And I'm going to see Lion, Witch and Wardrobe tomorrow. What a great story!
And yes, Lewis explicitly state it was NOT allegory. What he meant was that Aslan LITERALLY WAS CHRIST in the film, not just a Christ-like figure. His idea was about what it would be like if Christ had to save a world like Narnia that was populated by talking animals instead of humans. In that case, he would come to the world as an animal instead of a man.
That was the idea, and so it's not technically allegory, but I'm probably just splitting hairs.
What he meant was that Aslan LITERALLY WAS CHRIST in the film, not just a Christ-like figure
You can't mean that. If it wasn't an allegory, then it either wasn't intended to a have religious theme or Christ really was a lion.
Narnia was wonderful! I really enjoyed it.
The lion obviously represents Christ. Heck, even the altar breaks in two and he comes out shining in light for crying out loud.
The lion is Christ.
I loved Narnia, and I never read the book.
About the only other movie coming out I might see is Fun with Dick and Jane since it has Jim Carrey.
I took the whole family to see it yesterday. It's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. I enjoyed it as much as LOTR. Just be sure to go in as a little kid, ready to be enchanted. The lady who plays the White Witch is marvelous, as are all four of the children.
I know Lewis said the Narnia series were not an allegory; but he called them "suppositional." Still seems like allegory to me!
Wikipedia:
Lewis, an expert on the subject of allegory, himself maintained that the books were not allegory, and preferred to call the Christian aspects of them "suppositional". This is similar to what we would now call alternative history.