmakers did a good job making a sometimes plodding and heavy handed tale brisk and entertaining. My only beef with the film was the poor animation of some of the animal characters-but I'm a former Disney animator, I don't think the average moviegoer would be as bothered by it, or the Christian allegory.

In it, it's the end of time, and Aslan is separating those with love in their hearts, who go with him, from those with hate in their hearts. Some Calormenes go with Aslan, and some who were thought to be 'pro-Aslan' go away from him. It's the best 'answer' to Judgment Day that I have ever read. It doesn't matter what your religion is, it doesn't matter who or what you worship, it's what in your heart that counts.

and really both Aslan AND Jesus are kind of different takes on the mythology of Mithras the Roman Sun/Soldier god (interestingly they had seperate gods for War and for the Soldier). That's to say, the Christian *mythological structure* rather than the *recorded texts* of Jesus's sayings, which can be quite political depdneing on how you interpret the available original texts. Christian mythology includes all sorts of saints and sayings from all sorts of contributors and law-makers, it's not solely tied to the words of Jesus at all.

So, really, it's more of a case that Aslan's a kind of pagan version of Jesus. Also he's very keen on people understanding that they're personally responsible for their actions and to be generally kindly and nice and easy going.

I don't think Aslan would be particularly impressed with fundies (if he were real). There's a scene from "Horse and his Boy" where he turns a pompous, self-righteous leader into a donkey because the one thing he can't stand is to be laughed at.

As an atheist, I don't really think I'd have problem worshipping Aslan at all. He's really a bit of a Gaia figure in "The Magician's Nephew". He clearly likes to make things come alive.

He certainly woudn't go in for all the nastiness that fundies pull these days. Not at ALL his style. As I think some of them are beginning to suspect...

Lewis may have written the tale to reflect the Christian mythology but the Christian Mythology is just another representation of ancient myths. Mythology is at the core of story telling and the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a good story. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

in seeing a movie. Most fantasies are based in some kind of mythology. As a matter-of-fact, don't let a bunch of Christian fundies ruin your Christmas.

To hell with them.