Re: The Voice of Aslan
- 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 email@example.com, 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/