Meryl Streep May Be Brilliant, but She Is Not Aslan

I wish I liked the choice more than I do. I like Greta Gerwig. Little Women was ironically the first version of the film that I had seen, and I really enjoyed it. Even when she rearranged Louisa May Alcott’s story, she seemed to understand its soul. I enjoyed Barbie , too. Gerwig is one of the few major directors who still appears interested in beauty, girlhood, longing, marriage, motherhood, and the inner lives of women. I understand why she was entrusted with Narnia, and I am genuinely curious about what she will do with it. I also understand why she chose Streep. Gerwig told Empire that she wanted an actor who was “profound but not pretentious,” with “gravitas but not morose self-seriousness,” and capable of communicating “depth and pathos as well as joy and delight.” She wanted someone older than 70, with the wisdom of experience but the wonder of a child. And, of course, Streep is one of the greatest actors alive. That is an excellent description of what Aslan must feel like. But that is also the problem. Gerwig seems to understand nearly all of Aslan’s qualities while overlooking who Aslan actually is. Aslan is not simply a wise magical creature. He is not Mother Nature, a genderless spirit, or a symbolic container for whatever a filmmaker considers divine. He is not even merely “Christlike,” as he is often described in entertainment coverage. C.S. Lewis was much more specific. Lewis rejected the idea that Narnia was a simple allegory in which Aslan stands in for Jesus the way a code word stands in for its meaning. In a 1958 letter, he described Aslan as his imaginative answer to a question: What might Christ be like if there were a world such as Narnia and He chose to enter, die, and rise in that world as He did in ours? Aslan is not a loose religious metaphor. He is Christ in Narnia. Once you understand that, every book changes. The lion who sings the world into being Gerwig is beginning with The Magician’s Nephew , the sixth Narnia book published but the first chronologically. It is the story of Narnia’s creation, and Aslan is its Creator. Digory, Polly, the Witch, Uncle Andrew, the cab driver, and his horse arrive in a world that is completely dark. Then they hear a voice singing. The sun rises. The song changes, and grass spreads across the land. Trees grow. Animals emerge from the earth. Aslan turns Narnia into existence. Ring a bell? It is difficult to imagine a more obvious evocation of the Gospel of John: creation made through the Word. I believe he and Tolkien used to have arguments about how “on the nose” the allegories are in their books. Lewis’s point is more profound than “believe in magic.” Aslan then chooses certain animals, breathes upon them, and calls them into a higher life. He gives them speech, but also a moral order. He warns them not to return to the ways of beasts. Narnia begins not only with beauty but hierarchy, responsibility, and law. This is the Aslan Gerwig must get right. Not just a wise presence, but the divine Logos: the voice through whom a world becomes intelligible. Could Meryl Streep technically voice a male lion? Of course. Women have voiced male animated characters for decades. But this does not feel like a case in which the performer’s sex is simply invisible. Gerwig’s casting is conspicuous because the voice of Aslan carries theological and symbolic weight. If the intention is to feminize him, or to make his sex seem irrelevant, it changes the image Lewis constructed. And Christians constantly feel like our faith is under attack in Hollywood. Femininity does not need to consume every masculine symbol This is where the casting bothers me most, not because women can’t possess wisdom, authority, age, playfulness, or power. Obviously we do. It bothers me because I reject the idea that honoring women requires every great masculine figure (especially a Christlike figure) to become available for female reinterpretation. Sexual difference gives stories meaning. A father can never be a mother. I reject the idea that honoring women requires every great masculine figure (especially a Christlike figure) to become available for female reinterpretation. Lewis gives us another vision: strength ordered toward sacrifice, authority ordered toward goodness, and kingship ordered toward service. Girls deserve to encounter noble masculinity, not only female versions of masculine heroes like a cringe Ghostbusters remake. Gerwig understands women unusually well. I wish she trusted the distinction between men and women enough to leave Aslan’s masculine presence intact. Why I’m still curious about Gerwig’s Narnia There are reasons to be hopeful. Gerwig’s description of Narnia as a world “made out of music” is exactly right. Her rock-opera inspiration, including David Bowie, sounds bizarre only if we forget how strange Lewis’s creation scene already is. A black world erupts into stars as a lion sings. Animals bubble out of the earth. A cab horse becomes the father of winged horses. Narnia should feel cosmic, musical, beautiful, and slightly wild. Perhaps it will be interesting. Lewis once wrote that he would consider a comic or Disney-like treatment of Aslan blasphemous because Aslan is a divine figure. That is how seriously he took the character. The question is not whether Gerwig has the right to interpret Narnia. Every adaptation is an interpretation. I want Gerwig’s Narnia to be great. But I also want Aslan to be respected because the character is a Christlike figure, and I’m tired of Christians being thrown under the bus. Gerwig clearly understands the magic of making a great film. She’s one of the few directors who still does. Let’s see what she does with it.