|
The Vorlon Wife and I went to see “Chronicles of Narnia†today. We had a great time. All the creatures in the movie see real – even though most of them are not. Aslan the lion is an impressive character. He is a huge lion and is extremely believable.
I found only one technical flaw in the file. When the characters are in the snow, you cannot see their breath. Also, when the snow landed on the characters, it just looked like fake snow.
Supposedly, C. S. Lewis, the author of the book from which the film is made sent a letter saying that Aslan is an allegory for Christ. All I can say is, duh, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Christian theology can figure that out. C. S. Lewis almost beats you over the head with the parallels. There is betrayal, forgiveness and substitutionary atonement. I think it could be used as a starting point to explain Christian theology.
It is still a great story with a final battle between good and evil. I’m not sure if it’s on the same level as “The Lord of the Rings†but we found it very enjoyable. It may be worth a second viewing to pick up some of the more subtle details.
We recommend the film.
Posted by The Vorlon at December 10, 2005 7:22 PMSounds like you both enjoyed yourselves. also sounds like a great movie.
Posted by: at December 10, 2005 9:41 PMWe missed the Chronicles in favor of Harry Potter. Will do the Chronicles next week. (smaller lines). Found Potter to be a bit jumpy and hard to follow. Good story line!! We have seen the Chronicles before.
Perspective. Judas was a Zealot (rebel) who wanted to bring about the Kingdom of God through violence. He betrayed Christ thinking that it would start a revolution. It didn't. Many people think that Judas was in league with the devil per se. He wasn't. Judas was not a bad guy, just misguided. When he realized his error, he hung himself. The Chronicles don't portray that very well. FWIW.
Posted by: at December 11, 2005 8:15 PMRE: Judas. One subtle disagreement regarding the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.
Judas was in fact a very bad guy, as am I, and so on, regrettably, for every soul attached to every pair of eyes that reads this post. In my thinking, Mel Gibsons' crowning achievement in "The Passion of the Christ" was to bring home with gut-punch strength the enormity of the price that was paid for the "badness" of those who would believe.
The beauty of Edmunds' betrayal is that it is followed by repentance and forgiveness. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more! However the betrayal of Judas was followed, not by repentance, but only by regret and a sickening descent into self-loathing and self-pity. In the end, through death, Judas attempted in some sense to save himself, or at the very least to escape the pain of his circumstances. If, as one might argue, he
was attempting through his death to appease the God he had offended, then it becomes all the more clear that he never knew Him at all.
I've heard of that line about Judas before, but I am unconvinced. If that was his goal, why take the money? If someone can point out the passage that illuminates that idea, I'd like be interested in seeing it.
I too was struck not only by the depravity of Edmund's betrayl, but also of his repentance and total forgiveness. Aslan says, "We shall speak of this no more."
How many people say, "Well, I forgive you, but I can never forget." Forgiveness means you also forget. It's as if the dark act never occurred.
Posted by: Ted at December 12, 2005 9:25 PMWe also saw the movie this weekend.
I'll add one technical glitch. When Lucy gives Edmund the drop of liquid to heal his mortal wound suffered in the battle, the busted lip doesn't heal, nor does the scratch on his cheek.
Perhaps the liquid focuses on the most greivous wound, but really now, wouldn't it just seem to make more sense to fix you up like new again, just so it doesn't run the risk of replacing a finger while the nick on your wrist allows you to bleed to death?
I also didn't really care for Liam Neeson's voice as Aslan. It was okay, but it didn't grab my attention, there was no authority behind it, and while it doesn't have to be loud or booming, it should be compelling, and I didn't get that from him. It was more of a "nice guy Jesus" voice, rather than a "powerful quiet ruler Jesus" voice...
We saw a play put on locally a couple of weeks ago, and they actually used a male and female voice together to interesting result. Sometimes it would be just one voice, but probably 50% or more was the two voices together. I thought that was a nice touch, making it much more interesting than someone just talking.
Posted by: Chad Everett at December 13, 2005 9:35 AMJames Earl Jones would be a great voice - if he hadn't already done Narth Vader. I can't say his voice put me off.
I think I will go see it again, so I can nit pick more details.
Posted by: Ted at December 13, 2005 9:14 PM