Disney's Live-Action Thread

Also that's Freudian assignment and not the intended implication that Lewis was suggesting. In fact, when reading it there is nothing about her being boy crazy. While Susan in the books was always noted for her beauty, she was never described as crazy about boys. That's an invention of the Disney movie where she and Caspian are given romantic context. Neil Gailman can be behind why many critics assumes that it was to indicate she was interested in boys which kept her out. I would say it's more like she became a vain person, who gets wrapped up in the frivolous side of youth culture. In other words, Susan is someone who probably has gotten into a hedonistic way of life and it has distracted her from seeing the true meaning of being an adult.

The reason why Peter can still come is because he held onto some of his childish wonder, instead of throwing it all away for a superficial understanding of what adult life is like his sister. He can still come back because he still has a child's imagination and wonder. While we all need to grow and become adults, it doesn't mean putting away all positive forms of childlike interests.

Edited by firewriter on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:27:17 AM

Except for the fact that a character explicitly states Susan is only interested in "nylons and lipstick and invitations." The only way you can interpret that is she is interested in boys (unless you think she's gay, in which she's interested in girls). Anything else is, basically, ignoring the text itself.

Also, that's not what "Freudian" means. If I said that a cigar represented a penis, that's Freudian. Saying a woman who is only interested in "nylons and lipstick and invitations" is interested in the opposite sex now is just stately the obvious. It's right there is big bright letters; it's not even subtext, it's text.

Why was Peter able to hold onto "childish wonder" and not Susan? Why is Susan's understanding "superficial" because she likes "nylons and lipstick and invitations"? (That, in itself, is sexist.) Also, where is that in the actual text?

Edited by alliterator on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:28:20 AM

That's more like she's interested in her appearance and partying. Again reading too much into stuff. Again that is what Neil Gailman thinks is the text, when it's actually not.

Again what that phrase means to be is that Susan grows to believe being an adult is all about appearances and partying, rather than accepting that it's not wrong to still have a childish imagination. I think with Susan she's trying too hard to be the shallow concept of an adult rather than what it actually is like. Susan is even stated she wants to keep being that age, so no it's not actually being interested in growing up but actually having an immature understanding of grow up. And as a result, she will end up stuck for a while trying to stay at that young adult period of her life.

Edited by firewriter on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:30:32 AM

Wow. You are missing the forest for the trees. Why is she interested in her appearance? Why is she interested in parties?

Look, like someone once said, I'm not jumping to conclusions. I took a small step and there conclusions were. She was being punished because she liked boys. If you can't tell that from the actual text then you need to polish your reading skills. Neil Gaiman was absolutely right.

You realize CS Lewis wrote Narnia as an allegory of Christianity, right? It's literally impossible not to read into his works. You can't take them at face value because he wrote them to be more than what they are.

Do you think that the Narnia books were just a fun little fantasy adventure? I mean, Aslan is literally Jesus, you know that, right?

I mean, her entire family just died, so no, she won't. She'll be stuck mourning them and wondering why she wasn't there when it happened. She'll have survivor's guilt. Because her entire family died.

Edited by alliterator on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:37:06 AM

I just thought the whole thing with Susan was an allegory for someone who lost their faith as a Christian. I don't see why people are getting so wrapped up in the sexism thing. Feels like people are just looking to pick a fight over something.

Edited by Karxrida on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:38:19 AM

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Once again: "nylons and lipstick and invitations." Those are the only reasons we are given as to why Susan isn't there. It's not "she forgot about Narnia" or "she doesn't have her sense of childish wonder anymore," it's "she's more interested in nylons and lipstick and invitations," i.e. "things you do when you are a young woman and interested in the opposite sex."

Edited by alliterator on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:40:45 AM

@alliterator

Because Neil Gailman is human and he can get things absolutely wrong, especially when it comes to mistaking his own interpretation for text. Susan is not punished for any sort of perceived sexuality when you read how Polly says she wishes she would grow up. It actually shows that she's still immature of understanding of what really makes a woman. She grows up and foregoes any of the wisdom she attained in Narnia. She defines her self-worth by hollow wordily meanings of growing up.

Also if the text really was about her chasing boys, then I will say this is that people mistake "owning your sexuality" as being adult. However, usually those who try to own their sexuality have a child understanding of what sexuality is and end up down a hedonistic path because of the fact they are trying to fill the void for their existence while not truly having a deep maturity about it.

I know it's supposed to be an allegory. And her choice to become conceited fits into this. She's the wayward believer who did lose her path, but it doesn't mean she's condemned. She for the time being is just lost.

C.S. Lewis actually does acknowledge and you pointed it out. She is going to eventually work things out and learned retain the wisdom lost.

While it's normal to be interested in teenage/young adult things, I do think it's when you get wrapped up in that stuff as being the definition of your being is when it gets problematic. She wants to live a hollow socialite life that actually impedes her growth rather than improves her. If you watched anything about Bojack Horseman, the partying social life is anything but mature. It's often a form of escapism for people rather than an essential part of being an adult.

Edited by firewriter on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:45:34 AM

This is, like, the worst take I've ever heard. Seriously. This is such a shallow take on sexuality that I'm not even going to mitigate it with a response except...no. No, you are wrong. Absolutely and emphatically wrong.

(Also, I don't know how you got from "Lewis's treatment of Susan was sexist" to "people who try to own their sexuality are just trying to fill a void." We're talking about CS Lewis and his treatment of Susan, not actual real people who have every right to do what they want with their bodies.)

But CS Lewis isn't human and therefore can't be sexist at all? Or you can't be wrong in your interpretation? No, this is stupid.

Edited by alliterator on Mar 24th 2020 at 10:50:40 AM

Any word on the live-action Mulan? last I heard it was postponed.

The Protomen enhanced my life.

@alliterator

It's my honest opinion. The so-called "own your sexuality" movement is really hollow when you get down to it. It's not a mature understanding of sexuality as people say it is. And often times people latch themselves onto sex, because they are shaped by the industry's destructive tendencies or issues with their own past.

Also interpretations of people's works is a common thing. While there was issue with writing women back then, however, there was nothing sexist about C.S. Lewis allowing Susan to stay behind. Again it's overreading into things.

Also that reminds me. When it comes to "own your sexuality" a lot of former Disney childhood stars go down that path, which again is a result of being in an industry that really restrains people. I love Disney on it's creative side, but again many of it's childhood stars can really fall into dark times and even end up dead. Bobby Driscoll being one of the prime examples. A kid with so much promise but couldn't make the shift out of being a former childhood actor. Even though Miley Cyrus has fallen off the radar, I do think many of her own issues has to do with being a teenage actress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Driscoll

Nothing man. And again I really am boycotting this movie because of the main actress's stance, plus it's practically endorsement from the CCP.

Edited by firewriter on Mar 24th 2020 at 11:00:09 AM

That doesn't make it right. Even more, you didn't frame it as an opinion, but rather something you were stating as a fact when you have no proof. Seriously, provide me with proof that the majority of people who "own their sexuality" are hollow and trying to "fill a void." You can't. Because it's not a thing you can prove or even know. It's also an incredibly dismissive and cruel thing to say.

I know. And it's my (and many other's) interpretation that CS Lewis's treatment of Susan was sexist. Almost blatantly so.

He didn't "allow" her to stay behind — he explicitly mentions that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia" because she's more interested "nylons and lipstick and invitations." To me, that's blatantly sexist.

Except Bobby Driscoll isn't an example of what you were talking about, as there was never a part of his life where he tried to "own his sexuality." He did what a lot of actors did and fell into hard drugs.

Miley Cyrus didn't "fall off the radar," she has a thriving music career. Also, you just skipped over into an entirely different conversation about child actors and the pressure on them when that wasn't what we were talking about at all. You appear to just be skipping over to different topics because you don't actually have any evidence against what my argument.

CS Lewis's treatment of Susan was blatantly sexist. The end.

Edited by alliterator on Mar 24th 2020 at 11:31:14 AM

@alliterator

That's not the end. Also there is a reason while Miley has a career she also had issues when it comes to some of her more wilder antics. And I was tying it back with Susan's understanding of being an adult. It's defining yourself by superficial means which made her become disconnected with Narnia.

The problem with the interpretation of seeing Susan being interested in "nylons, lipstick, and invitations" is that it leaps right away into sexuality with no proof at all, despite people saying it's proof. Again mentioning fashions and all that stuff doesn't automatically mean boys. I know you are saying that it's my opinion in this, but a lot of trying to connect it with boys is really opinionated as well. The real focus is on Susan losing track of the important things of life and sacrificing that childhood wonder for the materialistic faux adulthood.

In many ways, Susan is more like the prodigal son. She fixates herself on superficiality, while neglecting the wisdom she was taught in the past. However, as Lewis said before, she would return and everything will one day be alright. Another thing to point out is that Susan was revolving her life around being a socialite, which is unhealthy in itself.

I say so because I do see tons of times when people saying they are owning their sexuality, but at that realization it's really the other way around. People are not really owning their sexuality they are just idealizing it and it helps fill a void.

Edited by firewriter on Mar 25th 2020 at 12:26:27 PM

Yes, it is. You keep seeing what you want to see. You appear to have an implicit bias — you don't want Lewis's writing to be sexist. But it is.

If you can't read "nylons and lipstick and invitations" and see the reference to Susan's emerging sexuality and interest in boys, then I can't help you. Once again: it's barely even subtext. You can keep saying "but it's about thinking what it means to be a grown up!" all you like, but there is no other evidence in the text that says that. All there is is "nylon and lipstick and invitations."

CS Lewis's treatment of Susan was inherently and blatantly sexist. The end.

Such as? What "wilder antics" are you talking about?

Anecdotal evidence is not real evidence. Just because you've seen it once or twice doesn't make it true for everyone. And yes, you said everyone. You are wrong.

Edited by alliterator on Mar 25th 2020 at 12:29:18 PM

@alliterator

Where does it say boys or even anything remotely about boys? Again this is tying (erroneous) subtext to something that is not there. You keep saying it's about her emerging sexuality, but there is nothing there but it makes one believe it's just a theory you latched onto because it fits your worldview.

Just saying, you 2 are having a major back & forth argument.

I believe this either has to end now or be taken up on the P Ms.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

...Are you serious? Okay, at this point, you're either being deliberately obtuse or just plain don't know what the word "subtext" means. Which is really weird for someone who claims to know what The Chronicles of Narnia is about, since it's filled with subtext and Christian symbolism.

In either case, I'm done. You're wrong. CS Lewis's treatment of Susan was blatantly sexist. The end.

@slimcoder

Alright, I will quit and we will get back to the discussion at hand.

One thing we can all agree on: Lucy was definitely gay. Seriously, she was straight up considering jumping into the sea forever upon Love at First Sight with a pretty mermaid.

Well, it's a good thing that Narnia mermaids are not like the Netherland's mermaids which are straight up nasty and drown you if you get too close.

Disney's The Little Mermaid Remake Will Have 4 New Songs.

"And I'm working on Disenchanted, the sequel to Lin-Manuel Miranda."

Wow, an actor can have a sequel

The Protomen enhanced my life.

Un Manuel-Miranda! Dos Manuel-Miranda!

Regarding the "Susan" thing, I'd like to add one more voice, if I may:

The quote says that Susan was interested in "nylons and lipstick and invitations", if I have it correctly.

"Nylons and lipstick" can very much be for the attraction of boys—or they can be for admiration of one's own looks, or for social cache amongst one's peers.

Similarly, "invitations" can lead to places to meet boys—or they can be places to drink and have fun, or to meet peers, or again to gain social cache. (On that last point, invitation implies choice, and thus social status.)

I also note that the quote, if I have it correctly, says that she was interested in "nothing now-a-days except" nylons, etc.—thus the problem may not be that she's interested in those things at all, but rather that she's interested in them to the exception of all else.

Thus, I can very much see an interpretation that has the problem with Susan's interest be that she discovered sexuality—but I don't think that there's enough there to persuaded me that it definitely is so.

My Games & Writing

Would the outcry be less severe if it was one of the other Pevensie kids that didn't go to the Narnia afterlife, like say Edmund?

It's been 3000 years…

Don't know, really. My issue with "the problem of Susan" as Neil Gaiman put it, was that she was punished by having to see her siblings/relatives die (in her case, for the crime of becoming a bit shallower which she can still grow out as I think even the books point out she can change her mind). This punishment would be the same for others as well if someone else was banished in her place.

I admit I only really read the Magician's nephew and the lion the witch and the wardrobe but I'm not sure even Edmund deserves that punishment.