"Noah", a theory

[Stewball]

I haven't seen it yet, but I feel the need to go on record as to why Aronofsky may be doing something which on the surface is so incongruent with what we know about him from his previous stuff.

The blindly faithful are having to retreat deeper and deeper into their shells in an effort to deny the onslaught of science against the theology of biblical miracles. Perhaps the story of Noah is the most outlandish miracle of them all because it is so obviously serious and can't be excused as a metaphor of some sort. It forces the hard core faithful to adopt Creationism in defense of the story which would have to have left evidence of a world-wide deluge, but which is totally absent.

Enter Aronofsky thinking (I'm thinking) to drag the literal story that everybody knows out of the dusty biblical vaults of ancient holy "scripture" (I hate that pompous-ass word) and into the 21st century light of day. For many, I believe he may be thinking, the absurd incongruities, portrayed on the big screen as reality, will plant a seed of doubt that might be able to grow in the rocky soil of fervent religious denial. I may be putting words in his mouth/mind, but it makes sense.

Then there's the complication, if the stories of an environmentalist theme are correct, that he's further attempting to insert his own blind faith brand of theology; in which case his effort here will be....ahem....a wash--exchanging one absurd myth for another. I heard that some idiot liberal publication (Mother Jones) has put out a story that the Malaysian airliner has been so hard to find due to global warming changing the ocean currents. Ya can't make this stuff up, yet somebody did.

[Stewball]

Well, my theory was pretty much a bust. It was pretty much what I expected, until all of a sudden it wasn't. I think I can safely say that only a mind reader or some one with a prescient dart board could have see the twist coming. Bad news for the action junkies, from that point (2/3rds in) on, it was almost all dramatic dialogue, but very powerful drama it was. I can' see why Crowe would want to take the roll. I won't say much more for now, except to say the "angels"/watchmen were a little, OK a lot, over the top. Emma Watson and Logan Lerman were exceptional as well. Noah is presented as a conservationist (as opposed to an environmentalist), and a vegetarian which take mild artistic license. For the believers in the literal story, the only real departure from the bible is the wives issue; but as the disclaimer they've been putting out says, it's still faithful to the spirit of the story.

I can't say more for now except to recommend it and give it a 9/10.

[Suture Self]

Considering I'm not really a fan of Darren Aronofsky and I don't find the original Noah story all that fascinating, I was really surprised at how affected I was by this movie. The philosophy was as expected, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because I enjoyed the conservationist message, and I thought its sympathy towards the animals was heartfelt, though the general message of "There is wickedness and purity within man and it is up to us to decide which path we want to take" was very on the nose. But I did like the "twist" you're talking about, although it wasn't much of a twist for me because I had already read about it before seeing the movie. But yeah, it turned Noah into a character tormented by being used as an instrument for a vengeful God, and surprisingly, I thought Crowe did a fantastic job with it. It's a good complement to how we mostly view Noah, ie, an affable, warm, family man who smiles his way through the 40 days and 40 nights of downpour until the sun comes out and he begins a new life for humanity.

At the end of the day, though, it's the photography, the locations, and the editing that makes this movie for me. Some sequences were incredible, particularly Noah's dreams and visions, the creation story (which rivals Malick's Tree of Life sequence, imo), and the chilling reference to "The Deluge" paintings.

I don't think it's entirely successful, and I find a lot of it to be silly -- especially The Watchers and the stupid Lord of the Rings battle for the ark --, but it was really damn entertaining and the imagery was unforgettable.

[Stewball]

Considering I'm not really a fan of Darren Aronofsky and I don't find the original Noah story all that fascinating, I was really surprised at how affected I was by this movie. The philosophy was as expected, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because I enjoyed the conservationist message, and I thought its sympathy towards the animals was heartfelt, though the general message of "There is wickedness and purity within man and it is up to us to decide which path we want to take" was very on the nose. But I did like the "twist" you're talking about, although it wasn't much of a twist for me because I had already read about it before seeing the movie. But yeah, it turned Noah into a character tormented by being used as an instrument for a vengeful God, and surprisingly, I thought Crowe did a fantastic job with it. It's a good complement to how we mostly view Noah, ie, an affable, warm, family man who smiles his way through the 40 days and 40 nights of downpour until the sun comes out and he begins a new life for humanity.

At the end of the day, though, it's the photography, the locations, and the editing that makes this movie for me. Some sequences were incredible, particularly Noah's dreams and visions, the creation story (which rivals Malick's Tree of Life sequence, imo), and the chilling reference to "The Deluge" paintings.

I don't think it's entirely successful, and I find a lot of it to be silly -- especially The Watchers and the stupid Lord of the Rings battle for the ark --, but it was really damn entertaining and the imagery was unforgettable.

We're in near complete agreement, especially about the Watchers which were the obligatory monster-like creatures as a stand in for the biblical fallen angels. They did serve as an explanation for how Noah could have built such a large structure. But they were specifically excluded from the trailers, and for good reason.

And I meant to say something about the scenery too, most of the interesting stuff was Iceland (I'd thought New Zealand or something).

Did you ignore a spoiler warning when you read about the twist. If not, someone needs to be upside the head with a 2x4. The shock of it was instrumental in the telling. [spoiler]Noah convinced himself to adopt the environmentally extremist "man is a pox on the Earth" position, instead of man being the reason for creation to begin with. That slap in the face coming from Aronofsky was a good part of that bolt out of the blue effect.[/spoiler]

And notice that God or divine revelation wasn't portrayed directly in any way--everything was Noah's interpretation and reaction. I've written off the possibility that Aronofsky was going for exposing the absurdity of the literalist myth by being literal to a fault. But given the worldwide 30,000' deluge, which then just drains away , and the fallen angel-monsters, that seed could still come to fruition...for some.

[Mentaculus]

And notice that God or divine revelation wasn't portrayed directly in any way--everything was Noah's interpretation and reaction. I've written off the possibility that Aronofsky was going for exposing the absurdity of the literalist myth by being literal to a fault.

Haven't seen the movie (yet) --

but this article seems to cover some interesting bases. It has spoilers.

[Stewball]

And notice that God or divine revelation wasn't portrayed directly in any way--everything was Noah's interpretation and reaction. I've written off the possibility that Aronofsky was going for exposing the absurdity of the literalist myth by being literal to a fault.

Haven't seen the movie (yet) --

but this article seems to cover some interesting bases. It has spoilers.

Thanks for that. I definitely think he's got the gist of what Aronofsky's doing. It's an especially good explanation for the Watchers and the snake skin. But the problem surfaces that Aronofsky has subbed one myth for another, and I don't think an atheist would want that to be the negative end all message to be gleaned here, even if it did make fools of the purveyors of religion in the process.

I also like that Mattson emphasized both Tubal-Cain and Noah looking up and saying, “Why won’t you speak to me?” Those are the most revealing lines in the movie, yet Noah has dreams which he assumes are from God instead of his subconscious. But God doesn't confirm his interpretations, leaving him to his error, or near error which he ultimately prevented himself. But Mattson doesn't address Noah's quandry and positive resolution about whether man and his self-awareness makes him the master of the world, or it's scourge--which I feel certain Aronofsky included for an additional set of fools.