The
Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe: Everything
Gibson's "Passion" Was Not
by
Josh Day
(Warning:
movie spoilers abound)
Disney's
film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' classic The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobeshould have been the movie the American fundamentalist machine chose to hype
and trumpet and laud as "the ticket" to Christianity. Unlike Mel Gibson's
horrendous slasher flick of 2004, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
conveys a much deeper and truer "passion" of Jesus Christ.
The
kingly lion Aslan, who portrays Christ in Narnia's fantastical world of talking
animals and mythological beasts, crushes Jim Caviezel's scourged, beat-up, bleeding-like-Bruce
Willis depiction of the New Testament messiah.
When
the lion sacrifices himself for the traitor Edmund, you'll feel what you should
have felt in The Passion. Aslan's humiliating walk to his death after
he leaves Lucy and Susan in Narnia's Gethsemane and treks to Stone Table (Narnia's
Golgotha) carried more impact and intensity than any of the gratuitous blood and
guts and scourging whips in Gibson's disgusting farce. When the witch orders the
lion's mane shaved, it's devastating to watch, unlike anything in The Passion,
which throws scene after scene of Rob Zombie-style violence at you.
I
didn't care once for Mel Gibson's existential, postmodern Christ who had no meaningful
life before the movie opened and only had ten seconds after his resurrection.
And why should I have cared? Gibson sure gave me no reason to, other than a disjointed
flashback about carpenter Jesus making the first sit-down table. Was that supposed
to be funny or add a touch of lightness to the film? I don't know what Mel was
trying to do, and he probably doesn't either, but it was like putting one chocolate
chip in a biscuit of razor blades.
The
Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was everything The Passion was not. Enlightening
where The Passion was dark and ignorant, rich in meaning and symbolism
where the other was blunt and pointless, and a beautiful and healthy and exciting
movie where The Passion was filthy, ugly, and as wholesome as getting hit
in the head with a two-by-four. Repeatedly.
A
Wonderful Children's Movie
I've never read any Narnia books so I
can't say how the film compares to the original work. However, my wife and I watched
the BBC version of LWW and I was happy to see the new movie incorporated
many elements (like dialogue and the way certain scenes are shot) from the older
miniseries. Like the 1988 adaptation, this one remains a wonderful children's
movie. Kids will love the mythical creatures and talking animals, as well as the
snowy, enchanted forest and the bright and sunny final battle.
All
in all, it's a terrific movie that succeeds on a secular level as a great fantasy
story and also as a beast fable-turned-parable of the gospels. Because this other-world
is anchored to a recognizable Judeo-Christian platform, it's much easier to believe
in Narnia, as opposed to Tolkien's less familiar Middle Earth.
The
reason for this lies in Lewis' use of extended metaphor and allegory.
It's
widely known that Lewis and Tolkien were friends, and also that Tolkien despised
allegory. J.R.R. hated it when people drew parallels between Middle Earth and
World War II and wanted his Lord of the Rings tales to be taken at face
value.
But
C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, embraced allegory and drew his world around rich
and deep symbolism.
Watching
LWW, I thought of Paradise Lost and The Faerie Queene. Both John
Milton and Edmund Spenser utilized mythology and fantasy to create their incredible
other-worlds, each paralleling the Old and New Testaments in their own allegorical
ways.
Mel
Gibson could learn a thing or two from Milton and Spenser. Hell, he could even
take a couple from Dante and get a better understanding of Christianity, even
if he only read the torture scenes in The Inferno. Imagine what The
Passion could have been if Mel had stepped back and appreciated the whole
picture, instead of just scourging and blood and pain without any antithesis.
We would have had a much different movie, and it might have actually been good.
In
the middle ages, a monk walking in his garden would admire a rose and see the
red flower for Christ's blood, the thorns for his pain, and the green stem and
fresh buds for his resurrection and new life. Unfortunately, many today would
like to transform the world back to the darkest times of the medieval age, but
symbolism and allegory would be replaced with literalism and determinism.
Gibson's perverted vision of Christ sees a rock for only a rock, and he can't
see the forest for all the trees.
Click
Here to
share this page with your friends, website visitors, ezine readers, social followers
and other online contacts.
Disclaimer:
Throughout this website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or
functions of food and/or nutritional products. These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and these materials and products
are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.