Aslan Misrepresented?

Skandar's Girl

Skandar's Girl

New member
Do you think that aslan was misrepresented in the movie and book? I think that it was just fine but i know people who don't at all. So what do you think? Should he have been a lion or something, or someone, else.
 
C.S. Lewis represented Aslan as a lion, the perfect choice as an allegory of Jesus who was called the Lion of the tribe of Judah. A lion represents power and royalty, king of the whole wood so to speak. Likewise, Jesus being God incarnate on earth was that same power and royalty who gave that up to die for our sins, just as Aslan did for those of Narnia. It is why Aslan told the children that they had to come back to this world and learn Who He was here.
 
Aslan misrepresented

I'm not 100 percent sure what you are asking here, but I will extend Nightmystic's comments. Jesus is seen in animal forms in the bible, literally as a lamb, but is referred to as a lion. Therefore, I am sure that our Lord can take any animal form appropriate for His Godly duties. I'm sure this was the base on which C.S. Lewis used to come up with Aslan. Since lions do more to express the character of God than any other animal, it is a perfect choice.
 
No, I think a lion was perfect, because the lion is the 'lord of the wood', as beaver points out in the book. Lions are protrayed as majestic creatures to be greatly respected. CS Lewis was definitely using Aslan to symbolize God, who is the king of all and both majestic and to be respected, such as when it is commented 'he is not a tame lion'.
 
If Aslan were not a lion, you would simply have a different story altogether.

Some would argue in favor of the tiger as a better symbol, since tigers are bigger than lions. Tigers had simply never been seen in or near Israel in all the time the Bible was being written. But if what I've read is accurate, tigers are more inclined to be vicious to THEIR OWN kind than lions are, which turns the argument back in favor of lions. (Not that there are other gods for God to be nice to, you understand!)

This comparison between lions and tigers (never mind the bears, Dorothy) is the root of my own serialized story now in progress.

Joseph Ravitts
 
I think that the lion was perfect for Aslan. Lewis did a great job in making him a lion...but that wasn't the only thing he was in the Narnia books. He was also represented as an albatross and a lamb (VODT).

Turning the topic a bit to how he was seen in the movie as opposed to the book...I think that in the movie his omnipotence, omniscience, etc...were down played a lot, making him seem more normal than he should have. Some friends I have who never read the books (I know...tragic thought) but only saw the movies that I talked to didn't see Aslan as how he is represented in the books. He was seen as an authority figure by them since he was the top king...but was seen no more as a deity figure than the beavers, fox, or other. He wasn't seperate enough. Especially in the scene where he talks to Peter after their first meeting. It sounded too much like he got his information from beaver instead of knowing it ahead of time...at least for those who were not already familiar with the story.

I think if you read the books ahead of time, it was a great movie of it...but I'd like to see Aslan played more the way he is in the books. I'd like to see his deity like qualities brought out more.
 
As I undertstand it, Aslan is filing a cease and desist order through the law offices of Simba, Mufasa and Leo. :D

Nah, a lion is perfect.

ES
 
Copperfox said:
If Aslan were not a lion, you would simply have a different story altogether.

Some would argue in favor of the tiger as a better symbol, since tigers are bigger than lions. Tigers had simply never been seen in or near Israel in all the time the Bible was being written. But if what I've read is accurate, tigers are more inclined to be vicious to THEIR OWN kind than lions are, which turns the argument back in favor of lions. (Not that there are other gods for God to be nice to, you understand!)
Click to expand...

Elephants are bigger than either lions or tigers. But, the lion was chosen I think, to be representative of God for a number of reasons, some of which have already been expressed here. The most noticeable is the lion's mane. There is no other thing quite like it in all the animal kingdom, and it gives the male lion his regal appearance. Without the mane, they are....cats. The lion is a predator, and kills for his food. The lion will also kill those who choose to challenge it.This is a very final act as far as the prey or challenger is concerned, and represents judgment. The lion's strength is legendary, and so is it's courage.

I wrote extensively on this topic in a paper entitled 'The Lion of Judah and the King of Pride Rock' which you can find on my lion writings page.

Copperfox said:
This comparison between lions and tigers (never mind the bears, Dorothy) is the root of my own serialized story now in progress.

Joseph Ravitts
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in reading your story!
 
EveningStar said:
As I undertstand it, Aslan is filing a cease and desist order through the law offices of Simba, Mufasa and Leo. :D

Nah, a lion is perfect.

ES
Click to expand...

No, not Simba, Mufasa and Leo. That law firm has TEETH!
 
A lion captures everything C.S. Lewis wanted Aslan to be, he's respected, loved, caring, threatening when needed, and majestic. I think a lion is the best choice.
 
Back
Top