New film : Noah

[alecforbes]

Oh and thank you for your earlier directing me to Peter Enns blog alecforbes in an earlier post on another thread, I am very much enjoying it

Glad you’re enjoying it, Nightrevan! His approach to scripture has helped me tremendously and his blog is informative and entertaining (I think). He’s got a good sense of humor, it seems.

[Kate]

Though I am very biased given where the film comes from, I think if you are looking for a good film on Jesus I think the Son of Man film very much worth a look, though much of it is in Xhorsa there are subtitles, anyway here is a link:

How cool, Grant! It’s so interesting to see how the story of Christ can make sense within any time and place in political or cultural history. Call me a hippy or something, but I think the ability to touch so many people so uniquely speaks to the Gospel’s divinity. Plus, I do not mind listening to a film in Xhorsa at all-- I think languages are best appreciated for their quality when I can’t understand them.

[Alex_Smith]

Interestingly I’m told it shows demons being redeemed because nothing is irredeemable…

Seems to be generating a lot of heated debate! e.g. According Brian the movie is based on Kabbalah (mystical Jewish stuff, a bit like Gnosticism), which explains why it’s confusing in parts patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2 … -fast.html , and then Brian responds saying he’s still right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0d9g3Ydsew

At very least it’s thought provoking & creating interest in the story/themes of Noah!

[Username1]

I thought it might be a belated April Fool joke, but apparently it’s true, Russell Crowe has met with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to “discuss faith and spirituality” as tweeted by Lambeth Palace.

Apparently, Matt, Justin Welby told RC he was brilliant in Gladiator, but A Beautiful Mind was a stinker.

Cheers

Johnny

[Sherman]

Well, I saw the movie. It is absolutely the most Unbiblical Biblical movie I’ve ever seen or could imagine. It’s much more than just taking literary liscense to flesh out a very very short, skeletal story in scripture, it changes many of the few elements, twisting and breaking the bones of the story. The first thing noteworthy is the first text of the movie which says something like, “In the beginning there was nothing.” And then it presents a pictoral slide of evolution, with angels falling from heaven rebelling against God because they wanted to help man and then becoming encased in rock becoming rock monsters who later help Noah build the ark. And the crazyness just goes on and on. Noah ultimately becomes convinced that the plan was to save the animals, the “innocent”, and destroy all of humanity including himself and his family, leading to him almost killing his granddaughters. It was the strangest movie I’ve ever seen. It even seems to me that “god” was presented as being the snake in Eden though that was unclear in the movie. It was just a weird movie one I wouldn’t encourage anyone to waste money to see. Maybe watch it on dvd, but anything more is a waste of money. And it’s too rediculous to be upset over!

[Matt_Wiley]

You know, the more and more I read about this movie, the more I think I’d probably like it, even if a lot of folks hate it

[Matt_Wiley]

This is a really good article about Noah that peeks my interest in the film even more:

finkorswim.com/2014/03/31/movie- … retelling/

Movie Review | Noah: A Very Jewish Retelling

I was asked to do a review of Noah for Haaretz so I took some time to see the movie today. My full review will be posted there, but there are a couple of things I want to say about the movie that are more appropriate for my blog.

In general, I’m not much of a Bible movie guy. But I was excited for Noah because I think it’s a story that is rich with complex questions that leave a ton of room for exploring old and new ideas. In this respect, Noah excelled. It did explore old and new ideas. Some of it was odd and very far afield, but it all makes sense in the context of the story.

That’s why I say Noah is a very Jewish movie. As far as I know, Christians have pretty monolithic views of the Old Testament. It’s just not as important as the New Testament to them and perhaps that is why there is less creativity and homiletics in Christianity. Also, Christianity is not a text based religion so there are fewer scholars and fewer opportunities to analyze text. Further, when studying religious trends, one scholar refers to “Biblical Literalism” as a marker of devotion to Christianity. Even the most fervent Orthodox Jews are not Biblical Literalists. Orthodox Jews treat the Old Testament as the basis for a sophisticated oral tradition. We are absolutely not Biblical Literalists. There are certainly boundaries of acceptable allegory and well established interpretations that are preferred over others. But it’s not true literalism.

For Jews, Midrash has such a prominent place in Torah study. There are many kinds of Midrash, and one form of Midrash adds details and background to the Biblical narratives. It’s common for great Torah scholars to learn a new approach or twist on a Biblical story found in a Midrash. Our versions of these stories encompass competing and contradictory views. Even today, long after the closing of the Midrash texts, many great rabbis, especially in Chasidic circles, will derive new lessons and find new twists in the story to teach an important idea.Noah-2014-Movie-Image-2

In that sense, Noah takes the Jewish approach. The movie strays very far from the text. In the Bible, the story of the flood is long on construction details and specific dates but short on lessons and drama. The movie contrives much of its drama, but it’s not completely Hollywood imagination. Many of the superimposed conflicts and stories have roots in Torah and Jewish tradition. Whether it’s borrowing from the Book of Enoch or adapting from actual Midrashic teachings, much of the movie, with one giant exception, felt familiar enough to me.

Perhaps the most vocal and most common criticism I’ve seen from conservatives has been their objection to the ecological overtones of the movie. Aside from my personal opinion that worrying about this kind of not subliminal, subliminal message in a movie is silly, the truth is that our tradition supports this idea.

One Midrash teaches us that until Noah saved the animals in his ark, Man was prohibited from eating meat. Adam was a vegetarian. The animal world was protected and Man had no right to kill for his lunch. Only because Noah was responsible for the survival of the animals was he permitted to eat meat after the flood. Another tradition says that we couldn’t eat meat for our personal pleasure until we entered the Land of Canaan in the time of Joshua. According to one stream of Jewish thought, even then, eating meat is not ideal. Rav Kook famously held that vegetarianism was part of the Utopian Messianic era. This is not hippy drippy Hollywood. This is Judaism.

Similarly, in our tradition Noah was named for his farming innovations. One Midrash says that Noah invented the plow. It’s not a disconcerting invasion of foreign modernity to see Noah as a symbol of agrarian life. Another Midrash teaches us that Noah was super sensitive to the needs of the animals in the ark. He was a sort of proto-animal rights activist. That’s not the liberal movie industry, that’s Torah.

Throughout the movie there is a magical light source called zohar. It can be mined like a precious stone and could provide light and fire if used the right way. I thought this was a clever adaptation of the Midrash that explains the “tzohar” that Noah placed in the ark for light. One opinion in the Midrash is that the tzohar was a precious stone that provided light. It seems obvious to me that this is the source for zohar in Noah. The movie simply turned tzohar into zohar (which means radiance) and assumed that these stones were available to everyone.

Here are some other adaptations from Midrash that occurred to me during the movie. Don’t worry, I won’t reveal how these examples are used in the movie. There is a Midrash that says that the animals came to the ark on their own. One Midrash teaches that people began to attack the ark as the rains began and the wild animals surrounded the ark to protect Noah and his family. Some rabbis teach that Noah had little faith and did not enter the ark until the water rose above his ankles. We have a tradition that Og was a kind of stowaway on the ark. There are more examples, but you get the picture. To someone familiar with Midrash, embellishments like these are expected and accepted. To Biblical Literalists, they might be offensive.

I also loved the portrayal of Noah as a conflicted hero. He is so easy to love and admire for much of the movie. Later in the movie he becomes an anti-hero. You’re rooting against him. To me, this was a modern take on the famous dispute between the rabbis about whether Noah was only righteous compared to the sinners of his time or if he was truly righteous despite his evil milieu. Before everyone is killed in the flood, Noah is objectively good. He is good compared to the people of his time. But when it’s just him and his family, there are no more evil people to compare with Noah, he falls and seems less righteous.

Noah is a pretty good movie. For people accustomed to learning lessons and studying rabbinic teachings that add to the Biblical text, the movie should not offend. But I do see why Biblical Literalists are so disturbed. I just don’t understand their expectations. At worst, they could view the movie about a fictional Noah the way they might view Neo from the Matrix as a fictional version of Jesus.

I thought it was really cool to see a modern retelling of the Noah story. Of course there is a ton of stuff that is decidedly not Torah or Judaism. But that didn’t bother me. I didn’t see the movie to learn the story of Noah. It’s a movie that tells the story of Noah in a new way but borrows heavily from text and tradition. Its purpose was to entertain, but it also has the side benefit of promoting discussion and debate about Torah. That’s a good thing too.

• See more at: finkorswim.com/2014/03/31/movie- … vV670.dpuf

[alecforbes]

I think I’m going to have to see Noah as well at some point, Matt. To be honest, though, I think I’m going to see Wes Anderson’s *The Grand Budapest Hotel *this weekend. I love Wes Anderson’s films (and, yes, I’m a bit weird—Bottle Rocket is a classic in my opinion).

[Alex_Smith]

The most helpful review I’ve come across is creekroad.org.au/13-things-t … bout-noah/

[anon47460357]

I paid to see Noah twice. I can’t remember the last time I did that. I found the movie intriguing, thought-provoking, and edifying. It’s one of those movies that gets better the more you mull it over. I noticed things the second time I saw it that I missed the first time. The film is thoughtful and many-layered. One can tell that Aronofsky reached deep within himself to make this movie. It is not shallow, blockbuster schlock. I hesitate to go into too many details here, lest I spoil the movie for any one.

I re-read the Noah narrative in Genesis after seeing the film, and I did not notice even a single thing in the movie that contradicts the scriptural text. Certainly, a great deal has been added, but nothing contradicted. (This of course was necessary. If nothing had been added, then none of the characters could have had any lines, and few besides Noah could even have a name.) Even more so, the movie gives unusual interpretations at times, but again these are not contradictions of the text. Instead, they are contradictions only of the usual assumptions made in re-tellings of the Noah story in children’s books. For example, consider the movie’s hyper-literal interpretation of the text “There were giants IN THE EARTH in those days.” Not merely living on the earth, but literally “in the earth”.

A tripping point for many seems to be Noah’s actions on board the ark after the Flood has wiped-out sinful humanity. Please note: God gave visions to Noah twice and only twice in the movie, and both merely told him to build an ark for his family and for the animals. Neither vision implied human extinction. That was Noah’s (and only Noah’s) idea. The scene of Noah on his knees in the rain demanding an answer from the silent heavens parallels the scene with the wicked Tubal-cain in the rain demanding an answer from the silent heavens. Noah’s sinful intentions and mistaken notions were NOT revelations from God. They result from Noah taking his eyes off of God and focusing instead on human sinfulness.

The movie was a beautiful story of redemption and forgiveness (even for fallen angels). Aronofsky’s deft handling of wives for Ham and Japheth is sublime. Indeed, God provides all that is needed.

[Matt_Wiley]

Thanks for your thoughts, Geoffrey

Yeah, I’m thinking I’ll probably see it eventually, when it comes out on DVD. I’ve enjoyed (well, enjoyed may not be the right word, as Aronofsky’s movies tend to be pretty raw and intense) a couple of Aronofsky’s other movies, like Pi (Pi was a little weird I admit, but it was well done), Requiem For A Dream, and The Wrestler, and I’m also planning on checking out his movie The Fountain at some point, which I never got around to seeing and would like to see (Black Swan doesn’t really look like my kind of thing, but I may check it out at some point).

People have different tastes in movies just like they have different tastes in food.

Someone may watch Noah and see genius, another may watch it and see crap. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, as it were.

You’ve got people who really loathe Citizen Kane (which I’ve actually seen… technically well-made, but kind of boring… ‘rosebud’ ), which most film scholars say is the greatest film ever made, then you got people who really love Plan 9 From Outer Space (which I’ve also seen… terrible, but hilarious ), which most film scholars will say is the worst movie ever made.

It’s all a matter of perspective.

And, thinking about my own tastes as far as movies go, I’ll probably like Noah, I imagine, even if a lot of folks would like it to go crawl into a corner somewhere and die.

[anon47460357]

And thank you for posting the “Noah: A Very Jewish Retelling” review. After reading that, I managed to find this wealth of Jewish reflections on the movie:

patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2 … -noah.html

In a nutshell, Aronofsky and Handel read everything there is to read about Noah (diving deep especially into Midrash), and they were explicit in making sure that their movie did not contradict the biblical text.

[Chrisguy90]

I just saw this movie and loved it. Right on with everything you said Geoffrey. The movie, I believe, is about Noah’s inner journey to understand the will of God, to side with his “just” interpretation or his “loving” and “merciful” one. It also really hits on themes of personal freedom and the irrevocable impact choices have on God’s creation.

2 thumbs up!