why philip pullman is a bit of a nincompoop on this one: a diagram
LWW: lucy and susan get to ride on a lion’s back
PC: omg lucy and susan get to WINE-CRAZED ROMP with BACCHUS dude. Actual real quote: “Two of the Maenads… helped her take off some of the unnecessary and uncomfortable clothes she was wearing” YES I’LL BET THEY DID!
VDT: er ok pass, though lucy does get sold into slavery briefly, plus cuddles reepicheep at the world’s end plus er er seamen, yes PP can have this one…
SC: jill gets blown by a lion and rides on the back of a giant owl and a CENTAUR
MN: polly gets to ride on the back of a flying horse
HahB: aravis gets to ride a talking horse
LB: oh noes susan prefers teh lipstickz to RIDING ON LIONS AND AN ETERNITY WITH PRIAPIC GOATMEN
c.s.lewis had a fear of female sexuality: I’m sorry the more telling psychological evidence says otherwise…
<— The Old Narnians, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905)
The problem with any film of this second Narnian book is that — while it has strong scenes and beasts galore — the logic behind its structure is, more than anything else, Aslan Arses About (for c.1300 years). He’s not a tame lion, you know — no indeed, but he is an extremely passive-aggressive and self-satisfied one, never more than this story, and no actor can read his lines without underlining this. Nor can any director hope to expand on the memorable scenes and beasts without giving in to how pellmell pagan this story is, first to last. It isn’t Christian and it isn’t clever: and while I don’t think it especially steps on your fond memories of the original, it massively wimpily sidesteps Aslan’s tactical masterstroke in the book, where he calls to arms the Wine God (Silenus with his fat ass) and the Party God