Local theater produces Lewis' classic

June 9, 12:11 PMSt. Louis Presbyterian ExaminerAlicia Donathan

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Presbyterian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 

This weekend the Clayton Community Theater will be performing its rendition of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  The production is dramatized by Joseph Robinette.

Lewis' classic story of the battle for the land of Narnia has gained new interest in recent years following its production as a major film by Disney/Walden Media (2005).  (Its sequel, "Prince Caspian," was released last year.)  

Lewis' series is infused with rich Christian ethos, a tapestry of symbolism, and an atmosphere evocative both of fantasy and of biblical story.  Lewis himself described the stories as not allegorical, but instead a sort of speculation: What would happen if Christ came to other worlds besides our own?  What might He look like?  How might He talk?  What might He do?  Above all, Lewis in his stories sought a unique goal:  to sneak "past those sleeping dragons," the prejudices that often cloud our vision, preventing us from perceiving Christ in His fullness, joy, power, and personal nature.  

The recent surge of productions of Lewis' stories raises questions, however, about the limitations and desirability of converting such books into visual media.  During Lewis' lifetime, a dramatized radio version of The Magician's Nephew (chronologically the first of the Chronicles of Narnia) was produced with Lewis' approval and consultation.  But in a letter to Lance Seiveking, BBC producer, in 1959, Lewis wrote:  

"I am absolutely opposed--adamant isn't in it!--to a TV version.  Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare.  At least, with photography." 

Lewis was open to the idea of a cartoon version, "if only Disney did not combine so much vulgarity with his genius!"  But a human pantomime of Aslan would be "blasphemy," wrote Lewis.  

It is interesting to speculate whether Lewis might have changed his mind about a film (photographic) version of his stories if he had seen the miracles of modern computer-generated images, which are hardly distinguishable from the real thing.  Indeed, the idea of live-action talking animals in a film in 1959 is laughable.  But the animals of Walden's films are not.  And Disney's visual "vulgarity" is decidedly muted in the two films released to date.  

However, the film versions are not without flaws: Aslan, despite his visual impressiveness, turns out to be written as a bit of a sop.  His majesty, his commanding presence, his sheer size, as they appear in the books, are missing.  Instead, Aslan in the film reflects, as one critic observed, the watery, passive, neutered deity of American evangelicalism, rather than the regal and noble Christ of Scripture.  As one child put it, "Aslan in the movie looked like he was sad all the time.  He should have been more stronger.  More King-er...with a better voice or something."  Here perhaps Disney "vulgarity" emerges in the poor portrayal of Aslan as an impotent, surrendering character, rather than as a sacrificing leader.  But I digress.  

These flaws are not attributable to the medium, but to the people in whose hands the story was entrusted.  We may speculate that the medium of 21st century film has grown up, and can now handle the challenge of anthropomorphic beasts without the buffoonery or the nightmare Lewis feared.  

However, Lewis' other fear--that a "pantomime" human Aslan, the kind that would be necessary for a stage production of the story, would be unthinkable--may still have merit.  After all, live theater has more inherent limitations than film.  No amount of technology can change the fact that the players on stage are, and always will be, human.  And this is precisely Lewis' problem with the stage.  A human pretending to be a lion would be a joke, and would not do justice to Aslan's majesty and otherness.  Aslan of Lewis' imagination was startling, unsettling, evoking a holy fear, terrifying and beautiful, while being the source of the children's only comfort, strength, and hope.  Aslan, as Lewis said, "is not a tame Lion."  

This is the danger both of Disney's careless interpretation and of the limitations of stage productions: they both turn Aslan into a tame lion.  But Aslan is no joke.  In order to truly appreciate the story, we have to appreciate the main character, Aslan, as very real, very dangerous, yet very good and noble.  Lewis believed that a human dressed up as a lion would utterly preclude such an appreciation.  The same is true for the other talking animals in the story: they, too, must be taken seriously as animals, and also as characters.  This would be inherently impossible with human actors, according to Lewis.

Nevertheless, many have seen fit to try anyway.   It will be interesting to observe how the Clayton players handle the limitations that Lewis perceived to be preclusive of a successful production.   Performances will be at the South Campus Theatre at Wash U, 6501 Clayton Rd.  Shows are at 8 p.m. June 12 and 13, and 2 p.m. June 14.  Tickets are $12 adult, $5 children 12 and under.  See website for purchasing info.