Posted on 10/16/2005 7:34:14 AM PDT by cloud8
As the UK prepares for a CS Lewis movie blockbuster this Christmas, a row has broken out about its Christian message.
To millions The Chronicles of Narnia are a childhood tale of wonder and triumph now made into a film that could inspire millions of children to read. To others, including the celebrated fantasy author Philip Pullman, they are stories of racism and thinly veiled religious propaganda that will corrupt children rather than inspiring them.
Either way, one thing is certain: this Christmas, and perhaps the next six, depending on sequels, everyone will be talking about Narnia. Disney is already in the middle of one of the biggest marketing campaigns in recent cinematic history. It is trying to lure both mainstream filmgoers and evangelical Christians, who will respond to CS Lewis's parallels between his characters and the Bible. HarperCollins is set to publish 170 Lewis-related books in more than 60 countries, many of them Christian-themed works. Disney has hired Christian marketing groups to handle the film.
For Pullman, who is an avowed atheist and a critic of Lewis, that is bad news. 'If the Disney Corporation wants to market this film as a great Christian story, they'll just have to tell lies about it,' Pullman told The Observer
Pullman believes that Lewis's books portray a version of Christianity that relies on martial combat, outdated fears of sexuality and women, and also portrays a religion that looks a lot like Islam in unashamedly racist terms.
'It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue. The highest virtue, we have on the authority of the New Testament itself, is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books,' he said.
The Narnia books, Pullman said, contained '...a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice; but of love, of Christian charity, [there is] not a trace'.
Certainly that is not the view of Disney. Film executives are eagerly anticipating repeating the success last year of Mel Gibson's Jesus biopic The Passion of The Christ, which was shunned by mainstream studios and then picked up by the evangelical churches. The movie then stunned the film world by raking in hundreds of millions of dollars by tapping into the previously ignored Christian market.
Already American evangelicals are planning to use the Narnia film as a preaching tool. A group called Catholic Outreach has advertised for 150 co-ordinators across the country to help promote the film. It is also organising 'sneak peak' events at which trailers will be shown to church audiences and executives from the film will talk about the project.
Other Christian groups and study centres are getting behind the film too. 'We believe that God will speak the gospel of Jesus Christ through this film,' said Lon Allison, director of the Billy Graham Centre at Wheaton College in Illinois.
Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said that the film was an ideal way for a Christian message to be brought to people who would not otherwise go near a church. 'Here is yet another tool that many may find to be effective in communicating the message of Jesus to those who may not respond to other presentations,' he said.
As well as a huge potential force at the box office, the other possible benefit for Disney is to heal its long troubled relationship with America's evangelical community. Many Christian groups have often boycotted the company over such issues as holding special theme days for gays at Disneyland. But in the run-up to the Narnia release date on 9 December, evangelical leaders have been generous in their praise of the company they have often reviled.
But it is not all about God. The Chronicles of Narnia seems to offer a 'perfect storm' combination of factors. As well as having the Passion's appeal to Christians, it has the special effects and fantasy-laden appeal of The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson's box-office hit that also netted numerous Oscars. That film was also seen as a huge risk at the time, but Jackson's achievement confounded the critics and proved that 'swords and sorcery' movies could strike cinematic gold.
Trailers for the first Narnia film, called The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe after the first book in the chronicles, have already drawn comparisons to The Lord of the Rings' style and cinema presentation. It has the same powerful themes of a new world, complete with fantastic creatures and sweeping battle scenes against a beautiful landscape.
The final crucial element in Disney's planning is turning the Narnia films into a money-spinning franchise like the Harry Potter series. Lewis wrote a total of seven Narnia books, and if the first one is a huge hit the sequels will be inevitable. That means a new Narnia film could be released at Christmas, complete with spin-off merchandising and toys, every year until 2012.
But while Disney has bet big on Narnia and now waits with bated breath, there is already one winner in the saga. The film, just like The Lord of the Rings, was shot in New Zealand, which then reaped a tourism windfall. Now local tour companies are already planning to show visitors around the spot where the Narnia film's climactic battle scene was shot.
Disney is only the distributor, the film is being made by an independent studio with an excellent reputation. (Much like the Pixar-Disney relationship, where Pixar has full creative control.) Early looks have shown a strong tendency to be true to the book.
" But That Hideous Strength was actually the most relevant to today's world."
I thought the satire of so called "science" as portrayed in the book was so spot on...beware the "macrobes"!
We know that Jesus sent such "macrobes" in to the swine who in turn had enough self respect to throw themselves into the sea!
Walden Films has complete control over production of Chronicles. They continue to have a good reputation, and this will be no exception. IMHO...
Likewise. Seems to be a theme here - read the first two of Pullman's books and become disgusted. Same thing happened to me. I have a volume with all three books in it. Never made it to the third book. Did read the end - some garbage about a "Republic of Heaven." It stank on ice.
Basically, it's a bus trip from Hell to Heaven, where the "ghosts" - the souls in Hell/Purgatory - are met by heavenly friends who try to convince them to give up the sins that are keeping them in Hell. It's beautifully written, keenly observed, and very timely. There's even an Apostate Bishop who could be an American Episcopal bishop today.
But here is one of the great scenes - showing that we can never be sure who is a saint on earth . . .
All down one long aisle of the forest the undersides of the leafy branches had begun to tremble with dancing light. Some kind of procession was approaching us, and the light came from the persons who composed it.First came bright spirits, not the spirits of men, who danced and scattered flowers soundlessly falling, lightly drifting flowers. Then, on the left and right, at each side of the forest avenue, came youthful shapes, boys upon one side and girls upon the other. If I could remember their singing and write down the notes, no man who read that score would ever grow sick or old. Between them went musicians; and after that a lady in whose honor all this was being done.
I cannot now remember whether she was naked or clothed. If she was naked, then it must have been the almost invisible penumbra of her courtesy and joy that produced in my memory the illusion of a great and shining train that followed her across the happy grass. If she was clothed, then the illusion of nakedness is doubtless due to the clarity with which her inmost spirit shone through the clothes. For clothes in that country are not a disguise: the spiritual body lives along each thread and turns them into living organs. A robe or crown is, there, as much one of the wearer’s features as a lip or an eye.
But I have forgotten. And only partly do I remember the unbearable beauty of her face.
“Is it … is it?” I whispered to my guide.
“Not at all,” said he, “It’s someone you’ll never have heard of. Her name on earth was Sarah Smith, and she lived in Golders Green.”
“She seems to be… well, a person of particular importance.”
“Aye, she is one of the great ones. You have heard that fame in this country and fame on earth are two quite different things.”
“Who are all these young men and women on each side?”
“They are her sons and daughters.”
“She must have had a very large family.”
“Every young man or boy that met her became her son — even if it was only the boy who brought the meat to her back door. Every girl that met her was her daughter.”
“Isn’t that a bit hard on their own parents?”
“No. There are those who steal other people’s children, but her motherhood was of a different kind. Those on whom it fell went back to their parents loving them more…. Everything that came near her had a place in her love. In her they became themselves. And now the abundance of life that she has in Christ from the Father flows over into them. It is like when you throw a stone into a pool, and the concentric waves spread out further and further. Redeemed humanity is still young; it has hardly come to its full strength. But already there is joy enough in the little finger of a great saint such as yonder lady to waken all the dead things of the universe into life.”
But Lewis was a good medievalist, and he was just framing the war between good and evil in the terms of the culture he studied in his day job. When they were at the gates of Vienna or getting hammered at Lepanto, Christendom was pretty much agreed that they were Bad.
Pity nobody has that clarity of thought, these days.
When Eustace and Jill are being persecuted by the school bullies in The Silver Chair (just about the only appearance of a school in the Narnia books - and Lewis takes his shots in asides to the grownups) they decide to ask Aslan to let them go into Narnia. Jill asks Eustace if he means to draw circles on the ground and recite spells and stuff . . . and Eustace answers that he doesn't think Aslan would like that very much.
And there's a great scene in Prince Caspian where Dionysus/Bacchus and his wild Maenads make an appearance -- pagan riot at its most anarchic and dangerous. But Aslan has summoned them and has dominion over them. Susan remarks to Lucy that she "wouldn't feel safe with Bacchus and his wild girls if Aslan wasn't with us."
Which comports with Lewis's philosophical view that the pre-Christian world contained hints and foreshadowings of Christ and Redemption . . . neat stuff.
You will enjoy the books very much. They are not as "epic" as LOTR -- more like The Hobbit or Tolkien's little jewels Farmer Giles of Ham or Smith of Wooton Major. But the worldview is similar, expressed differently but similar. As others have observed, Lewis and Tolkien were good friends and read and discussed each others' work.
Me neither!
I assume the movie will be disney-fied, not good.
Love C.S Lewis...He is w/o a doubt one of my favorite authors. He has a way of breaking down things 'til they are simply black and white.
The Great Divorce...what a GREAT book. Incredible imagery.
I'm sure in the later books some would accuse him of racism. 1) There are two types of dwarfs, red and black. The black dwarves are generally meaner and less trustworthy. (Actually the red and black dwarves are caucasian but with red or dark hair and beards, respectively.) 2) The Calormenes (sp?) are the bad guys in some of the stories and are dark-skinned, ie, middle eastern or mediterranean, although at least two of them are good guys (Emeth and the Tarkeena). The evil drawves even refer to the Calormenes as "darkies" in the Last Battle. 3) The evil ape in the last battle has black skin and is very lazy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't brought up, if and when the last movie is made.
People who really want to be offended will be, but I suspect from what I've read and from seeing the preview, this will be such a big movie that the whining from the critics will be drowned out.
Even if Disney is 100% true to the LWW, it will be interesting if they can keep it up for the remaining six books. There are some scenes Disney may not have the guts for, like Caspian's swordfight with his uncle and the last battle. And if they stay true to the books, the Muslims will probably issue a jihad against Disney for A Horse and His Boy and the Last Battle.
My personal favorite Chronicle is the fifth book (A Horse and His Boy) but I think the neatest to see on screen will be The Silver Chair. Puddleglum will be such a neat character and I can't wait to see Prince Rilian when he's tied up in the chair and the Diggory and Jill have to decide whether to untie him or not. Ooh, I get chills just thinking about it.
That sounds beautiful. Thanks for posting the excerpt.
How about Jill in The Last Battle? King Tirian says that she couldn't be more woodwise if she had dryad's blood in her. < g >
2) Aslan says in the LWW that wars are ugly when girls fight in them
Wars ARE ugly when women fight -- because they don't have the same code of conduct. See Kipling, "The Young British Soldier."
3) the Satan-figures in the stories are witches, ie, female.
Well, there are also good female characters who use magic - e.g. the Star's Daughter, and evil male characters, although they use force rather than magic as a general rule . . . but a woman could not use force. And the woman-disguised-as-a-knight (shades of the Faerie Queen) is in strong evidence in Aravis Tarkheena.
And Dwarves aren't Caucasian -- they're a different SPECIES (although they do intermarry - see Dr. Cornelius - there's no evidence the offspring are fertile).
But you're right, those who seek to be offended will be (as the mysterious Irish woman said in The Water Babies, "Those that wish to be clean, clean they will be; and those that wish to be foul, foul they will be.")
Yes, Chesterton was a major player as well. Lewis, Chesterton, Charles Williams and Tolkien were the main, though "honorary" ones included Owen Barfield, Lewis' brother "Warnie" and his wife, Joy. Also, Goerge MacDonald's works had influenced them as well.
Interesting. I was not aware of that.
I read the series when I was about 10. I didn't know they were "Christian" books till I was in my 30s. To me, they were just rip-roarin' good fiction.
Typical unsubstantial rant.
Pullman is to Lewis as Foxman was to Gibson.
Absolutely; you nailed it, Jay. As another atheist -Bertrand Russell- said, "most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." LOL.
How about Jill in The Last Battle? King Tirian says that she couldn't be more woodwise if she had dryad's blood in her. < g >
Of course, you're right. I think Lewis was a little more sensitive to that criticism in the later books. (He wrote them over a period of several years.)
2) Aslan says in the LWW that wars are ugly when girls fight in them.
Wars ARE ugly when women fight --
Yes, that is common sense, but common sense usually has nothing to do political correctness.
Aravis Tarkheena.
Aravis. Thank you. I could not remember her name. I love her character.
And Dwarves aren't Caucasian -- they're a different SPECIES
You're right that the dwarves are not sons of Adam, but I think of all the human-like creatures in Narnia as Caucasian--centaurs, satyrs, giants, witches, etc. I really was just trying to point out that although the dwarves were called black dwarves, they were Caucasian (white), not dark-skinned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.