Taming the Lion of the Wardrobe

This Article is by my brother: Joshua Davis

         I hope I don't step on anybody's toes with this criticism concerning Walden Media's adaptation of C.S. Lewis's book, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  On a personal note, I normally appreciate the content of Walden Media's movies more than those of any other studio.  However, I believe Walden Media, along with Disney, discredited Lewis's work, and essentially tamed the Christ-like Aslan to a common house cat.

         Do you remember the movie Titanic?  Remember how the movie showed the majority of men on the ship as selfish cowards pushing women and children away to get into the lifeboats.  "One of many examples is that poor First Officer William Murdoch, a man who stayed at his post until the end and gave his life selflessly aiding others...Murdoch's family and hometown of Dalbeattie, Scotland, were quite upset with this worldwide slander.  Twentieth Century Fox took eight thousand dollars from its multibillion-dollar profits to erect a memorial in Dalbeattie, celebrating Murdoch's heroism.  One wonders what percentage of those who see Titanic will see the memorial." (Worldly Amusements: Wayne A. Wilson, page 75.)  I believe the historical reality of men behaving in honorable chivalry was changed, because it's not a cool thing in our culture to be that way, and because our American audiences would not be able to relate to seeing men actually behaving like real gentlemen. 

        Likewise, in C.S. Lewis's book there is very little, if any, disrespecting, rolling of the eyes, backbiting, or quarreling between Peter and Susan.  Many of the lines that Peter uses in the movie were actually Susan's in the book.  In the book it was quite often Susan who was encouraging the four of them to press on.  In the movie Susan didn't want to proceed after seeing Mr. Tumnus's house ransacked; however, in the book Susan says:  "...But I think we must try to do something for Mr. Whatever-his-name is - I mean the faun." (C.S. Lewis; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.)

        In the book Susan was in positive supportive agreement with Peter's suggestion to proceed.  This positive love, support, and kind reasoning between Susan and Peter are characteristic of Susan for the entire book.  Why those who made the movie decided to insert this rolling-the-eyes, and bad attitudes between them I do not know.  I can only suppose that it was similar to the reason why the historical chivalry in Titanic was changed. 

        I'm seriously disappointed in this.  You don't change society by showing it the same debased morals that it is accustomed to seeing.  Like everything else in life, you can't grow unless you are challenged at levels higher than what you are currently accustomed to.  The same goes for morals.  This is a truth that Hollywood seems to have no understanding of. 

       This is merely reasoning.  What about the scriptures?  Scripture tells us to renew our minds by thinking about things above; whatever is true, right, pure, lovely, and excellent.  How can we see the grace of God at work in families' lives if we never see His grace at work in them portrayed in film with loving relationships?  Again, this is especially disgusting to think of when these esteemed and much-needed values were thrown on the wayside simply because they are considered uncool, and our culture just wouldn't relate.

        Now let us see how they tamed the lion (Aslan) in the movie.  This taming took place in many ways, one of which is changing Lewis's famous line: "No he Isn't safe, but he's good...he's the King I tell you to "he's not a tamed lion, but he's good."  Apparently the makers of the movie thought the word ‘safe' was not safe enough, and decided it needed to be ‘tamed.' 

        A single word can be very powerful.  A single word has been the cause of many fights, and can separate truth from outright heresy. This can be seen in the Arian heresy, wherein the heretics changed the meaning of one word in the Bible in order to make Jesus Christ created, and not the eternal God from eternity past.  The negative use of the word ‘safe' by Lewis denotes a dreadful, exacting sovereignty.  This isn't a fluffy bunny that we are dealing with here.  This is a sovereign God who deals justly with every sin, whether on the cross or in hell, and He has the power to do it. 

        Both God's power and justice are two of His attributes that Hollywood does not want to come to grips with, for themselves or others.  Note how in the movie the phrase "he's the King I tell you," is carelessly omitted.  Note also that Lewis capitalizes King in his book, referring to Aslan.  Even though Lewis may not have wanted his work labeled as a strict allegory, he still wanted his audience to see the image of Christ in Aslan, and through the whole realm of Narnia. 

        Each scene Lewis depicted and each word he wrote [CDC1] were not haphazard.  Every word is skillfully crafted to most fully display the truth and glory of Jesus Christ.  In the book when Aslan rises from the stone table, he roars with such power "all the trees in front of him bent before the blast of his roaring as grass bends in a meadow before the wind." 

        Are you familiar with Psalm 29?  Lewis was; he wrote a commentary on the entire book of Psalms.  Here's a sample of Psalm 29: "The voice of the LORD is powerful, the voice of the LORD is majestic.  The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; yes, the LORD breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon."  An entire forest bending like grass at the roar of Aslan--why was that not put in the movie?  This scene probably most clearly displays the unimaginable power of ‘King' Aslan.  This Kingly power of Aslan is something the makers of the movie thought needed to be tamed.  Instead, all we get in the movie is a golden curly-lock, soft-spoken pussycat.  Sadly, this is how Jesus Christ is portrayed in our American culture as a longhaired, feminized, soft-spoken hippie Galilean.