[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Mares

Dude, you haven't read the book?

Nope. I mean, yes, I did read the first book, but that was a long time ago, and I don't remember much except for the beginning, and the existence of an ice sorceress of some kind.

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

That is basically how Henry VIII gets to marry more than once. You see, he asked the pope if he could do it, the pope said no -- so he started a new religion, only sans the pope and now he can marry as many times as he wants.

The Lutheran Church is just like the Orthodox Church, the only difference being, the Lutherans let my great-grandfather Kocha marry his wife's sister, after the wife died.

[Maquisard]

In other news, Narnia has made $109 million worldwide on the first weekend, so this'll probably end up being another billion dollar grossing movie. Which means another 6 years of Narnia for Christmas. Hopefully they don't skip a year. Have Harry Potter films skipped a year so far?

[Lucien21]

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

It has skipped a couple.

Harry will be about 30 by the time they make the 7th one

[Glenn Epic]

This quote is a pretty good representation of my thoughts on the film:

"There's no hideous beast or CGI landscape rendered here that can compare with what lurks in the mind of even the dullest, least imaginative child."

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

It has skipped a couple.

Harry will be about 30 by the time they make the 7th one

So their pattern is, 2 in a row, skip, 2 in a row, skip, and so on. I wonder if Narnia could go the Lotr way and produce several movies at the same time, while the kiddies are still young.

[gillyruless]

From the Wikipedia entry for Chronicles of Narnia:

With the release of the 2005 Disney movie there has been renewed interest in the Christian parallels found in the books. Some find them distasteful, while noting that they are easy to miss if you are not familiar with Christianity.(Toynbee 2005) Others see the chronicles as an excellent tools for evangelization (Kent 2005), providing a seemingly innocent opening for conversations aimed at converting people to Christianity.

(emphasis added by me)

This more than anything illustrates well why the Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia bothers me so much even though this might not have been what C S Lewis intentionally set out to do.

[Maquisard]

I've heard a psychologist relate the story of a woman, his client, who was struggling in her faith because she couldn't picture God as a father (or if she did, it wouldn't be a positive picture), since her own father was a terrible person.

So he helped her come to a better understanding of God by asking her picture him as Aslan, a big, gentle, cuddly lion.

[natalia]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

From the Wikipedia entry for Chronicles of Narnia:

With the release of the 2005 Disney movie there has been renewed interest in the Christian parallels found in the books. Some find them distasteful, while noting that they are easy to miss if you are not familiar with Christianity.(Toynbee 2005) Others see the chronicles as an excellent tools for evangelization (Kent 2005), providing a seemingly innocent opening for conversations aimed at converting people to Christianity.

(emphasis added by me)

This more than anything illustrates well why the Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia bothers me so much even though this might not have been what C S Lewis intentionally set out to do.

But gilly, that's true of any work of art/literature/etc... It doesn't even have to be overtly Christian to be hijacked by the evangelists. Take the March of the Penguins. The conservative religious right in the U.S. embraced the movie as a great promoter of family values, monogamy, even intelligent design. But the film's creator said that he was upset that his movie had been hijacked in such a way, especially since he considers himself a scientist and said that the movie can give a good argument against intelligent design.

Lewis was profoundly affected by his faith, yes, and wrote voluminous amounts about that faith explicitly (Mere Christianity, Suprised by Joy, the Screwtape Letters, etc...). But he was also a reveller in the fantastic and began The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe not with an idea of retelling the christ story (although that of course did come later), but with the simple, fantastical image of a faun in the snow with a scarf wrapped around his neck and armload of books.

Think of Marc Chagall (see my avatar). I love his paintings, and sat in awe, bathed in a wash of blue light, one day in Nice at a Chagall stained-glass exhibit. I'm not Jewish, and don't fully understand the spirituality with which he has embued much of his art, but it is beautiful to me nevertheless. If Jewish fundamentalists at some point wanted to use his art as some kind of rallying point for other fundamentalists, I wouldn't view his art any differently -- I wouldn't let a narrow sect of people take away this little piece of beauty I've found in the world.

That's not to say that the Narnia chronicals are points of beauty or absolute literary masterpieces, but if you enjoyed the story before, I can't see it as anything other than a loss to have to let go of any joy you recieve from the story because a vociferous group of conservatives have claimed it as their own.

[gillyruless]

There is a big difference between the Chronicles of Narnia and March of the Penguin though. I can see your point about the Christian right hijacking March of the Penguin but the fact is whether C. S. Lewis intended it or not, most of the main events and characters from the chronicles of Narnia have been "lifted" indirectly from the Bible. Go watch the movie, Natalia, as I have said it is very well done. But scenes like the stone table scene seemed directly came out of the Bible just thinly disguised by substituting the characters. This is different from trying to relate the mating habits of emperor penguins to the family value. Watching the movie felt like reading the Bible dressed up slightly differently. I was hoping against hope that this wouldn't be the case but it was.

[natalia]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

There is a big difference between the Chronicles of Narnia and March of the Penguin though. I can see your point about the Christian right hijacking March of the Penguin but the fact is whether C. S. Lewis intended it or not, most of the main events and characters from the chronicles of Narnia have been "lifted" indirectly from the Bible. Go watch the movie, Natalia, as I have said it is very well done. But scenes like the stone table scene seemed directly came out of the Bible just thinly disguised by substituting the characters. This is different from trying to relate the mating habits of emperor penguins to the family value. Watching the movie felt like reading the Bible dressed up slightly differently. I was hoping against hope that this wouldn't be the case but it was.

Oh I'm not arguing that there aren't christian elements in the story. Lewis said that it was a retelling of the Christ story, a sort of "what if" story told against a fantastical back drop. (Which was his argument against it being an allegory. Aslan wasn't a metaphor for Christ, he was Christ in this particular world).

I guess my question is whether you don't like the story now just because of these christian elements. I took a "Bible as Literature" class in college when I wasn't christian, or even really all that interested in spirtuality. We focused on reading the stories as literature and how the stories worked or didn't work as literature.

My point is that these are all ultimately just stories. You don't need to be a Christian to enjoy them. I like Fiddler on the Roof (scoff away at my embarassing love of musicals ), even though I'm not jewish. I can still take away the message of keeping faith in the face of opression, even if my faith isn't judaism. Edited to add: or even just take away from the movie my love love for silly musicals and a weird adoration for Topol.

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by natalia

I like Fiddler on the Roof (scoff away at my embarassing love of musicals ), even though I'm not jewish. I can still take away the message of keeping faith in the face of opression, even if my faith isn't judaism. Edited to add: or even just take away from the movie my love love for silly musicals and a weird adoration for Topol.

Nothing embarassing about loving that particular musical!

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Mares

Nothing embarassing about loving that particular musical!

I'll second that!

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by natalia

Oh I'm not arguing that there aren't christian elements in the story. Lewis said that it was a retelling of the Christ story, a sort of "what if" story told against a fantastical back drop. (Which was his argument against it being an allegory. Aslan wasn't a metaphor for Christ, he was Christ in this particular world).

I guess my question is whether you don't like the story now just because of these christian elements. I took a "Bible as Literature" class in college when I wasn't christian, or even really all that interested in spirtuality. We focused on reading the stories as literature and how the stories worked or didn't work as literature.

My point is that these are all ultimately just stories. You don't need to be a Christian to enjoy them. I like Fiddler on the Roof (scoff away at my embarassing love of musicals ), even though I'm not jewish. I can still take away the message of keeping faith in the face of opression, even if my faith isn't judaism. Edited to add: or even just take away from the movie my love love for silly musicals and a weird adoration for Topol.

I do like the books and I did enjoy the movie. It just that Aslan used to be a wonderous chracter to me. He was special. knowing that he's just Jesus in a lion suit somehow makes him less special.

By the way, even though I have been somewhat negative in my tone but I still would encourage people to go and watch the movie. It is still a good movie that derserved to be watched.

[Lucien21]

I went to see it today.

It was ............ OK

Can't say i was blown away with it. The SFX was pretty good and the Queen was fantastic.

However most of the kids were so horribly twee as to be nauseating at times. Is that really how kids talked back then. They were all FAR too nice and polite. "Jolly Hockeysticks and home in time for some tea"

The religious "sub" plot was also annoyingly obvious. as one reviewer put it it's lord of the rings meets passion of christ, but everyone is so nice about it.

And what was with the Susan character she done absolutly nothing in the film. What was the point of giving her that bow (She only used it once)

Overall a pretty average movie that is very family friendly, But not one i'm in a hurry to watch again.

[natalia]

I saw this last night and loved it. I thought it was very true to the books, from the scenes (the discovery of the spare room empty except for a dying blue bottle and the magnificent wardrobe) to the characterizations.

I thought the actress playing Lucy was terrific. She was perfectly open and natural without resorting to wide-eyed affectation. And the actor playing Edmund got his character just right, that perfect mix of a dash of sullen, a pinch of angry, and a whole lot of just plain seeking the approval of his older siblings.

The two actors playing Susan and Peter were merely passable, and not that memorable, which works out okay, because the story really does belong to Lucy and Edmund. I felt that the biggest weakness of the movie came during some of the ending battle scenes that revolved around Peter, who just didn't seem to grow into the role that his transformation required.

The moment that caught me the most was when Lucy pushes her way backwards through the wardrobe at the opening of the movie. That sense of wonder falls tangibly through the screen as the fur coats slowly change into snow-covered pine boughs, and the knock of shoes against the wood floor transforms into the crunch of ice and snow.

C.S. Lewis didn't want the book to be made of the movie, he despaired of the technology used in moviemaking at the time that would turn the animals in his book (from majestic Aslan, to the noble stags, to the frightening minotaurs, to the warm and cozy beavers) into absurd puppets. But the special effects were fantastic, the animals were believable. Aslan's mane looked so inviting, that I wanted to reach in and bury my hands in it just as the kids in the movie and the book did.

I won't go into any details about the religious (sub, over, under, whatever you want to call them) tones, because I've spelled out my thoughts in previous posts. Suffice it to say, I think they are only there if you're really looking or want to see them. To me this is ultimately a story about family, courage, betrayal, sacrifice, and redemption -- pretty archetypal values and storylines that no religion has a monopoly on.

A side note about the movie going experience: I'm becoming an old curmudgeon. Sheesh, I know we live in a snark culture -- we're above everything, and so can laugh at anything that doesn't ring up the appropriate numbers on our cynicism meters. But because I loved these books growing up, I was able to bring just a touch of childlike wonder to the events unfolding on the screen. Not so the foolios behind us who laughed at every single scene, and never missed an opportunity to make a snarky comment about Peter's hair or people's expressions. Folks, it's not your living room! There, I've said my piece and will now retire to my old rocking chair with my cane and hot cocoa

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by natalia

There, I've said my piece and will now retire to my old rocking chair with my cane and hot cocoa

*Grabs a bag of Werthers Originals*

[natalia]

Originally Posted by RLacey

*Grabs a bag of Werthers Originals*

No sweets before dinner, young man!

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by natalia

No sweets before dinner, young man!

I'd agree with you, but I've already had a bag of Starburst (or Opal Fruits as I prefer to call them). And a couple of mini Mars bars. And two glasses of Pepsi.

Robert "On a sugar high" Lacey

[natalia]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I'd agree with you, but I've already had a bag of Starburst (or Opal Fruits as I prefer to call them). And a couple of mini Mars bars. And two glasses of Pepsi.

Robert "On a sugar high" Lacey

Wow! Okay, who am I to talk. I just had piece of pumpkin pie and sugar cookies for breakfast.