• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

kinch

Wash me
Has anyone seen this yet?

Frankly, and not that the rest of you suck, but I am particularly curious if Buckeyegrad, our resident C.S. Lewis guru has seen it.

I had the "box set" of these books as a kid, and read them all, but don't remember the specifics.

Also, if anybody knows the particulars of the Christian aspects of the story I would be interested to know. I know about the Lion, but I was wondering if there were more low-key analogies. . .
 
looking forward to seeing it (they can't be worse than the original movies a lot of us watched growing up). I haven't read it since I was extremely young, so I don't remember many of the references, but there were tons of them. However, the novels were excellent even if you were oblivious to the christian analogies.
 
Upvote 0
I read the entire series in 7th grade (mandatory), and I didn't think much of it. Then this past weekend I read my brother's copy of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe after I saw the commercial and realized how dark the book actually was. It's actually been accused of sexism, among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Criticism

And Kinch, right above that is an article about how Christianity plays into the story.
 
Upvote 0
quick IM review from my girl:
I can't wait to see it with you again... it was very good. good acting, some poor backdrops, good story line, and good script. It followed the book very closely
 
Upvote 0
A great movie for kids or adults.

I enjoyed it throughly and will certainly be buying the DVD when it comes out. I hope that they make the rest of the books into movies. The movie followed the book as much as I recall it (it was close to 30 years ago that I read the series). The computer graphics were phenomenal and the Christian character of the story was well preserved. No doubt athiests all around the country will be up in arms. Who knows if the film is well received by the general public, the athiest pickets will probably not be far behind. "Separation of Church and Movie Theater!" If the subsequent stories are rendered faithfully into movies the Muslims will certainly be pissed of since as I recall the Calormenes were some of the main bad guys in later books, and the Calormenes had many similarities with Mohammed's crowd. Any way I would highly recommend "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe."
 
Upvote 0
Take a look at this review!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html

'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion'

Children won't get the Christian subtext, but unbelievers should keep a sickbag handy during Disney's new epic, writes Polly Toynbee

Monday December 5, 2005
The Guardian


Aslan the lion shakes his mighty mane and roars out across Narnia and eternity. Christ is risen! However, not many British children these days will get the message. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe opens this week to take up the mantle left by The Lord of the Rings. CS Lewis's seven children's books, The Chronicles of Narnia, will be with us now and for many Christmases to come. Only Harry Potter has outsold these well-loved books' 85 million copies.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How suitable that one fantasy saga should follow on from the other, despite the immense difference between the writings and magic worlds of these two old Oxford dons. It was JRR Tolkien who converted CS Lewis to Christianity during one long all-night walk that ended in dawn and revelation. Narnia is a strange blend of magic, myth and Christianity, some of it brilliantly fantastical and richly imaginative, some (the clunking allegory) toe-curlingly, cringingly awful.
This new Disney film is a remarkably faithful rendition of the book - faithful in both senses. It is beautiful to look at and wonderfully acted. The four English children and their world are all authentically CS Lewis olde England. But from its opening scenes of the bombing of their Finchley home in the blitz and the tear-jerking evacuation from their mother in a (spotlessly clean) steam train, there is an emotional undertow to this film that tugs on the heart-strings from the first frames. By the end, it feels profoundly manipulative, as Disney usually does. But then, that is also deeply faithful to the book's own arm-twisting emotional call to believers.

Disney is deliberately promoting this film to the religious - it has appointed Outreach, an evangelical publisher, to promote the Christian message behind the movie in British churches. The Christian radio station Premier is urging churches to hold services on the theme of The Gospel According to Narnia. Even the Methodists have written a special Narnia-themed service. And a Kent parish is giving away £10,000 worth of film tickets to single-parent families. (Are the children of single mothers in special need of the word?)

US born-agains are using the movie. The Mission America Coalition is "inviting church leaders around the country to consider the fantastic ministry opportunity presented by the release of this film". The president's brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, is organising a scheme for every child in his state to read the book. Walden Media, co-producer of the movie, offers a "17-week Narnia Bible study for children". The owner of Walden Media is both a big Republican donor and a donor to the Florida governor's book promotion - a neat synergy of politics, religion and product placement. It has aroused protests from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which complains that "a governmental endorsement of the book's religious message is in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution".

Disney may come to regret this alliance with Christians, at least on this side of the Atlantic. For all the enthusiasm of the churches, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ bombed in Britain and warehouses are stuffed with unsold DVDs of that stomach-churner. There are too few practising Christians in the empty pews of this most secular nation to pack cinemas. So there has been a queasy ambivalence about how to sell the Narnia film here. Its director, Andrew Adamson (of Shrek fame), says the movie's Christian themes are "open to the audience to interpret". One soundtrack album of the film has been released with religious music, the other with secular pop.

Most British children will be utterly clueless about any message beyond the age-old mythic battle between good and evil. Most of the fairy story works as well as any Norse saga, pagan legend or modern fantasy, so only the minority who are familiar with Christian iconography will see Jesus in the lion. After all, 43% of people in Britain in a recent poll couldn't say what Easter celebrated. Among the young - apart from those in faith schools - that number must be considerably higher. Ask art galleries: they now have to write the story of every religious painting on the label as people no longer know what "agony in the garden", "deposition", "transfiguration" or "ascension" mean. This may be regrettable cultural ignorance, but it means Aslan will stay just a lion to most movie-goers.

All the same, children may puzzle over the lion and ask embarrassing questions. For non-CS Lewis aficionados, here is a recap. The four children enter Narnia through a wardrobe and find themselves in a land frozen into "always winter, never Christmas" by the white witch, (played with elemental force by Tilda Swinton). Unhappy middle child Edmund, resentful of being bossed about by his older brother, broods with meanness and misery. The devil, in the shape of the witch, tempts him: for the price of several chunks of turkish delight, rather than 30 pieces of silver, Edmund betrays his siblings and their Narnian friends.

The sins of this "son of Adam" can only be redeemed by the supreme sacrifice of Aslan. This Christ-lion willingly lays down his life, submitting himself to be bound, thrashed and humiliated by the white witch, allowing his golden mane to be cut and himself to be slaughtered on the sacrificial stone table: it cracks in sympathetic agony and his body goes missing. The two girls lay down their heads and weep, Magdalene and Mary-like. Be warned, the film lingers long and lovingly over all this.

But so far, so good. The story makes sense. The lion exchanging his life for Edmund's is the sort of thing Arthurian legends are made of. Parfait knights and heroes in prisoner-of-war camps do it all the time. But what's this? After a long, dark night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why? How?, my children used to ask. Well, it is hard to say why. It does not make any more sense in CS Lewis's tale than in the gospels. Ah, Aslan explains, it is the "deep magic", where pure sacrifice alone vanquishes death.

Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart. Every one of those thorns, the nuns used to tell my mother, is hammered into Jesus's holy head every day that you don't eat your greens or say your prayers when you are told. So the resurrected Aslan gives Edmund a long, life-changing talking-to high up on the rocks out of our earshot. When the poor boy comes back down with the sacred lion's breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford brother, well and truly purged.

Tolkien hated Narnia: the two dons may have shared the same love of unquestioning feudal power, with worlds of obedient plebs and inferior folk eager to bend at the knee to any passing superior white persons - even children; both their fantasy worlds and their Christianity assumes that rigid hierarchy of power - lord of lords, king of kings, prince of peace to be worshipped and adored. But Tolkien disliked Lewis's bully-pulpit.

Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight. Philip Pullman - he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials - has called Narnia "one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read".

Why? Because here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. I once heard the famous preacher Norman Vincent Peale in New York expound a sermon that reassured his wealthy congregation that they were made rich by God because they deserved it. The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis's view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis's earth.

Does any of this matter? Not really. Most children will never notice. But adults who wince at the worst elements of Christian belief may need a sickbag handy for the most religiose scenes. The Guardian film critic Peter Bradshaw gives the film five stars and says, "There is no need for anyone to get into a PC huff about its Christian allegory." Well, here's my huff.

Lewis said he hoped the book would soften-up religious reflexes and "make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life". Holiness drenches the Chronicles. When, in the book, the children first hear someone say, mysteriously, "Aslan is on the move", he writes: "Now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had enormous meaning ..." So Lewis weaves his dreams to invade children's minds with Christian iconography that is part fairytale wonder and joy - but heavily laden with guilt, blame, sacrifice and a suffering that is dark with emotional sadism.

Children are supposed to fall in love with the hypnotic Aslan, though he is not a character: he is pure, raw, awesome power. He is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on earth, where no one is watching, no one is guiding, no one is judging and there is no other place yet to come. Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can. We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass. Everyone needs ghosts, spirits, marvels and poetic imaginings, but we can do well without an Aslan.

· The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is released on Thursday


I knew that the Guardian was generally a lefty rag but this review seems to be dripping with more than the usual vitriol.
 
Upvote 0
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?

OK, I've got to take on this one. Here's the cases I see:

1. Christ isn't God. Point is moot.
2. Christ is God, and does nothing to save man.
3. Christ is God, and sacrifices himself to save man.

How in the world do they see choice 3 as "the most repugnant"? That facet of Christianity sure seems full of hate to me. At least do some research to find a reasonable target if you're going to try and slam Christianity.

Oh, and :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
Keep in mind that The Guardian is a far-left journal and can be expected to oppose anything even remotely related to Christianity. This is the same paper that contacted poeple in some areas of Ohio prior to the 2004 election to try and convince them that they should vote against Bush. Typical loony-left nonsense.
 
Upvote 0
Cry me a river.

I love when secular writers who have no knowledge of the bible tell one of the best christian authors how he should write his novel.
Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight.
His ignorance is shining through. In the old testament, God was described as a powerful warrior, with His cloak stained with the blood of his enemies. Christ is God, and therefore the comparison exists. But even if you stick with just the new testament Christ, the guy went ballistic on all of the merchant tables selling junk in His temple. He was far from lamb-like in that part of the new testament. I have not seen the movie yet, but in the book he is truly powerful yet lays down that power as a sacrifice, which is a perfect analogy to Christ.
Tolkien hated Narnia: the two dons may have shared the same love of unquestioning feudal power, with worlds of obedient plebs and inferior folk eager to bend at the knee to any passing superior white persons - even children; both their fantasy worlds and their Christianity assumes that rigid hierarchy of power - lord of lords, king of kings, prince of peace to be worshipped and adored. But Tolkien disliked Lewis's bully-pulpit.
Later in his article he invalidates this point, admitting that this high and mighty prince of peace lays down his life as a sacrifice. The existence of classes does not represent discrimination against lesser people. How those leaders treats those below them determines that, and the narnia I've read includes servant leaders. Besides, where did the plebs/inferior folk allegation come from? He's not stating a fact, he's guessing. Really classy in an article clamoring for validity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight.

Or, to answer it more simply....

Is the lion no less a lion, simply because he chooses not to strike?
 
Upvote 0
Has anyone seen this yet?

Frankly, and not that the rest of you suck, but I am particularly curious if Buckeyegrad, our resident C.S. Lewis guru has seen it.

I had the "box set" of these books as a kid, and read them all, but don't remember the specifics.

Also, if anybody knows the particulars of the Christian aspects of the story I would be interested to know. I know about the Lion, but I was wondering if there were more low-key analogies. . .

Went with Mrs. Bgrad to see it last night and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. I feel it does great justice to the Lewis's original work in both content and spirit (much better than Lord of the Rings, which got Tolkien's content, but missed the spirit of the work). In addition, the story is told in the very same essence as the book in that it is a story addressing adult themes, but told to the perspective of children. I was glad to see this was maintained in that this is the crux of one of Lewis's other works, "Pilgrims Regress" in which he tells a story about leaving behind childhood notions of Christianity and turning to the adult notions of philosophy. In the end, the protagonist finds out that Christianity's "childhood notions" were the richest and most true of all philosophy when seen from the adult perspective.

I am looking forward to the future installments, especially the last two in which the creation and apocalypse myths of Narnia are told (of course they mirror the stories in Genesis and Revelation). I am also curious to see if the movie makers will retain a very overt Christian message that occurs at the end of the third story, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when Aslan tells Lucy that she can never return to Narnia again and that it is time that she found Him in her own world (of course this means that she is to find Christ).

As for the Christian messages in The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe....of course the most obvious is Aslan's sacrifice of himself as a substitute for the sins of Edmund. That his death fulfills the requirements of the Law's judgment and his resurrection brings forth the triumph of Grace's mercy. When he brings the statues in the White Queen's courtyard back to life, after his own death and resurrection, Aslan is also mirroring Christ's decent into She'ol to free the saints who died before His coming. Of course, the Christian teaching of sacrificing one's self and one's desires is present throughout the whole work. (However, if the author of that article from the Guardian had problems with such a theme in this book, wait until she see what happens in the Magician's Nephew!)

As for some of the other comments made by that author, who no doubt is not as knowledgeable about Lewis as she makes herself out to be:

Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight.

The funny thing about this comment is that Lewis addresses this deep misunderstanding of Christ in the book, where he writes "People who have never been in Narnia sometimes think that a thing cannot be good and terrible at the same time. If the children had ever thought so, they were cured of it now" Perhaps, Ms. Toynbee would benefit from a visit to Narnia.

Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart.

Of course this ignores the fact that in the book and the movie, Edmund is never aware of Aslan's death and resurrection. In the book, Lucy and Susan even discuss whether they should tell Edmund about the sacrifice, and although Lucy believes he should know, it is never told (at least not in the narrative).

But what's this? After a long, dark night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why? How?, my children used to ask. Well, it is hard to say why. It does not make any more sense in CS Lewis's tale than in the gospels. Ah, Aslan explains, it is the "deep magic", where pure sacrifice alone vanquishes death.

Here she is showing her ignorance of both the Bible and Lewis's work. It makes perfect sense in the Bible if you read the Old Testament as well as Jesus' teachings. As for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, one of the few things the movie leaves out, is that there is a Law that governs Narnia that was established by the Emperor-beyond-the-sea (i.e. God). However, the Witch's knowledge of it, like Ms. Toynbee's, is incomplete because she only knows it back to the dawn of time. However, if you go back before time began, there is a deeper understanding of the Law, which says that when a willing, innocent sacrifice is made to replace a guilty man's sin, then death would work backwards, that is death would be overcome.
 
Upvote 0
Took my second grader to see it Saturday morning after we'd spent the last ten days or so reading the book. She really enjoyed it and I was glad to be there with her. I remember being in the fourth or fifth grade and wanting there to be a really good movie of the book. It was much better to wait 25+ years and see that movie with my daughter.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top