The Movie Noah

          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.