Martha and I (finally) went to see the movie “Noah,” which we weren’t all that interested in viewing until it created such an outcry from certain sectors of the Christian world. “Blasphemy!” some have muttered as they exited the theatre. Suspicious fundamentalists claim that it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the Genesis flood story to press a contemporary environmentalist agenda. I have no doubt that the objections of biblical literalists have boosted the ticket sales of this movie far beyond what it otherwise would have achieved.
Well, here’s my reaction. It’s an OK movie but not great. It’s not blasphemy, but neither is it a masterful dramatization of Genesis 6-9. It isn’t even a careful attempt to portray the Bible story realistically. (As Martha points out, the main characters keep putting on different clothes even though there’s nothing in the landscape that would provide the material to make them!) And even though it plays up the theme of God saving the animals (who were innocent) while wiping out human beings (who were culpable for destroying the earth with their violence), “Noah” did not strike me as a sneaky Hollywood attempt to promote a “green” agenda. In truth, the Bible is more pro-environment than this movie. The whole Torah from Genesis through Deuteronomy advocates careful use of the land and natural resources.
“Noah” is really a story based on a story. In other words, the flood account in
The movie, as its title implies, is almost entirely about Noah. It explores what kind of person Noah might have been and how he might have struggled with his own faith. It is therefore imaginative, since there is almost nothing in the Bible upon which to base a development of Noah’s character. That hardly makes it blasphemous or even offensive to the Jewish and Christian faith traditions, but it does require Aronofsky to venture far beyond the text of scripture.
Most moviegoers won’t recognize that woven throughout the picture is the theme of shekina, a central idea from Jewish mysticism. Shekina is the light of God, which the 13th-century Zohar (the basic text of Jewish mysticism) said was fully present in Adam. (The movie actually portrays Adam and Eve physically filled with and exuding light.) But when Adam sinned, the light was lost. According to Jewish mystical teaching, any further experience of shekina is only partial, and only as allowed by God. Most of “Noah” is set in a dim world covered with thick clouds. There are no shadows, because the light of the sun only rarely peaks through. It’s just dark and gray. Yet, light is accessible to Noah and his family in small ways – passed down from previous generations – that enable them to live comfortably. Of course (spoiler alert – sort of) the movie ends with a huge burst of sunlight that bathes all of creation and produces a rainbow. The shekina has returned – but it remains external to human beings.
Another theme of this movie is existentialism, a philosophy that asks, “What is the meaning of human existence?” When existentialism is paired with theology, it asks, “What is our purpose in creation?” “How do we experience God?” and “How do we go on believing in God in a world filled with sorrow?” When we first meet Aronofsky’s Noah, he is confident in his ability to discern God’s will. But over the course of the movie, he becomes increasingly troubled by the logical consequence of what God asks him to do. He is plunged into an existential crisis.
My critique of the movie is that these parts don’t seem to work together as a whole. It never becomes clear what this movie is actually about. If you are looking for a Bible story on the big screen, you’ll be disappointed. If you are intrigued by tough questions of faith – like why God would tolerate the destruction of the entire human population save one family – you might like this movie. It can certainly inspire thoughtful conversation, but only if you understand that “Noah” is not a retelling of Genesis 6-9. It is a mystical/philosophical attempt to probe the meaning of life. As such, it assumes an awful lot about its viewers – maybe too much, leaving some of them frustrated and angry.
©2014 by J. Mark Lawson
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.