![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42Considering Aronofsky's Noah Film
1. The Ridiculous Bible Story
Noah has long been a bit of a punching bag when it comes to criticising religion. Certainly when Christians are deciding which stories to reject as fables, the truth of the Noah story seems to be rejected quicker even than the truth of the Adam and Eve story. And I can understand that.
Both stories have a clear problem with a population bottleneck, at the end of the story we are expected to believe that just a very few people are going to need to produce the entire human race through centuries of inbreeding and it's generally just presumed that God would have to make it work somehow. But the Noah story also brings in some very concrete and obvious logistical issues that are much harder to ignore.
- How does Noah gather up the animals?
- How does he make space for all of them in one craft?
- How does he keep them from eating one another during the long time at sea?
- How does he feed them if they cannot eat each other?
- How does he clean up the excrement of this varied group of animals?
The Noah story also seems to question God's compassionate nature. The Adam and Eve story involved one couple making a mistake and one couple being punished. Sure it's supposed to have ramifications for the whole of human history, but the basic gist is that human beings inevitably do bad things. No problem. Also, the story of The Binding of Isaac, which is commonly brought up when discussing the character of God, might show a God who considers child murder to be a reasonable request of his followers, but at least at the end of the story he backs down from that demand (even if it does feel like a bit of a sick joke by that point anyway).
But the Noah story involves God murdering almost the entire population of the world. The justification? EVERYONE in the world is evil. - Except Noah. - And his family. Well God is so wise that must know- NO! This is ludicrous. If Noah's closest relatives are all lovely, we cannot possibly accept that the ENTIRE rest of the world features only Nazi kitten-stranglers.
2. Aronofsky's Graphic Novel
So how is Aronofsky going to make this story compelling for modern audiences? Well, now I've had a chance to check out the graphic novel Aronofsky is basing this one there are several clear reasons why this is compelling. And they might be rather surprising to anyone who is seen the rather uninspiring trailer.
The graphic novel is, essentially, science fiction.
Yes, you read that right.
And I'm wondering whether the film actually carries that idea across, since I'm hearing some people who've seen early screenings are complaining because the characters are wearing clothes that are way ahead of the era in which the story is set. But in the graphic novel, there is wreckage around the place which looks mechanical, Methuselah (Noah's old wise grandfather, played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins) sits and meditates surrounded by recognisably new age symbols, and the sky looks a strange colour as if it were an alien world.
In the graphic novel, this is being treated as a story that deals with themes concerning the human condition. It begins with a short, sharp and effective recap of the Adam and Eve story and the Cain and Abel story, by simply comparing the crunch of the eating of the fruit (shown as an apple because, heck why not?) to the crunch of Abel's skull.
Darren Aronofsky often makes highly thematic and highly emotionally-charged films, so it should be no surprise that his version of the Noah story is more interested in exploring themes and appealing to our emotions than it is with giving a simple piece-by-piece retelling of the Noah story.
3. The Target Audience?
Which is why it is so annoying that the trailers for the Noah movie seem to avoid suggesting that there is any kind of interesting reinvention of the story present. It looks mostly like a bland by-the-numbers version of the story. There's a simple reason for that though and it's not hard to work out. Conservative literalist and hardcore Christians came out by their droves to see "Passion of the Christ". They are saving the recent "Son of God" from being a complete flop. The Bible has a massive fandom and the studio funding "Noah" do NOT want to miss out on this.
The studio have not been able to make any huge changes to Aronofsky's epic (not that it matters since their edited down version to appeal more to Bible-lovers hasn't turned out to be any more popular), but they have managed to get this rather naff disclaimer played at the beginning:
Y'know, just in case you didn't know that the original story came from the Bible...
There's even been an attempt to get the Pope to give his approval. Not successful apparently. One tweet Russell Crowe makes to get the Pope's attention ends with 'inshallah', a term more often used used by Muslims (essentially meaning "God willing"), which seems like an odd choice.
But so far, this must seem like a rather petty criticism, right? The studio are trying to appeal to an audience that would make the movie enormously profitable. Why's that a problem? So the studio forced Aronofsky to add a bit of text on the beginning. Okay, not a great precedent, but hardly ruining the film, right?
What annoys me is that I think all this attempt to attract an audience who are never going to be on board with what Aronofsky is doing here has prevented a wider audience from recognising quite how impressive Aronofsky's vision really is.
4. Poor Marketing
The trailer could be said to mislead the audience because it looks like a simple retelling of the Noah story. But actually there are loads of snippets of the imagery Aronofsky intends to employ. They are just buried as a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moments.
This includes Noah with a flaming sword:
There's also been a shot of fireballs falling from the sky (which are in fact fallen angels, falling from heaven). A more recent trailer has since been a little more explicit with a shot of the angels coming seemingly from outer space.
But the studio consistently avoids showing the nephilim, descendants of the fallen angels who, in the graphic novel, fall to Earth out of compassion for mankind. In the graphic novel. These nephilim are actively involved in defending the ark from attack. But in the part of the trailer where an attack is made on the ark they seem to be nowhere to be found. Perhaps they aren't portrayed the same way in the movie? Perhaps they wanted the nephilim to be a surprise for the audience in the movie itself? Or perhaps they were just terrified that Christians would not like the depiction of the nephilim as huge giants protecting the ark from attack? You decide.
Some of the criticisms from Christian bloggers are pretty weird. I've heard them criticise the movie for showing nephilim as heroes, when the original Bible account refers to them as heroes. I've heard them criticise the movie for showing Noah as receiving God's messages through dreams, when it's pretty normal for prophets to hear the messages from God via dreams. And apparently they also criticise the movie for showing Noah getting drunk after his survival in the Ark, when that too is Biblical.
But I want to argue that perhaps this movie isn't really for Christian literalists. Perhaps it's made for people with an imagination. Yet the marketing seems to do it's very best to avoid showcasing Aronofsky's creativity or imagination and the movie's box office takings will inevitably suffer as a result of this.,,
1. The Ridiculous Bible Story
Noah has long been a bit of a punching bag when it comes to criticising religion. Certainly when Christians are deciding which stories to reject as fables, the truth of the Noah story seems to be rejected quicker even than the truth of the Adam and Eve story. And I can understand that.
Both stories have a clear problem with a population bottleneck, at the end of the story we are expected to believe that just a very few people are going to need to produce the entire human race through centuries of inbreeding and it's generally just presumed that God would have to make it work somehow. But the Noah story also brings in some very concrete and obvious logistical issues that are much harder to ignore.
- How does Noah gather up the animals?
- How does he make space for all of them in one craft?
- How does he keep them from eating one another during the long time at sea?
- How does he feed them if they cannot eat each other?
- How does he clean up the excrement of this varied group of animals?
The Noah story also seems to question God's compassionate nature. The Adam and Eve story involved one couple making a mistake and one couple being punished. Sure it's supposed to have ramifications for the whole of human history, but the basic gist is that human beings inevitably do bad things. No problem. Also, the story of The Binding of Isaac, which is commonly brought up when discussing the character of God, might show a God who considers child murder to be a reasonable request of his followers, but at least at the end of the story he backs down from that demand (even if it does feel like a bit of a sick joke by that point anyway).
But the Noah story involves God murdering almost the entire population of the world. The justification? EVERYONE in the world is evil. - Except Noah. - And his family. Well God is so wise that must know- NO! This is ludicrous. If Noah's closest relatives are all lovely, we cannot possibly accept that the ENTIRE rest of the world features only Nazi kitten-stranglers.
2. Aronofsky's Graphic Novel
So how is Aronofsky going to make this story compelling for modern audiences? Well, now I've had a chance to check out the graphic novel Aronofsky is basing this one there are several clear reasons why this is compelling. And they might be rather surprising to anyone who is seen the rather uninspiring trailer.
The graphic novel is, essentially, science fiction.
Yes, you read that right.
And I'm wondering whether the film actually carries that idea across, since I'm hearing some people who've seen early screenings are complaining because the characters are wearing clothes that are way ahead of the era in which the story is set. But in the graphic novel, there is wreckage around the place which looks mechanical, Methuselah (Noah's old wise grandfather, played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins) sits and meditates surrounded by recognisably new age symbols, and the sky looks a strange colour as if it were an alien world.
In the graphic novel, this is being treated as a story that deals with themes concerning the human condition. It begins with a short, sharp and effective recap of the Adam and Eve story and the Cain and Abel story, by simply comparing the crunch of the eating of the fruit (shown as an apple because, heck why not?) to the crunch of Abel's skull.
Darren Aronofsky often makes highly thematic and highly emotionally-charged films, so it should be no surprise that his version of the Noah story is more interested in exploring themes and appealing to our emotions than it is with giving a simple piece-by-piece retelling of the Noah story.
3. The Target Audience?
Which is why it is so annoying that the trailers for the Noah movie seem to avoid suggesting that there is any kind of interesting reinvention of the story present. It looks mostly like a bland by-the-numbers version of the story. There's a simple reason for that though and it's not hard to work out. Conservative literalist and hardcore Christians came out by their droves to see "Passion of the Christ". They are saving the recent "Son of God" from being a complete flop. The Bible has a massive fandom and the studio funding "Noah" do NOT want to miss out on this.
The studio have not been able to make any huge changes to Aronofsky's epic (not that it matters since their edited down version to appeal more to Bible-lovers hasn't turned out to be any more popular), but they have managed to get this rather naff disclaimer played at the beginning:
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.
Y'know, just in case you didn't know that the original story came from the Bible...
There's even been an attempt to get the Pope to give his approval. Not successful apparently. One tweet Russell Crowe makes to get the Pope's attention ends with 'inshallah', a term more often used used by Muslims (essentially meaning "God willing"), which seems like an odd choice.
But so far, this must seem like a rather petty criticism, right? The studio are trying to appeal to an audience that would make the movie enormously profitable. Why's that a problem? So the studio forced Aronofsky to add a bit of text on the beginning. Okay, not a great precedent, but hardly ruining the film, right?
What annoys me is that I think all this attempt to attract an audience who are never going to be on board with what Aronofsky is doing here has prevented a wider audience from recognising quite how impressive Aronofsky's vision really is.
4. Poor Marketing
The trailer could be said to mislead the audience because it looks like a simple retelling of the Noah story. But actually there are loads of snippets of the imagery Aronofsky intends to employ. They are just buried as a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moments.
This includes Noah with a flaming sword:
There's also been a shot of fireballs falling from the sky (which are in fact fallen angels, falling from heaven). A more recent trailer has since been a little more explicit with a shot of the angels coming seemingly from outer space.
But the studio consistently avoids showing the nephilim, descendants of the fallen angels who, in the graphic novel, fall to Earth out of compassion for mankind. In the graphic novel. These nephilim are actively involved in defending the ark from attack. But in the part of the trailer where an attack is made on the ark they seem to be nowhere to be found. Perhaps they aren't portrayed the same way in the movie? Perhaps they wanted the nephilim to be a surprise for the audience in the movie itself? Or perhaps they were just terrified that Christians would not like the depiction of the nephilim as huge giants protecting the ark from attack? You decide.
Some of the criticisms from Christian bloggers are pretty weird. I've heard them criticise the movie for showing nephilim as heroes, when the original Bible account refers to them as heroes. I've heard them criticise the movie for showing Noah as receiving God's messages through dreams, when it's pretty normal for prophets to hear the messages from God via dreams. And apparently they also criticise the movie for showing Noah getting drunk after his survival in the Ark, when that too is Biblical.
But I want to argue that perhaps this movie isn't really for Christian literalists. Perhaps it's made for people with an imagination. Yet the marketing seems to do it's very best to avoid showcasing Aronofsky's creativity or imagination and the movie's box office takings will inevitably suffer as a result of this.,,
