Cross-posted over at the Corner:
Via the Daily Telegraph:
Liam Neeson has caused controversy by suggesting that Aslan, the Christlike character in C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books, could represent the prophet Mohammed or Buddha. The actor who voices the lion in the film adaptations of the books has angered some fans of the stories, who claim he is distorting Lewis’s intentions to be “politically correct”.
Aslan the lion features in all seven Narnia books, guiding children away from evil and harm and encouraging them to do good. Lewis was clear that the Aslan was based on Christ, and once wrote of the character: “He is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question: “What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia?”.” In the climax of the first book, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan sacrifices his life to save Narnia, before rising from the dead, a plot which is widely believed to represent the crucifixion and the resurrection.
But ahead of the release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the third Narnia book to be made into a film, next week, Neeson said: “Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.
“That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me.”
How very ecumenical of Mr. Neeson. And how very saccharine: “A mentor figure for kids”. Good grief
I wonder if Liam thought – for maybe just a half a nano-second – what a certain individual by the name of C S Lewis might have thought about who (whom??) Aslan represented.
I am really creeped out by this need to telegraph to Muslims that they will always be invited to the party.
Even if the party is being thrown by agnostic beneficiaries of Christianity-influenced cultures, and to which Christians are conspicuously not invited.
P.S.
What a narcissistic
What happened to respecting the intentions of the author of the material you have the honor of being a part of?
This really raises my hackles. It’s surprising in a way because I thought I left religion behind a long time ago, but I feel I want to stand up for the integrity of the Christian tradition, for the integrity and dignity of religion in general. The various religious traditions may have been radically mistaken but they were in their way (the ones I know about anyway) rather grand and rather beautiful.
Come on Snippet, trying to figure out what the author is saying is so yesterday! Whatever it means to you is what it means! Anyone who thinks differently is a closed-minded protector of our evil Western, patriarchal, racist, sexist, heteronormative, ableist, speciesist, blah, blah, blah…
“What happened to respecting the intentions of the author of the material you have the honor of being a part of?”
—I’m going to read the above as sarcasm, rather than as naiveté.
@MarkE: “The various religious traditions may have been radically mistaken but they were in their way (the ones I know about anyway) rather grand and rather beautiful.”
Yes, I feel the same way.
Neeson is fully acculturated to the Leftist Orthodox Church. That shouldn’t be surprising, and it’s not, but somehow it strikes me as maybe a very little bit saddening to have the obvious confirmed.
@Snippet: “What happened to respecting the intentions of the author of the material you have the honor of being a part of?”
It went the way of good manners, I suppose. But as John suggests, since Deconstruction in literature is also a part of the Leftist Orthodox Church catechism, Neeson probably would say he’s not even being inconsiderate.
Respecting the author’s intent is a moot point. As a matter of contractual fact, once Hollywood buys the theatrical or television rights to any property, it can do whatever it likes to it, including distort it beyond recognition. As for Neesom, I had the impression he was a little brighter and a little less sappy than his comment indicates. Guess I was wrong.
>>> Come on Snippet, trying to figure out what the author is saying is so yesterday! Whatever it means to you is what it means!
I would not have a huge problem with this particular conceit (understanding as I do that you meant this facetiously), but, in my HUMBLE opinion, it’s much worse than this nonsense.
Liam Neeson does not sincerely believe the idiocy he spouted (Mohammed as a role model for children??? As if C. S. Lewis intended the individual Aslan actually represented to be a role model for children. As if, despite that, Mohammed as a role model for children made ANY sense. As if Liam Neeson thinks an unapolegetically imperialistic religious fanatic should be a role model for contemporary children. Ack!!!). If he did, one could have an honest disagreement with him.
I am not naive about what contemporary actors “think.” I just think it is worth a little energy drawing attention to the lunacy and hypocrisy of so much of it.
Sorry, but I must clarify one thing.
I think it is THEORETICALLY OK for an actor to believe he as the right or the obligation to reinterpret an author’s work.
I just don’t believe Mr. Neeson’s remarks on Aslan represent that defensible conceit.
I just think it’s … weird … and totally ludicrous for Neeson to pretend (there is no other word) that Mohammed (of all people) is a legitimate candidate for the ideal symbolized by C. S. Lewis’ Aslan.
This is what happens when actors speak without a script. Then again, not knowing the context or if he was responding to a question it may be wrong to fault him.
Movies are huge financial enterprises. Liam Neeson is the face of that enterprise and what he says can affect thousands of people, literally. The movie will undoubtedly sold to non-Christian audiences so I can understand him wanting to protect the financial interests of investors and any other stake holders (everyone from the head of the production company to the people who clean the offices). If the question was asked, it may have been an attempt to do no harm to these people rather than a conceited actor.
Perhaps Mr. Neeson is trying to impress his mother-in-law, that anti-Semitic hag Vanessa Redgrave. If so, he’s underplayed it. He should have said that Aslan represents Hamas.
Elroy – fair point.
Liam the Diplomat.
It is possible, I suppose….
As a kid I liked the Narnia books, but the part I liked least was Aslan. His goody-goody wonderfulness, which the reader was always being told about, but I never felt. Maybe it was because I was not (and am not) a Christian, and even at that age I knew he was a Christ-figure and I didn’t like the feeling of being proselytized at. The stories were good enough to keep on reading, but I tended to skim the Aslan pages.
My guess is that Neeson has the very common uninformed notion that since “all religions are the same”, “they’re all about goodness”, therefore it doesn’t matter whether Aslan is Christ or Buddha, or whatever. Since all religions and all cultures are equal, they should all buy tickets.
Sounds to me more like a plant by the producers to drum up some controversy for a film with little buzz. Especially with the conservative Christian audience who is their target audience.