He's NOT a keeeooot lion.
This lion is not safe, and is unsuitable for chidren under the age of three due to choking hazards.Reminds me of the Jesus Sction Figure (http://www.kopes.com/novelties/jesus%20christ%20action%20figure.htm)Only that one was supposed to be a joke.
Just saw the director chappie on channel 4 news.Interviewer: I just re-read the book, and it does seem a bit, y'know, sort of Christian-kind-of-thing.Director: I knew you were going to ask this. So I wrote the answer on my cuff. "C.S Lewis said they weren't allegorical. He preferred to see them as 'suppositions' -- suppose these events happend, then how would they happen. Actually, the Matrix is much more of an allegory than The Lion...Hang on, my pants seem to have burst into flames."I paraphrase slightly. Lewis did indeed say that the Narnia books were suppositions rather than allegories. But his supposition was; "Suppose that there was another world, like Narnia; and suppose that it, like our world, had fallen into sin, and suppose that the Son of God went into that world to save it, as he did in this world...what might that salvation be like?" Which is actually quite a lot more Christian than the Matrix.Was it always the case that when kid actors were interviewed on the TV, they had big fierce chaperones sitting next to them? Or are the new laws about this kind of thing? Maybe they think there is a danger of them being molested by ITNs chief arts correspondant. It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you.
Plush Aslan is rather disconcerting, as though it was Jesus who had been made bright-eyed and huggable. (Perhaps I ought not find such an idea disconcerting, but let that pass.)I see that The New Yorker has published an article on Lewis. Link I honestly don't know what to say about it, save that it seems faintly condescending in no way I can put my finger on. But that may just be my inevitable defensiveness when mainstream culture attempts to comment on genre.
"Was it always the case that when kid actors were interviewed on the TV, they had big fierce chaperones sitting next to them? Or are the new laws about this kind of thing? Maybe they think there is a danger of them being molested by ITNs chief arts correspondant. It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you."Sorry to snipe at the Mother Country, but it seems likely enough that there are such laws, or interpretations. Unless the Guardian was pulling my leg last sumer, your great universities can never again accept underage ludicrously brilliant kids because the law has made in loco parentis an impossibly oppressive legal burden, effectively requiring a university to appoint a personal chaperone for each such undergraduate. So much for Kipling's quis custodiet ipsos custodes? But it seems kinda sad; perhaps even more so than fierce chaperones on TV interviews.That sounds a little bitchy when I re-read it. But I'm not awake enough to fix it. Please consider the same substance expressed with more wit. Some of these things tempt one to use gdoawful phrases like Nanny State. (For some reason I've thought several times lately of Leonard Ross, a college classmate of mine, but he was 14 years old at the time.)
I think that they are trying really hard to keep the films from taking on the stigma of being Christian.Maybe, but I have seen Christian-oriented marketing that looks, if not official, certainly very professional. I got comment-spammed by a very nice-looking website that never quite said 'we're affiliated with the film's producers' but nevertheless conveyed the sentiment very strongly (in fact, if I remember correctly, the spammer got to me through this website, Andrew, so you might still have the link somewhere).There's a huge market that's piggy-backing a Christian agenda on the release of this film, and I seriously doubt that the producers are oblivious to it. We might be seeing a two-pronged marketing approach - play down the Christianity for the mainstream media and sell church study group guides to the religious crowd. You can sell the lions to both groups, of course.Now I've depressed myself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4447090.stmI'm sure you've seen it already but thought it was interesting in a 'nothing I didn't really know already' sort of way :)
Well, if people are collecting Lewis-references-in-anticipation-of-the-movie:http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article326179.ece
Post a Comment