Noah (Darren Aronofsky, 2014)

[knives]

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even know the rainbow bit or the sacrifice to god to be honest.

[Movie-Brat]

Honesty, I'm happy Aronofosky is getting his vision across. All the more for me to see it.

[JamesF]

This struck me very much as Aronofsky's follow-up to The Fountain, right down to Clint Mansell quoting bits of his score from that film and the end credits (or at least the start of them) being similar. I liked it - Aronofsky's incapable of making a dull film - though it's undermined by its somewhat incongruous starriness (the beautiful cast are often at odds with the grittiness being reached for otherwise), and the script often becomes hokey and perfunctory in a way that The Fountain's complex structure did much to dispel. Still, the Creation/violence of man montages are stunning, and I wouldn't necessarily mind if Aronofsky went for a big metaphysical blow-out every third film he makes!

[dad1153]

The most telling scene/moment in "Noah" for me comes at the very end of the movie after the credits roll, when the standard 'This story and characters are fictitious' disclaimer appears. THANK YOU! ;) Aranofsky manages, though his (and Ari Handel's) vision and the usual art-vs-commerce Hollywood compromises, to thread a fine needle between reverence and subtle-but-unmistakable upending of the story/characters being told/shown to deliver the type of rousing blockbuster entertainment devout Christians or snot-nosed Atheists (and every denomination in between) can each enjoy in their own terms. Take the show-stopping creationist montage in the middle of "Noah." Your eyes, brain and everything about this section clearly implies it took billions upon billions of years for Earth to form up to the biblical timeline, but Russell Crowe's narration sticking with the 'God created everything in 7 days' talking point lets the faithful hold on to their beliefs. And turning the movie's title character into basically humanity's first religious zealot? Wow, talk about Aranofsky confronting the religious folks watching "Noah" with an image of themselves they're not used to seeing from the old sword & sandal epics.

The weak parts of "Noah" (Jennifer Connolly's not aging a day in the span of several decades, the "Transformers"-inspired deux ex machina Watchers, the animals being non-factors besides their arrival, Anthony Hopkins and Ray Winstone collecting checks for phoned-in performances, etc.) are smoothly papered-over by the sheer spectacle of action/disaster movie moments, held together by Crowe not afraid to challenge the audience with a lead character that deliberately aims to lose their sympathy through a good deal of the movie by making Noah an unlikable bastard. It's little moments and sub-plot filler between the story's bullet points though (like the Noah son desperate to get a woman so that he won't be alone later in life) where "Noah" colors and fills the picture with enough new fiction to make the tried-and-true (tested?) old school fiction feel rousing, deep and supremely entertaining. While sacrificing the personality and uniqueness that characterizes each of his films, there's enough of Aranofsky present in "Noah's" DNA to make this an entertaining and at-times thoughtful flick.

[knives]

What was upended? The telling seemed fairly straightforward to me with Noah being a 'failed' prophet.

[dad1153]

From my memory of reading the good ol' book back when I was Catholic, Noah doesn't become a fallen profit until after he drinks the wine and becomes a drunk. The upending of the main bible story comes from

SpoilerShow

the stuff about Noah wanting to kill Ila's kids as soon as they're born, the whole Tubal-cain subplot of him being a stowaway on the arc with Ham's assistance, the Ham wanting to a wife and his eventual departure from the family for not fitting, the sleeping animals thingie, the whole Watchers thing, Methuselah's berry quest and ability to restore Ila's fertility, etc.

Nothing major ("Alice in Wonderland" and "Snow White and the Huntsman" also had to shoehorn-in battles to cater to the blockbuster crowd) but a little more edgy (again, the creationist montage in the middle). You know, little things here and there as well as the overall approach Aranofsky brings to the material that it can be seen as both a mostly-straightforward biblical epic and a subversive-by-proxy mentality (i.e. never uttering the word 'God').

[colinr0380]

The thing that I'm most curious about is how this will compare to The Fountain, which used creation myths from other cultures beautifully, as that whole film is about much more down to Earth 'creation myths' of writing fiction too (with Weisz's author character in the present (kind of a mythological Hilary Mantel!) given much more weight as the fulcrum of the more fantastical period and future scenes). I doubt Noah is going to get that ambitiously complex but I'm glad to hear that there seems to be an approach that it is a kind of myth too, rather than a straightforward 'documented fact' approach!

[dad1153]

I think "The Fountain" and "Noah" are of a piece, but the compromises (self-imposed and imposed on Aranofsky by the studio and source material) to get the latter into the shape of a commercially viable Hollywood product (basically a disaster movie with some "LOTR"-esque battles and third-act manufactured tension) automatically means it's the least personal of Aranofsky's movies to date. Still, considering the budget, the need to thread the needle in not pissing off the sizable audience of faithful religious observers and who Paramount hired to do this movie this is easily the better of the new wave of religious-themed movies sweeping the indie/small studio market this year, primarily in the handful of scenes/moments Aranofsky's allowed to run a little wild.

[knives]

From my memory of reading the good ol' book back when I was Catholic, Noah doesn't become a fallen profit until after he drinks the wine and becomes a drunk. The upending of the main bible story comes from

SpoilerShow

the stuff about Noah wanting to kill Ila's kids as soon as they're born, the whole Tubal-cain subplot of him being a stowaway on the arc with Ham's assistance, the Ham wanting to a wife and his eventual departure from the family for not fitting, the sleeping animals thingie, the whole Watchers thing, Methuselah's berry quest and ability to restore Ila's fertility, etc.

Nothing major ("Alice in Wonderland" and "Snow White and the Huntsman" also had to shoehorn-in battles to cater to the blockbuster crowd) but a little more edgy (again, the creationist montage in the middle). You know, little things here and there as well as the overall approach Aranofsky brings to the material that it can be seen as both a mostly-straightforward biblical epic and a subversive-by-proxy mentality (i.e. never uttering the word 'God').

I have no clue about the Catholics, but for Jews (which Aronofsky is) he becomes a selfish prick the second he starts building his ark as a boat. This doesn't translate into english at all, but the flood is supposed to be a metaphor for spirituality, but Noah just let it be literal. The stuff you listed as spoilers is technically in the Hebrew with the exception of the Tubal-Cain thing which I think came from the Curtiz film and Methuselah living that long (supposedly he died a week before the flood). Even the not saying god thing makes sense in a Jewish context. I am so embarrassed for this post. Also I don't get how the montage is creationist since it basically follows the scientific theory perfectly until it gets to the glowing yellow people.

[dad1153]

^^^ Don't you agree that the people that go out of their way to be poe'd at "Noah" wouldn't have been pleased with it regardless of who directed or what the movie was like? If 'God' had been used they'd be bitching of Hollywood using the Lord's name in vain and for profit, but because it wasn't used they're mad about whitewashing the maker of the flood from his own story.

The universal flood myth has many versions from different sources. You know the Jewish version, I remember the Catholic one. I know there are Native American and South American versions of the same story as well as the Mesopotamian one with Utnapishtim (the dude Gilgamesh meets later in life). Ultimately "Noah" needs to stick to the well-known story to add his own and deliver an A-to-Z movie, but depending on how open-minded one is to interpretation Aranofsky (like the opening of Donner's "Superman: The Movie") is just delivering the latest in a long line of stories retelling the original one passed down from generations ago.

[knives]

Well yeah, people who go to be angry at something will be, but why should I care about those people in the context of this one movie? Don't forget the Furies in that list by the way. Maybe not as fun as Gilgamesh, but still pretty cool. Though I still don't know what all of your second paragraph has to do with Aronofsky's Noah.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Well, I was really looking forward to Noah - not only am I a HUGE Darren Aronofsky fan since IMHO all of his previous films have been truly brilliant, but I'm also a big Russell Crowe fan. So, I had high hopes for this film.

Finally saw this on Blu a while back, and IMHO the film was a big P.O.S. - though, I did force myself to watch all of it even though I hated the movie, since I don't like commenting on a film unless I've seen it in it's entirety. So, I can honestly say this had: A boring storyline, poor acting, and sub-par effects (all of the CGI on the creatures was extremely obvious). IMHO this was a big blockbuster movie without a soul/heart, and wasn't even close to being edgy or interesting - like I was expecting.

Going along with this, I really felt that Aronofsky sold out in making this film.....It's almost unbelievable that this was made by the same person that directed the sublime masterpieces Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, Black Swan, & The Wrestler....

[domino harvey]

5 pages of discussion before the movie comes out, two or three posts once it’s out... what is this, a Criterion release? I thought this was a depressing, feel-bad mess with no conceivable audience. Those wondering upthread whether Russell Crowe’s titular character comes off as an asshole can rest assured he does and that makes sitting through this painful— there’s a moment where he refuses to rescue an innocent girl his son has fallen for because everyone but his kin deserve to die that effectively checked me out for the rest, and that was well before the movie turned into L'innocente. But yeah, the fake time lapse CGI sequences were cool at least 🕊

[therewillbeblus]

I'm glad to hear we agree here. I saw this in theatres upon its release and was gobsmacked by the modest praise from critics and many audiences. It was one of the most painful experiences I've had sitting through a movie in the theatre, because aside from the self-serious approach to the material, the film was just all-around dull, with no Aronofky risks taken (I feel mixed on the man's work, but at least he can't usually be accused of playing it safe). I'd put it on a list of worst-of-the-decade, not that I have any interest in making one.

[DarkImbecile]

It's been too long since I've seen it to really back up this halfhearted partial defense, but I remember thinking that the attempts to make it more broadly appealing (cartoonish villain, rock monster battles, etc.) muddled and detracted from what was interesting about it to me as an atheist not overly familiar with the details of even the more famous pieces of biblical mythology like this: Russell Crowe's Noah is a deranged fanatic, willing to kill even his family members and wipe out humanity to adhere to the vision of God's will he gleans from his nightmarish visions. That's a long-way removed from the popularized version of this story many have internalized, and I thought that was a story worth telling if it could have been done with Aronofsky's typical intensity; unfortunately, that style gets so watered down (I assume as a means of securing a nine-figure budget) that the film ends up as a fascinating miss — that's at least less boring than other, more palatable versions of this I could imagine.

[Brian C]

I felt like the movie's biggest problem is the notion that Noah is a deranged fanatic, which Aronofsky and Crowe aren't able to make sufficiently in my view. After all, if everyone thought I was nuts for building a giant boat because God said a flood was coming, and then the flood came, I'd feel pretty well vindicated, and also sufficiently terrified of God that I'd be unwilling to push my luck. But, the movie pretty clearly wants to communicate the notion that Noah was a deranged zealot who just took things too far.

So we end up in a weird position where we have to side with Noah before the flood and then disassociate from him afterwards, but I don't feel like that makes a whole lot of sense, either on simple story grounds or greater moral grounds. You'd have to say, "sure, God just wiped out the entirety of humanity because of their inveterate wickedness except for one family, but it's just beyond the pale to think this girl is meant to die also." But that's just silly in context. Why on earth wouldn't Noah think she needed to die, considering how events had unfolded to that point?

I guess my point is, it's easy to think that someone is deranged, up until the point where all the crazy apocalyptic stuff they predicted came true. After that point, perhaps the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt. It just seemed like a very awkward imposition of a very modern sensibility on a story that can't handle it.

It would be different maybe if Aronofsky didn't take the flood itself so much for granted.

[knives]

I felt like the movie's biggest problem is the notion that Noah is a deranged fanatic, which Aronofsky and Crowe aren't able to make sufficiently in my view. After all, if everyone thought I was nuts for building a giant boat because God said a flood was coming, and then the flood came, I'd feel pretty well vindicated, and also sufficiently terrified of God that I'd be unwilling to push my luck. But, the movie pretty clearly wants to communicate the notion that Noah was a deranged zealot who just took things too far.

So we end up in a weird position where we have to side with Noah before the flood and then disassociate from him afterwards, but I don't feel like that makes a whole lot of sense, either on simple story grounds or greater moral grounds. You'd have to say, "sure, God just wiped out the entirety of humanity because of their inveterate wickedness except for one family, but it's just beyond the pale to think this girl is meant to die also." But that's just silly in context. Why on earth wouldn't Noah think she needed to die, considering how events had unfolded to that point?

I guess my point is, it's easy to think that someone is deranged, up until the point where all the crazy apocalyptic stuff they predicted came true. After that point, perhaps the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt. It just seemed like a very awkward imposition of a very modern sensibility on a story that can't handle it.

It would be different maybe if Aronofsky didn't take the flood itself so much for granted.

That's kind of the traditional Jewish take on the material (though we are to sympathize with him initially his lack of empathy makes him a villain in some respects. In fact a lot of things people have problems with, e.g. the rock monsters and Tubal Cain, seem to be a case of Aronofsky just setting his pet themes to what he learned as a kid. Not a defense of how he did it (though it's a perfect film in my opinion), but context for that how to highlight how it is not a modern imposition.

[The Pachyderminator]

So I guess I'm the only person here (along with knives, maybe) who really loves this film?

Paradoxically perhaps, this is a case where more connection to the segment of the Christian blogosphere that hates the film might help one appreciate it. The Talmud actually wrestles with the implications of a story where God wipes out most of the population of the earth while the "righteous man" Noah placidly watches it happen, but the true believers who sustain the faith-based film industry are frankly not accustomed to doing so. If this film doesn't shock and awe you, you're fortunate enough not to have been immersed in the way the latter feel the Bible should be approached, but you truly don't know what an audacious artistic feat it is simply to take a Bible story as seriously as this.

This film, fundamentally, is about the utter pervasiveness of sin, the depravity of the overpowering human desires for dominance and power, seen in the recurring image of Cain striking Abel, always in silhouette against a purple sky, Walkabout-like. Noah himself is seen this way only once, after his first dream, the one that foretells death by water, with the silhouette of his wife on the opposite end of the screen. It's the most anonymous way of photographing Russel Crowe - it's nothing other than Man and Woman, at their most abstract, contemplating the world. Always, we see the serpent shedding its brightly colored skin to reveal a black one underneath, then the hand of one of our first parents grasping the fruit on the tree (not the person, only the grasping hand), then the first act of violence. In a brief sequence of well-chosen images, we have the glory of God, the beauty of creation as it was, then the greed and acquisitiveness of sin and everything that follows from it. We see this over and over. The opening scene between young Noah and his father Lamech establishes the skin that the snake shed as the remains of something that was lost, a hoarded spark of divine light.

It's very common, among people who read the Book of Genesis these days, to read it selectively: "Fill the earth and subdue it" stands out more strongly than "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." It's easy to remember the license to dominate the earth while forgetting the warnings about human perversity and the teaching that all of creation, with or without humanity in it, is good. A man like Noah can see, even in a blasted and despoiled earth, that the spark of the Creator's light is visible in every growing plant and every animal and all of them deserve respect. This, the suggestion that man is not the measure of all things, that God's creative power is greater than human strength, while in keeping with the Bible, is enough to be offensive to be offensive to many of the devout souls who struggled with this film, who more easily identify with Tubal-Cain than any other character.

What's harder for a man of Noah's caliber to accept is that the human heart has love in it as well as greed, as much good as evil. The Bible says (Gen 6:9) that Noah was righteous in his time. He could see the ugly truth about human nature, but he failed as all of his contemporaries did to look beyond that to the deeper truth. The Creator, as far as Noah can see, gave him the mandate to destroy humanity. He was defeated by a pair of newborn babies and failed to do so. That is a sign of weakness. The Creator's will is not fulfilled, all because of Noah's weakness.

It's quite understandable that Noah turns to drink at this point, but we should notice the image of his hand grasping the bunch of grapes from the vine, not unlike how Adam or Eve grasped the fruit on the tree in the middle of Eden. Noah turns in disgust from his own human weakness, but it is no more the Creator's will to do this than to worship human strength. The end of the film is a synthesis of Tubal-Cain's pride and Noah's self-hatred. After the trauma of the flood and the chastening of Noah's perceived failure, it is possible to do what humans do best - mate, have children, spread throughout the earth - with confidence, while God's blessing is poured out across the sky in every color of the rainbow.

This is one of those cases where it's frustrating not to be able to articulate how unique and special a film is, because I think Aronofsky has grasped something important about how to tell Bible stories that very few artists in any age have understood, stories that are neither mindless rehashes of a received text nor mechanical deconstructions of a caricatured orthodoxy that's only there to be contradicted. I can only say that I can think of very few Bible films with this interpretive depth and thoughtfulness. It's worth a second look.