NYT review of War of the World.

[link]

The rating warning made me laugh out loud:

"War of the Worlds" is rated PG-13. Much of the earth's population is wiped out, leaving very little time for sex or bad language.

The thing is, British Christians (who are predominantly Anglican, nsm Baptist) are much more aligned with Lewis' views on Christianity than are American fundamentalists. I've had no end of discussions about the failings of Lewis' vision - it seems that the fact that he works in allegory and fantasy is a problem, as is his "messing with the exact word of God" that is the Bible. There was no holy lion in the Bible - the only lions were demonstrably anti-Christian. So Lewis is just another egghead who is making stuff up and will burn in hell. Also, he says that women who wear makeup are morally bankrupt, and that doesn't play well here either.

I even had one woman tell me she wished her Christian bookstore would stop carrying his books, as they were so awful. I don't think she understood The Screwtape Letters, even if she read it.

So I guess my point is, the movie could be true to the source AND appeal to the Christians in England. The quote was from the London Telegraph, so I'm assuming a Brit, but I think we're still OK.

Of course, if they make "The Horse and His Boy" it should play well in America, what with the anti-Persian (or Arab) bias.

Just got back from War of the Worlds.

I'm not really sure what I think of this movie yet. I like the review that tommyrot just linked. I could talk a bit, but I think it would be too spoilery. I do have to say that I really got sucked into the story. I'm not sure yet whether I liked it, but it really sucked me in. I'll be interested to read what others think once they see it.

So I guess my point is, the movie could be true to the source AND appeal to the Christians in England.

Christians aren't a bloc in England in the way there are in the States (not in the sense that all US Christians are a bloc, but there seems to be a powerful socioculturopolitical bloc of Xtians). Most british christians are C of E which is just agnostic with better cakes. Marketing to Christians would be pretty meaningless here, there just aren't enough people for whom it's a big deal (outside of certain communities)

True enough, Jim. Disney's marketing push is no doubt aimed at American Xtians, who are a demographic bloc with cash for movie tickets (which I'm hoping is the reason for the "Passion for kids" comment...oh lordy I'm hoping it's the only reason). But since the artcle was from the LT I'm assuming, maybe erroneously, that the quote about getting Xtian butts into seats was from a C of E leader, and I can see how a true-to-text LW&W movie could inspire that.

From the NYT review of War of the Worlds :

Mr. Cruise has lately proven himself to be much more interesting and unpredictable as a talk show guest than as an actor

heh.

I'm pretty sure the quoted person isn't british.

Most british christians are C of E which is just agnostic with better cakes.

Heh, love this. But I thought C of E was Catholic-lite more than it was agnostic. Maybe it used to be more so?

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is the Oz book with the most clear political symbolism:

I've heard that Baum didn't have any symbolism in mind, and that critics read it into the book significantly later. (In 1964, to be exact.) Unfortunately, we can't exactly ask Baum any more.

Well, C of E congregations vary from basically full-blown catholic (my village church had parts of the liturgy in Latin well into the '70s) to happy-clappy evangelicals who would fit in at a White House breakfast. But 99% of people who put C of E down on forms are basically agnostic and just do christenings and weddings because church is where you do such things in the English countryside.

Unfortunately, we can't exactly ask Baum any more.

We could if we RESURRECTED HIM AS ZOMBIE BAUM.