Just because I like writing about things that make me angry, let me throw the premise out for you.
Well, we've been all ears
Let's look at your premises:
I guess the mom was bomb-proof
Woman is a hag, man is cool
Woman bad. Man good
Women? They are either evil or they serve male characters
.. because of a prophecy... man's inherent right to rule and dominate. Dominion
The whole women thing kept striking me during the movie
We are living in a time that is highly evocative of the muscular, masculine Christian mindset of ass-kicking Jesus and the violent dominion of His followers.
If there is any correspondence of your views of CS Lewis' text to the actual text, would it be unreasonable then to reference back to the text from your premises.
Can I even imagine that your series of quotes above makes me think of 'The lion, witch and the wardrobe?' The quotes are loaded with gender role argumentation, yet when looking at these premises, I find that the last thing that comes to my mind, is the work by CS Lewis. I'm wondering whether these premises are a part of your own narrative, overdetermining the text.
At times you refer to Aslan as Jesus (allegorically) and
then as man (in terms of power and role), when it suits
your views: "woman kills man" not woman kills lion". Aslan is not a man at all. Where do you get this from? Similarly, even a paradox such as 'muscular Jesus' is hard to weave sense of (for a non-American anyway: in England, I would venture that around this time of the year, most people think of 'baby Jesus' rather than your offering). In a very loose feminist critique of the text (or film), it might be plausible that both Aslan as man, and Jesus as muscular are possible, but again, and 'but' is already a sign of something wrong - dealing with either text or the film, rather than one's own presuppositions may help.
I can't say I appreciate much CS Lewis at all: this may be the only book of his I've actually ever read (I was probably 13 at the time) however I would venture that it is not unexpected that a lion in a novel or film, might bite a naughty woman, as well as growl. To bite her head off is hyperbolic and to 'bite' rather than 'serenade' a witch to death is more plausible. Why on Narnia would anyone presuppose that? Well, the qualities or essence of a lion presuppose its actions. Lions do bite - children associate this with lions, and hence the expectation of a drama. After all, we are not dealing in comedy.
The pointless children are the center of it and they are meaningless.
If your premise is that the children are pointless
then it is to no surprise that your conclusion is that they, the children, are meaningless
. The conclusion is trivial, because the premise is pointless. Come on - this is really lazy logic and a lack of application of reason as a critique.....for a lowly children's story. If there is anything sensible to say in a critique of this film, it will be more than skin deep than showing contempt for children and the general role of children in most films. What would we prefer? A 'muscular Jesus' in the form of Luke Skywalker? Or perhaps as Darth Vader junior?
A lot of adults seem to enjoy sneering and condescending on childrens writers lately; also belittling the targeted audience. As such, it becomes harder to take adults seriously. Children are gripped through identifying with characters; adults may balk; I don't disagree that I find the text disinteresting.
I think I really don't like CS Lewis: his work fails to move me. But to offer one's own narrative as a critique of a piece of work isn't helping me to enjoy hating his work!
No offence intended either.