FILM REVIEW | Noah

Cast out of Eden, humanity was divided into Men and Followers; Men satisfied their carnal desires and Followers clung to their ancestry devotion to The Creator. With the division so distinct, The Creator grieves for his creation and decides to purify it with water. In order for the purification to come about, The Creator places his favour upon Noah and instructs him to build an ark to save the innocent dwelling the Earth.

Creation is about to come into destruction for replenishment.

The Story

Although the film’s director and writer, Darren Aronofsky, has claimed to have said that his film is “the most un-biblical re-telling of a biblical account”, I have to say that his liberty of using poetic license sees him adding more biblical attributes then he lets on. Where Aronofsky veers from the biblical story he borrows from the ancient Greek mythology. Zues and The Flood tells of a similar tale, but in this tale human kind are ‘accidently’ saved from Zues’ anger through a prophecy or whispers from a fish.

Regardless of which ancient account you prefer, the biggest controversy in this film is the rock formations – or damnations – referred to as ‘The Watchers’. This addition to either tale is simply another ploy for an excuse to play with some graphics or merely make a statement that fallen angels aren’t always demons. The closes reference to these ‘Watchers’ are the “Nephilim” (Gen 6:4) who, in the Hebrew, are known to be ‘sons of gods’. In the bible, The Nephilim are argued to be fallen angels who have intercourse with some of the women of Earth, which in turn populated the Earth with giants with super-human qualities.

In either case, if these beings were attractive enough to seduce women on Earth, they would not under any circumstance be covered in rock or be helping Noah. Furthermore, they are not accounted for as spectacular beings, in fact they’re accounted at the same time the writer of Genesis talks about the evil nature of men – if anything, they were an addition to the grievance that God had for creating the world. There has always been a clear distinction between angels and men in the bible, yet for some reason, Aronofky’s re-write gives these fallen creatures more redemptive qualities than that of his leading character.

With this controversy placed aside, let’s talk about the changes Aronofsky made to make Noah biblically unbiblical:

• God didn’t speak to Noah in dreams; he actually literally spoke to Noah. Being six hundred years-old (Gen 7:6) when he built the ark, that’s a long time to be walking faithfully with God (Gen 6:9). There is no doubt that by the time you’re six-hundred, you’d know exactly what God is saying to you. In saying that, the beautiful thing about this film is that it captures the different ways in which God does answer prayer: through silence, through miracles, through other people and through divine revelation.
• All of Noah’s sons had wives by the time God asked Noah to build the ark (Gen 7:6). People lived much longer in those days and if Noah was five hundred years old when he had Shem and the flood waters came a hundred years later, I’m definitely sure that a lot happens in a hundred years. This was simply an excuse for some dramatic tension to heighten the evil nature of man and bring out much more information about Ham’s linage after the flood.
• People were not attempting to get on the ark at all; in fact, the only reference to other people in the account is when it refers to their wickedness. The seclusion that Noah begins with in this film seems to be what it was like the entire time he built the ark. Later on Jesus himself says, “…they [the people other than Noah and his family] knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.” (Matt 24:37) Sure you would notice a giant boat and animals but…
• As much as many portrayals would like to show that God brought the animals to Noah, the bible actually says, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you…” (Gen 7:1-2). “Go” and “take with you” are commands; God never says to Noah, “I will send the animals to you” he says to “go” and “take with you”. This means that God never intended for any one to see the ark nor the animals being loaded into the ark. Note the small number of animals that he takes: “male and female” and for some “seven pairs” (Gen 7:2-5). There was discreteness to the process.
• This discreteness also nullifies the other misinterpretations that the people of the time were mocking Noah for building the ark. In fact nowhere in the whole account does it say what the land was like; there were no famines, simply people going about their day-to-day business. Like Jesus said, no one “knew anything” except for Naoh.
• God closed the door to the ark (Gen 7:16) not Noah or the motion of the rising waters. If in any crazy circumstance that this was not what Aronofsky intended, I would like to bear to differ. The very fact that Noah is thrown in and there is a clear shot of the door closing with him inside rather than outside speaks volumes to the graciousness of God. It also highlights God’s graciousness later on when Noah fails to see his graciousness and speaks of suicide and attempts to commit murder. Which bring me to…
• The twins - *spoiler alert* - ok yes, the flood waters did go for 150 days (Gen 7:24), but there is no account of Ila bearing children on the ark. Not that this isn’t at all possible, but I just want to point out that having twin girls as a “further sign” of God wanting humanity on his new earth was completely unnecessary in the biblical account considering: 1) all three sons were married and 2)…
• God planned for Noah and his family to be in the bigger picture. He was walking with God and intimately knew God. Although I saw the humanity of Noah in this film, there was no need to go some of the lengths that Aronofsky did in terms of misunderstanding what God was asking of Noah in terms of the existence of humanity on Earth.
• This brings me to unnecessary addition of Noah being naked on the beach. In the bible, this is where we see Noah’s humanity. Genesis 9:20 sees Noah cultivating the earth and creating a vineyard to produce wine. We see that his weakness is not actually being unable to hear clearly from God, it’s actually too much wine. In the film, this scene is portrayed as a disappointment of a son towards his father; biblically, this is where we see Ham being cursed for his immaturity (Gen 9:24).
• The final inaccuracy is more a disappointment for the character of Ham. Though it’s accurate that the sons of Noah do eventually venture out and populate the earth in various locations (Gen 10), it seems odd to me that Ham would venture out alone. Sure Ila and Noah talk about him possibly coming back, but I think Ham was definitive in his long walk far from his family alone. It annoys me that the one thing he wanted in the film was a wife and when God provided for him he decides, “Nah, I’ll just go off on my own and try and populate the earth all on my own.” I find that impossible when the only hope you have of having decedents didn’t die in the flood, she’s actually just being nursed by your sister in-law – not to mention that he got to have first dibs on which twin he wanted as wife, being the oldest of the two single brothers and all.

 In saying all of that though, the majority of the film was accurate including:

• The creation and fall of man;
• Noah’s genealogy and linage;
• Why Noah was chosen;
• The size of the ark and
• The evil of mankind.

The Cast

Russell Crowe did an incredible portrayal of Noah. Crow brought out the humanity that we rarely read about in the mighty men of God. I thought his portrayal was a beautiful way of how most men and women of God feel in times of hardship. There’s delicateness in Noah that we see through crow, even in the times where he makes the wrong decision. It’s as thought Crow understood the burden just as much as the privilege to be chosen by The Creator to not only build the ark, but also be the father of nations and re-populate the Earth.

Jennifer Connelly was a beautiful support for Crow. Naameh is not spoken much of in the bible, but we did know she was faithful to not just Noah, but also to God, in the sense that she too built the ark and entered it. With Aronofsky’s additions to the film, Connelly ups the ante as she embodies the submissive wife and protective mother. My heart broke when she confronted Noah about his sickly decision to murder their first set of grandchildren. She was simply brilliant.

Emma Watson was a stunning Ila. Although I personally felt that Ila overshadowed her love interest – Douglass Booth – it does not take away from her brilliant performance of a beloved adopted daughter, and later wife and mother to the first children after the flood. I think she did an incredible job.

Logan Lerman did a great job holding the British accent for this film. Although I thought his character was the most inaccurate character, the inaccuracy had nothing to do with his excellent portrayal of Ham. Lerman understood the carnal and spiritual cravings of Ham and made you believe and feel for his character.

Douglass Booth was a great Shem. He was his father’s son in the sense that he did what his father asked of him and grew to become an excellent head of the family himself. I thought Booth didn’t have enough to work with and became Watson’s support rather than the other way around; nevertheless he did a great job.

Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah, was great as far as I can tell. He was a great source of comic relief and plot twist, but in the end, his character was just an added bonus for Aronofsky’s re-write. Again, not that it changes how well Hopkins played a role – like most of the cast – that has no biblical specification.

Ray Winstone plays yet another character that embodies the horrific nature of mankind. Look, for a story to have excellent dramatic tension there has to be a villain and Tubal-cain was a perfect portrayal of evil in men. Winstone was perfectly disgusting, so much so that you understood why any Creator would want to wipe out such evil on the Earth.

Overall, I thought it was a beautiful film with some weighty inaccuracies. Look, if you mess with the original story you’ll end up with holes you’re going to be trying to fill. There weren’t many holes that weren’t left untouched. Although it looks like my list of inaccuracies out way the brilliance of this film, it’s only because I wanted to sift out some of the glamour in order to bring out the truth. In saying that, I will say that some of the re-write actually alludes to other stories in the bible, since this is the case, I couldn’t really be angry with Aronofsky’s attempt to bring this story to life without getting too biblical – if anything, it was even more biblical than he intended. If you’re a believer, I say, keep and open mind; see things that most people won’t see. And for those of you who just really want to watch the film because it’s a film with an A-list cast, I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s got action, drama and romance; there’s something for everyone regardless of what you believe.

sL Star Rating: ★★★

Coming Up: Divergent