Noah

[Astronomer]

Here's an article that really made me think about Noah. Noah and Gnosticism

[jelly]

Why ‘Noah’ Is the Biblical Epic That Christians Deserve

“Aronofsky may not himself be a believer, but his film respects belief and engages with it without hostility or condescension. I hope believers will engage Aronofsky’s film in the same way.”

[bookworm]

So reading through everyone’s thoughts I have a few responses I’d like to throw out for consideration. Not in an attempt to convince you that you’re wrong to dislike the movie, if you think it’s bad that’s your opinion and that’s fine, but just to provide a different perspective on some of the issues you brought up in case it helps understand them a little better and maybe soften your opposition at least a tiny bit. Because while I don’t think this is a great film theologically and it should be defended against all negative reviews, I also don’t think it was a heretical film that needs condemned. It’s just a movie. If you liked it, great. If you didn’t like it, fine. But there’s no cause to say ‘It wasn’t Biblical so it’s an abomination!’ It never claimed to be entirely Biblical, this is an imaginative film meant to explore various ideas and work your mind, not just tell the straightforward word for word Bible account of the Flood.

No one is going to ever be able to excuse it.

You’re right. Because there’s nothing to excuse it from. Again, it’s not as if they said ‘This is right from the Bible so everyone come see it’ and then threw in all this crazy stuff out of nowhere. This isn’t meant to be entirely Biblical, it’s meant to make you think. Yes it goes to crazy places, but not out of a desire to undermine the Bible story, out of a desire to expand our way of thinking about it.

people try to be so faithful to convert books and other stories to film in the best way possible ... why was the same not done for this?

Your very next sentence answers this.

Especially considering so many people know the story, even if they aren't saved.

Everyone knows the story, so why would they simply represent it as it’s always been? You shouldn’t be going to this movie to just see the Bible’s story of the Flood on the big screen (it would be cool to have a movie for that, but it’s not this movie), you’re going because it’s different and because it’s crazy. You’re going in order to have your usual thinking shaken up a bit.
Also, the Flood story is all of what, three pages long? You can’t make it into a full length film without adding in some invented material, and if you’re going to do that you may as well go all out with it.

The birdies come, then are put to sleep by some sort of smokey-thing that doesn't affect people.

I’ll give you that one. I didn’t get why they weren’t put to sleep too.

Zoikes. Eating little girls and/or trading them for animal meat. O.o That was disturbing.

It was supposed to be. That’s why they had to be drowned. It wasn’t ‘mankind was kinda bad’ it was ‘mankind was evil.’

Poor lizzard won't have a mate now.

Yeah, how many species did that jerk make extinct? At least two just from what we saw, and I’m sure more because they were out there for a long time.

I am not thinking that it's not a good film because a humanist made it. I'm thinking that it's not a good film because it pointlessly and incredibly inaccurate to who Noah truly was from what I've seen in the Bible.

Incredibly inaccurate, yes. But not pointlessly. For the umpteenth time, this movie was never intended to be Biblically accurate. So realizing that it isn’t is not a valid basis for saying it’s a bad movie, because you’re saying the film was exactly what it was supposed to be. You can certainly say ‘I personally didn’t like this movie because I want to see a Biblically accurate Flood story’, that’s fine, I would too. But you can’t say ‘Because this movie wasn’t that it was bad’ because it was never supposed to be that.

there were giants on the earth, but I didn't envision them as giant rocks.

They weren’t actually rocks, they were just encased in rock. I actually thought that was a very clever idea, I liked it a lot. The reason they were stuck on Earth was because they disobeyed God’s direction by trying to interfere. So God essentially said ‘If Earth means that much to you, you’re not only going to be stuck there as in cut off from Heaven, but you’re going to be literally stuck there because the Earth you care so much about is going to entrap your bodies.’

it was very moving when they went to heaven (after asking forgiveness).

Yes it was, that was one of my favorite parts of the whole movie. From the moment they agreed to help Noah I was hoping it would end with them being forgiven, because as I said in my original notes that really bothered me. I was so glad when they were accepted back.

Another odd choice is when they didn't bring their wives on the ark.

They didn’t have their wives yet here.

They showed that mankind on the earth was evil, and they were being punished for that, the slate swept clean.

Yes, it was portrayed very well. God wasn’t doing it because he wanted to just destroy everything and be done with it; it was to allow for a new start. I loved how Noah reasoned why it was a flood instead of fire. How fire just destroys everything together, but water allows for cleansing because it can separate what sinks from what floats.

I didn't get why they needed to make Noah think that God wanted to eradicate human beings including his family.

I went over this a bit in my original notes, but I thought it was quite clear why this happened. It obviously wasn’t though because you’re far from the first person to have a problem with it.
You have to realize that in this story Noah really had no idea at all what he was doing, or what he was supposed to do, he was just making educated guesses. It’s not the impression we get from the Biblical story where God is directly and clearly telling Noah what when and how to do things. God never spoke clearly to Noah at all here, He just gave him little pushes and Noah had to figure out what it all meant himself. In this context, it’s absolutely reasonable for him to have gotten too zealous in what he thought his task was supposed to be.
He determined that what God wanted was to start the world over. He was right there. He determined that this meant the sinfulness of the world had to be done away with. He was right there. He determined that God wanted the animals saved because they weren’t corrupted. He was right there. He determined that God didn’t want humans saved because they were corrupted. He was both right and wrong there. Humans were indeed corrupted. All of them, even the righteous ones. Sin is in everyone, as you noted that he saw in his vision in the camp. So he knew God’s desire was to get rid of sin and he knew all humans, however good they try to be, still have sin in them. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that meant even they had to die to fully complete the mission. The only difference between them and the people outside the ark was that they needed to stay alive a bit longer to save the animals and allow the pure part of creation to survive, so they couldn’t die immediately in the flood. They would die later, the last of humanity, and then sin would be gone.
He simply underestimated the full extent of God’s mercy in His plan. Yes all mankind is sinful, but not all are evil. God wasn’t trying here to remove every trace of sin, He would do that later by sending Jesus. This was simply a ‘delay of game’ if you will. A way to remove the really, really sinful and let the sinful yet righteous live on because they were trying to be good.
I can’t fault Noah for failing to think he may have had a ‘loophole’ from God’s plan as he understood it. He just saw all of humanity be wiped out for their sinfulness. He knew full well he had sin in him as well. Why would he not think he must suffer the same fate?

[jelly]

(someone fix this for me?)


Fixed! You had to take out the S in the 'https' -snubs

[bookworm]

Christian viewers ... questioned the film's adherence to the Bible story and reacted negatively to the intensity and darkness of the lead character. Aronofsky's Noah gets drunk, for example

I had thought you meant this happened sometime during the time of preparing the ark, like he got overwhelmed by wondering what he was supposed to do and went out and got drunk one day or something, because I was unsure what all of the story was going to be included in the movie. But now that I’ve seen it I retract my previous response (though it was merely devil’s advocate anyway) and replace it with the following:

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that; the scene is straight from the Bible. One of the few parts of the movie in fact that directly corresponds with its original source material.

[IrishTiger]

There was an article in the opinion section of my daily newspaper that I'd like to share with y'all. I'd post the link to it, but I'm not sure how long it will be viewable for free online. Instead, I just copied posted it in the spoiler below.

Cal Thomas: Hollywood, Christians not entirely at odds

Columns & Analysis | Wednesday, April 2, 2014

It wasn't so long ago that conservative Christians believed Hollywood to be evil and some preachers instructed their congregations not to go to movies lest they be tempted beyond their ability to resist. Now Christians are debating film content. That's progress of a sort.

The main complaint from critics of the film "Noah," which opened last Friday with an impressive opening day take of an estimated $44 million in ticket sales, is that it doesn't accurately reflect the rather slim biblical account in Genesis. Here's some breaking news for the critics: Noah didn't speak English, as Russell Crowe does in the film, so right there we have a departure from biblical accuracy. One should not turn to Hollywood for theological truth.

In his book "Hollywood vs. America," critic Michael Medved refers to the film industry as "The Poison Factory," not the "dream factory" it likes to call itself. There is plenty of evidence — and he includes it in his book — to support that conclusion, but there are also many independent films being made today that act as antidotes to that poison if people seek them out, buy tickets and spread the word.

"Heaven is for Real" is one such film. Based on the best-selling book by Todd Burpo, the movie was directed by Randall Wallace, an evangelical Christian who also directed "Secretariat" and wrote the screenplays for "Braveheart" and "Pearl Harbor."

Back to Noah. I asked Michael Medved about the film. He emailed me that while he believes the film is "surpassingly strange ... On balance," he says, he's "glad they made the film; unlike so much puerile pabulum from Hollyweird, this serious and seriously flawed offering gives thoughtful movie-goers plenty to talk about." He might have added that controversy also sell tickets, sometimes more than newspaper ads and movie trailers.

As for the storyline (the real one), what we know from Genesis is that God considered Noah a "righteous man." For that reason Noah and his family (and the animals) would be spared so they could repopulate the Earth after the flood. God's reason for wiping out what He had created was because "every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). From there we get a weather report of rain for 40 days and 40 nights, the opening of the Earth's floodgates, a dove going out to see if the water had receded and God providing a rainbow as a sign of his promise never to flood the Earth again. That's it at warp speed.

While dramatic enough, there are not enough additional details to sustain a movie plot long enough for people to finish their overpriced candy bars, tubs of popcorn and supersized Cokes or justify the obscene ticket prices ($16.50 in NYC). Some critics claim there is a heavy environmental message in the film, which undercuts the power of the real story. Aren't there subtle and not so subtle messages in most films?

After decades in which Hollywood mostly ignored or stereotyped faith, Christians should be happy they have gotten the film industry's attention. Successful films like "The Passion of the Christ," "The Bible" and "Son of God" prove that such stories "sell." Instead of nitpicking over "Noah," the Christian community should not only be cheering, but buying tickets to encourage more such movies. Hollywood may not always get it right, but that's not the point. They are getting something and that sure beats not getting anything, or getting it completely wrong as in Martin Scorsese's blasphemous, "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Besides, after some see "Noah," they might want to visit the "original cast." The next time a rainbow appears might be the right occasion to begin a discussion.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist and author. Readers may email him at: [email protected].

[jelly]

Knowing Aronofsky, I was almost expecting the Noah character to be turned into a disturbed psychological condition, like so many of his other characters. In a way, the same happens to Noah, except that Aronofsky clearly shows a lot of respect for the Biblical and theological themes of the Old Testament, and so Noah's disturbed condition is here rendered as an intimate examination of faith, justice and mercy.

Here's why I think Noah is very, very Biblical.

[IrishTiger]

I saw Noah this afternoon. That was the strangest movie I have ever seen.

[jelly]

Here's an article that really made me think about Noah. Noah and Gnosticism

Here's a response, on why the speculation of Gnosticism in Noah is highly misleading:

No, Noah is not Gnostic (Say that ten times fast!)

[Astronomer]

Here's an article that really made me think about Noah. Noah and Gnosticism

Here's a response, on why the speculation of Gnosticism in Noah is highly misleading:

No, Noah is not Gnostic (Say that ten times fast!)

Yeah, I just read that. It was quite interesting. I still have a feeling I won't see Noah in theaters, but I'll probably watch it once it's on DVD.

[Metal15]

I don't think I want to spend 6 or 7 bucks to see that movie. :X

[bookworm]

I was actually able to ‘convert’ one of the people I mentioned before that hated the movie when we saw it. I sent her this Facebook post I saw some site link to and she said it “made it much more sensible.”

Since these so much being said about "Noah", I thought I'd add my two cents. (SPOILER ALERT)!!! I saw it last night; fortunately since one of my degrees is in Jewish Studies and I had a particular interest in Jewish legends concerning Genesis, there were no surprises. If you went expecting to see a Christian fundamentalist approach to Noah you would obviously be disappointed, but once it was clear that it was a Jewish perspective, immediately obvious from the zohar, then the film should be evaluated from that perspective. From that frame of reference, it was a very well done portrayal of a combination of Biblical and Midrashic views on the pre-Deluge world and on the flood itself, even to the Fallen Angels "being made one with the earth." That point in particular was intriguing to me because the same legend was used recently in, of all places, "I Frankenstein", which depicted these rock like creatures who could transform into angelic like beings, who were drafted by St. Michael to help fight the demons and when they were killed, ascended to Heaven in a glorious shaft of blue light. As to all the eco-babble about the film Noah, that's a gross exaggeration; rape, murder , and other acts of violence were the clear issues, not strip mining. There was a clear revulsion of Noah and his family about eating meat, which was perfectly Biblically appropriate, since the Covenant with Adam forbade it: "I will give you all the plants for food." Ironically , it was the post-flood covenant with Noah, that subsequently permitted eating meat. Noah's family's revulsion to killing animals was not eco-babble veganism but the appropriate response to a covenant still in effect. To appropriately contextualize Noah's response to his family, think Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. He apparently believed he was called to do it because he viewed all people as so wretchedly fallen, his experience of love for the twins and his wife's argument demonstrated that innocence was possible and their starting over was the better response. If you were open to the Jewish perspective, it was a great film.

The all-important concept is that this isn’t the Bible’s Flood story. If you can get that then all the problems disappear because that is where all the negativity is stemming from.

[jelly]

That's really neat, bookworm.

The one element of common ground I've been able to reach with antagonists of the film is the fact that it has sparked so much discussion, reflection and study. BibleGateway.com reported a massive increase in page views for Genesis 6-9. I hold that the movie is incredibly Biblical and I know many Christians that agree, but whether it is or isn't, it's cast an illuminating spotlight on one of the Bible's strangest, most puzzling and flat-out epic narratives!

I can't wait to see what the upcoming release of Exodus will spark.

[bookworm]

Absolutely. I myself reread the Bible’s story after seeing the movie.


This article has some really great reflections. I especially like his take on the third vision. I noticed both of those oddities myself, that it was a sort of hallucination as opposed to a dream and that it was fire this time instead of water. I think he definitely has something there in saying this change indicates the vision maybe wasn’t from God this time but a product of Noah’s inner struggle. Because this is the vision that sets him off on the wrong track, he had it right until now.

[jelly]

I really appreciate that article. His critiques are fair, and his delight expressed for the small things is contagious! I'm toying with seeing it for a third time. I, too, have been listening to the Clint Mansell score, reliving moments of the film through music.

[BlessedCheesemaker]

My family watched Noah tonight. My mom was offended and wanted to turn it off halfway through. I enjoyed seeing a different perspective of Noah. I do agree with the article that bookworm posted, there were some great Biblical messages and parts of the story and there are other parts I wish were included (animal sacrifice, etc).

My favorite parts were the discussion Noah had with his grandfather and his talk with Ila at the end. Noah tells Methuselah that fire destroys everything, but water cleanses and allows for a new start. I've never thought about the flood that way. I also like the theme of justice and mercy that played through up until Ila's words at the end. Our God is full of love and mercy and he chooses people who show that to those around them.

[Astronomer]

After much thought over the film, I feel its greatest failing was spending to little time on the redemption of Noah. It spends the entire film setting up Noah as God's means of ending humanity and when he changes his mind, it felt to me that it just rushed through it. There was no sense that Noah struggled with how to actually be better, it just said, "Let's try harder to be good so God doesn't kill us all again." and that was the end. A good movie, but the ending kind of felt a little rushed.

[jelly]

After much thought over the film, I feel its greatest failing was spending to little time on the redemption of Noah. It spends the entire film setting up Noah as God's means of ending humanity and when he changes his mind, it felt to me that it just rushed through it. There was no sense that Noah struggled with how to actually be better, it just said, "Let's try harder to be good so God doesn't kill us all again." and that was the end. A good movie, but the ending kind of felt a little rushed.

Would you issue a similar complaint against Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ? Feature length films, by design are not able to achieve what say, a novel or the Bible are able to accomplish in terms of spanning narrative. Aronofsky's film never tried to be anything other the story of Noah's Flood, with the climax of the film matching the climax of the Biblical narrative. It doesn't stray into the rest of Noah's life after the flood (and neither does the Biblical narrative), it ends exactly when it's supposed to. With Noah's reconciliation with his family and the Creator's rainbow promise bursting through the sky. I didn't get that impression you got from the ending at all. There is a very distinct, very definitive struggle, and a rewarding reconciliation, twofold, first with Noah and his family and secondly with God and humanity.

[~JCGJ~]

I finally saw this yesterday.
As a movie, it was quite good.
Suspense, drama, good guy that seems bad, bad guy that's pretty much just bad, giant stone creatures, explosions, knife fights, cannibalism, human stampedes... All the elements of an exciting movie. However, as a Biblical account, it was obviously lacking, though I won't say any more about that, because I never expected it to be at all Biblical.

[bookworm]

I never expected it to be at all Biblical.

No one should have, since it never intended or claimed to be. But clearly many people did, thus all the baseless controversy.