Posted by: @rilianix

For me, it’s not his gender, but the effect he has on others. That moment when everything falls still. The awe and trembling. The deep goodness and wildness. The way Lucy, Edmund, or whoever, just knows he’s near. That’s what makes him “Christ-like.” To me, a female voice, or a female-presenting Aslan, doesn’t automatically take that away. Reverence isn’t about vocal pitch or masculinity; it’s about presence, power, sacrifice, and love.

True — and as I've already said a few times, I wouldn't be opposed, on principle, to a feminine divine figure featuring in a different fantasy universe, and quite possibly having that same sense of power and presence and sacrifice and love, as you say.

(I don't get that kind of vibe from Galadriel, incidentally — she is impressive but not divine, and Tolkien didn't intend her to be. It would be interesting to see an adaptation of the early parts of The Silmarillion, featuring the Valar, who are not actual gods and goddesses — Tolkien was a devout Catholic! — but they are certainly divine and are pretty much the equivalent of archangels, and half of them are female, including Varda (also known as Elbereth), whom the Elves especially revere. But that's getting off topic. As is the fact that Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Past, despite being feminised in some adaptations, is canonically male, if you read the book. But he isn't really meant to be divine either.)

And it's not impossible that a female version of Aslan could have that sense of awesomeness. The Talking Beasts podcast goes into that as well, including the fact that lionesses in our world are actually more aggressive than male lions and they do just about all the hunting! But... I think it would still feel like a pointless and unnecessary change to me, because the underlying purpose of the Narnia stories is not to make the argument that the divine can be feminine. (Whatever one's personal view on that matter may be.)

If that really is what Gerwig is doing — and we don't know yet — then that's called taking a classic story and making a huge change to it for no good reason other than to promote a personal (and controversial) religious stance that actually has nothing to do with the original story, and is definitely not something the original author would have intended or approved of. And that in itself makes me uncomfortable. I mean, if one wants to make a film set in a fantasy universe that includes a female representation of God / Christ... then why not do an original story, rather than changing Narnia??  

Posted by: @karisa

Coming at it as a child, Liam’s performance always felt both like he was dangerous and simultaneously the highest and most righteous authority there is, who will equally be stern with you when need be and other times be the warm comforter that Christ is to us. What I felt was always pure love, the holiest and realest kind of love.

Well, I'm actually quite moved and delighted to know that the Walden / Liam Neeson version of Aslan DOES have that effect on some viewers! ("God moves in a mysterious way", and all that?? ) It makes me feel a bit better about a movie that I have never been able to bring myself to like. Perhaps I should watch it again some time.

It is deeply interesting and enjoyable to have such a respectful discussion where we've all got different ideas to share, but we still don't know exactly what this new adaptation IS going to do with Aslan. I keep hoping we'll get some more official news soon. 

I thought Liam Neeson was basically fine as Aslan's voice, not particularly great, not particularly terrible. And, honestly, I imagine if Meryl Streep is cast, that's how she'll sound too. If a scarier Aslan is what we want, well, Streep can sound scary but then so can Neeson. I wouldn't assume that's what they're going for just yet. 

Honestly, even if I were forced at gunpoint to portray Aslan as a lioness, Meryl Streep wouldn't be my first choice (though I'd interested in hearing her audition.) Even if I were limiting myself to famous older actresses who have worked with Gerwig before, I'd still prefer Helen Mirren. I think her voice is a little more naturally intimidating than Streep's. 

Anyway, I seem to recall Gerwig describing the writing process for this adaptation as like a collaboration between C. S. Lewis and her eight-year-old self. Maybe when she first read the book at eight, she thought the character of Aslan would make more sense as female (similar to how Andrew Adamson imagined a big battle scene when he read LWW as a kid.) I know some Little Women fans were upset that she made the character of Prof. Bhaer younger and more conventionally handsome than he was in the book just because that's what she wanted for the love interest. But FWIW every LW movie except the 1933 one does the same thing and a lot of young readers have wished for the heroine's love interest to be attractive. I've never heard of any young readers wishing for Aslan to be a lioness before.  

Posted by: @courtenay

The Talking Beasts podcast goes into that as well, including the fact that lionesses in our world are actually more aggressive than male lions and they do just about all the hunting!

I don't think that is technically correct. Yes they do the hunting but the male lions are in charge of security and are more aggressive. I got this information from the article that was linked in the opinion piece on the importance of Aslan's mane.

@twigs Thanks for the correction — I was only going by what I got from the podcast, and I may not be remembering it exactly right anyway. Regardless, I personally wouldn't dare to mess with any lion, male or female, even in our world!  

I would be willing to forgive a production of Narnia for not having a perfect Aslan, but he should be at least somewhat like he is in the books. David Suchet was not a perfect Aslan in the Focus on the Family radio dramas, but his character was essentially right in spite of his unpleasant voice. The BBC Narnia’s and Walden’s Aslan were not perfect either, but they were reasonably close to Lewis’s portrayal in the books, although they could probably have been better. It is important to get Aslan right because he is Narnia’s most important character. But I don’t expect any production (including Greta Gerwig’s movies) to create a perfect Aslan, although I was hoping for a very good Lion.   🙂

We're sliding a bit into the realm of the "why" and not the actual topic of the thread. In that vein...

I haven't seen a reason to change from my "they are now going to work extremely hard to convince me to set foot inside a theater or to even watch it online" camp. The possibility of casting Meryl Streep or any female as Aslan violates several descriptions Lewis has in the books. But also, assuming they go for 7 books, Streep is up there in age and may have to be recast as production for a single film seems to take anywhere from 2-5 years unless they really have the money to push. Even at a 2 year time frame, that's 14 years. She may not want to be acting at almost 90. Even if I was for a female in the role, I wouldn't want someone who couldn't commit to that kind of time frame. 

Posted by: @starkat

But also, assuming they go for 7 books, Streep is up there in age and may have to be recast as production for a single film seems to take anywhere from 2-5 years unless they really have the money to push. Even at a 2 year time frame, that's 14 years. She may not want to be acting at almost 90.

Yes, that's a factor I hadn't thought of that also suggests this rumour may not be serious. 

That and the fact that Gerwig, so far, has only been commissioned to do two Narnia movies for Netflix. If her first one isn't a success, it's already a lot less likely that she'll be given the go-ahead for a second one, let alone invited to do more.

And then — if Meryl Streep really is going to be the voice of Aslan in this first film — what if the directors of future instalments in the series don't agree with that choice of casting, especially if it has a negative effect on this new Narnia's success?

I still cannot understand why they would pursue an idea that, it's already clear, is going to be crashingly unpopular if it does go ahead. (And it really wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out that making a drastic change to the character who represents Jesus would NOT go down well with the majority of established Narnia fans.) 

In short, I'm still baffled by the whole thing. 

There's another thing I've been thinking about, which may or may not mean anything. It's been over three weeks now since the Meryl Streep rumour broke, and not only has there been neither confirmation nor denial of it, but there hasn't been any other news on the whole project, except for the new casting call with the apparently added Anglo-Indian boy character. No further casting rumours or any clarification of where this whole thing is going.

If the female Aslan proposal really is true, could the massive public backlash against it mean that Netflix is now reconsidering the whole thing? Would they say to Greta Gerwig even at this stage, "Sorry, ma'am, but either you drop this whole notion and cast Aslan as male, or else we'll need to look for another director"...? They've already dumped Matthew Aldrich, reportedly for wanting to make "updates" to the stories in ways that were deemed unacceptable, although he wasn't as far along with the project as Gerwig and her team are by now.

I'm guessing it would be a huge waste of Netflix's money to have a major change of direction — and even of director — at this stage of the production. But what if that's not nearly as much money as they stand to lose if the Streep-as-Aslan version goes ahead and turns out to be so unpopular that it completely bombs and kills off Netflix's Narnia franchise right from the start??

Once again, it's baffling. If the Streep rumour is an elaborate hoax set up by Gerwig herself, as some have suggested — and it's still about the most hopeful theory I've heard, as I was saying a few days ago — it's a bizarre way of getting publicity. And if the rumour is true... it just seems to be one of the most commercially unsound decisions imaginable.

I can't make it out, and we're still not getting any news...  

@courtenay That would make sense in regard to the delay. You’d think that whether it were true or false, after three weeks they’d just tell us which one it is. Granted, that’s me being sensible and who knows how sensible they are lol. But it does seem odd to say absolutely nothing, not only on this but on the entire project after they’ve really started to move forward in production and we’ve been getting pretty consistent updates and tidbits until now.

I feel like if it’s not true, they would (or at least should!) say so and alleviate concerns so that this project they’ve spent so much money on already doesn’t just tank from the outset, and if it is true and they didn’t care what anyone thought about such a change, they would just come out and say so, tell us that’s tough but this is what they’re doing and we can either like it or hit the road. If it was true but they’re now having to do some massive shuffling as they figure out what to do now based on the negative reaction, the silence makes sense.

The more I think about it the more it just doesn’t track that Netflix would be okay with it, considering they already let go of Aldrich specifically because he wanted to make “updates” that they weren’t on board with. There are few things I can think of that would be a bigger and even worse change than making Aslan female (making him an unfair or even malevolent figure and Susan a tragic victim of the patriarchy or altering the whole tone to be an irreverent comedy being the only things I can really think of that strike even more horror in me at the idea of!). While we don’t know what Aldrich’s ideas were, could they really have been more intense and objectionable than this? If they already let him go over whatever it was, surely this is an even bigger deal that they would want to steer away from for the sake of the project’s success? I know Netflix can be very self-sabotaging (*cough* canceling some of their most successful shows for no reason *cough*), but I feel like this would be too far even for them, especially when it seems they wanted to play it safer. Greta has otherwise spoken with so much reverence for the source material, so perhaps they thought they were completely of the same mind as her and are now backpedaling a bit as they realize they’re not and are taking the time to reassess the situation and talk with her about it?

Posted by: @karisa

if it is true and they didn’t care what anyone thought about such a change, they would just come out and say so, tell us that’s tough but this is what they’re doing and we can either like it or hit the road.

I feel like I'd respect Netflix (in a weird way) if they did this even though it's not what I want to hear. If you're going to make such a provocative choice, at least do it with a little panache. I think someone in this thread (Icarus?) wrote earlier that the way they're handling it-or, rather, not handling it-almost feels like the worst part. 

Also, it'd be nice if they addressed the controversy because then Talking Beasts could do another episode about it. I was kind of looking forward to more regular episodes from them after the sudden trickle of news. 

@Col Klink  Also, it'd be nice if they addressed the controversy because then Talking Beasts could do another episode about it. I was kind of looking forward to more regular episodes from them after the sudden trickle of news. 

Maybe there isn't much for Greta Gerwig to commit herself to saying just yet, when, as far as I've heard, the Magician's Nephew isn't likely to appear before the end of 2026, when it would be vying against The Lord of the Rings: The Power of the Rings Season 3 on Prime (Amazon). At this stage, it is still early days when cast members haven't yet been officially announced. 

Yes, I agree with you, that it would be great to hear on Talking Beasts more of what is going on, especially as I understand Narnia Web is a properly independent organisation.   There is also a little matter of the news cycle at the moment, which will be preoccupied with the sudden death of Pope Francis I on Easter Monday, still a public holiday in this part of the world, his funeral next Saturday, and the conclave to be held to select his new successor in the historic Sistine Chapel. Once people get back to work and their daily routines, we may hear more in coming months, whether here, UK, where Narnia filming would have some access to pre-existing facilities, or whether in USA. But in the meantime, we just have to be patient. 

It would be nice if there were an interview with Meryl Streep or Greta Gerwig telling us why a female Aslan should be considered for the part. Many people have been baffled by this rumor and they want to know why this is happening before any production of the movie has started. At least the readers of the books will want to know what to expect. Of course you cannot have a review of a movie before it is made, but it will help the viewers to be aware of something that the new film has to offer. It would help them to decide whether they want to go and see it.

@narnian78 That's what's so baffling about the way Netflix is handling this, or not handling it, as some have said. It's not unusual for a film company to be tight-lipped about a movie while it's in production. But this particular rumour about Netflix's new Narnia movie is producing such negative reactions among Narnia fans everywhere — not just a handful of die-hard purists, but across the board.

We can't of course gauge the exact feelings of every single person in the world with an interest in Narnia, but NarniaWeb here is probably the most active Narnia fan site on the internet, and, as we can tell from the community here, there's a good diversity of fans here from a range of different countries and backgrounds. And as the Talking Beasts podcast pointed out, polls here on NarniaWeb suggest that people's feelings about Greta Gerwig's Narnia have gone from over 70% positive (generally optimistic to really excited) after Gerwig was first announced as director, to over 70% negative (generally pessimistic to extremely concerned) since the "Meryl Streep as Aslan" rumour broke. That's a complete turn-around and something that any sensible movie-makers ought to be extremely concerned about themselves. And if you look further than NarniaWeb, there are so many reactions from other online commentators that are far less polite and respectful than most responses here have been.

And it would be such a simple matter for Gerwig herself or someone high up at Netflix to just make a quick clarification without giving too much away. Either "We're not ready to reveal casting details as yet, but just to reassure fans — contrary to recent independent news stories, Aslan will be portrayed as male and we are only considering male actors to play his voice. Stay tuned for more news as it comes!" Or, if it IS true, something like: "Yes, we're going to be taking a new and fresh direction with Aslan that we feel will make this iconic character more relatable to modern viewers while still feeling familiar to long-standing fans of the books and previous adaptations. Here's what we're doing and why..." — going on to explain that they're going to blend the voices of several actors, at least one female, to give Aslan's voice a greater emotional range. Or that they're making Aslan female in order to show the mothering nature of Narnia's divine creator. Or that Aslan will be portrayed as a male lion but voiced by a female actor in order to hint that this divine figure transcends our earthly concepts of gender. Or whatever else it is that they may be doing...

... Because as it is, they're saying absolutely nothing, and the fandom is still in turmoil, with no clear idea of whether this movie is going to be something we can wholeheartedly support, or not, or what. And the total lack of any kind of response from Netflix just makes fans feel all the more like the people in charge of this film simply don't care about us, the core of their potential audience. That really is not a good place for a production to be in.

Either Gerwig and the Netflix top brass have some amazingly good reason for keeping things so secret — and it's got to the point where I can't think what that would be — or the lot of them are stunningly incompetent at managing their public relations. Neither of those options seem credible or reassuring, and yet, what other possibilities are there??

I was feeling oddly more positive a week or so ago, but as this whole thing goes on with no news, I'm tending negative again...  

There’s another aspect of the female / feminised Aslan idea that I don’t think has been discussed here yet, but it was touched on in the Talking Beasts podcast and it makes me even more doubtful that this concept could work well, if it really is the way this production is going.

Basically, rather sexist though it may seem, lionesses have virtually no symbolic value or significance in European cultures. That may not be the case in other parts of the world, of course — I wouldn’t be surprised if there are African cultures where lionesses are seen as significant in some way, given that lions (regardless of gender) are something you’re much more likely to see day to day in many regions of Africa! But for Europeans, and European-derived cultures, it’s only ever been the male lion, with his mane, that’s been used in symbolism and given any kind of deeper resonance.

So even setting aside the religious significance of Aslan as a representation of Jesus, having a male lion as the kingly / ruling figure in a fantasy world makes SO much more sense than a lioness, from the European medieval-style perspective that is of course the basis of Narnia. Male lions are a common feature in European heraldry, especially in Britain — both England and Scotland take the lion as one of their symbols of royalty. Try to swap that for a lioness, and… again, no insult to female monarchs (of which we’ve had a few very significant ones), but somehow it just doesn’t work.

And there’s the fact that was pointed out in the Talking Beasts discussion, that when Aslan is first introduced in the books — in LWW, that is — the whole point of him being a lion, rather than a man, is that the lion is the King of Beasts. That’s a very long-standing trope in European legend, and probably in other parts of the world. But we never hear of the lioness being thought of as the Queen of Beasts in the same way. For whatever reasons, we just don’t.

Gender theories aside, I’m guessing a big part of it is the fact that male and female lions are so visibly different from each other, in a way that isn’t nearly as prominent in many other mammal species, certainly not among any other types of cat (big or small). Lionesses simply do not look nearly as striking and magnificent as male lions — though I wouldn’t want to mess with either of them in reality, as I’ve said before!

There’s also no particular reason why a lioness should be seen as a divine figure, a creator figure, or indeed a mother figure, in our culture. Again, no symbolic resonance, unlike the male lion. If the point of changing Aslan’s gender is to make the argument that Narnia’s creator and embodiment of divinity should be female — and I really can’t think of any other reason for it — then the lioness just does not work particularly well in that role. If Gerwig or any other director wants to make a fantasy movie in which the Creator-God-figure is female, they’d do better to pick an animal that’s known for motherliness as well as power — perhaps some kind of bird, for example. It’s probably not a well-known fact, but female eagles are larger than males, so that might work. Or, of course, the proverbial mother bear!  

But I just can’t see a lioness being put in that role without her looking totally awkward as that kind of symbol. It doesn’t help that lionesses live and hunt in groups — prides, of course, which normally only include one adult male lion but several females, along with their young. So there isn’t even the symbolism of a lioness being a naturally solitary figure — which is pretty essential for a character who’s supposed to be the God of a monotheistic universe!

And getting back to the obvious physical difference between male and female lions, there’s another reason why I’m finding myself wincing at the thought of Aslan being portrayed as outwardly male, but voiced by a female actor. That sort of gender ambiguity could potentially work if Aslan was, say, a tiger, or any other species where males and females look much the same visually. But an apparently male lion, with a huge flowing mane and kingly demeanour, speaking with a feminine voice?? That’s just downright weird, if not cringey, and I really can’t see it making Aslan come across as a very convincing character.

So here we are again — far too many reasons why making Aslan female, or somehow feminised, would just be a totally bizarre and damaging choice, with absolutely no good points (that I can think of, even after weeks of thinking about it) that come anywhere near outweighing the many bad ones. 

And now we’ve got another snippet of possible casting news about Jadis — so obviously the production IS still going ahead, so far — but still absolutely no further word about the casting for Aslan. And the longer this goes on, the more we’re all left wondering what on earth they are actually doing...

Posted by: @courtenay

But for Europeans, and European-derived cultures, it’s only ever been the male lion, with his mane, that’s been used in symbolism and given any kind of deeper resonance.

For what it's worth, the idea that Lions hold special status of "King of Beasts" did get included in the Lions Mane article on the homepage - admittedly it wasn't something I had in my original forum post, but we added it after someone raised that point somewhere, I forget exactly who - but it's definitely been part of the conversation. 

I definitely also agree that female lions are more well known for being hunters rather than mothers, however I still think that overall it's one of the few logical explanations that exist for why a director might gender flip the role in the first place - that in a story about creation and new life, having the creator of new life be a female (of any species) does at least make "some" thematic sense.

You don't even need to factor in Greta Gerwig as a director or extrapolate out from any of her previous films to get to that explanation, so we can happily leave that one aside.

Again, I'm not advocating for it, but as you note there are a tonne of reasons why this casting doesn't make sense... And yet there are maybe only one or two ideas which even seem to offer the remotest degree of explanatory value in the other direction (other than it just being arbitrary change for whimsical reasons) therefore it seems to me the most logical explanation probably resides somewhere in there 

I'm also not even saying it's the most likely explanation at this point, I just don't think it's something that can be entirely ruled out as a working theory.

It could just be something as simple as they tried out a singing male Lion and couldn't make it look good on screen,.so decided to switch things up.