Opportunity

I saw this on the door of the psychology building at UOU. I wish I had quick access to a printer because I would put a flyer under it that says, "Or get your free copy of the Book of Mormon to learn more about the Postmortal Life." And I would put the LDS.org website on the bottom of the flyer.

Spirit Prison

The idea of Spirit Prison has always fascinated me. Maybe. I'm wrong, but it has always seemed, to me, like a second chance--a promise to find the Revealed Gospel for those who never had the chance or, for whatever reason, never truly turned to Christ. And, with the recent deaths of many actors and singers who I grew up loving (not to mention the recent deaths of General Authority members), the idea of the Postmortal World is at the forefront of my thoughts.

Recently, Prince died. He may have been a strange fellow, but he was a talented musician. I mean, just watch his guitar solo at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; and, whether many want to admit it or not, we watched Purple Rain and find ourselves singing, "Maybe, I'm just like father. Maybe, I'm just like my mother....when doves cry."

But, imagine this:

Spirit Prison with Prince, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Robin Williams, Doris Roberts, Merle Haggard, Patty Duke, Gary Shandling.....

And, even Larry Drake, who I will always remember from "L.A. Law," Darkman, and Dr. Giggles, recently died.

It is not that I'm saying that Spirit Prison is a happening place these days because of all the recent celebrity deaths, but the thought of these people getting to hear about the Fullness of the Gospel in the Postmortal World is a pleasant and comforting.

There are some great Missionary Moments these days in the Postmortal World.

자주 보는 것

I have run into this many times with Protestants: 

Don't trust any church, just read the Bible and get your on meaning out of it. But, when they are trying to convert you, you just need to trust their interpretation of the Scriptures over everyone else's.

And, the different Protestants all have different, very vague ideas. It's all confusing.

Holy Moment? Maybe...

Last week, I had a job interview at a law firm to help with collections and, potentially, a little technical writing. The job would be a god-sent if I could get it, because I could continue to work in a field similar to my chosen career field. I really want this job and I was hoping that it would be in God's Plan.

A few days before the interview, I set up an interview and got on google maps to plan the route. Having no car, I need to rely on the bus with all the seemingly clinically depressed people and occasional slightly crippled elderly person who seem more happy than the other passengers.

Well, I needed to switch buses, which is slightly different than in Korea, because in SLC, you might need to walk a little while to the next busstop. But, SLC bus drivers are more more helpful than Korean bis drivers.

I go off the first bus and walked a little bit to the second bus stop. It was very early in the morning and it was still pretty dark.

I'm waiting at the busstop and then I suddenly hear a voice:  "JASON!"

Looking around I see our Bishop in a new, blue Volkswagen.

"Are you going somewhere? Do you need a ride?" He asked.

The red light turned green and I fumbled with trying to explain where I wanted to go in very few words, but my writer skills failed me and all that graced my lips was a mumbling, "Yeah, I'm going somewhere."

"Hop in."

I got in and we stopped in a nearby parking lot to see where I was going. He decided to drive me.

He said, "I'm glad I ran into you. Usually, I leave about fifteen minutes later."

This hit me. Why did the Bishop suddenly leave fifteen minutes early on a random day? Was it to meet me and give me a clear message that God was with me? I mean, I (like many, I suppose) mix up causation sometimes when it comes to what I want, if God is helping, and where I'm supposed to be. But, this day kind of hit me hard. The clear sign is always more of a blessing than something esoteric and ethereal.

The interview went well and I'm waiting for a second interview with others in the firm.

I can only hope and pray that I can be blessed with a good job where I can potentially make a difference.

The Avengers Universe and God

Here is another short essay I wrote for an assignment for Graduate School. It is about how the Avengers refer to God and what this might mean in terms of language and what they meant.

The Avengers and God and Lacan

Reading Lacan’s lectures has opened a whole new world of literary interpretation, especially in terms of the signified and the signifier, the One and the Other.  Yes, Lacan’s ideas were centered around feminism and the female in The Seminars of Jaques Lacan: On Feminine Sexuality; the Limits of Love and Knowledge, but the ideas of the unconscious and language can bring new light to pop culture, opening up interpretations to otherwise genre bound movies, screenplays, and stories. “What is narration a la Lacan? It is certainly the work of the signifier as it can be known in its metaphoric and metonymic operations, the fortunes of the signifier, its history, in relation to its own repressed origin in unconscious discourse.” (Con Davis, 853) For instance, let’s take the movie The Avengers and how the theories of Lacan offer a new light into religion in the world created by Marvel (the comic book company that created all the characters in the Avengers).  The main members of the Avengers include Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America.  And, there is something deeper in the movie in terms of a higher being, especially that of the God from the Bible, especially when we do a linguistic analysis, which “is in fact the method appropriate to the study of the unconscious.” (Miel, 107)

 The prime example from The Avengers comes in the Quinjet, right after Thor had taken his brother Loki out of the Quinet, and Iron Man had quickly flown after them.  Captain America, with all his patriotic drive, wanted to follow.  He grabbed a parachute and was strapping himself in when Natasha ‘The Black Widom,’ from the co-pilots seat,, stopped him, and the following example took place.

NATASHA

I’d sit this one out, Cap.

CAPTAIN AMERICA

I don’t see how I can.

NATASHA

These guys come from legend, they’re basically gods.

CAPTAIN AMERICA

There’s only one God ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that. (Whedon, p. 46)

There are two big points here.  One is the idea that some in the Marvel Universe link Thor and Loki with gods.  Thor and Loki were higher beings from another planet, having travelled to Earth through an Einstein-Rosen Bridge (a wormhole).  They have much stronger powers than humans.  For instance, when Thor came on the scene, the screenplay direction said:  “Thor stands, summoning a bolt of lightning as Loki watches in the distance. Thor sends the bolt at Iron Man.” (p. 49) Controlling the weather is something way beyond the reach of any human, but the power does not make Thor a god in any sense.  He was deemed ‘worthy’ and so he was able to hold the hammer, but he was just a higher level being.  Thor in The Avengers is an allusion to the Thor of Norse mythology.  Loki was the same—Loki was the Norse god of mischief and Thor was the Norse god of thunder.  Natasha, uses the phrase “basically gods,” which shows she did not, in fact, look at Thor and Loki as gods in the traditional sense.   As Lacan pointed out, “[W]hat the signifier brings with it by way of meaning effects far from accepted on the basis of the lived experience of the very fact.” (Lacan, p. 43) Natasha, when saying that Thor and Loki were “basically gods,” she was just using a tag for Thor and Loki, but her life experience of seeing such things as the Hulk and Thor would have probably led her to search out other signifiers for what Thor and Loki were than just saying ‘people,’ or some similar word.  “Narration's manifest content is a product of the unconscious discourse that is both the precondition of narration and the site of its appearance. This says essentially that the subject of narration, what gives it form and meaning, will always be other than what is signified in narration, or what is signifiable as narration.” (Con Davis, 854)

In the end of the movie, Nick Fury says, to the Security Council, “I didn’t make it. I just didn’t argue with the god that did.” (Whedon, p. 128)  Whether he was just being fasitious or if he really believed it comes back to Lacan’s idea of language and writing, especially when he said, “Ontology is what highlighted in language the use of the copular, isolating it as signifier.” (Lacan, p. 31)  The Real behind Fury’s word was that Thor and Loki were aliens from a different planet (as The Avengers screenplay and the movie Thor clearly showed), but the signified showed that Thor and Loki were considered gods by many humans—probably Fury himself.  But, we must look closer into the character of Fury and work with a psychological interpretation of this literary character.  Was he just being fastidious when he said ‘god’—was he just trying to prove a point—or did he actually believe it?  We can only go with the evidence that a deep interpretation of Fury’s words (using Lacan’s ideas) and his actions (using Freud’s ideas) to find out what we really meant.  Or, we could go after the writer/director of The Avengers.  His name is Joss Whedon, and we can use the same interpretation ideas to find some meaning in terms of religion in the world of the Avengers.  Where is God in this fictional universe of super-heroes?  Captain America believes in God (as referenced by his statement), but that makes no claim as to whether God actually exists in the movie world other than through Captain America’s faith.  Captain America commented:  “There’s only one God.”  He came from the 1940’s, having been frozen for about fifty years, coming back out of the deep sleep when he was in his 90’s, but he still retained his youthful appearance and his strength from the military experiments were all still intact.  He still retained in his faith in God even after being confronted with two beings that could be considered gods or god-like by many of the lay public upon seeing them.  God, as the theological God goes, is infinitely more powerful than the characters or Thor and Loki, and the implication of what Captain America said opens up the idea that regardless of the world they live in, his faith was never shaken or diminished.   When looked deeply into the Signified of “God” to Captain America, we are looking at the Protestant God of the Bible.  The Signified (meaning) is very individual to Captain America, because Tony Stark was confronted with the same god-like/higher power beings as Captain America, but he retained his Atheism.  And, when we look at that screenplay itself, which says “God” with an uppercase ‘G,’ there is not much leeway in the meaning of “God” other than general tag for the Protestant God.  But, when The Avengers is watched with subtitles, the word “God” loses its meaning and grasps a completely different meaning to those non-native English speakers.  The subtitles for Captain America saying, “There’s only one God ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that” became “내가 아는 신은 하나고 저런 옷도 안 입어.”  The word “God” (하느님, 하나님) became “god” (신), which changes the Signified completely to refer to any, general god in the universe.  In the case of ‘god’(신), Thor and Loki in the movie would fit closer to that definition and Signifier than they would with the Signifier “God,” (하나님, 하느님).  Let’s look at this in a diagram:

And, let’s think about if a Muslim watches the movie.  The Muslim would take the Signifier to be a different god than the one they believe in.  For them, ‘Allah’ is the only acceptable term for “only one God.”  Captain America had faith, but his faith would have been in the Christian God.  Many Bible verses have a similar idea to what Captain America said in the Quinjet, but the Signified behind the Signifier gives completely different meanings, and crossing the bar between the Signifier and the Signified brings various interpretations.  When we take the words and potential, intended meaning of what was said about ‘gods’ and ‘God,’ there is an ambiguity about what ‘god’ Signifies in that fictional universe.  The words ‘god’ and ‘God’ are thrown around without much thought about the specific meaning behind the words.  The meanings float from one extreme to the other.  And, the words ‘god’ and ‘God’ become synonymous with ‘alien.’ Captain America commented, toward the climax of the movie were:  “An army, from outer space?” (p. 53) Captain America and the rest of the Avengers were debriefed about the situation and danger of the approaching army from some distant part of the known universe.  Nick Fury also said, “a visitor from another planet,” (p. 64) when explaining the back story behind the creatures that were waiting for the wormhole from their planet to Earth to open.  If the characters just listened and paid attention to the details around them, they would have realized that if Thor and Loki were god-like (angels, of sorts), then the Marvel universe would fall into no set pattern of thought and concreteness.  Thor and Loki (whatever they were labeled), came from Asgard, a planet in a very distance part of the whole universe.  In the beginning, when the Einstein-Rosen Bridge was opening, Barton “Hawkeye” told Nick Fury, “Yeah. The Cube is a doorway to the other end of space, right? Doors open from both sides.” (p. 2)  Throughout the rest of The Avengers, there are numerous examples of where Thor and Loki came from and how they travelled to Earth.  They did not come from Heaven or Paradise, but a different planet.  Many people mistook them for gods.  Loki makes a comment about this idea:  “The humans think us immortal. Shall we test that?” (p. 86) And, Nick Fury told the Security Council:  “Our intelligence says Thor is not a hostile, but he is worlds away. “  There is no set pattern to what they believe in the way of a God (expect for Captain America).  There is an Oneness of God—the same oneness that Captain America commented on in the Quinjet when he said, “There is only one God, mam.”  Let’s look at a breakdown in the style of Lacan using Captain America’s words:

         I have been harping on the words of Captain America like he was a real person or that the writer (Joss Whedon) had carefully chosen each and every word in the screenplay for the maximum amount of meaning and significance.  “The ontological difficulty here is that Lacan as a post-Saussurean psychoanalyst offers a paradigm of possibilities which seemingly scandalize common sense, especially as seen in the tradition of American Freudian thought.” (Con Davis, 856) But, we have to remember that The Avengers is a pop culture action packed super hero movie—this genre usually reduced to campy, cheesy one liners and the plot is usually put second, behind the CGI and large budget.  We can look deeper into the words and dialogue of a movie, like The Avengers, but we still need to understand that the meaning behind the words (in a Deconstructualist idea) is probably not as deep as we want to think. “The abstractive nature of language, which in fact makes human knowledge possible, amounts to a similar denial of reality. The imposition of single forms or terms on the disparate variety of what we experience is what enables us to know and control our environment, and is essential to intellectual development.”  (Miel, 109) But, as Lacan stated, the ‘bar’ is there and this brings the interpretation and discussion.  If the Signifier is Captain America’s statement “There is only one God, mam,” and we are to take this is the symbol—the expression—then the meaning is ambiguous and heavily abstract at best.  Joss Whedon was probably not trying to build a Muslim reality in this fictional Marvel universe of superheroes.   

          This idea that Joss Whedon didn’t mean anything by any individual dialogue in The Avengers falls into a Postmodern framework of literary interpretation, leaving the Signifier blank and empty—a void, of sorts.  But, one could look into the psychology of Joss Whedon and show that his written word is a link into his subconscious.  But, we cannot fully understand either Joss Whedon’s writings or subconscious if we accept Lacan’s idea that:  “The bar, like everything involving what is written, is based only on the following—what is written is not to be understood./ That is why you are not obliged to understand my writings.  If you don’t understand them, so much the better—that will give you the opportunity to explain them.” (Lacan, p. 34) This is exactly what I have been doing this whole essay, to much futility.  Lacan also pointed out that “[e]very dimension of being is produced in the wake of the master’s discourse—the discourse of he who, proffering the signifier, expects therefrom one of its link effects that much not be neglected, which is related to the act that the signifier commands.” (Lacan, p. 32)  When Joss Whedon pushed forward the words ‘god’ and ‘God’ and ‘alien,’ he was pushing forth a Signifier that we as readers can only attempt to dissertate through psychological and Structuralist interpretation of the screenplay, movie, and writer.  Regardless though, meaning is produced—albeit this meaning is highly enigmatic.  Let’s go back to Captain America for a moment.  If Captain America was standing up for his beliefs with the hope of correcting Natasha when he said those words about ‘only one God,’ then his faith remained strong, despite the odd and amazing occurrences around him.  His little joke about “and I am sure He doesn’t dress like that” can fall into the realm of cheesy one-liners inherent in most all action movies—this is probably because much of the young audience that would see this movie probably don’t like to much silence in a movie.  This is a simple pop-culture look into the Signified of Captain America’s statement, but with the enigmatic meaning of the screenplay writing and the misuse of words by the characters, many interpretations could all be valid.  We must also look at Lacan and his belief in a God, too.  Biographers have noted Lacan’s many references to the Jewish God: “Benamozegh's book! Lacan, then more than 70 years old, voiced the high regard he had for this work, which, according to him, was ‘the best introduction to the Kabbalah,’ and invited his audience to read it.” (Haddad, 204)

But, let’s go back to the combination of dialogue added together to show a religious reality to this mindless genre of movies.  The Truth is that Heavenly Father exists, but the language, and the inherent mysterious meaning, leaves us to only discuss the central truth—as we see it—in the Real of this Marvel universe.  In the beginning of the movie, Loki was talking to Nick Fury, trying to puff himself up and appear better than he was, saying, “Of course it does. I've come from very far for anything else.  I am Loki from Asgard. And, I am burdened with glorious purpose.” (p. 3)  The idea that he came from another planet is clear—straight from the mouth of the one who people mistake as a god.  So, why do the other characters throw around the word ‘god’ and ‘alien’ so interchangeably?  What was Joss Whedon intending?  When we look at it all from our own personality, we can derive some sort of set meaning to the Signified, but that is not the same meaning as the Other intended.  We can look on the surface and say that the Signified under the Signifier was about Loki’s plan for domination and submission—to regain his kingdom back and become the King that he so desired to be, and this is the reason why he mentioned ‘glorious purpose.’  Yes, the Signifier means something, and in reference to Platonic realities, there is a specific meaning, but it is ethereal—almost unobtainable.  But, this is the nature of the subconscious and language, isn’t it?

Let’s move on to Iron Man.  He talked to Loki before the big battle started at the end of the movie.  Iron Man is a known Atheist (in the comic books and movies), but he refers to Thor as a demi-god, saying: 

TONY

Yeah, takes us a while to get any traction, I’ll give you that one. But, let’s do a head count here. Your brother, the Demi-God; [...] (p. 100)

Why would an atheist refer to an alien as a demi-god?  What is going with the language of these characters—these super heroes?  Iron Man’s words add to the paradoxical nature of the heavenly world and the existence of gods/God in this Marvel universe.  When the locus of an atheist believes (somewhat or all) in demi-gods, he ceases to be an atheist.  But, we must consider Lacan and the S(A).  The locus of the Other is heavily cryptic and an absolute knowledge of the psychological workings of Iron Man to know the Signified of his words.  But, that would still not provide any real Truth to the Signifier, just a concrete meaning.

Joss Whedon did intend to portray Loki and Thor as the gods they were believed by many to be.  He wrote, in the directions for the scene:  “There seems to be a shadowy figure holding onto the quinjet.  We make it out—this is THOR ODINSON, God of Thunder. He is serious. There’s another flash of light.”  We, as viewers, know from the story that the Thor in the movie was not the actual god of Norse mythology, because we know his and Loki’s back story from the two Thor movies.  This is all a little contradictory, but it all leads credence to the idea that Whedon was just trying to write a superhero genre movie—the Signified was not something he considered.  Appealing to an American audience that is predominately Christian should be accounted for when making any movie.  Joss Whedon is a known Atheist, as he has stated numerous times in interviews.  But, he offers certain allusions, symbolism, and metaphors from the Bible.  Iron Man said, “Jarvis, you ever hear the tale of Jonah?” (p. 120)  Iron Man flew into the mouth and out of the anal region of the flying serpent creature, somewhat imitating Jonah when he was swallowed by the large fish (thought to be a whale in common pop culture).  The Bible story is as follows:  “Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” (Jonah 1: 17) As the screenplay notes said, “Iron Man’s knee plates open, pushing out blades. He is heading directly toward the creature’s mouth.  He flies through it. Blowing up the creature’s insides and out the tail end.” (p. 120) Such a clear allusion to Jonah adds strange Signified to the whole idea of spirituality in The Avengers.  Iron Man, a known Atheist, knows the basic story of Jonah.  We could look into the psychology of Tony Stark (Iron Man) and see that he grew up in America and was probably exposed to Biblical stories from pop culture.  But, there is no reference to Iron Man’s perception of what he thought of Thor and Loki besides irritants from another plant.  And, this leads to the fact that four different characters (Nick Fury, Natasha, Iron Man, and Captain America) all use a very different Signified for the Signifier of ‘god’ and ‘God,’ which all causes rampant paradoxes throughout the movie.  And, there are paradoxes in the ideas of Thor and Loki actually being gods if he go about breaking down their characters and psychology.

If Loki and Thor were gods or demi-gods or god like (any similar Signifier), there were some contradictory parts to The Avengers plot.  Thor said to Loki upon first meeting him on Earth, “I thought you dead.” (p. 47)  Can a god/demi-god/god-like being die?  If they have life, doesn’t that mean they can experience death?  If a god has ‘life’ (as the Signifier) doesn’t ‘death’ naturally follow as a common part of the Signifier?  

And, when Loki tells Nick Fury:  “Please, don't I still need that.”  He was referring to the Tesseract—the energy source the humans were trying to harness.  If Loki was any kind of a true god, why would he need that kind of energy source?  The Scriptures point out numerous qualities of God. If Loki had such limits as the movie portrayed him for having, it would make him ‘god-like,’ but nothing close to a demi-god—he wouldn’t even be close in semblance to the Norse god of Viking myth.  Loki does consider himself to be higher than humans and he gets the idea he is, in fact, a god of some sorts.

LOKI

ENOUGH! You are, all of you, beneath me! I AM GOD, YOU DULL CREATURE, AND I WILL NOT BE BULLIED BY―(p. 118)

Loki didn’t finish his monologue, because the Hulk beat him down easily.   But, first it must be pointed out that in the movie, Loki said, “I am a god,” and the screenplay has him saying, “I am god[God].” 

The implication of both of the statements is deep if we take into account the ideas of Lacan and language, and in terms of the One and the Other.  From the point of coming to Earth, Loki saw an inferior race of humanoids (the Other) than him and so he ceased to think of himself as just Asgardian royalty, but started to see himself (the One) as god-like (and then a god), putting the meaning (the Signified) of the word “god” as a higher being.  Yes, the creatures from Asgard are higher than humans in many ways—the top of which was their superpowers.  Nick Fury commented on Thor and Loki’s powers, saying: “The world’s filling up with people who can’t be matched, they can’t be controlled.” (p. 69) Thor fulfilled some of the qualities of the Norse god of myth:  “Thor lands at to the top of the Chrysler building and summons a bolt of lightning. He sends it shooting out towards the portal, taking out warriors and Leviathan.” (p. 113)  And, Thor had equal powers to Loki, but he couldn’t defeat Loki.  This is high odd, because two god-like creatures fighting should have resulted in an equal fight, but it was the Hulk (a super human; the Übermensch) who easily overcame and overpowered Loki.  All of this could give someone a headache, and I feel that I am going around in circles trying to make sense of the spirit world of The Avengers.

After Loki was defeated, the Hulk said, “Puny God.” (p. 119)  In that scene, the Hulk was throwing Loki around like he was a little child’s play doll.  Loki had most of the Avengers fighting hard, offering an equal opponent, but to the Hulk, Loki was nothing. 

There are many levels to what the Hulk said.  First, I must point out the difference between the screenplay and the subtitles.  Joss Whedon wrote “God,” (하느님, 하나님) thereby refereeing to the One God, The God—probably a reference to the Protestant God of the Bible.  The subtitles used the word “god,” (신) thereby referring to any general god of belief and myth.  The Signified behind the two statements, just from a cultural standpoint, are worlds apart.  The Signifiers were too exclamations, proclaiming the inferiority of an opponent, but a deeper, Structualist look into “Puny” and “God,” reveal a strange paradox, of sorts.  If the Hulk is stronger and greater than a god (if Loki is one), then what does that make the Hulk?  The Hulk (in the movie—which is different from the original comic book story) was created while failing to duplicate the successful experiment that Steve Rogers into the super soldier known as Captain America.  The “Puny” is not so important for this essay, so let’s just leave it as a derogatory adjective.  It is the word “God” that is important—both in the way it is said and the way it is written.  Joss Wedon wrote it as “God,” not “god.”  The S “God” would be a symbol for the one God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  To Lacan, the “God” would signify the Jewish God—deeply and emotionally Signify.

“One must therefore appreciate that Lacan-who had been formed by Christianity, that is, in a necessarily deep-set tradition of hatred of Judaism-had confronted this feeling instead of turning away from it. He recognized the importance of Judaism at a time when nothing would have pointed him in this direction, allowing himself to be drawn into the whirlwind. Lending support through his interest in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Kabbalah, he contributed to the ferment of Jewish studies in France indirectly, at a distance, reaching beyond his own circle of students.” (Haddad, 216)

Joss Whedon did not write “god,” which can refer to any demi-god or mythical god of history (like the Thor and Loki of Norse mythology).  If Joss Whedon was intending for the Hulk to refer to Loki as God in Heaven, then the rationale and intellect of the Hulk is seriously in question.  The Korean subtitles also used the vague word “신” to refer to Loki, thereby taking away the direct reference to the God of the Bible.  The Hulk serious hurts Loki—as the screenplay said:  “Loki whimpers in pain. He has been beaten into submission.” (p. 119)  We could look at Joss Whedon’s writings as just sloppy or a common typo made by many in America.  It would be the same as when we look at Loki’s saying:  “This is the basest sentimentality.  This is a child, a prayer.” (p. 65) The idea that he would say “prayer” would show that he is either copying an expression from humans or that there is prayer on Asgard.  And, if there is prayer on Asgard, then who would a god pray to?

Thor and Loki were advanced beings—super heroes, god-like humanoids, but they were not gods under any shape of the word.  They both had an egotism to them, looking down on humans as inferior.  Loki even attempted to have a group of people kneel to him just as a believer would kneel to God (Allah; a god).  Let’s look at one line by Thor:

THOR

So you take the world I love as recompense for your imagined slights? No. The Earth is under my protection, Loki. (p. 47)

Just like his brother Loki (a similar relationship to the Thor and Loki or Norse mythology), Thor saw Earth as puny and in need of protection.  But, he also humbled himself in front of the other Avengers in another scene, saying:

THOR

They were better as they were. We pretend on Asgard that we’re more advanced, but we- we come here battling like Bildschneip. (p. 63)

In conclusion, the ideas of Lacan placed onto pop culture movies, there are many levels of many that can be grasped from a simple look at the Signifier and Signified.  Lacan pointed out three main points:  “[T]he Imaginary, an extension of the visual image of the body; the Symbolic (of language or of the signifier); and the Real defined as impossible (to represent, to manipulate.” (Haddad, 208) The whole movie The Avengers is a hodge-podge mess of dialogue that leaves a Structualist Interpretation very difficult—yet, some insight can be gauged from implementing Lacan’s theories about the Signifier and the Signified, especially in terms of the psychology of the characters and the writer Joss Whedon.  I want to take a look at the problems with meaning and the chaotic mess of Signifiers and Signified throughout The Avengers.  

         Let's break it down:

        There is Captain America, who has a belief in the God of the Bible—the Protestant God.  We can tell this by the Signifier of him (the One), obviously Signified with the God of the Christians and Catholics, not the Jews or the Muslims.  Despite being confronted numerous times with other members of the Avengers throwing around whimsy Signifiers for Thor and Loki, he never saw the same Signified as any of his teammates did.

          Natasha used the Signifer “basically gods” when referring to Thor and Loki.  We can gauge no Signified meaning from her words.  Crossing the bar—finding a meaningful connection between her Signifier and the Signified can only be basically attainted through a comparison with what we can interpret through the Signified of other members of the Avengers.

        The Hulk’s religious affliation is unknown, but he used the Signifier to when referring to Loki.  We can only assume the Signified to be just an exclamation—a macho show-off—more than any real Signified of a God or a god.  Crossing the bar Structually would only result in some Post Modernist look into The Avengers that is a far cry from the pop culture hero film Joss Whedo intended to make.

       Nick Fury’s blatant disregard for any specifics in language leaves any attempt at finiding a suitable Signified meaning to his references to Loki and Thor useless.  He threw around Siginifers for Thor and Loki that all had very different, basic Signified meanings, like:  ‘god,’ and ‘alien.’ 

        Iron Man referred to Thor as a demi-god when talking to Loki (whom wasn’t given the same Signifier as his brother).  A known Atheist; who, like Captain America, didn’t have his lack of faith shaken by the god-like creatures around him.  The Real Signifiers of the Wormholes and aliens and higher beings didn’t cause him any problems with the Signified meanings he grasped from the other Avengers and by what he saw around him.

       Loki was more troubling with his words and Signifiers than Nick Fury was.  He referred to himself as “a god” and “God,” seeming to have a Signified meaning which worked for his benefit—a selfish Signified meaning.  His idea of ‘god’ was very different than that of Captain America, but somewhere close to Nick Fury’s intended meaning of ‘god.’

         And, finally, there was Thor, who had the interesting frame reference from the writer of the The Avengers screenplay of being the ‘god of thunder.’  But, unlike his brothers, Thor never referred to himself with a same Signifier, instead choosing to keep quiet over the whole matter of spirituality in reference to himself.

         What can we refer from all this?  When I was watching The Avengers, Lacan’s theories came to my mind, and I saw a real-world application for Lacan, finally.   The American novelist William S. Burroughs famously said, “Language is a virus,” and Yi We-Soo commented that “언어는 생물이다/Language is a living thing. ”  “As manifest content, this "literal" story or plot is "real," just as it is "real" when it displays the traces-"gaps" in meaning or "lapses" of logic-that represent the unconscious system that produced it.” (Con Davis, 853) While writing this essay, my mind kept reeling from the implications of the ficitional world The Avengers was set in along with the idea of Joss Whedon, as the screen writer, fusing his psychology with that of the characters—all of which cannot be easily seperated from the conscious, just as Lacan stated.  Pop culture is not immune or separate from literary criticism, esepcially the Structualist and Psychological criticism I vaguely applied.  The oversimplication I gave for the word “god” and “God” in The Avengers can be worked out more, but just the basic idea can give knowledge into the workings of the characters.  Freud was right with his philosophy of the id, ego, and superego, but Lacan had the right idea when he mixed it with Saussare’s theory of language to make a much more well-rounded idea of why we do what we do.  Fictional characters are representations us, not quite the Other, but something that reflects who we are psychologically.   The Imaginary and the Real still confront each other with the langauge of the screenwriter and with the characters themselves.  The Real for a believer like me is that God is part of the Real, in agreeance with Captain America, but not the same Signified God as Captain America referred to.  The Imaginary is a world (literary or otherwise) with other ‘gods’ that exist.  But, my idea of the Real is still infected heavily with the Symbolic, something we all far pray to—and pray Lacan did:  “’This is why, especially why, the religion of the Jews must be questioned within our hearts.’” (Haddad, 209)

Bibliography

Con Davis, Robert. "Introduction: Lacan and Narration." MLN, Vol. 98, No. 5, Comparative Literature (Dec., 1983).

de Carteau, Michel; Logan, Marie-Rose. "An Ethics of Speech." Representations, No. 3 (Summer, 1983).

Haddad, Gérard; Guynn, Noah."Judaism in the Life and Work of Jacq"ues Lacan: A Preliminary Study." Yale French Studies, No. 85, Discourses of Jewish Identity in Twentieth-Century France (1994)

Lacan, Jacques. "The Insistence of the Letter in the Unconscious." Yale French Studies, No. 36/37, Structuralism (1966)

Mehlman, Jeffrey. "The 'Floating Signifier': From Lévi-Strauss to Lacan." Yale French Studies, No. 48, French Freud: Structural Studies in Psychoanalysis (1972)

Miel, Jan. "Jacques Lacan and the Structure of the Unconscious." Yale French Studies, No. 36/37, Structuralism (1966)

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.