Finally, I saw Noah last Saturday. I don’t have any insights to add that haven’t been said elsewhere by others, but for those interested here are my brief thoughts [with potential *Spoilers* for those who have not seen it yet]:
– It was an enjoyable movie to watch and I’m glad I saw it in theaters. I don’t know that it would have been as good on a TV screen or laptop.
– It was a little strange to see so many blue-eyed Caucasians in one movie about the ancient world. Whereas I know Aronofsky isn’t trying to provide a historical depiction of the ancient world, but more of a midrash on ancient mythology, I can see why people would find the casting choices to be a little troubling, though I think the actors who were chosen did a good job. Has anyone read anything indicating why all the actors were all white?
– As someone interested in biblical studies and theology there was a lot to process. I am not bothered by the creative departure from the Book of Genesis. Many Jewish and Christian writings have done something similar. Last week I was reading 1 Enoch and wow, there is all sorts of creative and interesting interpretations of Genesis 6-9 in there.
– Aronofsky’s choice to include “the Watchers” was interesting as was his depiction of these angelic beings as those who tried to help the humans, but who were cursed by the Creator for interfering in a realm that was off-limits to them. The idea of having them trapped in rock to signify that they are tied to the earth was interesting, but it came across as a bit too “Transformers” at times.
– The Creator is probably the most interesting character in the film. God doesn’t talk. God acts. God sends messages via visions and dreams. Overall, God is complex and distant. I found God’s “relationship” with Tubal-cain to be one of the most troublesome yet intriguing parts of the story. Obviously, Tubal-cain is a bad man, but on several occasions he claims that the Creator has left humans to themselves so he and his followers have no other choice than to live for their own survival. When the rains begin to fall he begins to cry out to the Creator asking why the Creator doesn’t speak back and indeed, the Creator remains silent. For those who have ever felt this way about God for any stretch of their life this will be a very poignant motif in the story and it makes one ask themselves why God so often is silent.
– Noah’s obsession with saving creation and making sure there are no more humans after his children die was an interesting one. It made me think of those eco-ethicist who suggest that the worst thing in nature is humanity. We are the only animal that can destroy the whole thing and nature may be better off without us. Obviously, this stands in the face of most of the Jewish and Christian traditions where humans are the crowing work of creation, the image of the Creator, and the Creator’s mediator on earth.
– The final theological point made by As Il-La (Emma Watson) to Noah (Russell Crowe) that the Creator left it in Noah’s hands to determine if humanity was worth giving a second chance to was quite powerful. Immediately it made me think back to the scene where the last surviving humans outside the Ark where screaming as they climbed to the highest rocky point available to avoid the Deluge. Noah said there was no place for them because he thought the Creator’s mission for him was to see to humanity’s eventual extermination, but this proved to be either untrue or only partially true since God left the choice in Noah’s hands. It almost seemed to suggest that Noah could have mediated to God to open the doors of the Ark to some? Of course, this led me to think of stories like Abraham mediating for Sodom and Gomorrah, or Moses challenging God not to destroy Israel, or Jesus being depicted as the mediator between God and humanity. There is definitely a thread that runs through the Bible where a righteous person can stand before God and mediate on behalf of the people, or in Noah’s case, chose not to.
– I thought Methusela (Anthony Hopkins) was an interesting character. He was a wise man, visionary, and miracle worker with a sense of humor. His character helped relieve some of the film’s tension at various points.
Have you seen the movie? Any thoughts to share?
the archives near Emmaus 
The major premise relative the movies characters was silly. Without spoiling it too much for others, I will only say that, thematically, it was a bad decision to transform Noah from a character with a rather strong sympathetic appeal to just the opposite for a good part of the film.
In addition, its departure from the biblical story was just too extreme.
I don’t think he was trying to tell “the biblical story”. Not sure that would have made for a very long movie. But he does tell a story that borrows from and interprets traditions that evolved from “the biblical story” and this film seems to have been in continuation with that tradition. As far as the character of Noah, well, I presume that is relative to the viewer, but I found his twist intriguing.
On your point about the non-intervention of Noah towards God to save those chosen for death as compared to the intervention of Abraham and Moses in each of their instances: A somewhat devout (his words) Jewish gentlemen I work with said he was taught to see Moses’ intervention to God to save the Israelites as the redemption of Noah’s sin in not intervening with God to save them. Interesting…
That is interesting to hear. I think there is an internal logic to the idea in the Torah. Noah, Abraham, and Moses all have the opportunity to play similar roles. Noah saves his family. Abraham’s bargain with God stops, but the narrative doesn’t say it couldn’t go lower. In the end only Lot and his daughters survive. Then Moses saves the nation. So, I can see where Moses is definitely the prime example of a mediator in Torah.
Brian Mattison thinks the movie was an evangelistic tool for kabbalah.
Check out his views, then scroll to see objections and replies to them.
http://drbrianmattson.com/?offset=1396360800000
Well, if that’s true it was a poor effort. I don’t recall ever thinking, “You know, I think I’m interested in Kabbalah now!” while watching the film.
We recently interviewed Brian Godawa about Noah. He talks about about how Aronofsky is an atheist but draws from the Kabbalah as myth. You can check out the interview here: http://re2podcast.com/2014/04/09/episode-29-noah-with-screenwriter-brian-godawa/
I also liked the Methuselah character as comedy relief. Provides lighter moments in an otherwise serious film. The meaning of his name suggests God’s mercy and I would have liked to have seen that communicated in the film but oh well.
@Michael: Thanks for the link! Of course, it is one thing to be influenced by Kabbalah and something else to try to evangelize for it. I don’t care if a mystical religion influenced story telling. I think it’s a bit paranoid to worry that this influence means that the movie is an “evangelistic tool”. I’m fairly literate when it comes to religious studies and it never crossed my mind once during the movie that it was promoting Kabbalah let alone trying to get me to convert.
I guess the best way Methuselah does communicate God’s mercy is in his comedy relief!
Your broad-mindedness in evaluating this film is surprising to me — because it is a Marvel-comic version of an ecologically-minded Noah that no one in the history of theology accepts or portrays. There is nothing profound in either its story-line or character development.
Aronofsky went on the defensive before the film hit the theaters, arguing that he had created a legitimate, artistic extension of the biblical story. He was not convincing. His motives seem to have involved a hope for financial recovery for the film’s production. Still he set a standard for what the public could expect, so it is acceptable to evaluate his work in light of his claim to biblical authenticity.
Furthermore, if this movie had depicted Mohammad, JFK, or MLK with the twisted psyche of Aronofsky’s Noah, I think your comments would have a much different tone.
But in our day, those who object to this film because they take the story of Noah seriously — theologically, historically, or as literature — are supposed to smile and appreciate the film for its movie-magic or other redeeming qualities.
Again, imagine a change of character from Noah to one of the figures named above. Would Muslims, liberal democrats, or civil rights advocates be expected to praise the movie — as a movie, as a source of entertainment?
Aronofsky’s story is silly in: (1) its over-all plot (2) its gimmicky depiction of spiritual beings (transformer-like Watchers) and spiritual reality (glowing snake skin) and (3) its fractured development of the main character.
@Bobby: I listed several aspects of the film that I found quite interesting. I don’t think Noah is the same sort of figure as Muhammad, JFK, or MLK, so yes, this is different in my eyes. I doubt Noah is as important to you as those figures are to other people. This is more akin to a movie like 300 or some other fanciful retelling of ancient narrative. Noah is a figure who is part of a story that has invited reflection and imagination. Does 1 Enoch upset you? 1QapGen? The Epistle of Jude? If not, then think of it as in line with those imaginary retellings/interpretations. If so, then I don’t know what to tell you. You didn’t like this film. I did.
You “don’t think Noah is the same sort of figure as Muhammad, JFK, or MLK,” because you do not empathize with those who regard the biblical story as important in itself — especially those who regard it as important theologically and historically. Yet you do empathize with those who feel a special bond with the other figures named.
I would be outraged with a treatment similar to Aronofsky’s for Muhammad’s, JFK’s, or MLK’s story and would come to the defense of those who felt directly offended. And so would you.
But, as you’ve indicated, you believe that those who reverence, in one way or another, the biblical story of Noah are to be: (1) tolerated (2) not taken seriously and (3) politely told to get back in line.
Don’t think of it as “the biblical story”…think of it as a midrashic spin-off like 1 Enoch. If you think that Gen. 6-9’s “Noah” should be interpreted literalistically then consider Aronosky’s Noah to be 1 Enoch’s “Noah” or 1QapGen’s “Noah”.
Aronofsky claimed the Bible was the basis of his story, going back to a Sunday School experience that moved him to labor for years in order to turn the story into a movie.
I went to the movie, knowing that it would take license with the biblical story, in some ways, but hoping to find it to be a pleasure in spite of creative alterations. So I was surprised at how revolting the experience would be and how far short of his stated goal Aronofsky would fall.
I had tried to think of the movie as he represented it, only to discover that, as a “spin-off” — of any kind — from the biblical story, it is a failure on many levels, whether the Bible is read “literalistically” or otherwise. But the great failure is the movie’s utter insensitivity to reverential students of the Bible who were promised something they did not get.
And whether you mean it or not, your response seems just as insensitive. “Just think of it as a… spin-off, and get over it” is the only advice you can give.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I don’t find the movie to have been insensitive to those who respect the Bible. I respect the Bible and I wasn’t offended. I’m sorry you were offended by it, but honestly, no, I’m not sympathetic to those who find offense in this movie. Not sure what else to say about it.
The movie co-stars Jennifer Connelly, whose mother is Jewish, and Logan Lerman, who is 100% Jewish. Surely they can play Old Testament characters.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that.