1) Darren Aronofsky is not an atheist. Just go do some homework to figure that one out. Also, why would that ever matter? Maybe the dumbest argument against making a movie ever. Even if it were true he clearly has a better and deeper understanding of biblical texts than you. And that's just funny. I hope you're sad about that fact.
Along those lines , i've heard several people complain about not being able to take their kids to this movie. WHAT?! Humanity was wiped out by drowning. The story ends with Noah being so drunk he's naked and cursing his son. The sacrilegious story of Noah is in your coloring books with all the happy smiley animals in a boat underneath a rainbow. That is sending the wrong message. The men of earth were wicked so God wiped them all out - man woman child! Let's get your story straight.
(not okay if the question is biblical accuracy - and hardly capturing the nature of the story)
2) Darren Aronofsky is not "Hollywood". He is far from it. He operates outside of the studio system, it's a pretty wellknown fact. If anybody refers to Noah as a "Hollywood movie", you can rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
Additionally, "Noah" was produced initially by none other than the main backer of "Passion of the Christ". Guess why the lava monsters look slightly like they're on the ScyFy channel? Answer: they didn't have a Hollywood budget.
3) "doesn't mention 'God' once": how dumb can a review be to judge a movie on it not mentioning a word? Now let's look at that logically, literally, and historically: The word God is an English reference to a higher power. Something the Old Testament doesn't even do because all of the names of God are mentioned in a way that references his/her manifestations. (Oh yeah, and it wasn't written in English). That is right I put in "her". Many of the names of God in the old testament are the feminine version of a word. "Shakina" (probably didn't spell that right) for example, references how a mother bear protects her cub.
Oh but wait. The young boy tells the main bad guy that his father told him no one is king because only God rules. So maybe you didn't see the movie? Also, the entire plot and force in the world is centered around "The Creator." Or, one all-powerful god of the universe.
4) "rock people": in the film these are fallen Angels. They were flung to earth to live in physical form by God for disobeying him. It is torturous and they must pull themselves from the earth melting everything around them creating their hideous forms which are essentially lava rocks. Now, biblically, there is reference in the very short few chapters of Noah, to fallen angels. Fallen angels that were breeding with humans and creating a race of giants. So the movie is not off-base using fallen angels existing alongside human beings.
But why did Aronofski choose to make them lava monsters? Well, if you were to do your homework, you would recognize these lava monsters as being characters in older stories of Noah. That's right Noah's flood story is older than what the book of Genesis goes back to. And I'm not even talking about the other older stories of a world wide flood, I am talking about Noah himself. What this would seem to tell us is that these stories come from one event. And their similarities would indicate that Genesis would have left just certain details out because they weren't needed, maybe. Let's think about why these details might be left out. Maybe because - let's say this was an actual event that happened - when Abram was told by God to start telling everyone about the one true God and to change his name to Abraham, and start this religion, he would start about writing the Bible that we now have. He would take these true stories and focus on the points of The One Creator being in control. You see, the descriptions of the angels wouldn't be necessary to the greater part of the historical story. He was born and came from a city that worshiped many gods. The gnostic bible (which was written first I'll add) believed that the creator was a doofus and demi-god who would create the world then destroy it and then create another one. The people of this religion worshiped the fallen angels as protectors and demi-gods and helpers of people. In a spiritual warfare, it would be wise to leave out their good deeds so that humans (who have a problem believing only what they see) wouldn't fall back in to those traps of worshipping "champions" (as described in Genesis' Noah). The point would be to erase the angels because they may very well have been good but these ancient people worshipped them instead of the true Creator. Think of it in terms of how history is written by those who conquered.
So by all accounts these lava monsters very much fit into the biblical story of Noah. And if we treated the texts as history lessons, we'd need to include them by nature of using multiple accounts. In the movie they are used brilliantly to show how Noah could have built the ark "by himself", God allowed the fallen angels to help him. Additionally these fallen angels give us insight into the nature of God. It is biblically affirming that God required absolute obedience in the Old Testament. These fallen angels did something good by helping man but it was against the creators word so they were punished. And then in a surprise turn, these fallen angels are used plotwise, to affirm new testament beliefs that God is the redeemer, that he is forgiving and loving, and that being in the presence of God is the most wonderful thing. That is in this movie that the religious right has condemned without seeing! And it is blatant! Only this movie and the passion of the Christ are films that have showed these qualities of God without being super cheesy. And meanwhile it is the only movie I've ever seen to unabashedly show God as the old testament character who requires absolute obedience... or you die.
5) "the movie is a liberal agenda-pushing film about vegans and environmentalists": NO. If you think that, you have a third grade level reading comprehension. Not only is this containing no agenda, though it is a part of the plot and character, but it is precisely pointed out in the chapters of Noah! What Aronofski does brilliantly, is to weave the clues to the message of Noah into the story that he has written. At the end of the story in Genesis when the family gets off of the ark, God gives them permission to eat animals and commands them to take care of the earth. After all that stuff had been written in Genesis, before the story of Noah, why would this story end with God's command to take care of the earth and make it a point to say it is okay to eat animals now? Maybe because those "wicked" people were manifesting their wickedness in raping the earth and then killing for meat rather than using the land the way it was intended. That is pretty logical to me and should be an okay summation. But Noah talks to his son about meat eating and using the earth when he explains why God is saving the animals. His son replies "because they are still living as they did in The Garden?" Again the movie confirms other pieces of Genesis and the nature of God and it is very simply woven into the script.
Noah is the last of the bloodline purely from Adam and Eve (in Genesis and in the film), and he is righteous in gods eyes because he is still living as the creator intended for man to live. Another affirmation of the book of Genesis calling Noah the only righteous man. And the word that is translated to "righteous" is referencing how just Noah is. This is another nice biblical affirmation Aronofski writes in when Noah proclaims "I want justice".
6) "Noah becomes a bloodthirsty psycho." NO. Again, if you can't understand what is going on in the movie then you have a third graders movie watching comprehension level. Just as an real life, God doesn't speak to us with a voice. Sometimes it is hard to know if we are doing the right thing, especially when it seems against our nature. Noah believes that the creator has chosen him to help all the animal species survive the flood but humans will die because they are wicked. He was chosen because he is so righteous and the only one with the guts to follow through with what God wants. All signs from the film have told us that this is a perfectly logical interpretation of what God wants, Noah isn't crazy, he is Godly. This is a part of the film that is only in the film and not the story of Genesis. Genesis does not give us clues as to what happened on the ark or what the humans were thinking. This is where it fills in a story to make it a movie. This is where it can sometimes get tricky, understandably. But this plot device is used in order to reveal the character of Noah and his family and God himself. It is also used to add the human element to this massive cataclysmic events.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! RUUUUN!!!!
Noah believes that God is telling him all the humans have to die because no one is able to have children and there are no more wives on the ship. All the signs in the film point to this. Okay that makes logical sense. When he discovers that the one who was not supposed to be able to have children is pregnant, and it was his wife's and his father's conspiracy that gave her the ability to conceive, he is angered because he believes they are going against God's will. He proclaims that if it is a female, he will kill the child. He is going to follow through with it not because he is psychopathic, but because he is, again, the only human with the guts to follow through with what the creator has ordered him to do.
Now, is this against the nature of God? Because I have seen a lot backlash about this particular part. So it seems to me we have forgotten the part that happened just 20 minutes earlier in the film (and about two sentences earlier in the bible) when
(not okay if the question is biblical accuracy - and hardly capturing the nature of the story)2) Darren Aronofsky is not "Hollywood". He is far from it. He operates outside of the studio system, it's a pretty wellknown fact. If anybody refers to Noah as a "Hollywood movie", you can rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
Additionally, "Noah" was produced initially by none other than the main backer of "Passion of the Christ". Guess why the lava monsters look slightly like they're on the ScyFy channel? Answer: they didn't have a Hollywood budget.
3) "doesn't mention 'God' once": how dumb can a review be to judge a movie on it not mentioning a word? Now let's look at that logically, literally, and historically: The word God is an English reference to a higher power. Something the Old Testament doesn't even do because all of the names of God are mentioned in a way that references his/her manifestations. (Oh yeah, and it wasn't written in English). That is right I put in "her". Many of the names of God in the old testament are the feminine version of a word. "Shakina" (probably didn't spell that right) for example, references how a mother bear protects her cub.
Oh but wait. The young boy tells the main bad guy that his father told him no one is king because only God rules. So maybe you didn't see the movie? Also, the entire plot and force in the world is centered around "The Creator." Or, one all-powerful god of the universe.
4) "rock people": in the film these are fallen Angels. They were flung to earth to live in physical form by God for disobeying him. It is torturous and they must pull themselves from the earth melting everything around them creating their hideous forms which are essentially lava rocks. Now, biblically, there is reference in the very short few chapters of Noah, to fallen angels. Fallen angels that were breeding with humans and creating a race of giants. So the movie is not off-base using fallen angels existing alongside human beings.
But why did Aronofski choose to make them lava monsters? Well, if you were to do your homework, you would recognize these lava monsters as being characters in older stories of Noah. That's right Noah's flood story is older than what the book of Genesis goes back to. And I'm not even talking about the other older stories of a world wide flood, I am talking about Noah himself. What this would seem to tell us is that these stories come from one event. And their similarities would indicate that Genesis would have left just certain details out because they weren't needed, maybe. Let's think about why these details might be left out. Maybe because - let's say this was an actual event that happened - when Abram was told by God to start telling everyone about the one true God and to change his name to Abraham, and start this religion, he would start about writing the Bible that we now have. He would take these true stories and focus on the points of The One Creator being in control. You see, the descriptions of the angels wouldn't be necessary to the greater part of the historical story. He was born and came from a city that worshiped many gods. The gnostic bible (which was written first I'll add) believed that the creator was a doofus and demi-god who would create the world then destroy it and then create another one. The people of this religion worshiped the fallen angels as protectors and demi-gods and helpers of people. In a spiritual warfare, it would be wise to leave out their good deeds so that humans (who have a problem believing only what they see) wouldn't fall back in to those traps of worshipping "champions" (as described in Genesis' Noah). The point would be to erase the angels because they may very well have been good but these ancient people worshipped them instead of the true Creator. Think of it in terms of how history is written by those who conquered.
So by all accounts these lava monsters very much fit into the biblical story of Noah. And if we treated the texts as history lessons, we'd need to include them by nature of using multiple accounts. In the movie they are used brilliantly to show how Noah could have built the ark "by himself", God allowed the fallen angels to help him. Additionally these fallen angels give us insight into the nature of God. It is biblically affirming that God required absolute obedience in the Old Testament. These fallen angels did something good by helping man but it was against the creators word so they were punished. And then in a surprise turn, these fallen angels are used plotwise, to affirm new testament beliefs that God is the redeemer, that he is forgiving and loving, and that being in the presence of God is the most wonderful thing. That is in this movie that the religious right has condemned without seeing! And it is blatant! Only this movie and the passion of the Christ are films that have showed these qualities of God without being super cheesy. And meanwhile it is the only movie I've ever seen to unabashedly show God as the old testament character who requires absolute obedience... or you die.
5) "the movie is a liberal agenda-pushing film about vegans and environmentalists": NO. If you think that, you have a third grade level reading comprehension. Not only is this containing no agenda, though it is a part of the plot and character, but it is precisely pointed out in the chapters of Noah! What Aronofski does brilliantly, is to weave the clues to the message of Noah into the story that he has written. At the end of the story in Genesis when the family gets off of the ark, God gives them permission to eat animals and commands them to take care of the earth. After all that stuff had been written in Genesis, before the story of Noah, why would this story end with God's command to take care of the earth and make it a point to say it is okay to eat animals now? Maybe because those "wicked" people were manifesting their wickedness in raping the earth and then killing for meat rather than using the land the way it was intended. That is pretty logical to me and should be an okay summation. But Noah talks to his son about meat eating and using the earth when he explains why God is saving the animals. His son replies "because they are still living as they did in The Garden?" Again the movie confirms other pieces of Genesis and the nature of God and it is very simply woven into the script.
Noah is the last of the bloodline purely from Adam and Eve (in Genesis and in the film), and he is righteous in gods eyes because he is still living as the creator intended for man to live. Another affirmation of the book of Genesis calling Noah the only righteous man. And the word that is translated to "righteous" is referencing how just Noah is. This is another nice biblical affirmation Aronofski writes in when Noah proclaims "I want justice".
6) "Noah becomes a bloodthirsty psycho." NO. Again, if you can't understand what is going on in the movie then you have a third graders movie watching comprehension level. Just as an real life, God doesn't speak to us with a voice. Sometimes it is hard to know if we are doing the right thing, especially when it seems against our nature. Noah believes that the creator has chosen him to help all the animal species survive the flood but humans will die because they are wicked. He was chosen because he is so righteous and the only one with the guts to follow through with what God wants. All signs from the film have told us that this is a perfectly logical interpretation of what God wants, Noah isn't crazy, he is Godly. This is a part of the film that is only in the film and not the story of Genesis. Genesis does not give us clues as to what happened on the ark or what the humans were thinking. This is where it fills in a story to make it a movie. This is where it can sometimes get tricky, understandably. But this plot device is used in order to reveal the character of Noah and his family and God himself. It is also used to add the human element to this massive cataclysmic events.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! RUUUUN!!!!
Noah believes that God is telling him all the humans have to die because no one is able to have children and there are no more wives on the ship. All the signs in the film point to this. Okay that makes logical sense. When he discovers that the one who was not supposed to be able to have children is pregnant, and it was his wife's and his father's conspiracy that gave her the ability to conceive, he is angered because he believes they are going against God's will. He proclaims that if it is a female, he will kill the child. He is going to follow through with it not because he is psychopathic, but because he is, again, the only human with the guts to follow through with what the creator has ordered him to do.
Now, is this against the nature of God? Because I have seen a lot backlash about this particular part. So it seems to me we have forgotten the part that happened just 20 minutes earlier in the film (and about two sentences earlier in the bible) when
the entire effing world and its inhabitants were DROWNED AND KILLED BY GOD HIMSELF!
Oh yeah and remember when God tested Abraham by telling him to take Isaac to the top of the mountain to sacrifice him like a goat? This is nearly the same incident happening. Only Noah believes that this is the right thing to do just as Abraham believed it was the right thing to do. That is in your Bible!
LETS GET OUR STORY STRAIGHT HERE STUDENTS OF THE BIBLE AND STEWARDS OF THE EARTH.
**bonus) this movie ends with such a heartbreaking and bitter sweet dramatic conclusion, that you can't help but feel for Noah. It is a true mark of a fantastic film. But beyond that, it fits what is happening in our minuscule story in Genesis.
**bonus) this movie ends with such a heartbreaking and bitter sweet dramatic conclusion, that you can't help but feel for Noah. It is a true mark of a fantastic film. But beyond that, it fits what is happening in our minuscule story in Genesis.
Did you ever realize Noah's story contains the first mention of wine? The first time someone is drunk, he is so hammered, he's naked and yelling obscenities at his own son, cursing all his future children. Our hero Noah, being all drunk off his high righteous-horse. Nothing is really mentioned of this further, and it's certainly not in any Sunday school lesson you'll ever hear, why don't we want to touch this? So Aaronoffski tries to explore what might be going on there. Bold.
I'll explain his take so you won't have to think too hard: There was obviously tension between the father and son. And throughout the film the buildup to this creates real tension and drama and speaks a lot to father and son relationships. There is a real human moment where we understand what a man would go through having survived this cataclysmic event where he had a chance to save more people yet was bound by his devotion to a higher power to "stay the course" or walk that "straight and narrow path". (You see what's happening here in this study of Noah? Now do you get where this is mining allegory for the Christian?) Noah truly has survivors guilt. That would explain why he would become so drunk. He is alone and depressed, something humans experience absolutely. Not only do we feel this human condition, but it is concluded between the characters that Noah was the one given the choice to choose forgiveness or not. Again, another bold and decidedly Christian theological choice for the film.
As Christians we regard the story of Noah as an allegory for Christ. We can think of Noah as a Christ figure, or more relevantly, the ark itself. This film not only confirms that, but drives it home. It shows that God gives us the choice of salvation. That is in this film blatantly! It is unashamed to make biblical references, it is unashamed to show God as a killer for disobedience (as is most usually conveniently scanned over when people make "Christian" movies), and it is unashamed to show God as giving us the choice to except forgiveness (also usually glossed over in "Christian" movies unless it is incredibly cheesy with a melodramatic atheist-fall-to-his-knees moment). It is bold in these ways that not even Christian filmmakers can seem to tackle. And it is done so without a shred of cheesiness. More than I can say about any other single film ever made dealing with theology.
As Christians we regard the story of Noah as an allegory for Christ. We can think of Noah as a Christ figure, or more relevantly, the ark itself. This film not only confirms that, but drives it home. It shows that God gives us the choice of salvation. That is in this film blatantly! It is unashamed to make biblical references, it is unashamed to show God as a killer for disobedience (as is most usually conveniently scanned over when people make "Christian" movies), and it is unashamed to show God as giving us the choice to except forgiveness (also usually glossed over in "Christian" movies unless it is incredibly cheesy with a melodramatic atheist-fall-to-his-knees moment). It is bold in these ways that not even Christian filmmakers can seem to tackle. And it is done so without a shred of cheesiness. More than I can say about any other single film ever made dealing with theology.
Why any Christian would call this film sacrilegious is absolutely beyond me and I have been angered by the responses to the film. We should be supporting these movies over the crap that is being made by Sony and other studios that has no chance of ever having relevancy outside of youth group attendance. And that is created solely to make money off of you, making you think there is some sort of movement within Hollywood to make all films Christian in the future. It's an absurd marketing ploy you buy in to hook line and sinker, and it's shameful really (I'm looking at you, "God's Not Dead" - completely laughable Christ-sploitation cinematic trash).
