Why is there zero diversity in this film? - Noah (2014) Discussion

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

This area where the story takes place is one of the most ethnically diverse in the world.

Not thousands of years in the past.

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] Aniki21 9 years ago

Indeed. Thousands of years ago the area was primarily filled with Anglo European types so it was fairly accurate in that regard.....

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

the area was primarily filled with Anglo European types

Certainly with their ancestors.

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] Aniki21 9 years ago

Indeed. Those people definitely looked a lot like Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

Those people definitely looked a lot like Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly

As you were not there, you can't know. Meanwhile, this film is a fantasy. It sports fallen angels encased in rock as well as a worldwide flood. Applying hard science to it of any sort is...well, a bit silly. You may as well carp at The Wind in the Willows because everyone knows frogs can't drive cars.

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] Aniki21 9 years ago

I think it's safe to assume they resembled Anglo Europeans like the actors who portrayed them. I can't see why European Christian artists would depict them that way for centuries otherwise. Makes sense. I did think the rock monsters were just a tad historically inaccurate though.

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

I did think the rock monsters were just a tad historically inaccurate though.

It's a fantasy. There is no "history."

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

the rock monsters were just a tad historically inaccurate

Erm...say what? 

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] hamedkdl 9 years ago

Personally, I would not consider concerns about racial issues about this film, nothing more than a hilarious joke. According to the story, it is about seven generations from the first men, Adam and Eve. So, how exactly these people expect ethnic diversity in this film?

Do they expect, for example, that Noah to be white and Shem to be black and when they go to see Methuselah, we see an east asian man?

reply

[–] fountainandlaurel 9 years ago

@hamed. If you could believe that EVERY character was 100% white, then it wouldn't be such a stretch to believe that they are of different races. Do you actually think that the world started out 100% white?

reply

[–] hamedkdl 9 years ago

Sorry, but I did not get your point. If we accept that Adam and Eve were the first men (which I consider it to be just a story, as well as Noah's), and if we accept that the children of a couple would look more or less like their parents, then I think it's natural to conclude that after only seven generations, all men would be more or less of the same color, be it all white or all black or etc.

reply

[–] hafeez112233-1 9 years ago

all men would be more or less of the same color, be it all white or all black or etc

Yes, and I think most anthropological genetics would certainly indicate black.

White skin is most likely a mutation exacerbated by excessive inbreeding...

“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 9 years ago

more to do with environment than inbreeding, read a fxcking book brah.

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

Do you actually think that the world started out 100% white?

It started out 100% something. Only two "first people," at least according to the mythology.

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] aaahmemories 9 years ago

Do you actually think that the world started out 100% white?

According to biblical beliefs, it definitely started out with a single "race." Why shouldn't that have been "white?" And why are you so obsessed about race? You do realize that, now we understand the human genome so much more precisely, that "race" is all but meaningless...except to the ignorant and uneducated.

Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

[–] krspas2 9 years ago

Does EVERY movie have to have a certain number of Black, Hispanic and Asian as well as Caucasian actors. How about "A.D., The Bible Continues" that had Mary Magdelene as Black and 3 of the disciples also Black when they were all Jews and there were nearly zero Sub-Saharan Africans in the Middle East in the 1st Century A.D.

reply

[–] hafeez112233-1 9 years ago

Does EVERY movie have to have a certain number of Black, Hispanic and Asian as well as Caucasian actors...

Sorry, but your question implies an implicit racism.

Genetically there is no such thing as race and we have known this for quite a while. There is NO black race, hispanic race, etc., just as there is no race of tall people, or short people, or green-eyed people, etc...

That you would pick out certain features of appearance...such as "blackness"...when insisting on "historical" accuracy, but leave out others...say an average height of 4 1/2 feet...is very indicative of wherein lies your bias...

“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”

reply

[–] K_Sear 9 years ago

Social scientists have been pushing this idea of "no biological basis for race" for so long that it has entered the common knowledge base. It is however untrue. I presume that the "known this for quite awhile" is based on Lewontin's fallacy. The precept that acknowledging race somehow validates racism, which you attempt to use in your point, is logically flawed. Recognizing race is no different than recognizing height and is therefore not a problem, discriminating on the basis of race or height is.

reply

[–] hafeez112233-1 9 years ago

I presume that the "known this for quite awhile" is based on Lewontin's fallacy.

You state that this is a fallacy, like that itself is a "known" fact, sort of like a classic logical paradox.

Rather it is the assertion and part of the title of a paper A.W.F. Edwards, and is supported by only a few of his colleagues.

Richard Lewontin's findings have been confirmed many times over and the invalidity of racial classifications supported by almost every scientist dealing with the matter, from geneticists and evolutionary biologists, to anthropologists and sociologists.

It is sort of like evolution or climate change, not seriously disputed by anyone with a few living brain cells.

Though some scientists do agree that some taxonomic distinctions may be made (or more controversially even be at times useful) they all almost universally agree that "race" is almost entirely a social construct consisting of superficial characteristics which are insignificant to the totality of our genetic makeup.

The problem with making such "racial" distinctions is also greatly exacerbated by those characteristics which are commonly used to make such classifications.

No one ever speaks of the race of tall people.

Yet the most commonly "known" race is that of "black" people.

So here is an interesting bit of information:

The greatest genetic distance between two continents is between Africa and Oceania, at 0.2470. Based on physical appearance this is counterintuitive, since indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans (with dark skin and curly hair).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

Recognizing race is no different than recognizing height...

Then why even mention it? What is the purpose in such "recognition"?

The precept that acknowledging race somehow validates racism, which you attempt to use in your point, is logically flawed.

Nope, it is actually your argument here that is logically flawed. I am not saying that if you believe in race then you are a racist but rather that you cannot have racism without the belief in race.

It is a necessary, rather than sufficient condition.

Just look at the character of Noah.

No one complained that Charlton Heston was too tall or too white, but should someone like Eddie Murphy (who might actually be a lot closer to a realistic appearance) attempt the role...well, you know the uproar that would cause.

Isn't that the sort of discrimination which you allegedly deplore...?

“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”

reply

[–] kastellos 9 years ago

For the most part the Old Testament is an allegory of the earliest Hebrew people; there is little connection to fact. The Hebrews are a Semetic people; they are not diverse.

reply

[–] hafeez112233-1 9 years ago

For the most part the Old Testament is an allegory of the earliest Hebrew people; there is little connection to fact. The Hebrews are a Semetic people; they are not diverse.

One rarely hears complaints about non-diversity, but rather some notion of authenticity.

Of course they don't care if the actors in such "historical" roles are too tall, or too healthy, or if their hair is the wrong color, or any of a host of other facets of appearance.

Do you really think Moses looked like Charlton Heston?

But throw in a few black faces...

As Megyn Kelley says, Santa Claus is white, he just is...

“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”

reply

[–] armoredtanker 9 years ago

OH THAT'S RIGHT YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME BLACKS IN THIS FILM! NO. NO BLACKS AROUND AT THAT TIME IN THE BIBLE. THEY WEREN'T CURSED YET!
TOO MANY BLACKS IN GREEK MYTH FILMS RUIN THEM! AND IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE FILMS, FINALLY ONE THAT IS PURE!

reply

[–] george-papadimitriou 9 years ago

question is what happened next, since only Jews survived the global cataclysm, why do we have European stock today, set aside the other stocks?

reply

[–] RbDeraj 9 years ago

Who cares. Its not like they were even attempting to be historically accurate, it was made into more of a fantasy. There was nothing to really ground it to the past at all.

reply

[–] hafeez112233-1 9 years ago

Its not like they were even attempting to be historically accurate,..

Which actually makes it very true (in spirit) to its source(s), which also made no real attempt at any historical accuracy.

“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (61828498) 9 years ago

They didn't have blacks back then, they were all white

reply

[–] lansdownehouse 9 years ago

According to the fairy story, there's just a few handfuls of people on earth. Far too few to have developed ethnic divisions.

What makes you think it would be a better movie to make all the evil/bad characters coloured anyway like they usually do? What colour would you prefer? Green? Purple? Blue?

Would you like a few blind folks, cripples, trannies, hermaphrodites? Maybe make them all Muzzies rather than Jews, or maybe Mormons?

reply