Ryan promises to write a longer piece about his own reaction to Darren Aronofsky’s Noah but I thought I’d put it out there what I did like about the movie.
For the most part, I sit on way on the opposite side of any kind of religious thought being taken literally – specifically, using Genesis to, in any way, talk about the birth of “man.” This I believe is fundamentally flawed view on life itself; mankind is not the center of the universe. Never has been, never will be, despite our desire to be so. We are one of many life forms battling life and death every day. The Buddhists, it seems to me, have it right in viewing religion but that’s another topic for another time. Therefore, it doesn’t matter to me if Aronofsky sought to explain evolution through Genesis (not necessary) or to talk about the creator this, the creator that – if you believe in God you’re probably going to dig Noah. But if you either don’t know what is behind all of this life that has been thriving for billions of years, or don’t need to know, you might find Noah suffocating in its sexism (women being necessary only to reproduce) and its heteronormative view of life (one male, one female).
But there are two things I really liked about the movie and that’s this:
1) Aronofsky’s disdain for mankind it palpable and true. His film makes no bones about what has led to the destruction of this planet. We are at fault. We are barbaric and disgusting in our disregard for the natural world and all of the life on it. I was right there with Noah all the way on that. I also felt his pain in not knowing what to do – there are so many beautiful things about humanity. It isn’t ALL bad. But there is so much bad. That struggle, to me, stuck with me after I saw the film in a way I never saw coming. I assumed it would not penetrate my psyche at all but it did for that reason. Now, when I read stories that depress the hell out of me, when I look at our very bleak future, I think about this tortured man. I’ll leave God out of it because you know, if he wanted to fix things he could. I don’t believe he “gave” us this planet to do with what we wanted. We are a very successful, dominant, intelligent species but we will destroy ourselves eventually – at which point the planet will shrug us off like old skin and rebuild itself. Nature doesn’t think we’re the center of the universe.
2) This is a bit of a spoiler because I do believe this isn’t in any of the original Noah stories so if you haven’t seen the film and you’d like to see how the story is told (Arofonsky take liberties with the Judao-Christian interpretation though this movie is still very much a religious epic that pays reverence to God) do not read any further.
I liked it that he entrusted the future of humanity to women, and that his message at the end of the film was loud and clear: the creator is not male. The creator is very much female. That kind of rocked my world. In many ways it made Noah a kind of modern myth — something to use in every day life and take with you as a cautionary tale. Do I think it will make Christians think more deeply about our collective future? Nope. They still see mankind as the center of the universe and they believe that by accepting Christ as their savior they will all be spared when the world ends. So you know.
I really thought I would hate Noah. It wasn’t anywhere near the “fever dream” many of the bloggers, critics and fanboys wanted it to be. But it is a loving, gentle approach to communal understanding – to bridging the gap between those who reject religion for science and those who reject science for religion. To that end, I believe it’s worth seeing. Its intentions are good, ultimately. Is it the best film Aronofsky has ever made? Not even close. But it’s a contemplative one.
As far as Oscar nominations go – I’m not really sure. My instincts say no chance in hell. But if there were going to be Oscar noms they would likely be only tech nods.
“They still see mankind as the center of the universe and they believe that by accepting Christ as their savior they will all be spared when the world ends.”
Sasha– Christians see God as the center of the universe, and humans as stewards of the creation.
I get the sense from reading a lot of these entries that neither you nor Ryan know many Christians, or at least ones, like the name connotes, that strive to be like Christ. And that’s certainly not a judgment on you or your circles of friends, as there are many Christians that many people wouldn’t care to know in the first place. However, I think that if you were to sit down and have a conversation about central tenets of the faith with a Christian, you’d find it to be more nuanced and less dichotomous than you make it out to be, and certainly not centered on humans but on Christ.
No disrespect intended by any of this. I do appreciate your openness with regard to discussing religion; it is just difficult to read it sometimes when I sense there to be inaccuracies in your assessment.
‘I liked it that he entrusted the future of humanity to women, and that his message at the end of the film was loud and clear: the creator is not male. The creator is very much female.’
Aside from the dozens of instances when the creator is referred to as ‘he’ or ‘him’. The future of humanity was indeed entrusted to women, but the creator entrusted the future of the world to a man, and instructed him to murder that future should it be born a woman.
As a militant atheist and having barely even being near a bible before and aside from having knowledge of the arc with Noah and animals in it, I thought the film carved out an interesting take on the biblical tale. I think anyone who knows and is familiar with the type of films that Aronofsky is known for would at least have an inkling that more likely than not his take on the story isn’t going to be a cut and paste job. While I donot think the film was successfully able to juggle all the ideas it set out to from the start, I do think we need more films like it where whether it succeeds or not, gets people talking. I’m just a sucker for films that challenges conventions that is neither black or white but always in the gray.
says Ryan Adams, “and as every Fundamentalist right-winger will tell you, the descedants of Ham and Canaan all moved to Africa and that’s why it’s perfectly ok to own them as slaves 4000 years later.”
Moron. The Democrat Party is the party of Slavery going all the way back to it beginnings in the Americas. Get informed and educated. As a matter of fact it was the anti-democrats who formed a new party to fight slavery. The Whig party later the Republican Party. Learn to spell. Descendants not descedants.
“dbizkid”
You’re adorable. I always love when a hothead reader has to go all the way back to Lincoln to find a Republican politician who did anything to help black people.
But the fact is, I never used the words Republican or Democrat. I said right-wing. Meaning Conservatives. I won’t call you a moron, but any idiot knows that Republicans in 1860 were the LIBERALS.
Anyone trying to argue that Republicans today are liberals shows an embarrassing lack of understanding about this simple fact of of American politics: Party labels of the 19th Century completely traded IDEOLOGIES in the 1960s. With the emergence of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-’60s, voters and politicians with right-wing ideologies regrouped around Ronald Regan. It was at that precise moment in recent American history that the Republican party dissolved its last vestige of social liberalism and became the party of social conservations opposed to civil rights, opposed to desegregation and opposed to social progress. Any fool knows that.
I’m not talking about hopping in a time-machine and popping up in 1860 to ask an antebellum Republican what he thinks about slavery. I specifically said right-wing fundamentalist. And I’m taking about the ones slithering around on earth today. I said right-wing fundamentalists because, unlike you, I know words have meaning and I know how to use them. (even if I make a typo from time to time).
An evolutionary biologist visited the absurd “Creation Museum” a couple of years ago and had this to say:
That’s a religious conservative right-wing belief. Brigham Young used Noah’s curse as his rationale to ban Black men from the Mormon Priesthood. For a 150 years Mormons taught their children that Black Africans were condemned by the curse of Ham. That’s just a fact. They changed their official ideological stance in 1978, but kids like little Mitt Romney grew up being taught that Black people were the cursed descendants of Ham.
Thousands if not millions of older backwards hillbilly conservatives throughout the South still believe this. And so do their ignorant offspring. I know this is true because I know some of them.
That’s not a liberal belief. It’s Right-Wing Religious Conservative Belief. That’s what I said and that’s what I meant because that’s the undeniable truth.
Thanks for playing along though because your ignorance makes me feel pretty smart. Great way to begin the day. Thanks!
(Remember a few weeks ago when you told us that American Hustle was sure to win Best Picture? You were certain of it. Stick to predicting the Oscars. You obviously know a lot more about the Oscars than you know about social/political ideologies.)
I am a practicing Catholic. I was opdn to the diector’s vision if I wasnt so
bored with it all.
“what about Emma watson’s performance though? I thought that was something. Also, I loved the score!”
There was some good acting in there, including Emma. I like Connelly too. All of them. There won’t be Oscar noms, but still a film worth seeing.
what about Emma watson’s performance though? I thought that was something. Also, I loved the score!
“For the record, Road2Oscars…Noah did get drunk in the original story. Shows how much Christians know about their own story.”
1) I had dug up an old bible we had and readup until Noah says “Go out and multiply” which is where the film stops. The drunken bit was pulled from later in the chapter, so that’s why I didn’t read it.
2) I am clearly a non practicing Catholic, not a good Christian like you, Tonu.
For the record, Road2Oscars…Noah did get drunk in the original story. Shows how much Christians know about their own story.
Genesis Chapter 9.
After the waters receded and right after the Love Boat docked.
and as every Fundamentalist right-winger will tell you, the descendants of Ham and Canaan all moved to Africa and that’s why it’s perfectly ok to own them as slaves 4000 years later.
Because Noah cast an alcoholic wino curse on them.
Amen.
Why does everyone keep referring to Noah as a “Christian” tale? It’s OLD Testament which means it’s covered by the big three, Jewish being first, then Christian, then Muslim.
Hardcore fundamentalist Christians want to get their sticky fingerprints on anything they think confirms their patriarchal priviledge. That’s one reason I enjoy seeing Aronofsky snatch Noah away from them and turn him into ancient Jack Torrence.
OT: James Gandolfini’s last performance and Tom Hardy’s Brooklyn accent featured in the promising trailer for BULLHEAD director Michaël R. Roskam’s sophomore effort, THE DROP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lCiDIcqMe0
The debate over this film is overblown. If you’re an atheist, you know it’s not true. If you’re a believer, you know half of it is made up by Aronofsky. Just enjoy the pic!
I actually enjoyed it. I am familar with the story, having gone to Catholic school. Nowhere does it say that Noah went on a bender in the bible. Haha! I don’t know how anyone can seriously argue about this film either way.
BTW, I love meat, so I am officially #TeamCain!
P.S. – People don’t suck. Unless we’re aliens from another planet, humans are as much a part of the earth as anything.
My love for the film comes from how it works as a companion piece to The Fountain, one of my favorites. On its own, it’s a good, interesting mess.
My biggest letdown about the film was how conventional it seemed. Sure, it was ‘unconventional’ by the standards of most religious films (its basic presentation, its deviations from the Bible, etc.) but Aronofsky took very little pains to add layers to this very simple story. It was also pretty cheesy that Aronofsky felt the need to add action-movie flourishes like Noah kicking the asses of those tree marauders, or the battle against Ray Winstone’s character.
One good point — the whole concept of the Watchers was really cool.
Interesting point of view Sasha. I certainly didn’t love the film, and I find myself defending it often more than I think I should for two reasons–
1. I think the moment the studios gave Arnofsky the key’s to the multimillion dollar castle, fanboys began to sharpen their knives, and throw labels of him selling out. If anything, the film had his stamp on it. This is certainly a darker, more cerebral blockbuster than most.
2. The film unfolded in such an earnest, and ultimately honest, way. As an atheist who went to the film b/c of my love of Arnofsky, I was happy to see that while the film was certainly dealing in Christian myth (how could it not?), it was using the myth as metaphor.
To that point, I do think there is a really interesting parallel in how the film uses women. The two women we spend the most time with (Connelly and Watson) may only have use by giving birth, but they are hardly inactive, and have key roles to play in the moral action of the movie (albeit, I found Connelly a bit grating in her big scenes). That the movie ends with humanity left in the hands of women after hearing how MANkind has failed for so long wasn’t lost on my feminist brain, and I’d like to think that the silent strength of those main two women lead to a larger, more critical strength in the daughters.
…Not that I want a sequel
Good points, I also loved Jennifer Connelly in this, her strongest role/performance in a decade. Had this been released later, I think she would have been a viable – and very deserving – supporting actress contender.
I love you, Sasha Stone. Haven’t seen the movie, and I have no opinion on it. But I love seeing how your mind works, and you always make me think. That is all.