Credible Credits
Year: 2014
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman, and Ray Winstone
Tagline: The end of the world ... is just the beginning.
Synopsis: Noah and his family are tasked with building an ark before the world is destroyed by flood.
Synopsis: Noah and his family are tasked with building an ark before the world is destroyed by flood.
Review
I went in to Noah with high expectations and an open mind. At no point was I expecting a doctrinally accurate portrayal of Noah. I wasn't even expecting a particularly Biblical portrayal of Noah (director Darren Aronofsky is, after all, a self-proclaimed atheist). And I was fully prepared to defend the film as an artistic piece of historical fiction (with a whole lot of liberties taken) and leave religious accuracy out of my review. That intention lasted for about the first half of the movie. Then the film lost me up until the last five minutes.
Now this is going to be as much an analysis as a review. FYI, there may be some spoilers. But I trust you know the Biblical account and how this ultimately has to end.
Perhaps I should begin at the end. By the time I left the cinema, the overwhelming feeling in my heart was of gratitude for the plan of salvation. Halfway through the film, I could no longer refrain from wanting to infuse my own beliefs and understandings into the action. The fact the film was so devoid of the simple yet beautiful truths of the gospel made me appreciate those truths all the more. (Sort of like how you appreciate food so much more when fasting.) The film's lack reaffirmed my own abundance.
If gratitude was my primary feeling, sympathy was the second. I felt sympathy for those without the understanding and perspective the restored gospel brings.
The film started out well enough. Yes, there were some "wait what?" moments and components as the filmmakers took quite the artistic license (okay, that's probably an understatement). But as the story progressed and began to fall apart, I realized it was in part because the film's very foundation is unstable. The whole story is constructed upon three false premises:
[It was strangely fitting that a few hours later I was singing "I Am a Child of God" with millions of women the world over during Women's Conference.]
In the film, the Fall of Adam and Eve is a great calamity for the world. And from Cain's murder of Abel onward, mankind is full of violence and wickedness and bent on destroying the world for gain. Mankind's major crime is the destruction of creation (which does include mankind itself). Only the line of Seth (of which Noah's family is the last) have lived in harmony with nature.
All of this leads to the main -- and invented -- drama for the film: whether or not mankind is fit to continue or if they were simply a mistake and the new world would be better off without them (harking back to the false premise that there was no ultimate purpose to creation). This idea doesn't fully manifest itself until halfway through the film (the point it lost me). At that point you realize Noah has his own false premise: that he is primarily tasked with saving the innocent animals and not with being the new father of the human race.
This leads to a major deviation from the Bible account. When the ark door shuts, neither Ham nor Japheth have a wife, and Shem's wife, Ila, is thought to be barren. Noah becomes so convinced that all of mankind must be punished and wiped out, he is ready to do the unthinkable. It turns out Ila has been cured of her barrenness (by Methuselah). And when Ila gives birth to twin girls, Noah believes it is his duty to kill them, lest they perpetuate mankind and its evils. When it comes down to it, though, he is unable to harm the babes.
Which actually leads to one of the main themes of the film: justice versus mercy. Justice is hammered pretty hard throughout the film. It is just that the Creator destroy mankind for having destroyed the rest of creation. It is just that the innocent animals be preserved. It is just that even Noah's line die out because he sees their imperfections and faults. All of that is described as "just." And the fact that Noah's family is ready to turn on him and hates him for saying his own granddaughters must be killed is -- as his wife, Naameh, tearfully and vehemently points out -- also just. Noah's complete subscription to justice became almost unbearable to watch. It was a long, long wait for mercy to finally show up.
Ultimately, Noah does show mercy over justice in sparing his granddaughters' lives. He then feels like a failure, like he has failed the Creator and his family, because he still believes the false premise that humanity doesn't deserve to live. Once they reach land, Noah gives into his depression and survivor's guilt, becomes estranged from his family, and indulges quite heavily in wine. (That last part does at least have basis in the Bible).
Then, at long last, the film finds a redemptive note. Ila goes to talk to Noah (merciful in and of itself considering he almost killed her daughters). When Noah says he feels as though he failed, Ila points out that the Creator chose him for a reason. The Creator chose Noah because He knew Noah would choose mercy and love over justice. Comforted, Noah then finds reconciliation with Naameh (in a beautifully simple scene) and blesses his sons and granddaughters with the admonition to "multiply and replenish the earth." Cue the rainbow.
For me, the ending works. It does offer the much needed note of redemption, mercy, and reconciliation the film was desperate for. But I'm still not entirely sure it was enough. If I'm tempted to accept that the mercy there was enough to balance out the justice of the film, I think it is because I'm imposing all my own beliefs about God's mercy in that event. And there really isn't enough movie left to fully start liking Noah again.
Putting theology temporarily aside, the film also struggled even from a story perspective. It's Noah's ark! One of the major components of that story is the animals. Not only were the animals entirely CGI (that's one way to make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this movie), but they spend most of the film asleep. Yep, once the animals get settled on the boat, Noah and the others walk around with some type of incense that puts all the animals (but not the humans) into a sort of hibernation. And when you finally get to the flood, well, it's not that impressive. Just a lot of water.
And let's not even discuss the "Watchers": fallen angels turned into rock creatures with a hint of the Prometheus myth in their backstory. Yes, really.
The film also struggles as it tries to be religious to the believers and fantastical to the non-believers. In trying to straddle both, it never quite succeeds at either.
Noah can be considered a prophet in only the most literal sense of the word. He prophesies that a flood will come. That's it. Still, he starts out quite well. He is shown to be a kind father (including a caring, adoptive father to Ila), a loving husband, and generally a good man. He shows himself to be obedient and dedicated. But he as the burden of impending justice weighs upon him and indeed begins to consume him, he becomes ... well, pretty difficult -- if not impossible at times -- to like. After he finally shows mercy, he at least becomes sympathetic again.
I was prepared for a complicated Noah, one torn between justice and mercy, one devastated at having to watch the destruction of the world (even knowing the rebirth and renewal that lay ahead), one who perhaps even struggled some to find inner peace. I was expecting that sort of interpretation from a Hollywood film. Instead the film seemed to emphasize neither his prophetic role nor his humanity, instead falling somewhere awkwardly in between. That said, I felt that Russell Crowe did an excellent job with the Noah he was asked to portray.
The film's villain is Tubal-Cain (portrayed by Ray Winstone), and for the most part he worked quite well. He was certainly menacing and focused in his efforts. And, quite appropriately, much of his personal justification was founded in half truths. It is he who points out time and again that man is in the Creator's image. He also points out that man was given dominion over the earth. But he, like the rest of mankind, has twisted those truths to suit his own selfish desires. He proudly affirms that what he wants, he takes.
Like I said, a villain spouting half-truths works quite well, especially in a Biblical context. What becomes so frustrating is that there is no one affirming the full truths. At no point does Noah seem to acknowledge man having been created in the Creator's image or of having been entrusted with dominion. It seems like there should have been some powerful moment when Noah boldly affirms that with dominion (like great power) comes great responsibility.
As for Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth are pretty bland and aren't given much to do. Ham gets far, far more screen time. The Bible essentially says that Ham became estranged from the family but is fuzzy on the details. So the film spends a great deal of time coming up with reasons for that estrangement. It does at least make Ham an interesting character to watch. And he becomes a convenient person for Tubal-Cain to beguile with his half-truths.
Well, that's an awful lot of what the film did wrong and sometimes utterly wrong. It also did some things right.
For starters, I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah. No, he wasn't the faithful patriarch I would have liked, but he was nonetheless charmingly eccentric. He added a little much-needed lightheartedness in his interactions with his grandson and great-grandchildren.
Hands down, the two highlights of the entire film were Naameh (Noah's wife) and Ila (Noah's adoptive daughter who becomes Shem's wife).
Naameh is terrific and Jennifer Connelly is perfect in the role. She is truly a "help meet" for Noah: strong-spirited, loyal, and diligent. She is utterly believable as a woman who would walk miles through barren desert, help build an ark, put up with a menagerie, and only falter slightly as the snakes make their way aboard. Her love for Noah is clear, which makes her struggle against his sense of justice all the more difficult as she must come between her husband and her children. Connelly's emotions in some of her arguments with Noah are so real and raw, you forget she is acting. She does such a complete job of selling this couple's relationship, that when a penitent Noah comes wordlessly seeking forgiveness, it works.
As terrific as Naameh is, it is still Ila who steals the show. Emma Watson is absolutely fantastic (she's come a long way from her bushy-haired, Sorcerer's Stone Hermione Granger days) and the character she plays works so perfectly. Noah and his family rescue and adopt Ila as a child. Her family and kin have been killed and she is left wounded among the dead. Noah's interactions with Ila, both as a little girl and as a grown woman, do much to emphasize his humanity and goodness.
What makes Ila stand out so beautifully is that she is the only character in the entire film who is willing to make a sacrifice. She wholly believes that the Creator intends for mankind to continue. And there is an absolutely beautiful, poignant scene between Ila and Noah. Ila is barren and not yet wedded to Shem. And though she loves Shem, she tearfully begs Noah to find him a "real woman" who can give him posterity. Watson's emotions are so real in that moment. Maybe it's because we're studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year, but in Ila's words and tears I glimpsed an echo of what Sarah or Rebekah might have felt.
If Noah becomes the (nearly) unyielding embodiment of justice, Ila is the embodiment in the film of mercy. It is more merciful than just that she should be willing to sacrifice her own desires for love and happiness. It is more merciful than just that she should be cured of her barrenness by Methuselah's blessing. It is more merciful than just that she should go to Noah in his isolated anguish to offer him comfort and clarity. And so in that sense it works to have Ila be the one to explain mercy to Noah.
Ultimately, the film (not the story) feels like a tragedy. It had the potential. It did some things so right. Yet it fell short of that potential because it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and because it was founded upon false premises. Certainly the film never made me question my beliefs. On the contrary, it made me feel and embrace them all the more fully and want to shake Noah and tell him the plan of salvation as well as how justice and mercy are supposed to work.
In summation, I find that I can neither fully condemn nor condone this film. Nor can I bring myself to actively encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it. What I can do is express how grateful I am for a merciful Father in Heaven's plan, a plan founded not upon false premises, but upon the pillars of salvation: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. And how grateful I am for that "grand design, where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine!"*
Now this is going to be as much an analysis as a review. FYI, there may be some spoilers. But I trust you know the Biblical account and how this ultimately has to end.
Perhaps I should begin at the end. By the time I left the cinema, the overwhelming feeling in my heart was of gratitude for the plan of salvation. Halfway through the film, I could no longer refrain from wanting to infuse my own beliefs and understandings into the action. The fact the film was so devoid of the simple yet beautiful truths of the gospel made me appreciate those truths all the more. (Sort of like how you appreciate food so much more when fasting.) The film's lack reaffirmed my own abundance.
If gratitude was my primary feeling, sympathy was the second. I felt sympathy for those without the understanding and perspective the restored gospel brings.
The film started out well enough. Yes, there were some "wait what?" moments and components as the filmmakers took quite the artistic license (okay, that's probably an understatement). But as the story progressed and began to fall apart, I realized it was in part because the film's very foundation is unstable. The whole story is constructed upon three false premises:
- The Creator had no purpose in creation
- Mankind is just another creation
- Mankind, through the Fall and subsequent wickedness, ruined the rest of creation
[It was strangely fitting that a few hours later I was singing "I Am a Child of God" with millions of women the world over during Women's Conference.]
In the film, the Fall of Adam and Eve is a great calamity for the world. And from Cain's murder of Abel onward, mankind is full of violence and wickedness and bent on destroying the world for gain. Mankind's major crime is the destruction of creation (which does include mankind itself). Only the line of Seth (of which Noah's family is the last) have lived in harmony with nature.
All of this leads to the main -- and invented -- drama for the film: whether or not mankind is fit to continue or if they were simply a mistake and the new world would be better off without them (harking back to the false premise that there was no ultimate purpose to creation). This idea doesn't fully manifest itself until halfway through the film (the point it lost me). At that point you realize Noah has his own false premise: that he is primarily tasked with saving the innocent animals and not with being the new father of the human race.
This leads to a major deviation from the Bible account. When the ark door shuts, neither Ham nor Japheth have a wife, and Shem's wife, Ila, is thought to be barren. Noah becomes so convinced that all of mankind must be punished and wiped out, he is ready to do the unthinkable. It turns out Ila has been cured of her barrenness (by Methuselah). And when Ila gives birth to twin girls, Noah believes it is his duty to kill them, lest they perpetuate mankind and its evils. When it comes down to it, though, he is unable to harm the babes.
Which actually leads to one of the main themes of the film: justice versus mercy. Justice is hammered pretty hard throughout the film. It is just that the Creator destroy mankind for having destroyed the rest of creation. It is just that the innocent animals be preserved. It is just that even Noah's line die out because he sees their imperfections and faults. All of that is described as "just." And the fact that Noah's family is ready to turn on him and hates him for saying his own granddaughters must be killed is -- as his wife, Naameh, tearfully and vehemently points out -- also just. Noah's complete subscription to justice became almost unbearable to watch. It was a long, long wait for mercy to finally show up.
Ultimately, Noah does show mercy over justice in sparing his granddaughters' lives. He then feels like a failure, like he has failed the Creator and his family, because he still believes the false premise that humanity doesn't deserve to live. Once they reach land, Noah gives into his depression and survivor's guilt, becomes estranged from his family, and indulges quite heavily in wine. (That last part does at least have basis in the Bible).
Then, at long last, the film finds a redemptive note. Ila goes to talk to Noah (merciful in and of itself considering he almost killed her daughters). When Noah says he feels as though he failed, Ila points out that the Creator chose him for a reason. The Creator chose Noah because He knew Noah would choose mercy and love over justice. Comforted, Noah then finds reconciliation with Naameh (in a beautifully simple scene) and blesses his sons and granddaughters with the admonition to "multiply and replenish the earth." Cue the rainbow.
For me, the ending works. It does offer the much needed note of redemption, mercy, and reconciliation the film was desperate for. But I'm still not entirely sure it was enough. If I'm tempted to accept that the mercy there was enough to balance out the justice of the film, I think it is because I'm imposing all my own beliefs about God's mercy in that event. And there really isn't enough movie left to fully start liking Noah again.
Putting theology temporarily aside, the film also struggled even from a story perspective. It's Noah's ark! One of the major components of that story is the animals. Not only were the animals entirely CGI (that's one way to make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this movie), but they spend most of the film asleep. Yep, once the animals get settled on the boat, Noah and the others walk around with some type of incense that puts all the animals (but not the humans) into a sort of hibernation. And when you finally get to the flood, well, it's not that impressive. Just a lot of water.
And let's not even discuss the "Watchers": fallen angels turned into rock creatures with a hint of the Prometheus myth in their backstory. Yes, really.
The film also struggles as it tries to be religious to the believers and fantastical to the non-believers. In trying to straddle both, it never quite succeeds at either.
Noah can be considered a prophet in only the most literal sense of the word. He prophesies that a flood will come. That's it. Still, he starts out quite well. He is shown to be a kind father (including a caring, adoptive father to Ila), a loving husband, and generally a good man. He shows himself to be obedient and dedicated. But he as the burden of impending justice weighs upon him and indeed begins to consume him, he becomes ... well, pretty difficult -- if not impossible at times -- to like. After he finally shows mercy, he at least becomes sympathetic again.
I was prepared for a complicated Noah, one torn between justice and mercy, one devastated at having to watch the destruction of the world (even knowing the rebirth and renewal that lay ahead), one who perhaps even struggled some to find inner peace. I was expecting that sort of interpretation from a Hollywood film. Instead the film seemed to emphasize neither his prophetic role nor his humanity, instead falling somewhere awkwardly in between. That said, I felt that Russell Crowe did an excellent job with the Noah he was asked to portray.
The film's villain is Tubal-Cain (portrayed by Ray Winstone), and for the most part he worked quite well. He was certainly menacing and focused in his efforts. And, quite appropriately, much of his personal justification was founded in half truths. It is he who points out time and again that man is in the Creator's image. He also points out that man was given dominion over the earth. But he, like the rest of mankind, has twisted those truths to suit his own selfish desires. He proudly affirms that what he wants, he takes.
Like I said, a villain spouting half-truths works quite well, especially in a Biblical context. What becomes so frustrating is that there is no one affirming the full truths. At no point does Noah seem to acknowledge man having been created in the Creator's image or of having been entrusted with dominion. It seems like there should have been some powerful moment when Noah boldly affirms that with dominion (like great power) comes great responsibility.
As for Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth are pretty bland and aren't given much to do. Ham gets far, far more screen time. The Bible essentially says that Ham became estranged from the family but is fuzzy on the details. So the film spends a great deal of time coming up with reasons for that estrangement. It does at least make Ham an interesting character to watch. And he becomes a convenient person for Tubal-Cain to beguile with his half-truths.
Well, that's an awful lot of what the film did wrong and sometimes utterly wrong. It also did some things right.
For starters, I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah. No, he wasn't the faithful patriarch I would have liked, but he was nonetheless charmingly eccentric. He added a little much-needed lightheartedness in his interactions with his grandson and great-grandchildren.
Hands down, the two highlights of the entire film were Naameh (Noah's wife) and Ila (Noah's adoptive daughter who becomes Shem's wife).
Naameh is terrific and Jennifer Connelly is perfect in the role. She is truly a "help meet" for Noah: strong-spirited, loyal, and diligent. She is utterly believable as a woman who would walk miles through barren desert, help build an ark, put up with a menagerie, and only falter slightly as the snakes make their way aboard. Her love for Noah is clear, which makes her struggle against his sense of justice all the more difficult as she must come between her husband and her children. Connelly's emotions in some of her arguments with Noah are so real and raw, you forget she is acting. She does such a complete job of selling this couple's relationship, that when a penitent Noah comes wordlessly seeking forgiveness, it works.
As terrific as Naameh is, it is still Ila who steals the show. Emma Watson is absolutely fantastic (she's come a long way from her bushy-haired, Sorcerer's Stone Hermione Granger days) and the character she plays works so perfectly. Noah and his family rescue and adopt Ila as a child. Her family and kin have been killed and she is left wounded among the dead. Noah's interactions with Ila, both as a little girl and as a grown woman, do much to emphasize his humanity and goodness.
What makes Ila stand out so beautifully is that she is the only character in the entire film who is willing to make a sacrifice. She wholly believes that the Creator intends for mankind to continue. And there is an absolutely beautiful, poignant scene between Ila and Noah. Ila is barren and not yet wedded to Shem. And though she loves Shem, she tearfully begs Noah to find him a "real woman" who can give him posterity. Watson's emotions are so real in that moment. Maybe it's because we're studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year, but in Ila's words and tears I glimpsed an echo of what Sarah or Rebekah might have felt.
If Noah becomes the (nearly) unyielding embodiment of justice, Ila is the embodiment in the film of mercy. It is more merciful than just that she should be willing to sacrifice her own desires for love and happiness. It is more merciful than just that she should be cured of her barrenness by Methuselah's blessing. It is more merciful than just that she should go to Noah in his isolated anguish to offer him comfort and clarity. And so in that sense it works to have Ila be the one to explain mercy to Noah.
Ultimately, the film (not the story) feels like a tragedy. It had the potential. It did some things so right. Yet it fell short of that potential because it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and because it was founded upon false premises. Certainly the film never made me question my beliefs. On the contrary, it made me feel and embrace them all the more fully and want to shake Noah and tell him the plan of salvation as well as how justice and mercy are supposed to work.
In summation, I find that I can neither fully condemn nor condone this film. Nor can I bring myself to actively encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it. What I can do is express how grateful I am for a merciful Father in Heaven's plan, a plan founded not upon false premises, but upon the pillars of salvation: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. And how grateful I am for that "grand design, where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine!"*
Quotable Quotes
- "The snakes are coming too?" -- Naameh
- "I am not alone." -- Noah
- "Is this the end of everything?" "The beginning. The beginning of everything." -- Ila and Noah
*Snow, Eliza R., "How Great the Wisdom and the Love," Hymns, no. 195.
ISFS
No comments:
Post a Comment