“I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.”
                -Alfred Hitchcock

I was very amused by this piece—so much so, that I decided to use it on my own blog, catholicblog.com.  I agree; actors have the right to speak their mind like the rest of us, but their fame does not give their words automatic merit.

wow.  *mycatholicblog.com (not a morning person, if you can’t already tell).

“Fellow members of the Chattering Classes:  I am one of you.  Do not ostracize me for doing something popular with despised and unpopular Christians, whom all right-thinking people treat as social lepers.  I will now say something blindly multicultural and indifferentist to establish my bona fides.  Come, let us eat wine and cheese together and make things as they always were.”
 
Best. Line. Ever.

Dear Liam,

The Lion of Judah is not the kitten of Buddha.

actors are people who get paid (sometimes VERY big money) to lie!

teomatteo:

What a silly thing to say.  You might as well call Jesus a liar because he told parables that were not newspaper stories of factual events.

As I said on The Curt Jester’s blog.  Liam Neeson needs to re-read The Last Battle and reconsider making Aslan into Tashlan.  Honestly, have the people associated with these movies actually read any of Lewis’ theology?  For that matter, have they even tried to approach any real understanding of the series itself?

Just a thought.  Neeson said that “Asland also symbolizes FOR ME Mohammed and Buddha.”  He said nothing in the article referred to about what Lewis thought.  Maybe Aslan does have several meanings for Neeson. 

I agree with your premise, but in this case, it seems as if Neeson is speaking only of his own interpretation.

Stinking hilarious post, Sir Shea.  Liam Neeson puts the pless back into hapless.

- Patrick, over at http://www.patrickcoffin.net, where I also compare Aslan to Mohammed.

There is a line from the so so movie 2012 in which the main character is trying to save his family. His divorced wife is saying everything is fine the Governor of California just said the worse is over [of course this is two minutes before all heck breaks loose!]

The main character said, “Listen honey, he is an actor, just reading from a script”  Neeson, is still reading from the politically correcct multi-cultural everything is equal because nothing is really true or of value.

Neeson grew up in Northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants have had tensions (and worse) for several centuries. Thankfully that is passing. However, to replace real faith [certainly Catholic and Protestants believed] with this…... well it defies imagination.

One more thought!  Given Islamic extremists attitudes towards everyone else not in their ball park-I wonder what they think of ‘the Prophet’ being put into this category. I have a hunch, but I will just let that slide…..

The problem is that Liam lives in fantasy land most of the time as opposed to living in the real world like regular folks do, so he thinks that he can make things up, think that what he says is true, and that will make it true. This thinking is just nuts.

Here is my response to his ludicrous statement: http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2010/12/liam-neeson-is-wrong-aslan-symbolizes.html

Well, Liam Neeson appears to be a sincere, if misguided, cafeteria Catholic, judging by this Beliefnet profile:

HCSKnight makes a good point about who we shouldn’t judge. Especially given his wife’s recent death, I’m inclined to give the guy a pass.  But Mark is right, too:  the statement is pretty obviously wrong about Lewis’ authorial intent.

But, y’know, sometimes the scripted lines an actor gets stuck with can be pretty bad, too, if not worse.  Mr. Neeson, playing one of the New Age saga’s intended “good guys,” Jedi master Qui-Gon Jinn, in one of the Star Wars prequels, got stuck with the Ayn-Randian sounding line: “Greed can be a powerful ally.”

Actually, is appears C.S. Lewis actually stated that “Aslan is an alternative version of Christ”. I think an “alternative version” is vague enough that it could easily include “versions” of Christ from other religions. I think this is more about a case of people only hearing what they wish to hear… And who really cares if someone wishes to interpret the books or the film in a different manner? Isn’t that the point of good literature?

Good article, Mark.  Although I have to disagree completely about Eddie Izzard.  His lifestyle and beliefs may be diametrically opposed to everything Lewis represents, but he did an amazing job as Reepicheep.  He managed to convey his feistiness and swagger while keeping sympathetic and portraying his deep sense of honor.  And he did it all without Reepicheep becoming cartoony or unserious.  I can only say bravo to his performance, and I eagerly await seeing him in the new one (Dawn Treader was always my favorite of the books).

Mike:

I wasn’t thinking of Izzard’s lifestyle.  I just thought he was wrong for the part.  Something about his performance communicated postmodern irony and Reepicheep doesn’t have a drop of that in his blood.  I am relieved to hear he’s gone.  I hope whoever replaces him is better able to capture the character, who is dear to me.

I think what Lewis meant when he said that Aslan is an alternative version of Christ (I’m relying on you for the phrasing, but I know what you’re referring to) is that Aslan is not just an allegorical stand-in for Christ. The Chronicles of Narnia are not just secret code for the Gospels. Rather, Lewis asked himself, if there were a world like Narnia, and it was in need of redeeming, what might God do in such a world? So Aslan is Lewis’s imagining of how the story of redemption might look in such a world. It’s clear from the stories that Aslan is intended as the second person of the Trinity who takes on some kind of physical, corporeal being, and who redeems Narnia by his death and resurrection. In that sense, Aslan does for Narnia what Christ does for our world. So Aslan is an alternative version of Christ in the same sense that Narnia is an alternative version of the world.

HCSKnight, your charitable sentiments for fallen or non-Christians, as in the case of Mr. Neeson, contrasts sharply with your criticism of Mark’s ironic/sarcastic piece. You go far beyond criticizing what he actually wrote and, in my mind, were even more disparaging of Mark than he was of Mr. Neeson. Perhaps you were attempting to be ironic by applying what you thought was Mark’s literary style of criticism (as above) but I think you went too far.

‘“versions” of Christ from other religions.’ What?

Before the first movie - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe - was released, Christopher Morgan of The Times points out an unpublished letter which was sent to a child fan from the masterful author himself in which he wrote: “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.”

From The Times:

The letter, written from Magdalene College, Cambridge, where Lewis was a don, contradicts this. “Supposing there really was a world like Narnia . . . and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?” he wrote.

“The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called ‘the lion of Judah’ in the Bible.”

You can verify here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article745604.ece

@ HCSKnight It is very important to have charity in truth. You haven’t proven any of Mark’s statements to be false, yet you treat him harshly. For speaking truth?  In fact Liam Neeson’s outlandish statement is false. So, as an actor, Liam doesn’t have a responsibility to speak truth to the public?

HCSKnight

> Jeff, you display exactly that poorly formed understanding of Catholic
> teaching I keep pointing toward.

> First of all I speak of Charity, capital C, not charitable sentiments

Actually I used “charitable sentiments” deliberately, because I didn’t see a consistent application of charity in your post. :-P

> Mark’s pieces deserves the sharp criticism.  Mark deserves far more

I’m a bit uncomfortable with the freedom at which you *assert* who deserves more, or less, criticism. Of course, you are entitled to criticize Mark’s writing and how he deals with Mr. Neeson. But I don’t think you are in a position to declare these:

‘how much does the false love apply when it means we “hate”, or “dislike” someone’

—Who said anything about hating anyone?

‘How sick are those who “love” a blogger?’

—I’m sorry, but that sounds like contempt. I’m not sure if there’s room in Christian charity for contempt of *people*.

‘How sick is a blogger who feels loved and derives satisfaction and self-worth via comments with icons?’

—This is mostly what I disagree with: how exactly do you know what said blogger feels and derives satisfaction from?

‘Simply selfish, immature, and reprehensible behavior for any Catholic, especially for one who puts themselves out to the world as an Evangelical Catholic for Christ.’

—I have to guess that you’re inferring such behavior from your keen insight into what said blogger feels and derives satisfaction from.

‘sycophant comments’

—Yup, you went after several other people too.

‘Im sorry you feel I was to harsh Jeff, but I was not. ‘

—That’s okay. My poorly formed understanding of Catholic teaching allows me to forgive you. ;-)

I do agree that more is required of Mark than one might require of Mr. Neeson—assuming that he is as ignorant as you claim—but that is entirely different from saying that it is wrong for Mark to criticize Mr. Neeson’s statement in such fashion.

It also does not follow that the degree of harshness with which you deal with Mark is warranted, particularly when your criticisms went beyond the 345 words that Mark wrote. Your first post, for example, went up to 461 words, and your second, 225. Of course, you did also go after us sycoph- er, visiting readers, in your though-provoking criticisms, so the extra length is understandable.

FWIW, Eddie Izzard isn’t playing Reepicheep any more; he’s been replaced by Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, the new “Scotty” in Star Trek, etc.).

HCSKnight, I do believe I went too far in citing the word count. I was aiming for tongue-in-cheek but I think that came out insulting and certainly uncharitable, and I did not mean that. I am sorry.

Peter:

That’s good news!  I think Pegg might pull it off.  We’ll see.

Liam Neeson goes to my local Catholic Church once in a while. So he hasn’t lost that Faith. I know it must be somewhere inside. We must give him credit for that. It must be difficult to keep any kind of Christian faith in Hollywood. Let’s pray that he may live out his Baptism and show forth that faith in his words and deeds!

I saw a pre-screening of the movie in DC and loved it.  The movie does its best at following the book, but has to join a couple adventures into one or else the movie would have been far too long. 

There is clear Christian imagery in many respects (perhaps even of the 7 Sacraments, though that’s up for debate). Liam is knucklehead if he can pass of Aslan as Buddha or Muhammad. He’s as Christian as they could make him without quoting Scripture.

If you haven’t seen it, be weary of making bold claims.  I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did. I’ll be writing about it shortly.

Billy Atwell
www.billyatwell.org

I had my misgivings when I learned that Neeson was to play Aslan after that wretched attempt to legitimize the academic fraud and child molester Alfred Kinsey.  (I was hoping the part would be given to Brian Blessed.)  You are right, Mark.  Neeson’s comment was so seemingly random that it can only be seen as a multiculturalist Act of Faith and rejection of the universally-understood meaning of the series.  Secularists must be so conflicted, having to make a living with Narnia, LOTR, Harry Potter etc. because so few will pay to see movies that say, “Life is all meaningless really.  One worldview is as good as another because they are all mere subjective opinion or intellectual slavery.  We killed all the old ideals along with God.”  Too bad there isn’t some sort of Christian cooperative to parallel Hollywood, in which quality isn’t sacrificed but where the Christian message doesn’t have to be passed through hostile filters or censors.

I basically agree, Kevin, though I would dispute that the remark was “random”.  What irked me and moved me to write was that the remark was, in fact, part of a pattern that has characterized the filmmaker’s deeply conflicted attitude toward the source material since the first film.  Again and again, what the director and actors and others associated with the project have done is try to do all in their power to avoid facing the fact that the author and the stories are obviously and overwhelmingly full of Christian allegory and imagery.  The allegory was so potent that Tolkien disliked the stories for that reason.  It irks me that film studios will milk the stories for cash and wealthy and cultured despisers will exploit a Christian audience, but do so all while saying “Don’t stand so close to me” to the believers whom they are exploiting.

I think Neeson is probably a decent enough chap.  But he seems to be operating in the sort of groupthink mentality so prevalent in the arts community by going along with this sort of pattern on the part of the filmmakers.

@HCSKnight:

I meant to refer to Liam Neeson’s loss of his wife Natasha Richardson, not any loss in your family.  The sentence was written in haste, and the grammar was unclear. My apologies.

Liam Neeson goes to my local Catholic Church once in a while. So he hasn’t lost that Faith.

Good to know.  My intention was not to speculate about Neeson’s standing before God, merely to utter a bleat of frustration from down here among the believing groundlings, who get frustrated when the rich and powerful people who exploit our pieties to make movies about obviously Christian stories and then try to pretend they aren’t Christian lest they lose a seat at the Cool Kids’ Table in Hollywood.  I take Neeson for a Catholic of some sort or other whose relationship with God and the Church is his own business, not mine.  However, as a public figure, his public remarks are fair game and these fit into the overall pattern of the filmmakers exploiting the pious while saying “Don’t stand so close to me.”

I hadn’t been aware this was an ongoing pattern with the makers of the series, Mark.  In any case I should have said “incongruous” instead of “random” in the sense that his comments were so logically disconnected from the series as Lewis wrote it.  Let’s be real.  A Mohammed-style Aslan would have taken Narnia by force and killed those characters like Reepicheep who were unclean animals, and let “creatures of the Book” live as second-class Narnians.  A Buddhist Aslan would have died at the hands of the White Witch and been reincarnated as an iguana.  An atheist Aslan would have just lain on the altar and bred maggots.  A hedonist Aslan would never have sacrificed himself for another in the first place.  And jaded cynicism has yet to turn any boy into a hero.  I think we are seeing a sort of cultural parisitism at work.

Parasitism*

@HCSKnight You are the one making the assertion that his post and others comments are “sinful”, that he is sinful for “ripping” into Mr. Neeson, and that Mark hates Neeson therefore you are the one who must prove your assertions about Mark’s article.

“All of you should look in the mirror and ask yourself, how do I really differ from an 8th grader of the “in” crowd who stands in the hall and ridicules the geek as they walk by…..”

Gee… Your just a wee bit judgemental. Jesus Christ founded the One True Church, the Catholic Church, so why don’t you stop with your wicked ways, repent, and join the One True Church?

‘Liam, though a very ignorant man, said ... “Neeson said: ‘Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.”’

First of all - Have you heard of paraphrasing or are just a kindergardener?

Its obvious you didn’t read what C.S. Lewis had written himself, which I previously pointed out above so here it is again:

Before the first movie - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe - was released, Christopher Morgan of The Times points out an unpublished letter which was sent to a child fan from the masterful author himself in which he wrote: “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.”

From The Times:

The letter, written from Magdalene College, Cambridge, where Lewis was a don, contradicts this. “Supposing there really was a world like Narnia . . . and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?” he wrote.

According to C.S. Lewis There is no possible way for Liam Neeson or anyone else to legitimately assert that Aslan can represent anyone but Christ - not Buddha and not Mohammed!

“That is EXACTLY the kind of SIN you are gleefully, like spoiled little brats, prancing around wearing.”

“Correct the man’s error in thought or ideology, but do not attack a fallen or non-Christian, who is NOT holding themselves out as an EVANGELIST, or Christian Saint, or someone to be listened to because of their wisdom.”
You are the one who is propping up falsehoods and attacking Mark for telling the truth.  Mark is correcting a lie which was spoken by this fallen away Catholic or non-Christian and yet you berate him for that when you clearly know NOTHING about the Truth of Catholicism. Shame, shame, shame.

HCSKnight, having all these posts in your mailbox as reference, can you perhaps illustrate how your behavior is in any way a Christian exemplar? I haven’t noticed any screeds personally against you by Mark, but yours (as I’ve said) go far beyond commenting on what Mark wrote. And you may wish to thank Mark for removing your comments: far from shedding any light on anything, they were thoroughly embarrassing to you. Sadly, I have copies of them, too..