I'll admit, you're more charitable than I'm willing to be. I think I'm still smarting from the absolute nightmare that gender-swapped casting turned out to be for Doctor Who. They swore up and down that it wouldn't change anything fundamental, and that it wasn't meant as a disrespectful subversion of the story's structure. They drove it into the ground.
For my part - I was already pretty wary with all of the tweaks that Gerwig has wanted to make with the timeline, the music, and many rumors of Streep's involvement. This pretty much cemented my desire to pass on this interpretation of Lewis' works. Yes, that means it translates into "we just don't good Christian movies", but ... I think it's fair to say there was no need to go down any of these routes with a franchise that's so well known and loved.
“The movies shown in figure 7.1 below were all successful popular movies about heroes who in real life were Christians, whose faith influenced their exploits. Yet, every one of these movies either entirely ignored that faith or downplayed it to virtual irrelevancy. Paul Rusesabagina was the man profiled in Hotel Rwanda; his Christian faith caused him to reach out and help those who were being slaughtered in the 1990s Rwandan genocide. But you would never know that because the filmmakers did not depict his faith. The protagonist of The Pursuit of Happyness, Chris Gardner, was helped by the values of his faith, such as the Protestant work ethic, that helped him overcome his poverty. But you would never know that because filmmakers successfully hid his faith. The film Becoming Jane fictionalizes Jane Austen’s life. Along the way it eliminates her Christian faith, depicting her as a humanistic proto-feminist romantic instead. “
7.1 lost of films: Hotel Rwanda, the Pursuit of Happiness, Becoming Jane, Anna and the King, Pocahontas, the New World, Walking the Line, Hardball, The Patriot.
There are more problems than a female voicing Aslan, although this is by far the most egregious adaptation, especially considering that Gerwig portrays Aslan as she should - a lion, not a lioness. It's disconcerting.
But she's also got Aslan with multi coloured eyes, red streaks in his mane. The setting isn't the early 1900's, it's in the post war 50's era.
The white witch (Jadis) has a wild, music-inspired rock-and-roll look with nods to iconic artists like David Bowie and The Who. Gerwig describes her approach as a "rock opera," leaning into the concept that Narnia's creation is tied fundamentally to music.
All of this is weird considering Gerwig is a Narnia fan. 🤷
I'm currently reading The Magician's Nephew to my eldest son. I read it for the first time when I was about 12 and it's my favorite Narnia book.
My son and I are at the part where Polly and Digory meet the queen and I'm excited to be part of his first experience of Aslan and the creation of Narnia. I remember being awestruck at the creation of Narnia and Aslan's presence in the story.
I don't see how this casting of Aslan is anything but nefarious. Pushing the ideology that gender no meanig and everything should be androgynous. All while in a story for children looks a lot like someone trying to push an anti-christian ideology onto a generation.
Changing a story from it's author's intention makes it a different story with different morals, spirituality, and lessons. Even if Meryl can sing bass I doubt this is going end well.
Very fair and politely reasoned, Samuel. The original trilogy of Narnia movies are pretty variable, but one thing I will absolutely give them is that they got Aslan spot on. Liam Neeson was a perfect choice, and there was always a dignity and gravitas that accompanied the mere mention of Aslan's name. Even had there not been the controversy around gender, I think Gerwig's iteration would have struggled to match that.
Quick question... did you mean to say that when we hear Aslan we should think of father? Or did you mean that we should think of a son? Isn't the Emperor-Beyond the Sea the Father? The Son comes and lives the perfect life of a Son to the Father, obedience even unto death. And as Son he reigns.
When you say “Asian is supposed to make us think of Christ”, why must that mean a masculine image? While Jesus, the human incarnation of God, came as a man, “Christ”, the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity is neither male nor female. Insisting that we keep viewing God (not the human Jesus) as a “man” is both theologically incorrect and sexist.
Aslan is known in our world by another name, Jesus. So just on that basis alone, he is male.
Secondly, there is a reason why God uses masculine pronouns for Himself. There is imagery in Scripture that He uses to help us understand spiritual realities. Marriage for one. Jesus is the groom, and the church is the bride.
God also refers to Himself as the Father. To give Him pronouns other than what He Himself has specified is to go against His own distinction of Himself.
I appreciated the charity in your letter. You were able to remain grace-filled and yet, at the same time, articulate why the casting choice misses something crucial about the meaning of Aslan as Savior. It was always about Him.
Beautifully expressed!!!!!!! “He’s not tame, but He’s GOOD.” We DO need Aslan’s God-as-the-ultimate-healthily-loving-father figure, WORTHY of our worship.
I am EXCITED about the GOODNESS inherent in The Magician’s Nephew, in our creation by Aslan, in all shapes and sizes, funny and serious and in between, from a sincere, loving excellent story teller, brought into our weary and embattled society right now!!!!!💃👏🙌
As a traditional Narnianist (new term, maybe?), I will just have a really hard time not hearing the Aslan that Lewis presented in the books. It’s not just that Aslan is a character in the books, a lion in the land of Narnia; he IS the books, he IS the foundation of Narnia.
Sadly, I will try to avoid seeing the movie until I just can’t hold out any more… I adore The Magician’s Nephew, and while I think Meryl Streep is an exceptional actress; however, I truly agree with so many of your points, Samuel. Thank you for taking the time to construct this letter.
I thought her adaptation of Little Women was actually closer than a lot of others. It was the only one to give the characters of Meg, Amy and Mr. Laurence Sr. their due.
I have to vehemently disagree both on the first point - I believe that 1994 and 2017 were much, much closer to the spirit and letter of the novel than 2019, and the second - Emma Watson was a dreadful Meg, underwritten and underdirected by Gerwig, Amy went from a girl who developed from selfishness to maturity into a feminist mouthpiece for Gerwig who says that marrying for money is her duty...the literal opposite of Marmee's ethics she passed on to her girls, and Mr. Lawrence Sr. was done beautifully in 2017 particularly by Michael Gambon.
I thought the 2017 miniseries was boring, so I can't really comment on it.
I feel like Meg was underwritten and underdirected in the 1994 movie, honestly. Basically, all she did was look nervous and embarrassed all the time. The 2019 movie did a lot more to dramatize the tension between her desire for riches and her love for her not-so-wealthy husband.
And I feel like you're really missing the context of the scene with Amy. Laurie says to her, "I understand queens of society can't get on without money but it does sound odd coming from one of your mother's girls." Later in the movie, Amy changes her mind about marrying someone she doesn't love for money, implying she's come to see that her mother and Laurie were right and she was wrong. I'd say that shows her moving from selfishness to maturity.
The 2017 miniseries was DELIGHTFUL! Very un-boring and exciting!
I agree that Meg was cut pretty severely in 1994, but at least she wasn't incompetently written and acted!
I simply do not see the film successfully pushing back against the extremely anti-Marmeeian sentiments Amy is spouting. These elements are undercut by who delivers them and the structure of the film.
I'll admit, you're more charitable than I'm willing to be. I think I'm still smarting from the absolute nightmare that gender-swapped casting turned out to be for Doctor Who. They swore up and down that it wouldn't change anything fundamental, and that it wasn't meant as a disrespectful subversion of the story's structure. They drove it into the ground.
For my part - I was already pretty wary with all of the tweaks that Gerwig has wanted to make with the timeline, the music, and many rumors of Streep's involvement. This pretty much cemented my desire to pass on this interpretation of Lewis' works. Yes, that means it translates into "we just don't good Christian movies", but ... I think it's fair to say there was no need to go down any of these routes with a franchise that's so well known and loved.
I can’t bear to think of Aslan as female.
“The movies shown in figure 7.1 below were all successful popular movies about heroes who in real life were Christians, whose faith influenced their exploits. Yet, every one of these movies either entirely ignored that faith or downplayed it to virtual irrelevancy. Paul Rusesabagina was the man profiled in Hotel Rwanda; his Christian faith caused him to reach out and help those who were being slaughtered in the 1990s Rwandan genocide. But you would never know that because the filmmakers did not depict his faith. The protagonist of The Pursuit of Happyness, Chris Gardner, was helped by the values of his faith, such as the Protestant work ethic, that helped him overcome his poverty. But you would never know that because filmmakers successfully hid his faith. The film Becoming Jane fictionalizes Jane Austen’s life. Along the way it eliminates her Christian faith, depicting her as a humanistic proto-feminist romantic instead. “
7.1 lost of films: Hotel Rwanda, the Pursuit of Happiness, Becoming Jane, Anna and the King, Pocahontas, the New World, Walking the Line, Hardball, The Patriot.
The Imagination of God Art, Creativity and Truth
in the Bible By Brian Godawa
Page 130
There are more problems than a female voicing Aslan, although this is by far the most egregious adaptation, especially considering that Gerwig portrays Aslan as she should - a lion, not a lioness. It's disconcerting.
But she's also got Aslan with multi coloured eyes, red streaks in his mane. The setting isn't the early 1900's, it's in the post war 50's era.
The white witch (Jadis) has a wild, music-inspired rock-and-roll look with nods to iconic artists like David Bowie and The Who. Gerwig describes her approach as a "rock opera," leaning into the concept that Narnia's creation is tied fundamentally to music.
All of this is weird considering Gerwig is a Narnia fan. 🤷
I'm currently reading The Magician's Nephew to my eldest son. I read it for the first time when I was about 12 and it's my favorite Narnia book.
My son and I are at the part where Polly and Digory meet the queen and I'm excited to be part of his first experience of Aslan and the creation of Narnia. I remember being awestruck at the creation of Narnia and Aslan's presence in the story.
I don't see how this casting of Aslan is anything but nefarious. Pushing the ideology that gender no meanig and everything should be androgynous. All while in a story for children looks a lot like someone trying to push an anti-christian ideology onto a generation.
Changing a story from it's author's intention makes it a different story with different morals, spirituality, and lessons. Even if Meryl can sing bass I doubt this is going end well.
Very fair and politely reasoned, Samuel. The original trilogy of Narnia movies are pretty variable, but one thing I will absolutely give them is that they got Aslan spot on. Liam Neeson was a perfect choice, and there was always a dignity and gravitas that accompanied the mere mention of Aslan's name. Even had there not been the controversy around gender, I think Gerwig's iteration would have struggled to match that.
Love the piece. I hope she reads this!
Quick question... did you mean to say that when we hear Aslan we should think of father? Or did you mean that we should think of a son? Isn't the Emperor-Beyond the Sea the Father? The Son comes and lives the perfect life of a Son to the Father, obedience even unto death. And as Son he reigns.
If you've seen the Son you've seen the Father. "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?"
When you say “Asian is supposed to make us think of Christ”, why must that mean a masculine image? While Jesus, the human incarnation of God, came as a man, “Christ”, the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity is neither male nor female. Insisting that we keep viewing God (not the human Jesus) as a “man” is both theologically incorrect and sexist.
Aslan is known in our world by another name, Jesus. So just on that basis alone, he is male.
Secondly, there is a reason why God uses masculine pronouns for Himself. There is imagery in Scripture that He uses to help us understand spiritual realities. Marriage for one. Jesus is the groom, and the church is the bride.
God also refers to Himself as the Father. To give Him pronouns other than what He Himself has specified is to go against His own distinction of Himself.
Well, there’s also plenty of feminine imagery used in the Scriptures for God. Insisting that God is a man is just flat out bad theology.
@John: are you suggesting that Jesus is separate from his identity as Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity?
Jesus the man and Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity are of two distinct natures.
Jesus was fully God and fully man.
Yes—two fully distinct natures in one person.
I appreciated the charity in your letter. You were able to remain grace-filled and yet, at the same time, articulate why the casting choice misses something crucial about the meaning of Aslan as Savior. It was always about Him.
Thank you for a very kind en well-argued letter. I do hope Ms Gerwig comes across it!
Beautifully expressed!!!!!!! “He’s not tame, but He’s GOOD.” We DO need Aslan’s God-as-the-ultimate-healthily-loving-father figure, WORTHY of our worship.
I am EXCITED about the GOODNESS inherent in The Magician’s Nephew, in our creation by Aslan, in all shapes and sizes, funny and serious and in between, from a sincere, loving excellent story teller, brought into our weary and embattled society right now!!!!!💃👏🙌
Very winsome
Very well said.
As a traditional Narnianist (new term, maybe?), I will just have a really hard time not hearing the Aslan that Lewis presented in the books. It’s not just that Aslan is a character in the books, a lion in the land of Narnia; he IS the books, he IS the foundation of Narnia.
Sadly, I will try to avoid seeing the movie until I just can’t hold out any more… I adore The Magician’s Nephew, and while I think Meryl Streep is an exceptional actress; however, I truly agree with so many of your points, Samuel. Thank you for taking the time to construct this letter.
Here’s to hoping Greta sees it…
People who think Lewis didn’t like women have got to be a special kind of ignorant/crazy/illiterate
After what she did to Little Women, I'm nowhere close to seeing her as a Narnian at heart at all.
I thought her adaptation of Little Women was actually closer than a lot of others. It was the only one to give the characters of Meg, Amy and Mr. Laurence Sr. their due.
I have to vehemently disagree both on the first point - I believe that 1994 and 2017 were much, much closer to the spirit and letter of the novel than 2019, and the second - Emma Watson was a dreadful Meg, underwritten and underdirected by Gerwig, Amy went from a girl who developed from selfishness to maturity into a feminist mouthpiece for Gerwig who says that marrying for money is her duty...the literal opposite of Marmee's ethics she passed on to her girls, and Mr. Lawrence Sr. was done beautifully in 2017 particularly by Michael Gambon.
I thought the 2017 miniseries was boring, so I can't really comment on it.
I feel like Meg was underwritten and underdirected in the 1994 movie, honestly. Basically, all she did was look nervous and embarrassed all the time. The 2019 movie did a lot more to dramatize the tension between her desire for riches and her love for her not-so-wealthy husband.
And I feel like you're really missing the context of the scene with Amy. Laurie says to her, "I understand queens of society can't get on without money but it does sound odd coming from one of your mother's girls." Later in the movie, Amy changes her mind about marrying someone she doesn't love for money, implying she's come to see that her mother and Laurie were right and she was wrong. I'd say that shows her moving from selfishness to maturity.
The 2017 miniseries was DELIGHTFUL! Very un-boring and exciting!
I agree that Meg was cut pretty severely in 1994, but at least she wasn't incompetently written and acted!
I simply do not see the film successfully pushing back against the extremely anti-Marmeeian sentiments Amy is spouting. These elements are undercut by who delivers them and the structure of the film.