**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[davem]

Originally Posted by Luthien Elven Princess

davem...what words do you mean. Since Lewis is a very well know Christian theologian, why does it seem so hard to understand why Christians would use his writings as an opportunity to talk with others about their faith?
And why would Lewis have a problem with that?

I think Lewis position on the Narnia stories was to 'play' with the idea of what would happen if the Son of God had come into a world like Narnia.

There's an interesting article on the Christianity Today website on this subject http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/32.0.html. These quotes sums it up:

The danger is that we could prize his image, and what it does for us, more than his message and what he intended it to do. Lewis never wanted to be a symbol. In fact, he questioned whether "little books about Christianity" had much lasting impact. … It's a good guess that he would prefer his own Christian identity to be something for the reader to discover, just as we gradually realize who Aslan is. Tampering with the words of Lewis' books would be a travesty. However, if Lewis is not labeled "Christian apologist," if he's mainstreamed into the community of other writers, it may help him escape the prejudice that traditional Christians face today. It won't limit his message; he'll still be a Christian apologist. Just one who can slip behind otherwise-locked doors more easily.

..."The author almost certainly did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of the Narnian theology to the Christian story," Sayer writes in Jack. "His idea, as he once explained to me, was to make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read and enjoyed years before. 'I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism of the child's imagination.'"

Where I think Lewis would be uncomfortable about the way Evangelicals are using the Narnia movies is that they aren't allowing Children to 'gradually realize who Aslan is', they're 'ramming' the 'Aslan is Jesus' http://aslanisjesus.co.uk/ 'message' down kid's throats. They're not allowing Children to discover Lewis's meaning by coming to Narnia & making their own 'connections' to the Christian story, allowing them the pleasure of reading the stories/seeing the films as works of Art in their own right, but telling them beforehand 'This is about Jesus!' In short, they're telling them what the story means, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. If Lewis had wanted to write a book about Jesus for children he would have written one in plain & simple language. Children who are taken to see Narnia, or given the books to read, having been told beforehand what they 'mean' will have pre-conceptions about them, & will read/watch them as a 'lesson', a 'sermon' - which is not at all what Lewis wanted.

[Lalaith]

Interestingly, what seems to be happening here in the UK is that the evangelical "grabbing" of Narnia is actually putting people off seeing it. (That, and generally lukewarm reviews) The British general public are very secular in their instincts and don't like anything they suspect to be overtly religious propaganda. (The Passion of the Christ did very badly in UK cinemas) I've heard a fair amount of talk both in the media and among ordinary people regarding "dodgy Christian moralising" in Narnia.
It's the same with the march of the penguins movie. I've heard a lot of people say, disparagingly, "oh, that's that film that all the American Christians really latched on to," (despite the fact that the film-maker himself has disassociated himself from the claims made about the penguins' family values...)
I personally intend to see both films, and make my own judgements.

As for the LotR films, there was also a bit of sneering here when they first came out, but of a different kind. Narnia is held in more general affection than Middle-Earth in the UK - it is considered more mainstream, more people read the CS Lewis books as children, whereas Tolkien (or rather his fans) had a slightly more odd and geeky reputation. It was only when the PJ films began to be seen as a movie event, like the Star Wars films, that the sneering stopped.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Good points, and thank you so much for the insight into how these films are being received else where. The actual movie comes across very much as Lewis would have intended (as stated by davem). It is a shame that people can't form their own opinions of it after seeing it. But I suppose that even then, it will now be hard for them to see it without noticing the elements of Christianity. To me, those parts have always been like finding a jewel or two (if you recognize them) in a story that is prefectly wonderful in its own right. They make you realize that there might be more hidden, if you care to go digging, but it is left entirely to you. It is enjoyable as it is.

And if you excuse the step back a post or two, yes luthien-elvenprincess, you are very right. I had the opportunity to look at the book this morning before switching on the computer, and I found the movie had the end of the witch more accurately than I did!

[Lalwendë]

I think in the UK people as a whole also possess a strange kind of stubbornness, a resistance to anything which has been prescribed as "good for you"; we seem to grumble a lot at the prospect of being told what to do and when, yet paradoxically we also buy newspapers which want to ban seemingly everything which is in any way fun.

The same section of the media which is accusing Narnia of being a sinister recruiting device for the church are currently also crying censorship about Sainsbury's withdrawing DVDs of Jerry Springer The Opera from their shelves. Vice versa, those who are hoping to use Narnia as a way of recruiting for local sunday schools are the ones who were urged by a pressure group to ring the BBC and complain about Jeery Springer The Opera. I wonder how many have seen or read either and are really able to comment?

All that worries me is that as a child I was not unlike most other children and if offered the choice of two entertainments, one chosen as "appropriate" by my parents and one "discovered" by myself or my friends then I would always plump for the latter. For children, fun almost always wins out over educational value. I mean, which Christmas song would you rather have listened to, Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday or Cliff's Millennium Prayer (or Band Aid's Feed The World, to substitute a secular "good for you" entertainment) ?

Fair enough, there is nothing at all wrong with Christians grabbing hold of Narnia and being excited about it and getting people to go and read/see it and so on (after all, the secular world has stolen Christmas, as a Guardian journalist wryly put it the other day); but I am worried that too much promotion of it as being good because of, or even just too much emphasis on, the Christian element of the story might have the opposite effect and turn a lot of kids right off Narnia. Let's see what happens when King Kong opens as to which film gets the bigger audience.

[Rimbaud]

Yah, I'm with Zoe Williams on this one, lal. Those who take the 'Toynbee' route, with their atheistic drum-banging are as bad as some of those whom they decry. I'm faithless myself, but was more than capable of enjoying the books without being overtly sermonised, and surely will be similarly able to view the movies as good ol' capitalistic hubris.

Furthermore, as was mentioned in the same article you reference, other than the resurrection malarkey in LWW, the majority of people wouldn't feel overwhelmed by Christian imagery, as there are fewer people with a working knowledge of Biblical imagery in the audience (another result of Britain's increased secularism).

[Lalwendë]

I can recommend the Narnia film. I saw it today and thought it was excellent - it was even more moving in parts than LotR (especially where Aslan gives himself up ), and the allegorical aspect was not laid on thickly at all.

Acting first. Tilda Swinton played the White Witch well - I don't know how all the proper kids in the sudience felt about her, they were all very quiet indeed throughout, but this big kid was scared by her. ...I think it's because she always reminds me of my aunt.... The young actors were all excellent, particularly the little girl playing Lucy; a lot of child actors can be bit 'wooden' but not in this case. I also liked Liam Neeson as Aslan, though I didn't realise it was him for some time. Did anyone else notice Douglas Gresham in the cast list? This made me think of the addition of Tolkien's great-grandson to the cast of RotK - a link to the books and the imaginations which created these worlds.

The design was very bright, although I didn't think Metro's description of the battles as being like "LotR with Fuzzy Felt" entirely fair. The film is primarily aimed at children, as were the books, and so you would not expect to see terror and gore (there was enough terror with Tilda Swinton). The winter landscapes were particularly beautiful, and the costume for the White Witch was stunning.

I can second Kuruharan that the plot did not end up going off in stupid directions, and it was simplified just enough. The only thing which troubled me was there being mass evacuations after the blitz had started - I don't remember this in the book? Mass evacuation started a good nine months before the blitz. But hey, that's just me being pedantic....

Go and see it, it's good all round. And you might get a better seat than you would for King Kong right now.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Lalwende, did you get the impression that they took the highlights out of Tilda Swinton's eyes? A very disturbing effect, it looked dark and frightening behind those eyes! Stranger than Cate Blanchett's Christmas tree light highlights.