I grew up in a conservative church in a conservative town in Iowa and “Hellywood” was the enemy of everything righteous. Things are different now in the church. As movies have gotten more explicit, fouler, and more hostile to Christian values, Christians have enthusiastically embraced the Hollywood experience. Whatever dreck they drudge up and throw at a silver screen near us, we dutifully sit and enjoy. Some Christians are so concerned being seen as out of touch with culture that they are afraid to speak a word against anything that comes to a theater nearby.
The issue of discernment is a real struggle for Christians who enjoy movies. It is especially problematic when movies are biblically-themed. How much biblical accuracy should we demand from such movies?
That brings me to the subject of this post. Noah. The movie. I am not going to review this movie for one simple reason – I haven’t seen it. Don’t really intend to. I do not go to many movies, as I’m not crazy about paying 20 bucks to get in, plus another 20 or so for a couple of kernels of greasy popcorn and a swig of Pepsi. I wait a couple of months until they come out on digital pay-per-view, record them on my DVR for 3.99 (plus tax) and watch them at will in my easy chair. I don’t know if I will even bother to spend the 3.99 to watch Noah.
This is not so much a review of the movie Noah as it is review of the way Christians review movies. There has been a range of reviews I have read about the movie – most of which have been pretty brutal about how awful the movie is. Those reviews have convinced me that this is not a movie for me. This is a movie, evidently, that has as much to do with the biblical story of Noah as John Calipari has to do with ethics and integrity (sorry – I’m bitter right now). It is made by a professed atheist who has expressed that he had no desire to tell the biblical story but that he used the characters to preach the popular Hollywood message of environmentalist orthodoxy.
And, c’mon people. Rock monsters? Really? Someone who has seen the movie please tell me that they didn’t create some sort of rock monster characters to actually build the ark. I loved the movie Galaxy Quest, but does a Noah movie need rock monsters to tell the story?
Trevin Wax has written a post (How Christians are Responding to the Noah Movie) which gives a digest of many of the Christian reviews of the movie. I encourage the reader to peruse this helpful blogpost. For my purposes, I am going to look at three reviews on the extremes of the issue – two negative and one positive.
Negative Reviews
Barbara Nicolosi wrote a devastating review of the movie on Patheos, calling it “the stupidest movie in years.” It is one of the most entertaining reviews you will ever read and is worth the read even if you never intend to see the movie. A sample:
Please, stop the madness. It is astounding to me how Christians can be lured into a defense of the indefensible because they are so afraid of the charge of “unreasonableness.” Trying so hard to be nice, we end up being patsies for people who have no other agenda than to make money off of us.
Matt Walsh wrote an almost equally vivid review of the movie at his blog. He summarizes the movie this way:
On Friday, my wife and I had a very rare date night.
Naturally, we decided to spend it being pummeled by the blaring condescension of the most insipid, absurd, unimaginative, clumsily contrived piece of anti-Christian filmmaking to come along since, well, probably just last week.
In fact, if I learned anything from Noah, it’s this: despite popular perception, you can often judge a book by its cover. Also, giant deformed rock monsters make for awkward supporting characters.
Tell us how you really feel, Matt. He went on to say:
Christians: you’ll hear people insist that you can’t criticize the movie until you’ve seen it. Noticeably, the loudest voices in this camp are the ones who will (rather coincidentally, I’m sure) profit immensely if you meet their challenge.
Don’t.
Don’t bother.
You can hate this film without watching it, for the same reason that you can assume Citizen Kane is slightly superior to Need For Speed, without having seen either of them.
I will let the reader check out Matt’s blog to read the rest of it, but you get the gist. Noah is “skubala” and not worth your time or money. Other reviews have been published in this vein, but these two are the most memorable among them.
Frankly, they have pretty much convinced me that this is not a movie I would enjoy.
At the other end of the spectrum is the estimable Marty Duren who is more critical of Christian’s criticism of the movie than of the movie itself. His post does not make it clear whether he had actually seen the movie when he wrote his article, but he defends the movie itself while he skewers Christians who would dare to criticize it.
The title of his post is instructive. “Noah: Why Christians should stop complaining about biblical movies and watch them.” By that title, if Hollywood makes a biblically-themed movie, we are obligated to watch it and are prohibited from criticizing it. I am hoping that Marty is engaged in a little titling hyperbole here. I’ve done that myself. I do not believe Marty would say that any form of biblical discernment applied to movies based on Bible stories is verboten, despite the title.
He accuses Christians of a hyper-sensitivity to Hollywood’s failure to present biblically-themed movies in complete alignment with our orthodoxy.
If Hollywood has a checkered history with biblical movies, Christian responses are equally inconsistent. Partially at issue is whether followers of Christ should expect perfect alignment with scripture when the story is being told by a non-believer. Any deviation from the text sets loose howls of “war on Christians” or “war on the Bible.”
I cannot for the life of me understand why some pastors–who do not agree among themselves what the Nephalim are–can suddenly agree among themselves what the Nephalim are not. Common enemy and all that I suppose.
Reasonable point, Marty. We don’t know what the Nephalim are, but I’ve never heard any exegesis advanced that describes them as rock monsters who helped Noah build the ark.
Marty makes 5 points in his review. (The highlighted points are Marty’s.)
1. No movie ever gets all of a biblical story exactly right.
This is, of course, correct. Even movies that come from a perspective that is sympathetic to the Bible tend to dramatize the story in a way that sacrifices biblical accuracy. The 2006 movie “The Nativity Story” was an attempt to tell the story of Jesus’ birth. It was roundly panned by critics as too tame, and it did not score much at the box office either. I watched that movie and was not offended by it, but I could also find a lot to criticize in terms of biblical accuracy.
That does not bother me. Movies are movies. They are not sermons nor are they Sunday School curriculum.
But the implication (unintended by Marty, I believe) of his view is that biblical accuracy is an unfair rubric by which to judge movies. He engages in a bit of ad absurdum argument to buttress his point.
Besides, if Noah went literally by the book, viewers would have to listen to him preach for 120 years, then sit through 40-days of rain scenes, followed by months of floating. Theater preparation would necessitate dramamine and motion sickness bags.
That is nonsense, and I think he knows it. A movie can be accurate without being comprehensive. A movie could show respect for the biblical story of Noah without recording the entire 120 years of his preaching or by making movie-goers seasick.
Marty fails to make an important distinction. He is right that we ought not demand some sort of evangelical orthodoxy on Hollywood movies, but that does not justify his absurd point. We have every right to criticize movies that make a mockery of biblical stories, that so twist and pervert them that they change the entire meaning and purpose of those stories.
We cannot demand that Hollywood only make movies we like, but we can voice our dismay when they mock our sacred book. There is a distinction that Marty’s post does not make between demanding some sort of biblical orthodoxy from movies and criticizing movies that pervert biblical stories.
Ultimately, that is the point at issue here. Is Noah a benign movie that takes a few liberties with the biblical story or is it a perversion of story that is an affront to those who love the Word? Most of the Christians I have read who have actually seen the movie lean toward the latter view.
2. Too many Christians are like chained dogs that have been living on a diet of gun powder and pepper sauce.
I certainly agree, and have spent a lot of time criticizing those who seem to spoil for a fight, who demand uniformity and conformity to their theological preferences or they banish fellow believers as heretics, as involved in some kind of conspiratorial compromise, or as enemies of the faith. So, I agree with the gist of Marty’s critique here, but I think he walks the plank of reason in the force of his argument.
You have met them. You many (sic) be one of them. Always itching for a fight. Always critical of every. other. Christian. Especially where they can find any place of disagreement. They cannot see any view as orthodox other than the echo-chamber reinforced theology they themselves hold. Confirmation bias seems to be their spiritual gift.
Does not Marty comes across here as perhaps guilty of his own description – “A chained dog on a diet of gun powder and pepper sauce”? His criticism of fellow-believers who criticize the movie seems to me to cross the line of helpful insight and is pretty harsh.
I sympathize with Marty’s quandary here. Again, I agree with much of what he has said. There is a segment of the Baptist blogging world that takes destroying the lives and ministries of those with whom they disagree or designate as false as an act of worship. I have devoted a couple of posts and quite a bit of private conversation making the point that we do not serve God by doing evil. So I fully sympathize with Marty.
But again, I think, that he goes too far in his critique here. There is a place for Christian polemics and apology, but it spills its banks and does damage rather than provide insight. I still struggle with that. If Marty reads this, I’d love to see how his statement in this section applies to some of the messages of the book of Acts and some of the gospel stories.
Marty said:
Nowhere does Jude imply that “earnestly contending for the faith” means berating anything at all, much less everything in sight.
But John the Baptist berated Herod for his incestuous sin and lost his head over it. Had Stephen been conciliatory he might have not been stoned. His belligerent confrontation of Israel’s sin set off a mob scene that resulted in his death. Paul stood before the council in Jerusalem and annoyed them with the fact that God called him to the Gentiles, setting off a riot. When he spoke privately with Felix, who was both knowledgeable and perhaps positively disposed toward Christianity, Paul got in his face about righteousness and sin and Felix got annoyed, sending him back to jail.
This is not argumentative inquiry here, Marty. I struggle with this every day. I want to walk in unity with other believers, but there is a place where the pursuit of unity demands compromise and we ought not cross that line. If you have thoughts about how we can contend for the faith without being contentious, I’d love to hear it. But we cannot avoid contending for the faith!
What seems odd to me that some are unwilling to criticize a movie like Noah in any way, but are more than willing to disdain fellow-believers who do criticize it. And it seems to me that Marty unfairly caricatures those who would offer a negative view of the movie as “Constantly angry, critical believers.” Is it not possible for a reasonable, Spirit-filled, godly person to abominate this movie? Is it fair to classify all critics as somehow anger-driven folks who are willing to alienate unbelievers?
3. It is far better for Hollywood to explore themes surrounding God and miss by a little, than explore themes surrounding Jesus and miss by a mile.
Good point. Amen. However, I would question whether Noah only “misses by a little” in its exploration of themes surrounding God.
4. Religious and biblically-themed movies are cultural bridges for the gospel.
No real quarrel here, other than I wonder how often this really happens. The only time I saw this was with “The Passion of the Christ.” That certainly got people talking.
The question of course is whether the critics (like the first couple of reviewers I mentioned) or the sympathetic defenders of the movie are more accurate as to the content. If the movie at issue here is as awful as its critics say, it is hard to see how it provides much of a “cultural bridge” for the gospel. If it is the “near-miss” Marty describes it as, then his argument bears more weight.
5. Why is it so difficult to affirm the good rather than carping on the erroneous?
The same thing is true here. The question among the movies’ critics is whether there is anything good to affirm in the movie. Marty seems to think there is. Since I’ve not seen the movie, I cannot make a determination on this point.
Marty is pretty forceful (and with some reason) in his description of “Christian” movies. But that is not really the issue here. The issue is how Christians should respond to a movie that takes a biblical story and perverts it (if the negative reviews are accurate) so that it has little to do with the biblical story itself. Ought we to simply eat what is served to us by Hollywood? Have we no right to demand something different, something better?
Again, Marty chooses pejorative language to describe those whose viewpoint differs from his. “Carping.” That implies petty, silly, snarky and perhaps baseless criticism. Those who have seen the movie have offered some substantive (if vivid) criticisms that hardly seem to fall into the category of “carping.” That is dismissive and unfair.
There seems to be some legitimate grounds for criticizing this movie and caricaturing all its critics does not seem fair.
Here’s What I Think
1. Hollywood is not JUST about the money.
Yes, Hollywood is financially-driven. They are about the green. But it is foolish to think it is money alone that drives the movie (and television) industry. There is a liberal orthodoxy that drives what is produced there. Has there been a kids movie made in the last 10 years that did not promote environmentalist orthodoxy? The rapid sea-change in moral values in America was not an accident. TV and movies successfully promoted a view of sexuality that is diametrically opposed to biblical values. They won. We lost. Part of the reason was that we uncritically consumed everything Hollywood threw at us. The lack of discernment by Christians and Christian families in the last 25 years or so is as unsettling as the rigid, separatistic legalism of my youth.
In other words, the idea that Aronofsky did not have some kind ideological, even theological (atheological?) intent in his movie is foolish ignorance. The world is not neutral. It is loyal to the “god of this age” and darkened by the lies of Satan. Jesus told us that the world hated him and that it would hate us.
In other words, all the warnings I heard in my childhood about “Hellywood” were not completely inaccurate!
2. Discernment is a tightrope walk.
Discernment is a biblical necessity, using the Word to divide truth from error, light from dark, right from wrong. I will admit that many of the so-called discernment ministries out there give me heartburn. They are everything that Marty describes them as. And they damage the Body of Christ.
But still, discernment is necessary. We must find a way to exercise discernment without straying into tactless “carping.” I struggle with finding that line.
3. If we eat dreck, that is what they will feed us.
I am not an advocate of public boycotts. But I am a practitioner of private boycotts! I make a choice not to see movies for a variety of reasons. But I think one of the best reasons not to go see a movie like Noah is that if we make that movie a hit, Aronofsky will be motivated to make more such movies. I can’t control what is made, but I can control who makes money off of me!
The same principle applies to Christian movies. If we accept poorly written, poorly made movies because they end with someone praying the sinners’ prayer, we encourage Christian filmmakers to aim low. Granted, starving people do not often have choosy palates. We are often willing to watch low quality movies that support our values because we are so tired of movies that attack them.
But we ought to exercise personal discernment.
4. Movies are a matter of personal conscience.
If you watch to watch Noah, go ahead. You have a Lord and I am not him. You don’t need my permission to see it. If you want to criticize the movie, do so. If it is your conviction that this movie is unfit for Christian consumption, say so. If it is your conviction that this movie is a useful tool in fostering a discussion of a biblical topic, say so.
What we ought to be careful about doing is what we so often do. In my youth, Christians were often excoriated for going to the theater at all. Today, Christians can be excoriated for daring to criticize a movie. Both responses are wrong. Christians have the right to make a decision of conscience as to whether to watch such a movie. We also have the right to express our opinions about such movies. We ought to express those opinions with tact and ought to avoid questioning the spiritual integrity of those who disagree with our views on this issue.
These are opinions. Again, I’m not reviewing a movie, but reviewing reviews of the movie. I really don’t plan to devote 2.5 hours and a bunch of bucks to see this thing. I’d love to hear the views of people who did go to see it. But there is one overriding question I have as I close this.
Rock monsters? Really?
I am never particularly comfortable writing critiques of others’ writings. Here, I am expressing some level of significant disagreement with someone I consider a friend and for whom I have a lot of respect – Marty Duren.
But the issue – how Christians will engage with secular culture, especially the entertainment industry – is real. It needs to be discussed.
There were Rock Monsters in the VeggieTales Pirates Movie…and I liked that one.
Rock Monsters don’t make or break a film 🙂
All that to say–we had a good post over at the homeschool company I’m involved with about the Common Core stuff, but the best line was applicable generally. In summary: those who claim to be independent and free and then want to set hard rules where God has not are no better than those who were legalists in the first place.
Everything I’ve seen on the Noah film indicates it’s based on something other than an attempt to tell the story of Noah in the Bible. Whether or not it’s a good film is a second issue. If it’s a film worth watching, then so be it.
But it’s time we quit counting on the world to do our job for us. Hollywood is not a partner in sharing the Gospel–they have no intention of helping us fulfill the Great Commission. Whether or not we use what they produce, and how we use it, to do that is on us.
I have doubts that many are going to come to Jesus based on whether or not we are pro-Aronofsky or anti-Aronofsky. Once again, we’re showing our ability to generate controversy over earthly stuff rather than demonstrating that we are following a God who loves people enough to provide salvation, but who is righteous enough to judge sin as it deserves.
Good word, and agreed! We can’t count on the world to make it easier to share the Gospel, but like the shrewd manager (Luke 16) we can often make use of what the world produces to share the Gospel.
With the right preparation, I could use the Star Wars series [mostly the 1st (and best) trilogy], the Matrix series, and Frozen to convey the gospel and a good deal of orthodox theology.
you might find something of use in the Narnia films and also in LOTR
those films convey some VERY orthodox theological symbolism
One might ask a question of a pre-Christian friend who saw the movie: Do you think Noah was right in the movie, that he and his family had just as much intrinsic evil with potential for destruction than Tubal-Cain and the bad folk with him, who were evil all the time? It’s a conversation starter from something Noah realizes in the movie that is true (even though it is not in the Bible). It is a relevant idea from where one might share the good news of Jesus.
If John Wayne is not in it I am not interested!!! 🙂
Dave, you may have seen my repsonse to the movie over on FAcebook. My incredulity over the film is a response to its hyper-environmental, pro-vegan, anti-industrialism.
Spoilers ahead:
The actual flood scenes are epic. There is no other way to describe them. The CGI and special effects deserve applause all the way around.
However, the story is atrocious. It plays out like a host of other big-budget fantasy films, many of which I’ve enjoyed. There are big fight scenes, a powerful hero, and lots of screaming extras. Is it unfit for the Christian to watch? No. It’s just a bad movie.
(An aside: Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of agenda-driven Christian-themed movies that are poorly written, badly acted, and terribly filmed. “Facing the Giants” is one of them, but at least the producers of that film have sought to improve over time. I wish that every film maker who sets out to make a “Christian” movie would seek to do so with quality. Unfortunatley, I’ve seen my fair share of bad Christian movies.)
Back to “Noah”:
In the movie, Noah is a vegetarian, “Waterworld” costumed ninja. He wouldn’t harm a fly, but put a man in front of him who IS harming a fly and he’ll take him out. He has no problem killing people, but he can’t stand to see an animal hunted or harmed. Methuselah is a mountain dwelling hermit; a mystical guru with magical abilities. Adam and Eve are glow-in-the-dark inhabitants of a long-lost paradise. Creation was “theistic,” but evolutionary.
In the movie, man’s sin isn’t against God, the Creator, but against creation. God’s justice requires man’s annihilation. Noah becomes convinced that he is responsible to see that all humanity, including his family, is to be killed. Only the “innocents,” the animals, are to be spared. Noah is unable to carry out this total slaughter when he experiences a grandfather’s love for his two granddaughters. He becomes depressed and despondent over his unwillingness to do what he deemed necessary to spare the creation.
In the movie, the rock monsters DO help build the ark. Their six armed labor is indispensible to Noah. When the time of the Flood comes, they stand as a unified force to fight Tubal-cain and his subjects. Tubal-cain escapes the rock monsters to become a stowaway on the ark and, after turning Ham into a meat-eater, almost kills Noah.
What does any of this accomplish except to contort the story into something it most definitely is not? That’s my problem with it. And on top of its inherent story line problems, it is BOOOORING.
The story as it’s presented in the Bible is one of grace, forgiveness, and survival against the odds. It could have stood the test of Hollywood embellishment, as has “The Ten Commandments” and most of the “Jesus” movies ever made. Heck, “Ben Hur” and “The Robe” do a better job of telling biblical stories, and they are complete fiction.
The positive from all of this is that a woman walking out of the theater in front of me was going home to read the story for herself. She said, “I don’t remember some of that being in there.” There would be a reason for that: It isn’t in there! So people may pick up a long unread Bible. Maybe they’ll talk to someone aobut the actual story. Maybe, just maybe, someone will seek out the truth.
Thanks for the synopsis.
I think if you look at the scriptures Noah probably was a vegetarian until after the flood. In Genesis 1:29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.” It was not until Genesis 9 after the flood that God gave man permission to eat meat in vs. 3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”
The vegetarian part isn’t at issue here, John. I couldn’t care less about Noah’s diet. That fact alone doesn’t reclaim this movie from the depths of its silliness.
The fact that Noah is characterized as a willing, even sociopathic, murderer bent on the total destruction of the human race (including his family), Methuselah is some kind of Yoda-like Jedi guru, the Nephilim are 6-armed rock monsters (who redeem themselves, by the way, by sacrificing themselves to help Noah), and Tubal-cain stows away (possibly anticipating a three hour tour?) combine to make this a messy, unwatchable film.
Did I mention that, in Aronofsky’s version of Noah’s world, the people actually had welding hoods? Now THERE’S a tidbit of truth for you.
Sorry. I’m ranting. I’ll stop now.
I wasn’t trying to push any buttons, but the vegetarian thing was something that I was actually pretty impressed that they got right. As far as the things I didn’t like about the movie, well they said long before it’s release that this movie was a work of fiction loosely based on the account in the Bible so I didn’t get all that riled up.
John
It is fiction, we are told it is fiction, yet we get riled. We did the same thing with Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code”. We were told it was fiction but we got upset. I agree I am not riled up over any “truth”
in the movie.
However, I am riled up over such blasphemous abuse of Holy Scripture and personalities that we find in “Noah” and other movies.
The thing that might be read into the movie that the movie doesn’t actually say is that animals are more important than humans. The movie doesn’t say that. It says that human are more culpable than animals, and animals are more innocent. This is exactly what Paul says in Romans 8:20-21 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” Corruption did not come from the Lions’ or the gazelles’ sin, but from the sin of the co-regents, the caretakers of creation. So humans are clearly more important than animals, which is why our sin is more destructive, and we are more culpable than animals. If you listen closely this is exactly what the movie says. We often read the Bible through our politics. Anti-environmentalism? – Christians should be the best environmentalists for our own reasons, not secular reasons or new age reasons. Anti-industrialism? where are chapter and verses in the Bible that are explicitly pro-industrial? Pro-vegan? What is wrong with eating veggies? Where is the chapter and verse that says that a Christian should be required to eat meat and that they should not have a diet totally made up of veggies. That doesn’t have to be a new age, hippie or liberal idea. It seems like that’s kind of what Daniel did for a while. More veggies and less meat might be a good health idea for Christians. Wasn’t that kind of what Saddleback church concluded? I was teaching a Sunday School once on the minor prophets and suggested that rulers were held accountable in some texts for not helping the poor. (I might be wrong about that, but I don’t think so.) However, one of my students objected – “the Bible does not say that.” “It can not say that, because it is not the government’s responsibility to help the poor – that is true, and God would not write something that did not agree with that.” This is what I call a Con-Christian – a Christian who does not pray for liberal governors and presidents but criticizes them all the time, a person who reads the Bible through conservatism not vice versa, a person who spends more time with Rush and Fox than reading their Bibles and in prayer. I have many, many good friends who are more captive to their politics than they are to Christ. They are good people; and it’s not really a judgement on them; it’s just an observable fact. They can talk on and on about Obamacare, but when I ask them what the Lord is doing in their lives or what they are learning from the Word, they are tongue-tied. I’m assuming you are not a Con-Christian because I would bet you talk and think more about Jesus than politics. But I have many good friends who are Con-Christians who would not watch this movie with Bible in hand, but with Sean H, or Rush’s books open.
I’d like to see the movie BECAUSE it is so controversial. Will wait for the DVD and watch it after Lenten season, though. I appreciate all the points of view of those who have seen the movie, however; but in the end, I want to make up my own mind about it. No two people see a movie the same way . . . we bring a lot of ourselves to encounters with others, with ideas, with art, theater, film, and literature . . . personal evaluation is always specific to the one who is encountering any new experience.
BTW
It doesn’t hurt that Maximus is playing ‘Noah’ . . . I know, I know . . . Russell Crowe . . . but when I look at him, he will always be ‘Maximus’ to me. It’s a done deal.
I, for one, enjoyed Marty Duren’s post better. ;^)
He’s a nerd.
I confess to being dragged by my family to go see Noah the other night. I see a strange parallel between Noah and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (though I never did go to see AL, VH, just read a few things about it). Both are imaginative tales loosely based on historical characters, with a creative mixture of fact and fiction forming the basis of the narrative. Both also, despite a fair share of cinematographic flaws, are somewhat entertaining, as well as platforms for exploring certain themes and ideas. My son, who is into philosophy and stuff like that, actually said he saw in Noah some elements of a study of the tension between Nietzschean and Kierkegaardian approaches to existentialism. No doubt, some Christians will not be interested in this. But, then again, they don’t have to go see it, just like they probably didn’t go to see AL, VH. But they shouldn’t get any more bent out of shape over it than they did AL, VH, either. Noah, just like AL, VH, never claimed to be historically or theologically accurate.
David
I am intrigued by your sons observation. One does see in Noah the existential attitude. He views the events in light of his own existence. Had not thought of that before.
Here is a good review in my opinion:
http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/
Another passing observation–
Noah’s not just a part of Christian theology and history, and we might be cautious thinking that we own Noah in our ways. Certainly, we believe that the 3 chapters of Noah in Genesis are the only inerrant record of him, and tells us (apart from Hebrews, 2 Peter) all we really need to know about Noah.
However, let us not forget that Noah is also recognized by the Jews, and there may (or may not, I’m not taking time to do all the research) be additional material for the Noah story in Jewish writings.
Likewise with Islam and their writings. Perhaps, since Aronofsky doesn’t really share any of these religions, he has melded not just Biblical material but Talmudic, Quranic, and perhaps a touch of other religions.
In other words–he could be trying to blend three divergent traditions into one film. Or he could be out to irritate all three of the world’s major monotheistic religions in one film.
I am curious to see a review or two from people who aren’t as emotionally invested in the “Christian film!” or “NOT A CHRISTIAN FILM!” side of this argument. The one review I’ve seen indicates it’s not that awesome of a film in general. But, as with the DaVinci Code and others, we’re stirring it up with tons of free advertising, aren’t we?
http://rootsoffaith.org/2014/03/30/noah-in-faith-and-aronofskys-film.htm. This is another perspective. The nephilim in mt hermon comes from Enoch. But there is so much heresy anyway, though. Nephilim cannot recieve forgiveness as my friend says happens in the movie.
We must recall that “as in the days of Noach” is prophetic of end times. The enemy is deceiving this generation of just what that means.
I can remember as a child seeing movies like The Robe and The Ten Commandments that took a lot of poetic license in presenting a Bible story but did not seem to violate the meaning of scripture. I also recently saw God is Not Dead and felt it was worthy of recommending to others. So I can’t say we should never go see Hollywood movies based on Biblical themes.
I haven’t see Noah yet. I may go just to see what people are talking about and feel more qualified to tell others what I see as inaccurate and dangerous. I did the same with the Di Vinci Code even though I very much opposed their statements about Jesus.
Dave, I will probably see the movie. From reading the reviews I have concluded that it has potential value as ground for engaging the lost community in conversations about God’s wrath and judgement.
Dave, I went to see the movie. I never trust Christian reviews. I had a conversation with a Christian afterward who was badmouthing the movie, having never seen it. I said that the movie had about the same amount of deviation from the text as the Passion of the Christ. Of course the person bristled at such a suggestion, but I reminded her of, women wiping up Christ’s blood with white cloths, the guards beating up Christ before the trial. We only know that he was hit during the trial. A raven picked out the one thief’s eyes clear in punishment for his opposition of Christ, the falling down at each station of the cross. I could go on. These things can be forgiven because the Passion captures the broad strokes of the story, and none of them contradict the story.
Noah was interesting to me. I give it a 7 out of 10. It tells the broad strokes of the story. Most of the reviews I’ve read by Christians misrepresent it. The rock monsters is inventive – they were originally angels who were called “watchers.” This is taken from 1 Enoch, where the Nephilim were angels who were called watcher. The Nephilim as angels theory dominated the early church – it was accepted by guys like Tertullian and Ambrose until Augustine suggested a different interpretation. That they were encrusted by rock as a punishment for some kind of sin was an invention without a text.
There is a thoughtful side to Noah’s insistence on the human race dying out, which he changes his mind about. The idea is that this is not really a do-over of Eden because the Creator is starting off with damaged goods – Noah realizes that his propensity for sin is just as great as those whose only inclination was toward evil all the time. This is a wake up moment for folks – because the other people in the land are really bad dudes.
The environmental issue actually goes back to the Genesis one text about ruling over the creation – Jubal-Cain explicitly interprets that as subjugation to his will and pleasure – Noah and his family see that responsibility as care-taking. Con-Christians, what I call people who are more captive to conservative politics than they are captive to Jesus, are so sensitive against any hint of tree-hugging that often they are blind to the fact that we really do have care-taking responsibilities toward the creation. Biblical Christians should be environmentalists, not because of new age reasons but for our own reasons. Noah and his family were vegetarians. John Wylie is right about explicit permission to eat animals came after the flood, but Abel had flocks of sheep or goats, so I think they were probably eating meat before the flood. Noah tells the creation story to his children and it may have been shown visually depicting evolution but that was not as clear as some Christians have suggested -it was fast moving visuals that may have suggested evolutionary development (I would have to watch that again) but there was not anything verbal about evolution. The place where great liberties were taken totally inconpatable with the text was the issue of his sons having wives. They all had wives in the Bible – this was not the big conflict that the movie makes of it where only Shem had a wife. There was also an interesting idea of putting the animals into hibernation, like bears do naturally, during the flood – that solves a food space problem that I’ve always had about the ark. The depiction of Adam and Eve as shining human beings with qualities that are beyond what we experience as humans today points to idea that something was really lost at the fall and humans are diminished copies of the originals. Whether one likes or dislikes how it was depicted, it is a valid idea that most likely is true. The broad strokes are there – there were Nephilim in the land who were giants, the people were very evil, the creator spoke to Noah and told him what to do, an ark was built, a pair of every species comes into the ark, not just one snake, but two of every kind of snake, etc. . . There was a great flood where both the heavens and the floodgates of earth erupted with water. All life was destroyed over the whole earth except those on the ark and the fish of the seas. A raven was sent out and returned without anything. A dove returned with an olive leaf. Noah planted a vineyard. Noah got drunk and lay uncovered in his tent (face down thankfully). Ham saw his father’s nakedness, and the other two brothers covered Noah. There was a rainbow. The command to be fruitful and multiply was given to the descendents (although through Noah). There is a rainbow in the sky. Those are the broad strokes of the story and they are all in the movie. I give the movie 7 out of 10, but then I didn’t expect it to strictly adhere to the text – the only Hollywood, high-production-quality Biblical movie that I know that does that is The Gospel of John which is word for word from the Gospel of John, and is also my favorite Biblical movie. Noah wasn’t as bad as many hyper-sensitive Christians say, and I’ve already used the movie as a conversation starter with a couple of my non-Christian friends.
I actually have to correct myself, assuming my comment gets included. There is a text about angels being encrusted in rock. My wife corrected me about it. It is found in 1 Enoch. It seems that Jude quotes from Enoch in verse 14-15. That doesn’t mean that Enoch is inspired because Paul quoted from a Greek poet too. However, the Coptic Church which is a very old church, has included 1 Enoch in their Old Testament canon – no one else has included it. It is an ancient Hebrew / Aramaic text that may be dated 300 ??? years before Christ. It talks a lot about the Nephilim as watchers. And as my wife told me they were incrusted in rock as punishment in that account. So the Noah movie guy is doing what Mel Gibson did by importing ideas from other texts than the Bible into the movie. Mel used something called the Friday of Sorrows and some devotional material attributed to Anne Emmerich to supplement the gospel accounts.
Looks like this review is on to something significant: http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil
Fascinating review…thanks for posting the link to it. It sheds new light on Paramount’s statement that “The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide.” The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.”
The Critics were right in that they sensed something was badly wrong in with the way both Noah and “the creator” were portrayed. While they did not recognize the gnosticism they knew enough to see that the story being told was a counterfeit.
Sadly we have a generation of Christians who refuse to believe that there really are folks in powerful places who want to use entertainment and media to shape values and beliefs. They are often subtle and are incredibly persistent. They have largely succeeded.
David R.,
Thanks for sharing this link. This may be the mother of all reviews of the movie “Noah,” especially for evangelical believers. If his review is true(and I have no reason to doubt it) I’m so glad that I read his review before I go and see this movie. This review is really causing me to rethink whether or not I want to see it. Thanks again, David. You may have saved me a few bucks.
And here is a link to a great article from my friend Dr. Susan Booth at the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary on how to use Noah as a platform for dialoguing about the gospel:
http://csbs.ca/articles/2014-04-01/discussing-the-gospel-in-noah.html
The Mattson article is very helpful. I saw the elements of the Biblical story included and left out. Having also read the book of 1 Enoch, which is not a gnostic text, per se, I also saw how Aronofsky took elements from it and left out other important things like the Watchers were not redeemable. I also recognized the word zohar as a Hebrew word when it used in the movie. I didn’t know what it meant. It is used a couple of times in the Bible, Ezekiel and Daniel, and it means, brightness, radiance. I had to look it up. What I didn’t know was that Zohar is also the name of Kabbalah’s chief text. I also didn’t know about Aronofsky’s use of Kabbalah in another movie. I saw the serpent skin and how it was being used and thought, “that’s wierd” but my thoughts didn’t go far enough. So I’m a pretty good illustration of Dave Miller’s article – some discernment, but not enough. Thank the Lord that he lets us change our minds when we are wrong about some things.