I don't know how many of you saw the movie Noah.
This is the rough draft of a short essay I wrote for a grad school class on a play or screenplay. I actually enjoyed the movie, and I found that the movie was very good for potential Missionary Moments because of how far off it was to the Bible and the questions that arose about the details.
Noah
Noah
has garnered much ironical and paradoxical criticism from the religious groups
in America, and the movie critics have given the movie mixed reviews—usually
depending on how much they understand the Biblical story of Noah or not. Movie
critics usually don’t have the educational background to give a deep answer,
but their answers are useful in terms of the ironical and paradoxical criticism.
I will get into in this essay. There was a very strange review of Noah before
its release in America. One critic said:
The
film is dramatic, apocalyptic and deeply allegorical. If you take away the
religious context, it poses intriguing questions: Could you rid the world of
evil by saving humans from themselves and starting almost anew? In the process
of doing so, what happens to a man torn between mercy and duty? (Choe, Kim)
Is it possible to skip
over the religious part of a story based on one of the most pivotal people in
the entire Bible? Movie critics are not literary critics, so their ideas are
not worth much academic weight, but they show the populist and pop-culture
mindset of the movie. The Noah story is only a small part of the Bible—a “scanty
narrative” (Müller and Milman, 260), covering four chapters in Genesis. The movie Noah
included all those four chapters from Genesis and some parts that were added
and others that were expounded on by Darren Aronofsky, combining “creationism,
Darwinian evolution, original sin, the end of days, and radical
environmentalism.” (Denby) Common people
watching the movie Noah will be hard
pressed to separate the religious from the other themes in the movie. It is quite paradoxical to watch a religious
movie and attempt a non-religious viewing/reading especially when it comes to
Noah. ‘Aronofsky described Noah as "the least biblical film
ever made" and received widespread criticism for the movie's strong
environmental message.’ (Parker, Kathleen)
Strange that Aronofsky tried to make a non-religious movie out of a
religious story especially when we see how closely he attempted to stick
closely to the Biblical story. Yes,
there are the environmental issues brought up in the screenplay and movie, but
it is still a religious movie – plain and simple. A movie critic said, “[An] ad for the picture
[…] is credited with generating the film’s first controversy: that instead of
being a testament to faith and resilience, it’s actually a politically themed
environmental saga.” (Schaefer, Stephen)
But, the whole movie is about Noah, and he is a religious figure from
the Bible and can’t/shouldn’t be separated from the religions element. Aronofsky was already stirring up controversy
with his movie before it came out. The
word “Noah” is said in context with a popular culture Hollywood movie with no
major Christian backing will bring up controversy. But, the controversy is strange, to say the
least. The religious groups and some
movie critics attacked the portrayal of Noah’s characterization in the
movie. They claimed the Noah in the
Bible and the Noah in the movie are completely different, and that the Noah
they know in their hearts is the right Noah—the Noah they have heard about in
church since their childhoods. For
example, one Catholic Newspaper addressed Noah:
It
comes, of course, but no, God does not actually speak to the fuming
ark-builder, played by Russell Crowe, who occupies the center of Aronofsky’s
film and its cubits and cubits of special effects. Noah looks skyward; he
operates on the edge of mental collapse. He is passionate, obsessed, even
homicidal. But he’s pretty sure he knows the divine plan. Because Noah has had
a vision. (Anderson)
Likewise Aronofsky. And
it’s not entirely dismissible. It ranges far, wide and clumsily in expanding
its slender source material. However, the religious groups (mostly Protestant Christian) are
unknowingly placing Noah into the realm of Psychological and historical Criticism;
while, at the same time, claiming that any interpretation of Noah is not valid—debunking
all Psychological and historical Interpretation as useless. I have repeatedly
heard that Noah is only as he is portrayed in the Bible. The whole idea is
steeped in irony because the Christians are doing exactly what they hate and
claim the director and screenwriter had done with the movie Noah.
This Noah was a barbarian and
very brutal.
How I remember Noah from church and
how he is usually portrayed in Protestant
churches.
For instance, Brooklyn Pastor A.R. Bernard said, "[A]lready … I can
see that there was some artistic license taken. … When I say that I'm always
comparing it to the biblical record.” He
is interpreting the story of Noah and applying a similar interpretation to the
movie version of Noah. And, many members
of the Institute of Creation Science have written extensively on Noah (the
Biblical Character), interpreting his every action and words. For instance:
“Evidently, it was for “the saving of his house” that he was afraid [as
was mentioned in Hebrews 11:7], realizing that his own children would soon be
engulfed by the awful spirit of unbelief and wickedness that pervaded the
antediluvian world, if they could not somehow be delivered from it. So he
“prepared an ark,” and his house was saved.” (Henry Morris, Ph.D.) True, Noah
had to have been scared when he was on the ark, but this idea was not in the
Bible. This writing of Morris is psychological interpretation – the same thing
Aronofsky did with the movie.
First, let’s look at
the little information the Bible actually gives about Noah as a person. The story of Noah only lasts for four short
chapters in Genesis and Noah doesn’t even speak until after the flood which is
the majority of the flood account. The
rest of the Biblical story is full of God’s Commandments. The Bible gives very little indication into
the workings of Noah’s personality and psychology—that which makes Noah a
person like everyone else. Two critics
pointed out, “We must find it strange that the Biblical text does not mention
at all what we should regard as the most important reason for the
characterization of the Flood hero as the ‘comforter.’” (Müller and Milman,
261) But, there are a few, vague lines that show something about the inner
workings of Noah. One such line many
believers cling to is: “But Noah found grace
in the eyes of the Lord.” (Genesis 6:8) Noah was a good guy, righteous and
chosen by God—chosen because of his utmost righteousness over everybody else in
the world. This is self-evident and
obvious because of the direct nature and bluntness of the writing. Noah was also given special divine orders and
providence under God when he was young: “Noah
was ten years old when he was ordained under the hand of Methuselah.” (D&C
107:52) This ordination, under the
theology of Mormonism, gave Noah certain divine powers: keys to certain rights of heaven, ability to
give blessings, and so on (Acts 19-20 Preach My Gospel, Lesson One). Noah was
obviously a good guy all his life, living close to God and doing God’s
Work—which was probably hard to do considering the temptations all around him. God Had Commanded much to Noah and Noah had
happily followed: “And the Lord ordained
Noah after his own order, and commanded him that he should go forth and declare
his Gospel unto the children of men, even as it was given unto Enoch.” (Moses
8:19) Noah was good, righteous, and he
was tasked with bringing the Word of God to all the people. Besides these few
examples, Noah was not fleshed out as a character much at all in the Bible.
This leads Biblical scholars to work with interpretation.
The Book of Moses is
not in the Bible but part of the Pearl of Great Price—a collection of revealed
scripture and revelations that came thousands of years after the death of
Noah. But, they offer a little movie insight
into the character of Noah. For
instance, let’s look at a verse:
And
it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying:
Hearken, and give heed unto my words; Believe and repent of your sins and be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and
ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and
if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they
hearkened not. (Moses 8: 23-24)
This verse says pretty
much the same as the previous verse (Moses 8: 19) stated. Of course, Noah would have needed a righteous
heart and soul to have done what he did.
He had certain powers of Heaven and he had Divine Guidance. However, this does not give us anything
concrete in anyway with trying to understand Noah’s personality. But, many of the lay-believers inept in their
knowledge of criticism, interpretation, and psychology like to say the Bible is
all that is needed to have a complete knowledge of Noah’s personality and
psychology. They want to label him as
perfect, which usually reduces him into a piece of furniture devoid of all
human traits, often speaking in monotone sentences—someone lay people can never
hope to relate to. In other words, he would
not human, but something much more—almost beyond human. But, this is at odds with the academic view of
Noah: “Even those who wished to be
critical have expressed their wonder at Noah's unusual character so
incompatible with their anachronistic conception of a perfect saint, i.e., a
conception formed according to the ideals of the latest Judaism or of
Christianity.” (Müller and Milman, 258 These Critics point out the same idea as
the man point of this essay : The Noah of the movie is a realistic interpretation
of a realistic, human Noah – a Noah at odds with the Perfect Noah under the Christian
interpretation.
There is some reference
to Noah in the New Testament besides the Hebrew verse mentioned earlier, but Noah’s story is used as a
teaching tool, not for any scrutiny or deep explanation into Noah himself. The Bible focuses more on the meaning of the
story of Noah, not Noah himself. The other
New Testament reference is as follows:
“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a
preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the
ungodly[.]” (2 Peter 2:5) This verse says nothing new—nothing to give
any more insight into Noah’s character to further any psychological
interpretation of Noah as a person. The
religious groups are jumping on the interpretation of Noah for the film
“[R]eligious leaders, while excited about the prospect of Hollywood glamour
advancing their cause, say the Bible isn't as easy to adapt to the big screen
as a comic book, and are queasy about the possibility of scripture being
mishandled. (Schwartzel, Erich and Audi, Tamara) The believers want to stick
with what they call a ‘literal interpretation,” but this is impossible due to
the lack of any human qualities or detailed description of Noah. Two Biblical scholars pointed out: “Thus Noah is so distinct from the lifeless
figures as which most of these patriarchs appear now, that he must be enigmatic
to the ordinary theologian.” (Müller and Milman, 258) And, one movie critic
pointed out: “It is good to have
fundamentalist literalists explain exactly what the Bible's authors intended,
especially since a literal interpretation would keep moviegoers away or put
them to sleep.” (Parker, Kathleen) This is true, so true. The whole story of
Noah is extremely vague. The story of Noah is a vague story as narrated by
Moses—all of which would have Noah as a secondary character behind the moral
point of the story would leave audiences with a terrible, boring, and trite
screenplay and movie. Even the official
explanation of the Noah story and the Flood account is vague, open to much
interpretation. As Mormon Church
Doctrine states:
The
tradition of a great flood is found in nearly every ancient culture. A
Babylonian account closely resembles the record in the Bible, but the biblical
account differs from all others in its religious value and the purpose of it.
The scriptural account teaches that the Flood was sent to cleanse the earth
because of the wickedness of the people. (Mormon Bible Dictionary and History)
The official
explanation above doesn’t do much justice to a concrete version of the Noah
story either. The higher officials of
the Mormon Church prepared this explanation after much deliberation and
prayer. The interpretation is extremely
vague, but this didn’t stop many in the church from claiming the Noah portrayal
was not correct—claiming the psychological interpretation and portrayal of Noah
is wrong because it is at odds with their psychological interpretation and
personal idea about him. But, the
religious groups claimed that they haven’t done any interpretation at all, even
when they pontificate their literal view of Noah. “The film has been criticised
[sic] by religious groups for failing to stick to the sacred story and
Paramount has been forced to issue an explanatory message to ease tensions.”
(Parker, Kathleen) Another movie critic
stated: “Noah takes many liberties with
the story as it appears in the Book of Genesis and for that reason I’m sure it
will divide opinion among Christians and Jews.” (Choe, Kim) Modern people are
not an ancient people from the middle-east and so it is normal to interpret
Noah under out preconception. “The
Bible's authors were far more literary than we. They clearly had a keen
appreciation for parable and metaphor, as well as a profound understanding that
truth is better revealed than instructed.” (Parker, Kathleen) When the majority
of ancient writing is looked at, no Historical Accuracy is found—it just wasn’t
the intention of the ancients when it came to writing. They (like Moses and the writers of the books
of the Bible) favored metaphor and symbolic meaning to historical truth. As one Jewish Scholar points out, “The
symbolic approach to the story of Noah and his ark appears to contradict the
exact dates reported for the beginning of the rain and its termination. If, on
the other hand, we can find that these dates themselves have a symbolic
meaning, they no longer contradict the metaphorical approach.” (Blumenthal,
Fred, 5) But, the religious groups try and take a literal interpretation of a
literary work, and they claim that they are not doing any interpretation. No
amount of criticism of debate can convince them otherwise.
Darren Aronofsky (and
Ari Handel) put some very human and faith filled moments to Noah’s character
when writing the screenplay—interpreting Noah’s personality as they saw it. Aronofsky has always been enthralled with
Noah, describing him, in an interview, as "a dark, complicated character
who experiences real survivor's guilt,” which is in line with what one
respected medical doctor said about Noah:
After
gathering all the animals into the ark and being joined by his family, Noah
witnesses the complete annihilation of all known civilization. The midrashic
literature is replete with narratives of how burdensome life on the ark was for
Noah. At the end of his stay on the ark,
the Noah that emerges is no longer the same Noah that boarded the ark a year
earlier. Gone is the righteous man whom we saw earlier. He is replaced by a
broken man who has a drunken encounter with his son, after which we hear of him
no more. After witnessing the destruction of the known world, it is not
surprising that Noah turns to alcohol--a common outlet for patients with PTSD.
(Steven Luger, M.D.)
Noah’s personality was
well developed in the movie, going through changes—something that would clearly
happen to anyone uprooted from their home, given spiritual enlightenment and
direction doing work full of godly purpose.
One clear example of this was when Noah was well underway with building
the Ark. He had already received
instructions and orders from God, and while the building progressed over the
following years his personality had changed from someone beat down by the world
and fearful of the future for his family to a man full of faith. As the
screenplay said: “The weight that once
rested on [Noah’s] shoulders seems to have been lifted. He is a man animated by purpose.” (Aronofsky,
p. 42) Noah was a different man, as was to be expected. He was still the
righteous man the Bible said he was, but a changed righteous man. And, when the
rains had fallen and the flooded was immense, Noah and his family were on the on
the Ark, and “the wails [were] almost unbearable.” There was Noah, taking the
weight of the world onto his shoulders as he sat in the Ark, mourning those
outside. (p. 84) He prayed and asked God what He wanted, but Noah ended up
misinterpreting God’s Will and thinking God wanted Noah to kill off the entire
human race. The religious groups have had a huge problem with the idea of Noah thinking
he needed to kill off all humanity and give the Earth to the animals. As Answers in Genesis said, “The difference
is that the filmmakers went beyond artistic license when they overtly
contradicted the text in multiple areas and completely changed the character of
Noah from being a godly, righteous man into a madman who was bent on making
sure every last human being died, even if it meant Noah must slaughter his own
grandchildren.” (Tim Chaffey and Roger Patterson) Their interpretation is
exaggerated and extreme, Noah was not a madman, but a faithful man who
misunderstood what God wanted. And one critic said, “Besides God deals at this
moment only with the family of Noah, who has been expressly designated as pious
beyond question and has been saved on that account.” (Jacob, 444-445) Noah and
his family were all righteous people. It wasn’t Noah wanted to kill off
humanity, he was just following what he thought God wanted from him. The
religious groups claim that Noah would have never done like that, yet they are
still adamant that they are not interpreting Noah’s character but just telling
the truth. How would they know such a fact after reading four chapters in
Genesis if they didn’t do any interpretation? We know the ending of the movie
because the Bible story is so well known.
Humanity would continue on, and Noah’s three sons would end up giving
birth to many great nations. Humans are evidence of this. In the end of the movie (which is different
from the Bible story a little), Noah was going for Ila on top of the ark, but
he stopped, knife in the air. He did not
kill the twins like he claimed he would, like he thought God Wanted him to
Noah’s true hart came out. Later, he
confessed to his family, “I looked down at those girls and all I had in my
heart was love.” (Aronofsky,
p. 123) Aronofsky offered the movie goers a Noah who was troubled with the
survival of his family to a man driven by purpose to a man who struggled with
his misunderstanding of God’s Will.
Noah, in the movie Noah, was
human through and through—a person the movie goers could relate to. But, the religious groups still want to deny
that Noah could have been anything but completely perfect and that perfection
means that a man can’t misunderstand God’s directions.
This was also clear
when it came to the Nephilim, also called the ‘rock giants’ as shown below:
When one of these
Nephilim (called ‘Watchers’ in the movie) gave Noah a compliment about the deep
faith in Noah, saying: “But I look at
you and I see a glimmer of Adam again.
The man I knew. The man I came to
help.” (Aronofsky,
p. 28) Aronofsky offered a glimpse into Noah’s character that was similar to
the Biblical view of a perfectly righteous Noah. But, many movie critics and religious groups
missed the idea of the Nephilim, claiming these giants were unbiblical or just allusions
to things like the Golem.
Aronofsky had
a vision for the Nephilim when he was making the movie, saying in an interview:
"These are angelic forms captured, malformed imprisoned by the earth;
winged creatures who got encased and had to use their wings as arms and legs."
But, the Nephilim were part of the Bible, and not interpretation. They were actually
mentioned in the Bible.
Aronofsky did
put his own spin on the Nephilim, but this had to be done, because the Nephilim
were never explained in detail in the Bible.
The Bible said: “That the sons of
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of
all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:2) The ‘sons of God’ is a modern translation for
the word ‘Nephilim,’ which only appears in that one part of Genesis to refer to
the ‘sons of God.’ What these ‘sons of
God’ were…well, nobody knows—except that they bred with the daughters of men
and created giants. The Bible translators
did the best they could, but Moses didn’t think any detailed explanation was
needed. Aronofsky gave his
interpretation of the Nephilim (the ‘Watchers;’ “the Rock Creatures) and the
religious groups got angry, again saying that his interpretation was completely
wrong, yet they were basing this criticism on what? What is their reasoning for saying such?
But, the Nephilim part
is a small part of the movie, but something, along with Noah’s character the
religions groups chose to go after. Noah as portrayed in the screenplay and
movie, was violent at times Noah was "borderline crackers." (Clarke,
Donald) Russell Crowe, who played Noah,
also saw Noah as a tragic character. He
said in an interview, "The funny thing with people being, they consider Noah
to be a benevolent figure, you know? Because he looked after the animals. Are
you kidding me? This is a dude who stood by and let the entire population of
the planet perish!" There were many
instances when Noah was very brutal towards those who attacked him first and
threatened his family. Noah was just trying to defend himself. For instance: “But Noah is shockingly
fast. He spins, slashing at the Second
Poacher, cutting his throat./ As he kicks brutally forward into the Poacher
Leader’s knee, shattering it.” (Aronofsky,
p. 13) He killed many of the followers of Tubal-Cain when they were trying to
steal the Ark by force. Could such acts
have been done by a prophet of God? Wasn’t
he just defending his family—trying to survive like everyone else? Did the defensive acts of a man in that
ancient world degrade his character in anyway and make him any less of a
righteous person? Noah was human, even if he was a prophet chosen by God. In the movie, Noah was conflicted about what
God Wanted. He saw a vision and knew
that God would “destroy the world.” (Aronofsky,
p. 18) But, the details were hard for
Noah to completely grasp. What did God
want in detail? Noah did not really
know. While on the Ark—as the rains
where still falling—Noah considered what was to be done. He had seen the horrible depravity and
violence in the people of the world, thinking that he was no different—nor that
his family were any different. It was
the human race that was to blame. Misinterpreting
the Intentions of God, Noah thought that God wanted him to only save the
animals and let the human race die off. As
Noah was praying, he cried to God:
Noah
Please! Please! I
cannot do this. Tell me I don’t need to do this. Please? Have I not done everything that you
asked of me? Is that not enough? (Aronofsky,
p. 98)
This change in Noah’s
character prompted the movie studios to put a disclaimer on the movie. Pre-screenings of the movie left religious
groups angry at the thought of a Noah who wanted to kill off the whole
world. One movie critic stated: ‘Paramount's disclaimer will state before each
screening: "The film is inspired by the story of Noah. ‘While artistic
licence [sic] has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence,
values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of
people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of
Genesis.”’ (Skynews) But, this didn’t
stop some religious groups from giving their own interpretation of Noah. As Answers in Genesis stated: “Noah had inherited Adam’s sin nature and had
surely sinned countless times during his life. But God declared him righteous
and even blameless in his generation. While Noah was not perfect, he was surely
not a man who was willing to kill three men to protect a dying lizard-dog.”
(Tim Chaffey and Roger Patterson) Defense, self –defense, and protection are
not good reasons to kill off some barbaric men? Noah was also plagued with
survivor guilt in the movie:
Noah
We are no
different. We were weak, and we were
selfish to think we could set ourselves apart.
We will work, complete the task, and then we will die the same as
everyone else. (Aronofsky,
p. 61)
He was angry at himself
and the world. He struggled with many harsh feelings. Donald Clarke of the Irish Times said Noah was
"stomping about and bellowing like, well, a lunatic from the Old Testament.” But, many of the movie critics fell short in
their criticism, because we all know how the story ends. The process and unfolding of the plot leads
to a well-known conclusion. And, there is a mysterious silence about the time
period the movie setting must have been because the dinosaurs had already died
off: “We see the dinosaurs bloom and die.” (p. 87) If Noah was only a few generations removed
from Adam and the first to not know Adam when he was alive, when were the
dinosaurs supposed to have existed? Noah
lived to be almost a thousand years old.
“[Noah] appears to be about 40, the world weighing heavily on his
shoulders.” (Aronofsky,
p. 11) Noah was of the first generation
to have not seen Adam alive. Adam lived
for 930 years, dying about a 130 years before Noah was born. Noah’s father Lamoch would have known Adam
personally. “METHUSELAH./ The oldest man alive, he walked the land when Adam
still lived, et he seems almost ageless and sexless.” (Aronofsky, p.
29) Methuselah was born when Adam was about 690 years old. There was also the Methusaleh’s
character.
Methuselah
It’s a seed. From the first garden. From Eden. (Aronofsky, p. 34)
But, no one was allowed
back in Eden after Adam and Eve were banished from there. As the Bible says:
Therefore
the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from
whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep
the way of the tree of life. (Gen 3: 23-24)
Where did Methuselah
get that seed? He would have known Adam,
but there is no reference in the Bible as to whether Adam was allowed to take
anything out of Eden, except maybe the fig leaves (Gen 3:7) the two worn after
they realized they were naked. And, the angels were guarding Eden, so nobody
would have been allowed to enter.
Many of these critics
did the opposite of what the religious groups did: They criticized the movie for not giving any
new and unique interpretation about Noah. The religious groups wanted a literal
version of the Biblical story. As one
critic quoted Aronofsky: "’It's strange that the conversation for a little
bit has turned into a controversy about literalism,’ says Aronofsky. ‘What is
literalism when it comes to interpreting and making an artistic representation
of the text? Is Michelangelo's David a literal interpretation of what David
looked like?’" (Coyle, Jake) And,
some critics think the movie is true to form: “Aronofsky has [made] a
distinctly darker parable about sin, justice and mercy. While much of his
"Noah" is true to Scripture, it's nothing like the picture-book
version many encounter as children.” (Coyle, Jake) Noah was instructed by God—"grieved"
in his heart by what mankind had become generations after creation—to build an
ark and fill it with two of every animal. After the flood, Noah was referred to
as drunk and then banishes his son, Ham—all clues for Aronofsky on the pain of
Noah's burden. The religious groups claim that Noah is unscriptural and not
like Noah really was; but, as one movie critic pointed out: “This is all to say, the film is art, neither
executed nor to be taken literally. And
who are these experts who know precisely what the Bible's authors intended?”
(Parker, Kathleen) But, the critics wanted something much different. Geoffrey Macnab of The Independent said, "Aronofsky isn't offering an especially
radical or debunking perspective on the Old Testament fable. The animals still
go in two by two. The earth still gets flooded."
Did the religious
groups and believers go over all the parts that were missed or glossed
over? But, Biblical archeologists all
claim that the Noah story was a true event:
“the flood of Noah as the last great change in land levels is being most
exactly confirmed, not only by investigations in glacial history, but by
examination of the records of that cataclysm that befell the antediluvian world
which are still to be seen written upon the mountains and valleys of Europe and
of central and western Asia" (Richardson, 386) Too many questions and
paradoxes arise in the Biblical story of Noah.
As one critic points out: “The
foremost question that arises is how Noah, living as he did more than a
thousand years before the Iron Age, could possibly have constructed a vessel of
the size of the ark as described in the Bible. He would have had to accomplish
this task without hammers, axes or saws with which to fell trees or cut to
equal size those which nature had uprooted.” (Blumenthal, 1) But, the religious
groups insist on taking the Biblical story literally. As one Creation Scientist wrote: “The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day
creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time
of Noah.” (Dr. Terry Mortenson) re-iterating what he said, telling his
family: “No. The Creator has judged
us…Mankind must end.” (Aronofsky,
p. 91)
Noah
No more land.
Everything out there must be dead. (Aronofsky,
p. 92)
Everywhere Noah could
see was water—ocean and flooding. Many
believers claim that the entire world was covered in water and everything died
on the Earth except for eight people and a yet undetermined number of animals. But, what the Bible actually says is
different:
And
the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and ball the high hills, that
were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were
covered. (Genesis 7: 19-20)
Fifteen cubits would
not cover most of any tall mountain. It
would cover a flat desert region like the one Noah was living in. The movie portrayed a depth of water deeper
than fifteen cubits just around the ark and what destroyed the people of
Tubal-Cain. But, ironically, no
Christian or believer has said the movie version is at odds with the Bible in
this case. There is only the criticism
that Noah could have never acted like he did as played by Russell Crowe
Believers have a strong
faith in God and there are a lot of hyperboles and exaggerations and myths when
it comes to the Bible, but many of them are wrong. The religious groups chose to attack the
interpretation of Noah in the movie Noah by comparing it to their own
interpretation—an interpretation they claim they never did. Answers in Genesis has even accused the
co-screenwriter of lying: “Either Ari
Handel has very little knowledge of the text or he deliberately lied about his
point to promote the movie. Both options should be enough to make one question
the integrity of the film’s writing.” (Tim Chaffey and Roger Patterson) Bayside
Church spokesman Mark Miller said in an interview: “If there's any movie that will spark
conversation around the Bible, we are for it. Hollywood certainly has its right
to do its creative interpretation of those stories. That's not really up to us
to police the accuracy. … It's a good thing when people are saying, 'Is this
true? Did this really happen? Is God true? Is the Bible true?' Those are all
questions that we encourage." (The
Hollywood Reporter) But, many
religious groups didn’t feel the same way. Of course, Aronofsky was going to
add his own interpretation, but at least he admitted he did it. The religious groups deny doing exactly what
they were doing. One movie critic summed
it all up brilliantly: “The same people
who gripe that Hollywood never makes any faith-based movies are complaining
because Hollywood has gone and made a religious movie, albeit one that might
not be as literal-minded as they'd like.” (Whipp, Glenn)
This whole criticism of
Noah is completely paradoxical. The religious groups claim Aronofsky’s
interpretation of Noah is completely wrong and that only they truly understand
who Noah is through their faith. But, they are interpreting Noah’s character
from a few scant chapters in the Bible about Noah, all the while claiming they
aren’t doing any interpretation at all. One baseless piece of psychological
criticism can’t automatically trump an artistic interpretation. It is the same
thing.
Bibliography
Adam.
“Noah Review.” The Aristocrat (2104): n page WEB. 6 April 2014.
Anderson,
John. “Waterworld: The Biblical Ambition of Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah.'”
America, The National Catholic Review(2014): n page WEB. 28 April 2014.
Anderson,
Melissa.“Rain Man.” Artforum (2014): n page WEB. 28 March 14.
Aronofsky,
Darren. Darren Aronofsky's Noah.
Rizzoli; Pck Har/Pa edition (2014).
Blumenthal,
Fred. "Noah's Ark as Metaphor." Jewish
Bible Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2009).
Bradshaw,
Peter. “Noah review – 'A big, muscular movie.'” The Guardian (UK) (2104): n
page WEB. 3 April 2014.
Chaffey,
Tim; Patterson, Roger. “The Noah Movie: Our Detailed Review.” AiG–U.S Online
(2014): n page. WEB. 29 Mar 2014.
Choe,
Kim. Noah review. 3 News Online (2014): n page. WEB. 27 Mar 2014.
Cline,
Rich. “Noah Movie Review.” Contactmusic.com (2104): n page WEB. 7 April 2014.
The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. LDS Quad (Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl
of Great Price). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints publications
(2013).
Coyle,
Jake. “In Bible epic revival, 'Noah' finds rough seas.” Associated Press Online
(2014): n page. WEB. 21 Mar 2014.
Denby,
David. “Noah.” The New Yorker (2014): n page. WEB. 7 April 2014.
Denerstein,
Robert. “Noah.” Movie Habit (2014): n page WEB. 28 March 2014.
Ham,
Ken. “The Unbiblical Noah Is a Fable of a Film.” Time Magazine Online (2014): n
page. WEB. 28 Mar 2014.
Jacob,
B. “A Study in Biblical Exegesis.” The
Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1900).
Kermode,
Mark. “Noah review – 'a preposterous but endearingly unhinged epic.'” The
Observer (2014): n page WEB. 6 April 2014.
Lae,
Andy. “Noah (12A) is a missed opportunity.” Daily Star Sunday (2104): n page
WEB. 30 March 2014.
Lemire,
Christy. “Noah.” ChristyLemire.com (2014): n page WEB. 29 March 2014.
Luger,
Steven. "Flood, Salt, and Sacrifice: Post Traumatic Stress Disorders in
Genesis." Jewish Bible Quarterly,
Vol. 38, No. 2 (2010).
Macnab,
Geoffery. “Noah, film review: Soggy and bombastic.” The Independent (2104): n
page WEB. 1 April 2014.
McConkie,
Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Bookcraft
Publishers (1958).
Mondello,
Bob. “Noah.” Reader. Film Search (2014): n page WEB. 7 April 2014.
Morris
Henry. “Moved With Fear.” Institute for Creation Science Online (2013): n page.
WEB. 21 Jun 2013.
Mortenson,
Terry. “Evolution vs. Creation: The Order of Events Matters!” Institute for
Creation Science Online (2006): n page. WEB. 4 Apr 2006.
Movie
Criticism Staff. “’Noah': Religious Leaders Who Supported 'Son of God' Not
Planning Screenings for New Biblical Film. The Hollywood Reporter Online
(2014): n page WEB. 28 Mar 2014.
Müller,
W. Max; Milman, M. “NOAH AND HIS FAMILY.” The
Monist, Vol. 29, No. 2 (1919).
Nigels,
Andrew. “Noah-Film Review.” Financial Times (2104): n page WEB. 3 April 2014.
Parker,
Kathleen. “Kathleen Parker: 'Noah' the
film is art, not be taken literally.”
Washington Post Online (2014): n page. WEB. 18 Mar 2014.
Phelan,
Laurence. “Noah review: Underwhelming and frequently silly, Darren Aronofsky's
biblical blockbuster won't turn the tide.” The Independent (2014): n page WEB.
3 April 2014.
Pond,
Neil. “Let It Rain.” American Profile Magazine (2014): n page WEB. 11 April
2014.
Overstreet,
Jeffrey. “Noah (2014): Part Two of a Two-Part Commentary.” Patheos: Hosting the
Conversation on Faith (2104): n page WEB. 11 April 2014.
Reaper,
Grim D. “Review: ‘Noah’ (and the Planeteers!).” The Movie Crypt (2104); n page
WEB. 16 April 2014.
Richardson,
G.H. “The Value of Biblical Archaeology.” The
Biblical World, Vol. 47, No. 6 (1916)
Sky
News Staff. “Noah Star Emma Watson
Defends 'Sensitive' Film.” Sky News Online (2014): n. page. WEB. 25 Mar 2014.
Schaefer,
Stephen. “‘Noah’ among flood of Bible films.” The Edge—Boston Herald Online
(2014): n page. WEB. 25 March 2014.
Schwartzel,
Erich; Audi, Tamara. “Religious Groups Split on 'Noah' Film.” The Wall Street
Journal (2014): n page. WEB. 28 Mar 2014.
Silver,
Stephen.”Movie Review: 'Noah.'” Technology Tell (2104): n page WEB. 31 March
2014.
Terry,
M. S. The Biblical Creation. The Old
Testament Student, Vol. 5, No. 9 (1886)
Vincent,
Mal. "’Noah,’ reverent and packed with action.” The Virginian-Pilot
(2014): n page WEB. 3 April 2014.
Viner,
Brian. “Noah? It isn't a total washout.” Mail Online (2104): n page WEB. 4
April 2014.
Wheat,
Alynda. “See This/Skip That: From an Ambitious Noah to A Proud Cesar Chavez.”
People (2104): n page WEB. 28 March 2014.
Whipp,
Glenn. “Religious tide turns against 'Noah.'” Los Angeles Times, Movie section
Online (2014): n page. WEB. 28 Mar 2014.
