Re: [mythsoc] The Voice of Aslan
- "Darrell A. Martin" <darrellm@...> wrote:
>The article you find to be "vile ... full of hatred and evilWow. That's just ... croggling. Wow.
>generalities" I find to be matter of fact and moderate
>However, the realSince that's not what Neeson said, whatever that's a relevant question to, it's not relevant to his comments.
>question here is not about Islam. It is about whether it is in the least
>appropriate to say Aslan in the Narnia books represents Buddha or
>Mohammed when C.S. Lewis, the author, made repeated statements that
>Aslan represents Jesus Christ, the son of God and founder of the
>I see this as the rough equivalent of making a movie from "Animal Farm",Actually, Orwell would have been pretty dismayed at any suggestion that only Soviet Communists could behave in the manner of his fictional pigs. His allegory was straightforward, but he did want his moral lessons to have a wider application.
>with the person doing the voice of the narrator saying the pigs
>represent "any political party, whether Conservative, Democratic, Labor,
>Baathist, Green, Nazi, Republican, or Libertarian". Orwell made it clear
>who the pigs were. Other, inclusive, identifications would do violence
>to the central vision behind his book.
>When someone alters the central vision of an original when he adapts it,Indeed, but Neeson isn't the person who adapted the movie. Criticize his comments on their own grounds, but that doesn't affect the movie, which is quite faithful to Lewis's religious view as shown in the book, including (a nearly verbatim reproduction, as I recall, of) Aslan's statement that in the children's own world, "I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia."
>but still attempts to benefit by identifying his own work with the
>original, he is being dishonest, in my opinion. Christianity did not
>wander into Narnia by accident, nor having arrived was it allowed to
>remain by mere sufferance. Lewis and the internal evidence are clear.
- There was some discussion of it on Hugh Hewitt's radio show several weeks ago; the consensus being that Neeson (who is apparently a relatively recent convert to Roman Catholicism) either doesn't understand his faith or hasn't bothered to read CSL.
But why anyone should care what the actor thinks is puzzling to me-- we should care what the author thinks and we should care whether the director & producer create a film which lines up with the author's purpose, not even whether they (director and/or producer) agree with the author's view. The actors are beside the point.
I realize that actors are high profile and all but one might as well ask the gaffer's opinion.
-- Lynn --
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, John Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
> Anybody here been following the 'controversy' over remarks by Aslan's voice actor? I only just heard about it this morning, but apparently Liam Neeson opined recently that Aslan cd just as easily stand for Buddha or Mohammad as for Jesus, and fur has begun to fly. Here's a link to a (highly partisan) piece about the dust-up:
> --John R.
- To me it seems a matter of what Tolkien described as confusing 'allegory' with 'applicability'.Though Neeson does forget to sprinkle every statement with variants of 'in my opinion' and 'to me', it is nonetheless, in my opinion, clear that he is speaking of applicability to himself rather than anything in 'the purposed domination of the author'. It might even be interesting to discuss to what extent Aslan can be applied to such other religious figures -- in acknowledgement, of course, of what Lewis intended, but in recognition also of the fact that his words possibly could be applied more widely than his intention. Sometimes it is, to me, interesting also to discuss how the author might be misunderstood/Troels
Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/