@icarus Important to note! It is an extremely vague report, but it would fit into what might be a bad pattern. I'm assuming the insider's mention of his being a Christian is implying he's a strong fan of the books, and that he's upset by whatever decisions are being made in how to portray them, but the real meaning or accuracy of all that is uncertain.

Now what I'm about to say might not sound appealing to some, and while I have my own reservations about this myself, I'm trying to consider what could be happening here and how it could work, even though what I'm about to say will be quite controversial among certain circles of the internet, outside of the Narnia fandom.

Anyway, I'm curious as to the nature of Aslan as a character, and whether this version of the lion might be not be portrayed as female but rather in a gender-fluid way? 

Obviously, traditionally, Aslan has been voiced and portrayed as male, often embodying a paternal, kingly presence. But at the same time, Aslan is not a typical lion. He is a divine, magical being, a representation of something far greater than human (or animal) "gender norms". So what happens if a woman plays Aslan? Does that change who he is, or does Gerwig see it as a possible door to a richer interpretation?

There’s also the visual element to consider. People have pointed out that female lions don’t have manes, and some wonder whether this means the character’s appearance might change, with many explaining the importance of the mane. But I suppose it's worth considering that Aslan has never been bound by natural laws; he's a talking lion who returns from the dead and commands the forces of good. If this Aslan still has a mane, does that signify masculinity, or just power, majesty, and mystery? Ultimately, it might be that this version of Aslan transcends gender entirely. Meryl Streep, with her range and gravitas, could bring a new dimension to the role, one that honors the spirit of Aslan while reimagining how he is heard, seen, and understood.

Again, I'm not saying this would be a good or bad decision, but it's still worth considering as a possible approach and is a way to explain Streep's casting, whilst allowing for some those of things that are important to the character.

Overall, I'm also curious as to whether their casting approach to Aslan is "gender-fluid", with Gerwig and her team looking into male and female actors for the role of Aslan.

@rilianix Interesting ideas there!

As I've already said earlier in this discussion, there are plenty of Christians (and others of different faith backgrounds) who see God as transcending gender, or certainly our limited, earthly concepts of it. The Bible describes both "male and female" as created in God's image, after all, and my own denomination for that reason has no hesitation in referring to God as Father-Mother.

On the other hand, Jesus most definitely came to earth as a man (in a time and place and culture where a woman would never have been accepted as any kind of leader, after all, let alone as the God-anointed Saviour of the world), and Lewis is quite clear, both in the Narnia books themselves and in comments he made elsewhere, that he intended Aslan specifically to be a representation of what Jesus might be like if he came to redeem another world that needed redemption. So in that regard, making Aslan female, or in some way gender-fluid, makes the connection of him with Jesus less clear.

It also looks almost outright calculated to be offensive to Christians of the more conservative and traditionalist sort, and — if the rumour of a female or not-entirely-male Aslan is true — I can't believe Greta Gerwig would be oblivious to the HUGE amount of controversy and outright anger this choice would cause. We're already seeing it playing out among critics, even before anything about the rumour has been confirmed.

That said, Jesus himself, while unarguably male, doesn't at all play up to the worst stereotypes of maleness that we still see in today's world (aggression, violence, arrogance, misogyny, and everything else that comes under the label of "toxic masculinity"). I unfortunately can't remember who said or wrote this, but when I was taking a subject on Women and Religion for my major in religion studies at university, there was one quote from a feminist Christian theologian that really stuck with me, to the effect of: "The problem is not that Jesus is a man, but that more men are not like Jesus."

So... if this new Narnia film portrays Aslan as outwardly a male Lion (his mane, as we've discussed elsewhere, is too vital to the story to leave it out), but perhaps uses a range of actors' voices — including at least one woman, presumably Meryl Streep — somehow digitally blended to give him a wider range of expression, including at times sounding feminine (perhaps in his quieter, more tender moments)... I can imagine that might work. Certainly a LOT better than making him outright female, that is, visually a Lioness with no mane and an obviously female voice and referred to by others as "she" and "her". That would just be too outlandish and look like nothing but political point-scoring ("there are too many male representations of divinity and they've caused far too much damage in the world, so let's make the Jesus-character female"), which is what a lot of commentators are already riled up about.

I think I could accept a visually male Aslan voiced, at least partly, by a female voice actor, IF everything else about him is faithful to how he comes across in the books and to the general spirit of the stories. It's just that we don't yet know at all what Gerwig's intentions here actually are — there's still been nothing from her or anyone else connected with the project to either confirm or deny the "female Aslan" rumour — and the recent revelations about the casting call also suggest that whatever is being planned for this particular film, it's not going to adhere closely to the original book.

So I still really don't know what to think, BUT I am trying to keep an open mind and waiting to judge the film on its own merits (or demerits) when I see it, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions from all these rumours and speculations. After all, whether the film is brilliant or absolutely terrible, it won't change anything about the seven books that I and many others love. And if it changes the plot and characters too outlandishly from the original, to the point where it no longer resembles the known stories about Narnia, it'll quite likely bomb with the general public as well as with die-hard Narnia fans, and will stand out as a warning to future directors not to try something like this again. (After all, the Walden adaptation of VDT was the one that strayed the furthest from the original book, and it performed so badly at the box office that it pretty much crashed the entire series.)

Like I keep saying, there's nothing much we can do except wait and see...

This does seem calculated to be the most offensive thing to do. We cannot pretend we don't live in a world where making a female voice from a male lion would not be considered very offensive to the majority of the population. Especially a lion that is supposed to be Jesus in the story, Also, if they don't get that, the most simple thing to not do, then i have no belief that they are going to get anything more complex right about Aslan's character.

Posted by: @decarus

This does seem calculated to be the most offensive thing to do. We cannot pretend we don't live in a world where making a female voice from a male lion would not be considered very offensive to the majority of the population.

That seems quite a curious assumption, on the face of it. I mean, a lion with any kind of speaking voice (whether male or female) can only be part of a fantasy story, for a start. 

And then there's no reason why a male lion speaking with a female voice should in itself be "very offensive to the majority of the population". Except of course that the lion in question is Aslan, who is, as you say, intended to be Jesus under another name. 

But the fact is we still don't know exactly what this production is going to do with Aslan, or with Meryl Streep (if she does indeed take a role in it). As I've said already, I hope they are NOT literally going to portray Aslan as a lioness — although even if they do, I will still watch the film at least once so that I can judge it fairly instead of going on assumptions and gut reactions. 

Again, it could be that they are planning to blend more than one voice for Aslan, including Streep and perhaps one or two male actors. Or it could even be that Streep is being considered for another (actually female) role, not for Aslan, but the website that originally broke the story just garbled it up. Until we've had definite confirmation from Netflix as to who is providing Aslan's voice and how they are portraying the character, I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions. It could be as bad as everyone's worst fears, certainly — or it might not be. 

Meanwhile, though, calling an even slightly feminised Aslan "very offensive to the majority of the population" is also a rather odd assumption. As far as I can see, it's only "very offensive" to highly conservative / traditionalist Christians. Those are definitely not "the majority of the population" in the UK, or Australia, or most other English-speaking countries; I'm not sure about the US. 

Obviously it's very difficult to say what "the majority" of Christians think of just about anything — it's such a diverse faith. I'd hazard a guess, though, that for most other Christians, reactions to a possibly female-voiced Aslan will range from "That's interesting and it might work somehow" to "I really don't like this, but, well, that's Hollywood for you."

And for run-of-the-mill viewers from the general public — many of whom will only be nominally Christian or of other faiths or not religious at all — Aslan's gender may not even be a big issue. That may be upsetting to those for whom Aslan's gender is a big issue, but, well, there it is. 

I still don't know exactly where I stand on this — and won't until I see what this film is actually going to do with Aslan — but just speaking from the standpoint of my own faith, none of this is actually going to make a difference to either the Saviour I love and strive to follow, or to the series of seven novels that I've loved since I was a child. If this new adaptation makes an absolute hash of Aslan's character, or the story, or both, I will just grit my teeth and shrug it off and move on. (As I did for the Walden movie adaptations, and for a stage version of LWW that I saw in London, which for me didn't get either Narnia or Aslan "right" either.) 

Posted by: @courtenay

Posted by: @decarus

This does seem calculated to be the most offensive thing to do. We cannot pretend we don't live in a world where making a female voice from a male lion would not be considered very offensive to the majority of the population.

Again, it could be that they are planning to blend more than one voice for Aslan, including Streep and perhaps one or two male actors. Or it could even be that Streep is being considered for another (actually female) role, not for Aslan, but the website that originally broke the story just garbled it up. Until we've had definite confirmation from Netflix as to who is providing Aslan's voice and how they are portraying the character, I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions. It could be as bad as everyone's worst fears, certainly — or it might not be. 

Meanwhile, though, calling an even slightly feminised Aslan "very offensive to the majority of the population" is also a rather odd assumption. As far as I can see, it's only "very offensive" to highly conservative / traditionalist Christians. Those are definitely not "the majority of the population" in the UK, or Australia, or most other English-speaking countries; I'm not sure about the US. 

I would say that having a woman voice Aslan is very offensive, even if Aslan is still male in the movie, and even if the woman's voice is edited or mixed with other, male voices. It all seems improper. However, it most certainly will not be perceived as offensive by the majority of the population. Regrettably. 

@decarus That really depends on the woman & the range of her voice. And the same is true of men, also, with sometimes an overlap. Obviously, in Aslan's song of Creation, especially when the stars are coming out, a soprano is needed. That could be done well with the famed Vienna Boys' Choir (if it is still going) or some other similar boys' choir. But you can't assume the stars are all masculine, either, and if there are enough women as gifted as Sarah Brightman, who sings so dramatically as Christina in Phantom of the Opera, that would surely do as well, besides being easier to work with.   

Listening to an Australian anti-smoking ad, a croaky male voice reminds us that he isn't a robot & it isn't for effect. He tells us that is what happens after a lifetime of smoking, ruining his voicebox. He could have added that also happens to smokers whether male or female, & that a lifetime of coughing & spluttering with asthma & other respiratory complaints also affects people's voices similarly. At the age of 77 there is no way that I can sing soprano now, though some of my peers manage to do so, tremulously, & though we all might have managed to do so confidently in our teens.   

Getting back to Aslan, whether unknown male or Meryl Streep, or maybe some combination of the two, to support each other, the voice who plays the part is going to have to have quite a wide range to cover, taking Polly's commentary as a guide. From deep bass notes for an elephant, male or female, or maybe just a ridge of tall trees. Light tenor/alto tones for grass, definitely female for flowers. What about the Sunrise? Does the music rise in pitch & volume? Or is that just my musically untrained imagination? 

@Courtenay As I've already said earlier in this discussion, there are plenty of Christians (and others of different faith backgrounds) who see God as transcending gender, or certainly our limited, earthly concepts of it. The Bible describes both "male and female" as created in God's image, after all, and my own denomination for that reason has no hesitation in referring to God as Father-Mother.

At the boarding school to which I was once confined as a child for 3.5 years, the grace we had to say was - For what we are about to receive, may the "Great Architect of the Universe" make us truly thankful, mindful of the needs of others. But then, why an architect? Oh yes, because Freemasons ran that particular school. Not that I was particularly grateful for the ample sufficiency but otherwise none-too-savoury & gristly stewed mince & cabbage & lumpy porridge doled out to us, all too often.  

Why not the "The Great Chemist of the Universe", anyway, when Chemistry in the composition of the Universe is every bit as paramount as any design? Between purposeful intention and any conception, we need both male & female to bring children into being. Maybe that is the point of Greta Gerwig's ideas? Throughout the natural world, both male & female are needed, after all.  For my part, I can have a lot of time for the Jesus Christ of John 7:53 – 8:11 who forgave the woman taken in adultery, thus saving her from the stoning she was to be punished with. When her accusers slunk off in shame, he became my hero, when such judgementalism still goes on in some places in the world. Otherwise, Courtenay, where Aslan is concerned, I agree with everything you have said, at least for now.  

If children watch a movie with a female Aslan and then read the Narnia books they might really be confused. I don’t know if Greta Gerwig has considered the youngest people in her audience. Adaptations that are too loose will most likely deter some from reading the source or maybe some people will give up on the movie before seeing it. I don’t think it will encourage an interest for children and adults in both the book and the movie the way a faithful adaptation would. I have been tempted to give up on the new film, but I think I will read many reviews before deciding to spend the money to see it. I don’t want to support something that is a really poor adaptation with my money.

@rilianix you've raised some interesting ideas, which in someways I agree with - although I probably wouldn't so much label it a "gender-fluid" way as "other-worldly".  To me "gender-fluid" speaks of the whole notion that is being taught in a lot of schools and other places these days and causing a lot of confusion... of which I'm sure we're all aware but I won't go into further detail (as I don't intend to get too political).  I hope Aslan is not cast with a female voice just "because they can" or make Aslan into a female character to challenge the norm... That said, using a female voice as part of making Aslan's voice other-worldly, I can be quite understanding of, and I think could be done in such a way as to be acceptable to perhaps the majority of fans of the books (of course I don't know as this is just my opinion - but my basis for suggesting this is below).  So my reasons for thinking along this line are:

1. Yes, we are aware that Aslan is a supposal of Jesus in the world of Narnia.  Yes, Jesus came as a physical man and yes, Aslan is clearly described as a male lion - with a mane, and his titles clearly reflect that he is a man - the King of Beasts, Highest of all Kings, Son of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea etc... but of course the reality is that no one has ever really heard a lion speak, of course we've got movie versions, so does anyone really know what a lion would sound like if they genuinely spoke?

2. There is an other-worldliness in the descriptions Lewis gives of Aslan.  First by the very fact that there He is in Narnia talking and singing.  Second by the fact that he appears in several different forms throughout the series - appearing as a lamb, as a cat, as an albatross (perhaps even the white stag?) and the descriptions of his appearance at the end of LB, "And as He spoke, He no longer looked to them like a lion, but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them." and in HB "Then instantly the pale brightness of the mist and the fiery brightness of the Lion rolled themselves together into a swirling glory and gathered themselves up and disappeared.

3. The other-wordliness in the descriptions Lewis gives of Aslan's voice.  When asked who he was, by Shasta:

"Myself," said the voice, very deep and low so that the earth shook: and again, "Myself", loud and clear and gay: and then the third time "Myself", whispered so softly you could hardly hear it and yet it seemed to come from all round you as if the leaves rustled with it."

The sound of His roar described in PC:

"The sound, deep and throbbing at first like an organ beginning on a low note, rose and became louder, and then far louder again, till the earth and air were shaking with it.  It rose up from that hill and floated cross all Narnia."

Then there's all the quotes about His singing in MN, I won't list them all, but here's just a couple:

"In the darkness something was happening at last.  A voice begun to sing..... Sometimes it seemed to come from all directions at once.  Sometimes he almost thought it was coming out of the earth beneath them.  Its lower notes were deep enough to be the voice of the earth herself.  There was no words.  There was hardly even a tune.  But it was beyond comparison, the most beautiful noise he had ever heart.  It was so beautiful he could hardly bear it..."

"The Lion was pacing to and for about that empty land and singing his new song.  It was softer and more lilting than the song by which he had called up the stars and the sun; a gentle, rippling music."

4. As already pretty clear from that small sampling of quotes above from the books, as well as many, many more descriptions of the character and the voice of Aslan, such as the fact that He is not a safe/tame lion but he is good, a lion that should be feared and revered and is good all at the same time.  A lion that can say "I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms," and can make you tremble when you've done wrong but equally show such compassion for you that He appears to feel more about your situation than what you do yourself.  And the fact that as has been acknowledged in other threads on these forums - out of all the versions of Aslan being portrayed, yes, the actors have done good jobs, some better in some areas, but I think all would agree that not one of the portrayals of him or his voice has 100% nailed all facets of his voice and character - try as hard as they might (I'm thinking of David Suchet here who varied his voice a lot...

Anway I'm rambling... my point is, with all these points considered, why not try something different and try a conglomerate of different voices to attempt to capture the other-worldliness of his character could be worth trying.  

Mod Note:
In the USA, the term "conservative Christians" can have political connotations and should be avoided on the forum.   Also, please be careful about making generalizations about what large groups of people think.