I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Nesson made what appears to be a rather flippant response to such a loaded (intended or not) question. First, the author of the Chronicles makes it quite clear Aslan is a Christ-figure. Aslan's experiences and actions in the series point to a Christ-figure. I am no expert in Islam or Buddhism...I don't believe either of their spiritual leaders was present when the earth was formed, sacrificed himself for another or is prophesied to be a major player in the ending of this world. Satan, himself, is a spiritual leader to some; however, I don't think anyone would equate him with Aslan. To suggest that Aslan represents any of a miriad of spiritual leaders is something of an afront to Christrianity. To Christians, Jesus is much more than a 'spititual leader', he is God incarnate. Even if those outside the Christian community do not agree, this belief makes Jesus different from these other 'spiritual leaders.' I don't believe Mr. Nesson meant to insult Christians. I believe his comments were 'off the cuff' and not well thought out. The lesson to learn is clear. Be careful what you say because once out of your mouth, the words can't be unsaid.

My two cents:

C.S. Lewis's intention of of Aslan's character is stated quite clearly that he is the Christ figure of the Chronicles. I don't believe Lewis meant for him to be interpreted in any other way besides this one:

If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which the Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving and imaginary answer to the question "What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" This is not an allegory at all

- The letters of C.S. Lewis, paragraph 6, page 283.
(The above quote is taken from this thread. I put in bold the part I want to emphasize.)

While I suppose Aslan could be interpreted differently according to different belief systems, I really think one should look at how Lewis intended his character to be taken.

Aslan is not just a prophet in the Chronicles, either. He is much more powerful than a prophet.

Georgie Henley defends Liam Neeson on Aslan. And she says other cast members were ‘very excited’ on hearing his view of Aslan at Thursday’s press conference…

http://thecatholicspirit.com/featured/n ... l-leaders/

Here's my article on it at Aslan's Country...

http://www.aslanscountry.com/2010/12/ge ... -on-aslan/

So does this revelation change members' perspective on Liam's comments?

This is a hard situation. I've mentioned some thoughts before, but a few new ones have popped up.

Literarally, that is, viewing the Chronicles as literature, I doubt there are any scholars who would suggest Aslan is anything other than a representation of Jesus. Basically all the metaphors and symbolism in the Chronicles are blatantly Christian, and the author himself specifically stated that Aslan is representative of Christ.

However, most people do not read the Chronicles as a work of literature. They read a story. There are people who don't know Christian symbolism at all, and so it passes right over their heads when they are reading it. Many people are just reading the Chronicles for the story - they are reading about four children who go into a magical world in a wardrobe which is rightfully ruled by a great Lion who makes them kings and queens under them. And, as with any story, people bring in their own interpretations of the characters. Perhaps they see Edmund as more of a Darth Vader character - someone who went from bad to good, instead of a repentant sinner (repentant sinner might not even be part of their vocabulary). And, if you don't know much about Christianity, Aslan can seem like an Obi-Wan-like figure, a powerful being who guides the heroes and dies and so on.

I think that's what Neeson and Georgie are saying. Not everyone views the Chronicles as literature, they are all bringing their own interpretations to a story.

There's a difference between someone's personal interpretation and someone making a movie or a book or writing a fanfiction of the book and all that. When writing an adaptation, you have to view the original source as the literature, as what the original author intended. You can't insert your own interpretation (beyond a slight minimum) because you are not writing for yourself, you are writing *in absentia* for the original author and have to follow, as best as possible, the original intent. How the viewers interpret the final movie/fanfication is up to them and can't be dictated by anyone else.

Does that make any sense?

I think that as soon as you say something "is representing Christ and"

as soon as you say and you've hit a land mine (which will always explode into Tashlans). Christ is above and beyond any kind of comparison we can create, we can imagine, or we can read. Lewis said (I don't remember where) that Aslan was not to represent Christ as an allagory but as a hypothetical situation to how Christ would act within His own character in a fantastic land. Now I don't know exactly what Mr. Neeson said because I can't seem to get the movie to play, and frankly if others want to look at Aslan as nothing more than a great moral teacher, fine. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. If they say the same for Jesus that's a whole other issue all together and I have a whole slew of C. S. Lewis quotes to take them on with that one.

Mark Johnson joins Liam Neeson...

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctent ... rom-n.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... tial-57307

*throws hands up* OK, I was able to see the reasoning behind Neeson's comments, but Mark Johnson's quote is so wrong to be ludicrous. That whole thing I wrote about literary versus personal experience? Yah, insert that here and add that Johnson definitely was commenting on the former with an ignorance that is outstanding.

I think the filmmakers are most likely saying what they are saying for two reasons.

1. Christ doesn't have any place in their personal lives, but Narnia does. So they separate them.

2. They are trying to sell a movie. They want everyone to see it. And they are afraid that if they call it a Christian movie, then people who aren't Christians will say, "Oh, I'm not a Christian, so I can't see it".
Which many non-Christians would do if that were the case. (Which doesn't really make sense, considering I've seen plenty of movies that had elements concerning things I don't believe in -- evolution, eastern religions, etc.) But still, it is something that could happen. So the filmmakers are trying to make it as open as possible, as a precaution to not lose their audience.

As for what Liam Neeson said, I don't think he was referring to what he thought C.S. Lewis intended. I don't think he was analyzing the purpose of the books or the author. I think he was just stating how he personally views it. Which is fine. After all, I've read plenty of secular books which, to me, hold Christian messages, even though it was not what the author intended. So why shouldn't it work the opposite way?

Did C.S. Lewis intend Aslan to be Jesus Christ? Of course. Does that mean you have to view Aslan that way? No, not if you don't want to.
The way the author views it is not always how the reader views it. That's one of the best things about literature -- or all art. You can interpret it the way you want, and so, it will mean different things to different people.

~Riella

It looks like Glenn Beck and the news media have really taken to this "controversy" around Liam Neeson's comments about Aslan. I really don't think this should be the type of attention a few comments about personal faith should be garnering.

Aslan CLEARLY represents Jesus. I am surprised that anyone could think any different because all the things we know about Aslan point directly to Jesus. PLUS: C.S. Lewis was a Christian therefore it is immeasurably doubtful that he would portray Aslan as Buddha or something. Mr. Neeson: with all due respect you are misinformed, study a little more before making drastic conclusions.

I am not sure if there is any other major religion (correct me if I am wrong) that has a god sacrifice for his people, instead of the other way around. It would be very hard to connect Aslan to any other religious figure.

Wow. Very good point.

I feel that Liam Neeson looked for ways to connect Aslan to his personal religions. Aslan is obviously symbolism for Jesus, and it would be hard to argue that he means anyone else. I am not sure if there is any other major religion (correct me if I am wrong) that has a god sacrifice for his people, instead of the other way around. It would be very hard to connect Aslan to any other religious figure.