There are plenty of reviews of Noah both pro and con (and
some that are both pro and con).
Here are a few worth reading:
http://reknew.org/2014/04/things-i-liked-and-things-that-bugged-me-about-noah (I have a little more creative imagination than Boyd and can adequately reconcile the issues he raises about Ham, but I appreciate his concerns.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/03/28/noah-is-darren-aronofskys-midrash/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/noah-darren-aronofsky-russell-crowe-midrash/Content?oid=13214234
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/noah-darren-aronofsky-russell-crowe-midrash/Content?oid=13214234
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/noah-the-movie_b_5022132.html (Interesting interview with Aronofsky)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/darren-aronofsky-interview-noah.html?paging=off (another interview)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/darren-aronofsky-interview-noah.html?paging=off (another interview)
In light of a "review", I will just give some of my impressions.
To start with, I don’t get the hate. I don’t get the hostile criticism from
Christians over this movie. Aronofsky is presenting a “modern day midrash” based on biblical and
extra biblical sources, that’s all. This is an ambitious and bold movie worthy of the story it told. It was both
pretentious and powerful, especially in its subtleness. It was weird and yet
strangely natural. It beautifully
portrayed the antediluvian world as magical (enchanted is probably the better
word) even in its expanding desolation before the Flood. The characters were
(mostly) memorable and the acting was (mostly) outstanding. Did the movie stray
from the biblical narrative? Sure. Did it embellish the story? Yes, of course.
This is a dramatization. Were there
things about the movie that I would have done differently? Probably. But this
is Aronofsky’s vision, not mine. And I thoroughly enjoyed watching his take on Noah
and the Flood.
After the opening sequence that briefly reminds us why this
story becomes a necessity (according to the bible), we see a young Noah with
his father being confronted by Tubal-Cain. I knew immediately that I was going
to enjoy this movie. Why? Because already Aronofsky was declaring that this was
going to be a story about real human beings living in the context of the real
struggle of human nature and calling. We can so quickly read through the Flood
narrative that we forget the human component. Of course we know that the bible
says that man was wicked and that
“every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” and that
the Lord was “sorry that He had made man on the earth”, etc. But do we take the
time to consider that these people were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters…and
children like us? Do we think of them as struggling with day-to-day living in
an environment that is harsh and unforgiving…and destined for destruction? Do
we identify ourselves and our families with them in their aches and pains? Or
do we read the quotes above and think of them only as monsters that must be
wiped off the face of the earth? Aronofsky forces us to slow down and see this
story through the eyes of real human beings with real human issues—like us. To
that I say, “Thank you, Mr. Aronofsky.”
Some Christians will have a problem with how Aronofsky portrays
Noah’s understanding of God’s call. I don’t. It made Noah’s character
profoundly human. I found it very
appealing and compelling to see Noah struggling with the decision he thought
God was calling him to make. The “righteous” Noah was determined to be faithful
to the end—at all cost. Aronofsky brilliantly brought the story of Noah to life, but it was Russell Crow who brilliantly
brought the man Noah to life.
I especially liked how Crow captured the torment of Noah struggling
with the sense of his own personal depravity. One of my favorite scenes in the
movie was when Noah snuck into the “kingdom” of Tubal-Cain to find a wife for Ham
(creative story-telling, I know) and was confronted with reality of his own
wickedness. I think it was in this moment that he realizes that he and his
family were really no different than the rest of mankind and deserving of the
same fate; and I think it was this awareness of the evil that was still in him
that clouded his understanding of God’s command. This realization goes a long
way in explaining how he could have mistakenly understood God’s call; it also
gives us the clue to the conflict we see not only within Noah’s own psyche but
with him and his family as well, especially Ham.
(This is important. If we read the Noah story without a
sense of the gravity that must have been weighing on Noah’s conscience, then we
are making of it an unbelievable myth with no human connection at all. The Noah
character in the movie makes me think of how incredibly torturous it must have
felt to Abraham to believe that God called him to kill his own son. Abraham
didn’t joyfully and without hesitation take to that task and I can’t imagine
Noah doing so either. Like Abraham, Noah must have had tremendous internal
conflict about the task he believed God called him to undertake.)
Speaking of Ham, I think his character was the most
compelling of all. From the moment we see the young Ham being reprimanded by
his father for pulling up a flower (a key scene) we are witness to the slowly
deteriorating relationship between the two. I loved this storyline. Aronofsky
presents a creative and believable account of the relationship between Ham and
Noah that would eventually lead to Noah’s cursing of Ham’s son. And the
beautiful part, in my mind, is that Ham is a sympathetic character. Even though
we get a glimpse of the mischievousness (rebellious spirit?) of Ham early on,
it is Noah’s determination to obey God (as he understands the command) that exacerbates
Ham’s growing resentment of his father until, finally, there is no hope of
reconciliation. There were times in the movie that we should all be able to
identify with Ham and feel his pain and anguish. I appreciated this very much
because in the biblical account it is so easy for us to condemn Ham and just
dismiss him as a wicked son; we don’t get a chance to see him as a child
growing up in a time and situation that is beyond our imagination. He deserves
to be given an authentic life and Aronofsky’s vision is effective and
satisfying. And Logan Lerman’s performance here may have stolen the show.
Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson also deliver strong
performances as Noah’s wife and “adopted” daughter respectively. They made it
easy to empathize with their characters. At one point during a particularly
emotional confrontation between Naameh (Noah’s wife) and Noah I felt like
slapping Noah’s face for her. Another stand-out performance was Ray Winstone
playing Tubal-Cain. He personified the “wickedness that is in man’s heart” even
as he could cry out to the seemingly silent God to speak to him.
And what about the Flood itself? Like the movie Titanic, you
knew it was coming. And it was…fine. As far as special effects goes, it was
what we should expect from Hollywood: big and explosive. When the waters under
the earth opened up and all hell broke loose, so-to-speak, we are witness to destruction
on a massive scale. But in my mind the power of God was not to be seen in the
awesome destruction of the flood but in the subtle work He was doing in Noah’s
heart. It took a while (all the way to the climactic scene, as to be expected
in good movies), but working mightily through Noah’s family and directly
through Noah’s conscience, God finally broke through to Noah to ensure the
salvation of human kind. This is power worthy of our God!
We didn’t go into this movie with any preconceived notions
of how “biblical” it was going to be. Frankly, we didn’t care. We were just
looking forward to seeing the Noah story brought to life. And we weren’t
disappointed. Whatever and however many liberties Aronofsky took, I don’t think
the “truth” was compromised. I thought everything fit the biblical story quite well, even when it strayed
from the biblical text. And that includes
the more fanciful way the movie identified and incorporated the “Watchers” into
the storyline; at first I was a little annoyed, but as the movie progressed I
saw the value in this.
There was only one moment in the movie where I began to
think that Aronofsky definitely went too far, and that was the scene in which
Ham goes into the kingdom (camp) of Tubal-Cain to seek a wife. That Ham did this as part of the story
was not a problem (even if it may not have been “biblical”). In fact, I’m sure
everyone who saw this movie was rooting for him the same as us. It was Noah’s
action that was the problem. At the moment it happened, what Aronofsky had
Noah do disappointed me. I initially wished he would have had Noah do what I’m
sure everyone in the theater was hoping he would do (and, in fact, what it
appeared Noah was about to do). But after reflecting on the turmoil going on in
Noah’s mind throughout the movie (and acutely in this particular scene), what
he did makes perfect sense even though we didn’t like it at the time. Again, Noah
was human—like us. Even his
“righteousness” was tainted by that fact. So even this scene, as disagreeable
as it initially seemed, works powerfully to bring Noah the man and the story to
life.
“Biblical” (whatever that means) or not, this movie worked
for me. Not only do I think that God is not
upset about this movie (nor, I believe, should Christians be), I believe He can
(and will) use it to bless and bring many to faith. To God be the glory. Amen.
