So that's how she was able to act so cold, cruel, heartless and manipulative in the role.
Posted on 05/08/2006 4:58:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
She's also described by Uncle Andrew as a 'Dem fine woman.
Fortunately her character was killed off. They can find plenty other good actresses to fill the part of the green witch (silver chair).
Thanks for the reminder about the DVD extras. I haven't gotten to them yet.
I assume she won't be nominated for any acting in the role then.
I loved watching the extras. One thing I was really struck by was how much Edmund grew and changed in looks. The little girl who plays Lucy (Georgie?) has the same type of personality that she has on the screen. Very cute. It was neat to see how they filmed the water scenes.
McKellan(Gandalf) is a liberal. What is this world coming to? He seemed really cool. Oh, well. Soon we'll find out that the guy who played Jesus in the Passion is a commie.
McKelland is also gay. But he's an actor and did a superb job of playing Gandalf. Swinton was also excellent as the White Witch.
As for James Caviezel who played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ here are his own words in a Newsweek nterview:
You're Catholic. Did playing Christ deepen your faith?
I love him more than I ever knew possible. I love him more than my wife, my family. There were times when I was up there [on the cross], and I could barely speak. Continual hypothermia is so excruciating. I connected to a place I could have never, ever gone. I don't want people to see me. All I want them to see is Jesus Christ.
Regardless, they're all actors. It's not supposed to be them we see on the screen. If they're good actors, we won't notice/care if they're off screen idiots.
Actors don't have to be intellectuals: All they have to do is repeat someone else's words.
But we can sure laugh at their STOOPIDITY! ;o)
So, Tilda, will you be joking about the state of religion in, say, Iran? What might be the advice you've received about commentary towards Islam? Are there any Muslim mater race people you might want to speak about? Thought not, you coward.
I am not sure what you mean by symbolism. If you mean a one-to-one correspondence between an image in the story and a meaning, then that is definitely not what Tolkien wrote, nor Lewis. Tolkien wrote mythology, or as he liked to call it, faerie.
As he says in the foreword of The Fellowship of the Ring
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true and feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
In his review of The Lord of the Rings for the Times, Lewis wrote:
What shows that we are reading myth, not allegory, is that there are no pointers to a specifically theological, or political, or psychological application. A myth points, for each reader, to the realm he lives in most. It is a master key; use it on what door you like.
Lewis and Tolkien shared much in common, including their opinions on fairy-stories. That some commie grade-B actress can interpret Lewis's mythology as anti-religious shows how successful Lewis was in creating faerie. And what better person to play the White Whitch than an atheist. That role required no acting on her part.
"Steven D. Greydanus, in his review of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on the Decent Films website, criticized the "many liberties" taken by the producers with the original book themes. He was especially harsh about the film version's undermining of the power of Aslan and elevation of the status of the Witch which contradicted Lewis's most important messages in the book.
Greydanus wrote, "Perhaps the single gravest change to the story is one that greatly empowers the Witch at Aslan’s expense. It is simply the eradication of the whole motif of the Witch’s overt fear of Aslan. This is absolutely crucial to the book’s emphasis on the utter lack of parity between the omnipotent Aslan and the powerful but limited Witch. The whole vision of good and evil at work in the story turns on the fact that the Witch is never even close to being a rival or threat to Aslan, any more than Lucifer to Christ himself."
The Christian film critic further explains that "The filmmakers, perhaps motivated by a misguided dramatic notion of needing the villain to be a credible threat to the hero, eliminate practically every indication of the Witch’s fear of Aslan from the story — in the process jettisoning much of the point Lewis was making about the nature and relationship of good and evil.""
This review is totally wrong.
The film does nothing of the sort. The film is perfectly loyal to the book. She IS a credible threat in the book...she plunges the land into perpetual winter, after all. It's not like there is ever any real doubt who is going to win. Even so, she does kill Aslan after all and he does look pathetic in the book as he is led to the stone table.
In the film, his power is apparent, especially in that scene where he comes out of the tent for the first time and all the Narnians - and the children - are virtually compelled to their knees.
This guy doing the Decent Films review must be looking for a problem. Either that, or he neither watched the film nor read the book. What a moron.
Perhaps. But I try to give them their due. But I tend to agree it is impossible for an atheist to be "good" except as an option when they do a cost/benefit analysis.
In the absence of a general moral milieu, "good" is just something you do to make you feel good.
So that's how she was able to act so cold, cruel, heartless and manipulative in the role.
Wasn't it that actress who was originally a porn star or some other similar occupation?
How could they say that the Witch was not afraid of Aslan in the movie? At the first mention of his name by Edmund you could see the look in her eyes as she looks toward the dwarf. And how about when Aslan growls at her and she sits quickly down like in the book? She was clearly in fear of him and the only thing protecting her was her "claim" on the traitor Edmund.
That's messed up. I've always thought he was cool. I'll just try to remember him as Gandalf.
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.