After listening through the Audio Commentaries for Both Narnia films I couldn't help but notice they alleged Christian Allegory of the Story is never mentioned or brought once, not even in the key Scene where Alsan is killed.
They mention plenty of artistic themes and symbolism they used, and even the Comparison with The Trees to LOTR, but not once is there any reference to God or Jesus or The Bible.
One needs to remember these are Disney movies, you can't get more UnChristian then that, and Edmund's actor is a Descendant of Charles Darwin (And thus also of Henry VIII) and he said in interviews he's an Atheist.
I doubt Lewis was a Real Christian either, real Christian tend not to put Pagan gods and goddesses in their fiction.
Oh and they also managed to sneak in some Sexual Innuendo into the Commentaries as well.
It's good that they don't, because it's a marketing killer. So many have spent so much time insisting that it's not a Christian allegory, including, I believe, Lewis himself.
You're all over the place with this post, mentioning various fundamentalist antagonisms.
Hmm, Skandar Keynes an atheist. I did not know that. Good for him!
Lewis insists that it's not the Only Intention of the Books.
I am often all over the Place.
Marketing Killer? The beloved Christian aspect is the only Reason the Narnia movies have sold well, every other attempt to duplicate LOTR's Success has flopped horribly. Christian feeling compelled to support anything labeled a "Christian" film is the main thing keeping Narnia alive, cause it ultimately is inferior to Tolkien in every way, all I could think during the Trees attack scene was "The Two Towers did this better".
No, the reason Narnia has done as well as it has (I won't call it a real success) is that it's Disney; that's the selling point. Fundamentalist Christianity is not a large buying block, as evidenced by their boycott of Disney - it hasn't accomplished anything to speak of.
Fundamentalist Christianity is a marketing killer - it is far from "beloved."
Project much? It is you who live in a fantasy world. Christian fundamentalists are a despised class of people, even by other Christians. The peculiar tunnel vision you're afflicted with from living in that world does not allow you to realize that few share your opinions on Disney, evolution, homosexuals, separation of church and state, and what constitutes successful marketing.
If by 'The Passion' you mean Gibson's film, I didn't ignore it. I saw the film, discussed it on The Pit over four years ago, and generally gave it all the consideration it was due. I even own a copy of it on DVD, for reference, should I ever need to.
You're part of Richard Nixon's "silent majority," huh? If You'd been born thirty years before 1988, would you have voted for Nixon? Would you have been for the Vietnam War, or against it?
Why are you bitching about the lack of Christian allegory on Prince Caspian? Your allusion to Aslan's death comes from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. You're on the wrong board for this.
I recall enduring Prince Caspian at the theater and wondering idly where the Christian allegory was supposed to be for this one. Personally, the Telmarines reminded me of rampaging Catholic Portuguese, imposing their sorryassed religion on the New World, and of the Inquisition. Would that have been the allegory here?
This Topic is about Bo ht movies, like all the Franchisees on IMDB all the Action is on the most recent movie's Board, until the next one enters production.
Poisoned Dragon, why do you shift the topic to "funadamentalist" Christians? These are movies that could and should be reasonably marketed to Christians of all types, while of course also marketing them to the general public. Lewis was a famous Christian writer. He is still very popular within Christian circles of all types, fundamentalists, evangelical protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc. Why not try to bring in Christians? They're still the majority in the Western nations.
Lewis himself of course was neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal Protestant. He was more of a traditionalist with some moderate stances. I could imagine fundamentalists would not for example agree with his sending Emeth (who was a believer in Tash, arguably a sort of Allah figure) to heaven in the Last Battle. Nor would I think most fundamentalists would agree with his view of heaven and hell in The Great Divorce (hell is a miserable place of separation from God rather than of literal fire and brimstone). However, most of his message is perfectly in keeping with the 14 (or whatever the number was) "fundamentals" of Christianity that began the Fundamentalist movement (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). I really think one of the strong points of Lewis' work here and in his Space Trilogy is that, so long as people keep their minds open, the stories should be able to be enjoyed by non-Christians, evangelicals, Catholics, and just about everybody else.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you think it is right for Fundamentalist to be "despised"? If so it sounds to me as if you are being bigoted while calling others bigots, which seems to be rather hypocritical (and no I'm not a fundamentalist myself).
Poisoned Dragon, why do you shift the topic to "funadamentalist" Christians?
I didn't "shift" the conversation to anything - I was conversing with a fundamentalist - Jared. The issue in my discussion on this thread (which was months ago) was his particular point of view, not CS Lewis's.
Didn't you read the OP? Where Jared insists that it's not possible to get more "un-christian" than Disney?
Also, just out of curiosity, do you think it is right for Fundamentalist to be "despised"? If so it sounds to me as if you are being bigoted while calling others bigots, which seems to be rather hypocritical (and no I'm not a fundamentalist myself).
That's like asking if it's right for Ku Klux Klanners to be despised, or Muslim extremists. It does not make one a bigot to call these folks out on their views.
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§
reply share
I suspected you'd say that. That is the recourse that most people use to ignore (or even delude themselves about) their own hatreds and biases. Muslim extremists have blown up buildings, subways, and buses and literally cut people's heads off. The KKK has lynched blacks and burned crosses on people's lawns. The only things I've seen Christian fundamentalists do is express their First Amendment rights (in the US at any rate) to free speech and freedom of religion, even though what they now have to say is politically incorrect. I've also seen some of them volunteering to help the poor in El Salvador, India, and Africa, and I've also seen some running charity programs where I am in the US. I'm just not sure how in good conscience you can equate all these people together, unless you really don't know much about typical fundamentalists or you merely hate people with views different from your own (exactly what you are accusing them of, I would imagine). I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion and I just cannot help but notice that even in this time dominated by the rhetoric of tolerance, it is still considered perfectly fine to discriminate against and/or hate certain groups because of their religious beliefs.
And as far as the movie goes, I think it's a sad commentary on our times and people's real feelings about freedom of religious discourse if trying to get Christians to come to a film based on a story by one of the most famous Christian writers of all time is somehow "a marketing killer," as you suggest in your first response in this thread. Is the general population really so afraid of hearing anything that even suggests Christianity even if it's a good story?
Christians in general are a very large marketing block. The filmmakers would be remiss in ignoring them. I known many Christian groups and churches (of all types) got their people out to see the first film.
Poisoned Dragon, I went to a Christian school when I was younger. I knew many people that most would consider to be fundamentalists. I cannot accept all of their teachings at this point in my life after my own study of religion; thus, I am not a fundamentalist. However, I have seen how misrepresented they can be in modern society (and I use the term "modern" very deliberately, since their values are old-fashioned). Most of the fundamentalists I knew were caring, generous, moral people (I'm sure not all are, but that's beside the point--we are talking about fundamentalists in general, not the exceptions that get all the news). But even if they were all horrid people, I still believe that so long as they are not committing any crimes, their views should be respected. You don't have to agree with them to think it is all right for them to practice their own religion however they want to.
I do hope at any rate you re-evaluate your own views. Don't hate people just because you disagree with them, just disagree with their ideas instead. Seriously, think about it.
Respect is a commodity that is earned, not automatically imputed. I do not buy into the notion that religion automatically commands respect. You assume falsely that I've never really met fundamentalists, and don't really know what I'm talking about. I used to be one, once upon a time, and I happen to know from experience what those caring, generous, moral people are capable of, all of them, as a matter of principle, save those who betray their "old-fashioned" values for human/humane reasons. Those are few and far between, and in so doing, are no longer fundamentalists.
The values of fundamentalists are not truly "old-fashioned" as opposed to "modern;" you've bought into their claims that their values represent society in the past. They and their values are largely a 20th century phenomenon, which societies of the 19th century did not share. Their antagonism to "modernism" was born with organized opposition to Darwinism; Protestant evangelicals prior to that development were not nearly so reactionary.
I've never listened to the audio commentaries, but I'd be disappointed if they didn't mention the references to Christianity. It was always a large part of the books.
There was no big christian push for Prince Caspian because of the lack christian allegory, so the box office inevitably fell from the over-inflated gross of the first movie.
When all of your wishes are granted.... Many of your dreams...will be destroyed
I doubt Lewis was a Real Christian either, real Christian tend not to put Pagan gods and goddesses in their fiction.
If you don't think he was a Christian, then don't expect Christianity from adaptations of his books. Personally, I think you'd enjoy a Chick Tract better.
I doubt Lewis was a Real Christian either, real Christian tend not to put Pagan gods and goddesses in their fiction.
Jarred, you can't be serious. Don't you know that Lewis was one of the most influential Christian writers of all time? Many of his books (The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, etc., etc.) are considered classics of Christian literature and theology. I do hope you realize because his numerous books have sold so well over the decades he has been one of the great evangelists for Christianity of all time. How many millions of people have you reached? (I ask this not to be rude, but to make you think.) From what I've read about his personal life, although he had some flaws, in general he seems to have been an extremely generous man who cared very much about other people in the true Christian spirit. He also took that verse about "praying unceasingly" to heart and apparently spent a great deal of time praying every day.
To understand why he puts pagan gods in his works I think you would have to know more about how Lewis came to Christianity. He was having trouble accepting Christianity as the true religion since there were so many other religious myths and beliefs in the world and in history. The writer JRR Tolkien, Tolkien's son Ron, and some of Lewis' other friends eventually convinced him that Christianity was the myth that became true. That is to say, the myths of other religions sprang from the inborn need to reach God and thus in reality were merely incorrect tellings of the true story of God found, they believed, in the Christian tradition. As such the old myths did not need to be cast aside entirely as some sort of heathen thing, but accepted as historical artifacts of man's rather admirable desire to find and understand God. (I'm sure I'm leaving a lot of his philosophy on this point out, but hopefully you at least get a sense of it.) After all, Lewis is not suggesting that people should worship pagan gods. Besides, Lewis was a professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature. He considered mythic gods to be important parts of modern humanity's literary heritage. And, of course, like any work of fiction or allegory, stories about the old myths can still be used to teach lessons.
reply share