Darren Aronofsky's: Noah - Part 1

[redhawk23]

Loved the film. (For context, I'm not religious)

Spoiler

Loved the touch on the big bang and evolution in the time lapse.

Thought it was very interesting that the words "god" and "angel" weren't used throughout the entire film (assuming I didn't miss it)

[BLACKOUT]I also loved the scientifically accurate portrayal of the formation of the moon!

Also how about modern soldiers that showed up in the flickering image of Cain and Abel? Along with a few other bits and styles it fits with Aronofsky's suggestions that the story is cyclical and might be both our future and our past. This all definitely fits with Methusula's warning about what would happen if gave Ila the ability to conceive, that everything would repeat itself and in the end it would all come back to Noah.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Harry Dresden]

Noah: B-

Spoiler

I'll start off by saying that I myself am a Christian but I was not offended by the film. I honestly don't really know that many people who would be offended except for those who like a wishy washy version of things. Noah is a complex character who made difficult decisions. He was flawed in this movie and I liked that. He doesn't need to be perfect.

Russel Crowe's performance stole the show for me. He did a great job of developing the character and especially selling the second half where Noah is pretty much the main antagonist. He shows off the multiple sides of him pretty well. Jennifer Connelly also has a pretty strong performance. Ray Winstone was awesome though. It's nice to see him in a role where he can be the main villain and effectively pull it off. He might be the most badass character in the movie for me simply for killing an Angel.

Amazing visuals and some truly haunting stuff like all of the people drowning. I thought that was pretty effective. Again, Aronofosky shows his talent for horror. The scene where Noah visits Cain's camp was amazingly effective in showing how horrible things have gotten.

The film does suffer from some bad pacing, though. It's kind of overly long and the beginning of the film could've been shorter to make things flow better.

 

[DA_Champion]

Don't know if you guys have seen this article, but it's definitely worth a read. An orthodox rabbi review Noah, both as a piece of cinematic art and a Biblical interpretation. http://www.timesofisrael.com/hollywood-noah-is-kosher-says-celebrity-rabbi/

For the record, I come from an orthodox Jewish home, and went to Jewish school my entire life (pre-K through 12th grade, and then a year in Israel). Though it sounds rather arrogant, I do consider myself something of a Biblical scholar, with a firm understanding of both the written and oral law. Having said all that I absolutely loved Noah. I thought it was genuinely spectacular, and a great vision of the story. The creation sequence was particularly marvelous (Aronofsky clearly read some Gerald Schroeder).

Just a great piece of cinema.

That link was interesting, thank you.

 

[nightwing06]

I watched a YouTube video review of Noah and in it the reviewer stated that if you are religious you will likely pick the film
apart.At one time i was a student of the Bible for many years,and a part of various organized religions,so i have to agree
with the aforementioned critic,i did pick the film apart but it didnt stop me from enjoying certain parts of the film.
I admire all of the work that went into the film,the SFX,and some of the acting.Director Darren Aronofsky displays the faith
of Noah numerous times,but as the film reaches its middle he begins to focus relentlessly on making the story more dark and
creating turmoil in Noah's family,which also has its own dark turns.
I do applaud him for bringing out well known parts of the Biblical story,but i began to lose interest as the film reached it's last 30 minutes.

Scale of 1-10 a 7

 

[redhawk23]

Dat Libatique.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Saw this Saturday night can say I'm still thinking about it today, such a emotionally powerful film, more thoughts to come later.

9/10

 

[Compi716]

Saw this Saturday night can say I'm still thinking about it today, such a emotionally powerful film, more thoughts to come later.

9/10

Right? That's the great thing about Noah–it sticks with you. The moral philosophy, the ambiguity, the strong themes, the way it forces us to question ourselves...such a fantastic movie.

And I agree with the "Cain Murders Abel" montage. I love the way Aronofsky made it a timeless piece of sin. Brother vs. Brother is the REAL original sin, and it's one that we are doomed to repeat. My greatest hope for this film is that more people see it and realize that, because then maybe we'll be a bit closer to becoming a better people.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'm finally going to see this later this evening with some friends. It'll be my first Aronofsky film in theaters. I either missed his others or they never came to my area.

 

[Dr. Manhatten]

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/darren-aronofsky-on-making-noah-feel-fresh-to-modern-audiences

I don't know if this was posted before but here's a really good video interview with Aronofsky about his approach to melding the biblical myths with more modern understandings of the world and of science.

I love his comparison to the Icharus myth: "You don't spend time trying to figure out how the wax wings attach to his back, that's not the point."

Its a very good way to approach this type of thing in order to get at the heart of what is still valuable in the stories. It all a matter of the fact that we as a society have distance from Greek myths that allows us to regard them in such a way more often as opposed to dealing with groups of people insisting they are literally true and trying to base public policy upon them.

The last 30 seconds proves my earlier point! :P

 

[DACrowe]

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, even if it is a bit of a mess. I think it is actually at its best before the flood. Aronofsky's vision of early, early "creationism" as defined by the Bible, and the "earliest man" in a new world where the stars still twinkle in the day is captivating. And as Tolkien-esque as his vision of the Watchers are...they still grew on me as the film went along.

I also thought the real climax was the battle between faith (Noah) and humanism (Tubal-Cain) with its climax obviously being the flood. The movie, in my opinion, would have been a little less top-heavy if the third act did not include Cain, who should have died in the flood, and instead focused on Noah's decision on whether or not to [blackout]kill his granddaughters.[/blackout]

It is a good film, but surprisingly a lot like many a Bible movie, albeit through Aronofsky's eyes: a visual spectacular that invents a lot of narrative strands some of which work, but some of which drag it on too long for an uneven, albeit in this case stunning and entertaining, movie.

As for the controversy around Aronofsky's changes from the Bible...the story of Noah's Ark, as presented in Genesis, could make a 20-30 minute movie tops, and that includes a lot of time just spent on special effects flooding and animals walking around. So, it needed to be expanded, and I'll say this: Aronofsky's vision of the story may not be that faithful to certain details about Noah, but it captures the feeling of the Old Testament very, very well.

Many Christians will conflate the God that Jesus preached of with the original one from the Hebrew Bible, but their governing politics were pretty different. When people talk about Noah, they think of two-by-two dancing animals and rainbows. But this is a story about God deciding to wipe out all of mankind, save one family, and the majority of animals too. This is a story about drowning millions of people in a horrific death and wiping the slate of existence clean. By choosing to focus on what that would look like particularly with [blackout]Noah leaving Ham's chosen wife to die in a brutal fight to reach the ark, and then later ignoring the screaming cries of a drowning mountain worth of people outside the ark[/blackout] is stunning but in line with the Bible's presentation of God in Genesis. Similarly while Noah [blackout]is never mentioned to have tried to kill his grandkids,[/blackout] it is a challenge that God intentionally put before Noah's descendent, Abraham, in the Old Testament. It is some dark, dark stuff that Aronofsky is really more honest about than a lot of more fundamentalist people are when approaching these stories.

With that said, I can see why changing God's primary motivation to being one of protecting creation from destructive men as being a no-go. The movie also establishes in the one scene where Noah visits the camp city that it is also about how humans treat each other monstrously, the main motivation presented in Genesis, but it is definitely a secondary motivation in the Noah movie. And then there are those other little things like showing the Big Bang Theory and Evolution as part of the Creation story, which is so Aoronofsky, but so not evangelical.

As for the rock giants...if you take away their extra limbs and rocks and call them Nephilim--when they were also called Watchers (or at least the Angels who birthed the Nephilim were) in the Book of Enoch, which while not in the Bible was as prevalent amongst ancient Hebrews as the Book of Exodus and Genesis--would it be okay? I find drawing the line at the rocks to be a silly distinction when dealing with giants begotten from angels. Just saying.

 

[Tron Bonne]

So, I liked it a lot. People have complained about the dialogue, and it was on the stilted side, but I have the feeling it was intentional. It gave it kind of an archaic feeling that I attribute to biblical language. The storytelling within the narrative, the creative ways of progressing time, it all came together to me. I can understand some issues with the third act, but honestly, even that didn't bother me all that much. It made sense with everything around them. Really sensational filmmaking for me, great to see Aronofsky tackle an epic tale with his style of creation.

Also makes a great companion piece to The Fountain since it deals with the same themes of death and rebirth. Would love to see a third film that explores that for some type of thematic trilogy.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Just saw it. Favorite movie of the year thus far. It was deeply affecting. I'll probably find a chance to see it again this week. Wonderful movie.

 

[DACrowe]

So, I liked it a lot. People have complained about the dialogue, and it was on the stilted side, but I have the feeling it was intentional. It gave it kind of an archaic feeling that I attribute to biblical language. The storytelling within the narrative, the creative ways of progressing time, it all came together to me. I can understand some issues with the third act, but honestly, even that didn't bother me all that much. It made sense with everything around them. Really sensational filmmaking for me, great to see Aronofsky tackle an epic tale with his style of creation.

Also makes a great companion piece to The Fountain since it deals with the same themes of death and rebirth. Would love to see a third film that explores that for some type of thematic trilogy.

Yes, maybe now that he has done the Old Testament...it is time for something new?

It would finally be a Jesus movie worth seeing.

 

[DA_Champion]

There are a lot of stories between Noah and Jesus.

 

[Matt Mortem]

It struck me watching this that it was, above and beyond a Biblical film, a great piece of sci-fi fantasy.

 

[terry78]

Aronofsky wasn't out to skewer the bible, that is pretty much obvious. He showcased the story in his own manner and didn't disrespect anything as far as I saw.

 

[Asr]

Aronofsky wasn't out to skewer the bible, that is pretty much obvious. He showcased the story in his own manner and didn't disrespect anything as far as I saw.

I saw the movie earlier tonight and have mixed thoughts on that as a Christian. Granted, overall the movie was relatively close to the Bible story indeed, and still delivered the same point to the story, but as soon as the "In the beginning there was nothing" showed up within the first minutes of the movie, I pretty much thought the movie "skewered" the Bible from there. "In the beginning" is a direct reference to Genesis 1:1, but that verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning there was nothing".

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie though, because I did, but the moment the movie came up with "In the beginning there was nothing", I knew that it essentially just threw out the Bible right there, and as a Christian that line just didn't sit right with me.

I definitely liked the movie for what it was, but I got the distinct impression it went out of its way to not appeal to Christians at all, since it barely referenced God by name, and as already mentioned "skewered" Genesis 1:1. And then later on when Noah recited parts of Genesis 1, there were verses that were either skipped or just quoted completely inaccurately, which further didn't sit right with me and made it seem like Aronofsky was actually trying to piss off Christians.... (not that I personally was pissed, just thinking that it might have that effect on others)

 

[redhawk23]

I saw the movie earlier tonight and have mixed thoughts on that as a Christian. Granted, overall the movie was relatively close to the Bible story indeed, and still delivered the same point to the story, but as soon as the "In the beginning there was nothing" showed up within the first minutes of the movie, I pretty much thought the movie "skewered" the Bible from there. "In the beginning" is a direct reference to Genesis 1:1, but that verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning there was nothing".

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie though, because I did, but the moment the movie came up with "In the beginning there was nothing", I knew that it essentially just threw out the Bible right there, and as a Christian that line just didn't sit right with me.

I definitely liked the movie for what it was, but I got the distinct impression it went out of its way to not appeal to Christians at all, since it barely referenced God by name, and as already mentioned "skewered" Genesis 1:1. And then later on when Noah recited parts of Genesis 1, there were verses that were either skipped or just quoted completely inaccurately, which further didn't sit right with me and made it seem like Aronofsky was actually trying to piss off Christians....

Slightly different wording constitutes skewering and throwing out the bible? Also you're missing the point that the movie is operating from a much more Jewish perspective. For centuries before they were formally written down, the bible stories existed as an oral tradition being told from person to person and parent to child, much as the film shows. Even if Noah didn't find himself reading word for word from a copy of the King James Christian bible, what exactly about the presentation of creation was counter to the message of Genesis?

 

[Asr]

Slightly different wording constitutes skewering and throwing out the bible? Also you're missing the point that the movie is operating from a much more Jewish perspective. For centuries before they were formally written down, the bible stories existed as an oral tradition being told from person to person and parent to child, much as the film shows. Even if Noah didn't find himself reading word for word from a copy of the King James Christian bible, what exactly about the presentation of creation was counter to the message of Genesis?

It's the implication & meaning behind the ordering of the words in the Bible verse vs the line from the movie. "In the beginning God created" implies that God existed since the beginning. "In the beginning there was nothing" implies nothing about God, or the Creation, and can be taken to mean that God didn't exist at the beginning.

I should probably stop with that since I think anything further will just devolve into a religious debate....

 

[DACrowe]

There are a lot of stories between Noah and Jesus.

Ah, but we've seen his take on the Old Testament, including with a little bit of Abraham thrown into Noah. And Ridley Scott is doing Exodus now. I was being somewhat facetious, but if he does return to Biblical stories, try one with a different view on God. Then again, as Aronofsky is an atheist, I doubt he wants to spend too much more time dwelling on the subject.

 

[DACrowe]

I saw the movie earlier tonight and have mixed thoughts on that as a Christian. Granted, overall the movie was relatively close to the Bible story indeed, and still delivered the same point to the story, but as soon as the "In the beginning there was nothing" showed up within the first minutes of the movie, I pretty much thought the movie "skewered" the Bible from there. "In the beginning" is a direct reference to Genesis 1:1, but that verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning there was nothing".

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie though, because I did, but the moment the movie came up with "In the beginning there was nothing", I knew that it essentially just threw out the Bible right there, and as a Christian that line just didn't sit right with me.

I definitely liked the movie for what it was, but I got the distinct impression it went out of its way to not appeal to Christians at all, since it barely referenced God by name, and as already mentioned "skewered" Genesis 1:1. And then later on when Noah recited parts of Genesis 1, there were verses that were either skipped or just quoted completely inaccurately, which further didn't sit right with me and made it seem like Aronofsky was actually trying to piss off Christians.... (not that I personally was pissed, just thinking that it might have that effect on others)

Are you annoyed because the wording is different? I do think he changed the meaning of several important aspects of the story, but the actual concept of Genesis 1:1 is there. How is changing the language for the screenplay (or "misquoting" Genesis) the same as insulting it or people who believe in it (which are more than just Christians)?

I could see taking issue with how he presents God's motivations for the flood. But otherwise, while the details are different, much of the overall intent is the same with a dash of Abraham thrown in. Just because it is different does not mean it is an insult or that even the intention has been changed in those certain circumstances.

 

[Asr]

Are you annoyed because the wording is different? I do think he changed the meaning of several important aspects of the story, but the actual concept of Genesis 1:1 is there. How is changing the language for the screenplay (or "misquoting" Genesis) the same as insulting it or people who believe in it (which are more than just Christians)?

I could see taking issue with how he presents God's motivations for the flood. But otherwise, while the details are different, much of the overall intent is the same with a dash of Abraham thrown in. Just because it is different does not mean it is an insult or that even the intention has been changed in those certain circumstances.

I'll give you that the concept of "Creation" was in the movie. But as for Genesis 1:1 specifically, for me that's less about the Creation and more about theology. The Bible verse references God by name, and implies that He existed at "the beginning", whenever that was. Also in the Bible, John 1:1 has a very similar form when it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There are additional verses in Revelation that God/Jesus is the beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that the movie's line "In the beginning there was nothing" indicates to Bible-believers that it's not accepting that God existed at the beginning, when it says "there was nothing".

I know it probably just looks like semantics to some people, but for those who believe in the Bible, the words are everything. Changing something for the sake of a movie can be construed any number of ways by Bible-believing moviegoers.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This is going to end up being a religious debate. It just is.

 

[Kane52630]

By Yura Shwedoff

 

[redhawk23]

I'll give you that the concept of "Creation" was in the movie. But as for Genesis 1:1 specifically, for me that's less about the Creation and more about theology. The Bible verse references God by name, and implies that He existed at "the beginning", whenever that was. Also in the Bible, John 1:1 has a very similar form when it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There are additional verses in Revelation that God/Jesus is the beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that the movie's line "In the beginning there was nothing" indicates to Bible-believers that it's not accepting that God existed at the beginning, when it says "there was nothing".

I know it probably just looks like semantics to some people, but for those who believe in the Bible, the words are everything. Changing something for the sake of a movie can be construed any number of ways by Bible-believing moviegoers.

This is a movie telling a Jewish story made by a filmmaker who was raised Jewish, John and Revelation are hardly relevant. These stories are far older than the bible or the wording of the various translations.

If God created everything, then before he did there was nothing. Its rather here nor there though. As Aronofsky himself says, you don't spend time thinking about how the wax wings attached to Icarus's back, as themes are what are important, not the mechanics.