I should also say, I am an atheist, so the Noah story to me is nothing more than a children's story. I think the heart of this movie, which I attribute to Aronofsky, is intelligent and poignant. It sheds a unique light on God and the Christian faith, it brings to life an incredibly conflicted character.
It does no such thing! First of all, this is NOT the story of Noah. This is the story of a character created by Darren Aronofsky named "Noah". It is based on a biblical character, but clearly not the same character as many elements of the story are not biblical. The fact that Darren Aronofsky, a non-Christian created a character that differs drastically from the biblical Noah means that this work is no way an expression of Christianity, but rather an expression of Darren Aronofsky.
I think this film received so much flak because A) It was marketed terribly, this is an Aronofsky film, not a CBN documentary, it should have been marketed appropriately. B) This film is not for the religious.
RIDICULOUS! The film was marketed as a religious film! Calling the film Noah, and basing it off biblical characters makes it a marketing ploy to target bible readers. If the film was intended to be a purely atheist film, then he shouldn't have called the film Noah, or named the rest of the characters after people from that story. Aronofsky could have told exactly the same story as a pure fantasy film with no connection to the bible story (except in allegorical terms) by simply changing the names of the characters. But he didn't! He wanted it to be a story about the bible characters. HE is the one who made it a "religious" film, and HE is the who who targeted Christianity (really Judaism since is a Jewish story) by doing so. There is no other way the film could have been marketed OTHER than as a religious film based on how it was written. And since it pretty much makes a mockery of the largest demographic of believers (Christians and Jews), it is no surprise that it would have been received badly by that demographic. But the film actually received good reviews and opened to a strong box office. So it wasn't a complete failure and there was a market for it.
God, Noah, and the Christian faith are made out to be psychopathic. It was as if Noah were afflicted with mental illness. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what Aronofsky was trying to say exactly with this story. Any thoughts on this?
You just summed up the specific failures of the film. Despite the fact that many other folks like it, I personally thought the film was terrible for those exact reasons. There was no "hero" character, and thus no point to the story. There is no evidence that God existed at all in the film. He is not seen, heard, or even mentioned or referenced by name. There is a character called "The Creator" which for all we know was merely a figment of Noah's imagination. The only indication we get in the film that this creator might actually exist is the confirmation of the Rock Monsters. So I'm automatically of the perspective that God doesn't actually exist in this film, and that Noah is simply crazy and suffering from a psychotic delusion. Noah was actually the main villain of the film, not Tubal-cain, who was only a secondary villain. In fact, if anything Tubal-cain was the heroic character because as his actions seemed justified to save humanity (though his methods were cold and brutal), as opposed to Noah who seemed intent on ensuring the destruction of humanity. Moreover, Noah's actions in the film made no sense. If he truly believed that all of humanity needed to be destroyed (including his own family), then why would he bother saving them from the flood and the murderous Tubal-cain, by putting them aboard the ark in the first place? All he needed to do was save the animals and let everyone else die. So his actions in the film are not even consistent with his supposed motivation. You asked what Aronofsky was trying to say? He was trying to say that the bible story of Noah (or at least his interpretation of it) is inconsistent, poorly conceived, and ultimately stupid, because that's exactly what he chose to write and film. As you said, he created a bunch of psychopathic characters that a typical audience would not be able to identify with. There was nothing "enjoyable" about the film (perhaps other than cinematography) whether you are atheist or Christian because there was nobody in the film to root for. Thus, it had no point! The only reason to enjoy this film would be either from a technical standpoint, or because you enjoyed the mockery of the religion.
And I don't think anyone can deny there were truly some beautiful sequences, that Creation montage still leaves me with my mouth open.
But scenes of great cinematography, and even a strong leading man (Russell Crowe) cannot save a poorly written, ill-conceived script, with poorly developed characters and major plot holes.
I just feel this film is a truly underrated work of art from a respected filmmaker.
I think you respect the filmmaker, and because of that you are desperately trying to view this film as an "underrated work of art". But the fact that you can't even decipher what the writer/director was trying to accomplish with it proves that it was not. A good film would have actually accomplished that goal.
I'm interested in hearing other thoughts from people who can see this as a work of art and not a Biblical docudrama
The problem is NOBODY sees it that way (not even you), because it IS a Biblical docudrama!
Noah is a 2014 American biblical epic film co-written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, written by Ari Handel, and inspired by the story of Noah's Ark from the Book of Genesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_(2014_film)
You just stated that the film "
sheds a unique light on God and the Christian faith". That means that YOU view it as a biblical docudrama because only that type of work would give you that perspective. The Christian God is based on the bible! So if this was not a biblical docudrama, then it would have no capacity to shed any light on the Christian God.
But even putting all of that aside, looking at the film as a pure fantasy, with no ties to the bible or Christianity at all, it still fails for the reasons I previously mentioned. There are no sympathetic characters in the film other than the victims. It's a dark depressing, hopeless film driven by psychopathic characters. Lord of the Rings had Sauron, Sarumon, Wraiths, orcs, and dragons. But it also had Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, and many other heroic characters that give the audience characters they can root for. And they serve to provide a sense of hope in a story with numerous dismal elements in it. Noah has no such thing going for it, so it doesn't even work as a good fantasy film.
At least in Ridley Scott's Exodus God's and Kings, the Moses character portrayed by Christian Bale is at least someone the audience can partially connect with, despite also being a character that wasn't fully developed. While also being portrayed as a "mentally disturbed" character suffering delusions of God in an otherwise Godless film written by an atheist, he at least is portrayed as a heroic, sympathetic character who has the ability to reason with the "evil" God character (who is really just his own imagination). He also has the ability to reason with the main villain of the film (Ramesses), which means he's a reasonable and heroic character that the audience can identify with. That film still failed because it was presented as a biblical docudrama that mocks religion. But at least it had some interesting aspects to it, such as retelling the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt as a literal account but from the perspective of an atheist, with no supernatural elements.
I believe in truth and justice, in the American way!
reply
share