How did a movie about crusaders, a sacrificial lion and talking beavers gross $67 million in its opening weekend? The not-so-unlikely marriage of Hollywood and C.S. Lewis.
By John Zmirak
What did you do this past weekend? I spent part of mine in a Times Square theater full of adult Manhattanites at a movie with talking beavers. And a perky 8-year-old English girl with crooked teeth. And a cute widdle goat boy named Tumnus. No hunks on screen, no babes, and nary a kiss. The only “hot” woman in the movie was a six-foot-plus satanic witch with blonde dredlocks, and a kinky habit of torturing centaurs. The film’s stars were teens and children, but there wasn’t one kid in the audience. Nor were these moviegoers bused in from some Evangelical church—there were too many women wearing black, holding hands with Nader voters. I wondered aloud if this was a bunch of stoners—but sniffed around in vain for a whiff of the banished herb. Nobody snorted at the moments of outright Christian allegory, or scoffed at the galloping satyrs. Only one person even got up to go to the bathroom. These urbanites sat, spellbound, for more than two hours, some with tears on their cheeks, and at the end they burst into applause. At last I had to face the fact: New Yorkers are into Narnia.
So are Americans: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe made $67 million in its opening weekend, covering almost half its costs, and received glowing reviews from most major papers, including the Logos-phobic New York Times. (Only the lowbrow New York Post and drab suburban Newsday disagreed.) Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a hit—and the prospect of six more Narnia movies, to compete with the Harry Potter franchise and drive C.S. Lewis all the way up the bestseller lists. Look for Lewis sections to spring up in the bookstores, crowding up against the Tolkien shelves, in a veritable onslaught of Oxford Christian whimsy. It helps that so many of the writers who review the movies grew up on the Narnia books, and still remember fondly the moments of imaginative epiphany they provoked.
You’re reading to much into the comment Olympiada. He was making a comment that this was not the typical action film. In other words she wasn’t a Bond girl.
Humour
..a warm cup’a tea?
Ok, Olympiada, first of all you are calling any woman who understood the humour of the article a “man”. So before I go shave the mustache let me comment..
It is not meant to be a sacramental text, it’s just a movie review by someone who knows a little about Faith but is making secular jokes ( most are prety funny imo). His point is that the movie did well despite the absence of cutties on screen. The white witch is so cold he basically sais it’s desperate to think that she’s attracted the audience. So he basically sais the movie’s charm is elsewhere, not in sex apeal..
Let me look in the mirror… No, nope, no beard yet.. but:
Just because there are traits that are more characteristic of women than men, and those traits more characteristic of men rather than of women, it doesn’t mean that we don’t share the same emotional/behavioral/psychological characteristics to one degree or the other! I’m not going to bother reading some book that attempts to tell me how I think because I’m a woman.
Some people are more sensitive, some more neurotic, some more funny, some more pesimistic and it makes no difference what their sex is.
There many say depressed guys for example, not acting “manly” and many “brave” women who act more “manly” than them.
Personality is a human trait not defined by sex.
Any man reading this column would agree with you, there certainly is a feminine way of thinking and especially expressing oneself and apparently there also is a “female” (not very feminine, but that’s another point) way of fighting, it’s called a “cat fight”.
Anyway, it seems that we tend to agree at a lot though, note that:
You say: “bravery has nothing to do with gender.”
I said: “Personality is a human trait not defined by sex”
Pretty amazing..
Dia, A person “thinks” as they are taught to think
Education is the process of teaching people to think effectively. Anyone can benefit from that.
Apart from education, a child learns thinking from her parents. If a child is raised in a home that features calm and reasoned discussions, she learns to think. If a child is raised by parents that demonstrate a love of learning, she learns to read deeply and think deeply.
Describing a “woman’s” way of thinking is a disservice to everyone, AND, it provides an excuse for immature, irrational and unreasonable conduct by women. This irrational streak running through current feminist “thought” invited the heretical, blasphemous and truly moronic nature cults like Druidism.
One of the benefits of the original feminist movement, was that women demanded to be treated as FULL ADULTS rather than semi-children. This treatment carries with it respect and privilege but also responsibility. Women demanding status as FULL ADULTS have to abandon narcissistic (and unscientific) little theories like “a feminine way of thinking” or “a woman’s way of knowing.”
Grow-up and be an adult and leave childhood alone. There is no in between.
Missourian,
I am not sure if you were intending to address me in your post #9. (Were you??)
Actually if you are reading this, how can I find a way to contact you? I have the impression we live in the same area (maybe)
All,
I just couldn’t resist sharing these I LOVE the first one!! LOLOLOL):
In Plain Language
New definitions
*
The Washington Postâ??s Style section from time to time challenges readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are some of the winners:
Bozone (n.) The substance surrounding stupid people that stops ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Cashtration (n.) The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.
Giraffiti (n.) Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
Sarchasm (n.) The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesnâ??t get it.
Inoculatte (v.) To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Hipatitis (n.) Terminal coolness.
Osteopornosis (n.) A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
Karmageddon (n.) Itâ??s like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes. And then, like, the Earth explodes and itâ??s like, a serious bummer.
Decafalon (n.) The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
Glibido (v.) All talk and no action.
Dopeler effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Arachnoleptic fit (n.) The frantic dance performed just after youâ??ve accidentally walked through a spider web.
Beelzebug (n.) Satan in the form of a mosquito that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
Caterpallor (n.) The color you turn after finding half a grub in the fruit youâ??re eating.
Olympiada,
I probably should not say this from a Christian standpoint, but then again It’d be out of hypocrisy not love if I didn’t..
Have you realized you’ve attacked (very directly, not just by implication)every single poster on this particular thread on a personal basis rather than on ideas?
1. The poor author (directly) of the article and along with him all Catholic guys (semi-direclty) (!!!!!) by suggesting they somehow have a twisted taste for women..which also is totaly out of context.
“Then again he is a Catholic. Is that what turns Catholic men on”
2. Jerry (VERY directly), by calling her a “man” just for getting it.. (along with her, all other women witty enough to get it, and ALL men as if they have a perverse sense of huour too)
3. Myself(rather indirectly), calling me “masculine”. Disgusting? Yeah, I think so!
4. Missourian (very directly!), informing her that she is not equiped to weigh the opinions of an MD. Doctors are the ones who inform us of a million controversial things..They disagree between them all the time, they admit mistakes, they do research because… guess what! they DON’T know it all….
I’ll certainl not end the comment with “yours in…” it’d be ridiculous..
Olympiada, just put things in plain English. No one is an enemy here, nor do those who disagree with you see you as one either.
Questions with Dr. Northrup’s practices
Personally I have a problem with a “Dr.” that stretches her degree credentials (she is a board certified ob/gyn) into other areas of medicine and social science (being an ob/gyn doesn’t make you any more qualified to act as a psychologist or sociologist than say a dermatologist can).
Plus, I have problems with the “self-help” industry she has developed around herself with the cover of holistic medicine.
Just to step in and perhaps settle the argument (as the author of the controverted piece):
Yes, I was a little turned on by Tilda Swinton. Sorry! I don’t know that this makes me typical of Catholic men.
Cheers,
John Zmirak
#16 It has more to being typical of men. Not only Catholic men.
Olympiada,
Where do I get off criticizing a medical doctor? Hmm, where to start. During my thirty years plus of legal experience I have first-chaired more than a dozen significant jury trials with very large dollar amounts at stake. “First-chair” means that I was the lawyer in charge of everything about the case. Nearly all of those trials involved a doctor’s testimony. I have probably done more than 25 depositions of doctors per year for 30 years, that totals 750 medical depositions. I have questioned M.D.’s all the time. Sometimes their testimony holds up and sometimes, it does not. Does that answer your question?
I also have formal training in the physical sciences: electrical engineering (B.S.E.E.) I am generally conversant with most modern mathematical fields and I have better than average knowledge of computer architecture and several major computer languages. Sprechen ze C++?
So, what’s the big deal with the M.D.’s?
Dia, Olympiada
Water off a duck’s back. I have a rather thick skin and I don’t consider myself injured by anyone who disagrees with me.
I should probably tone my own language down.
However, I do assert that thinking is a skill that can be taught. Women’s intellect and emotional maturity were formerly considered to rank somewhere between children and fully adult males. If we women want to be considered equals in our communities we have to shoulder the responsibility of adults. We have to embrace rationality, reliability, constancy and rigorous thought. Either we are adults ready to be full partners with our husbands and male co-workers or we are children. We can’t demand the privileges reserved for responsible adults without accepting the burdens and responsibilities that go with those privileges. We have to put away foolish, childish and anti-rational, emotional responses to life’s problems.
My mother and father formed a life-long bond in holy matrimony. They provided an example of two people who fully loved and fully respected each other. They carefully considered all major family decision together, this provided me with a shining example of thoughtful, rational, co-operative decision making. My father assumed the duty of earning a living and he did it well. My mother assumed the duty of making a home and she did it well. I was never taught that homemaking was beneath the dignity of an intelligent woman. My father did emphasize a career should be a means to an end, the ultimate end was a happy family life. Good lessons for which I am grateful.
Anyway, don’t worry about arguing back to me, it doesn’t upset me.
Missourian,
Glad to see you back!
I gather (from #19) that the response to my question in #11, is that you were indeed addressing me at #9. (sorry, I don’t mean to be confusing and bore everyone else).
I only wanted to point out that there is a big doze of sarcasm on my #8 comment, that may not come off clearly when typing on a blog. (Ref: “catfight”)
I fully agree with your #9 post.