Noah is a very
high concept film but it falls short, primarily, because it does not radically
alter the perception of the source material. For the most part it only
enhances, with dramatic spectacle and fantastic images, what we know already.
Where this film does work, however, is in the portrayal of a tormented Noah
(Russell Crowe) who interprets these visions he said to receive from the
creator in such a way that could be potentially dangerous and exclusivist in
nature. I appreciated the details that
tried to make the themes about human nature relevant. The film does pose an
important thematic question? Is man merely to be a slave to the wishes of the
creator or is he to take control of what is presented before him?
This film recreates in fantastic detail the classic biblical
tale of Noah and the Ark. The creator decides to destroy the world of man
because it has been corrupted. He gives Noah the opportunity to build an Ark
that will save all the animals and insects and a select crew of humans to
either start anew or to let the world begin again without man’s corrupting
influence. The film also stars Jennifer Connelly as Noah’s wife Naameh, Ray
Winstone as the main antagonist Tubal Cain and Emma Watson as ll-la lla. Noah’s
sons are also featured significantly particularly Ham (Logan Lerman), Shem
(Douglas Booth) and Japheth (Leo Mchugh Carroll). Anthony Hopkins plays an
important anchoring role as the long lived Methuselah.
Positives
The best thing about this film is that it tried to attach a
more rugged look to the Noah story in his quest to grapple with visions from
the creator. This leads to a lot of questions regarding the creation of earth
and man’s place in it. The rugged nature of Noah’s quest contrasts with the
fantastic spectacle that enhances the various biblical legends from the Old
Testament. The most interesting and absurd addition are the rock giants or
beasts. These mysterious creatures have assumed an earthly form to hold their
spirits. It is an absurd addition but it seems to be the only thing to explain
the grand epic scope that the director and co screenwriter, Darren Aronofsky,
eventually takes in this film. The film, characteristically tries to apply the
high flown concepts associated with the creation story in a fantastic manner.
It is claimed that man has fallen so far that the whole world must be
destroyed. The fantastic elements try to enhance the significance of this
decline and so before Adam and Eve took a bite from the forbidden fruit they
are presented as mindless spiritual objects that literally shine with a
forceful glow emanating from them. In Noah’s time Adam’s descendants have to
endure a rugged existence on the fringes of Edenic society. It seems therefore that in Noah’s time the
light has been extinguished and the flood, in Noah’s eyes is seen as a means to
return to that pure state of nature free from the corruption of man. In some
cases some of the points do seem relevant such as man’s destructive nature. Is
it really in our nature to be so destructive? Are we really doing more harm
than good by trying to satisfy our benefits?
I liked the contrast between the philosophies of Noah and
Tubal Cain. As a descendant of Cain it is clear that Tubal believes that man
must take control of what he sees particularly as he is supposed to be created
in the likeness of god. In order to take control Man must rely less on magic
and spiritual offerings and rites and on his own ability to make things happen
with his own industry. This clearly contrasts with Noah’s high handed judgments
and his exclusivist nature. Noah is an idealist who believes in the world
beyond reality on a constant basis without coming to grips with changes in
reality. He has a fixed view on what is to be done and this can be dangerous. It
is only someone with the mindset like Tubal that can shake up a Noah and bring
him down to reality. This is clearly played out in the war for the soul of Ham.
Noah teaches him that only the mission counts regardless of who is left behind
whereas Tubal tells him to embrace the world and seize it for his own. The world
still seems to be divided along these lines: there are those that believe that
the underlying reality is what shapes us and we must take control of what we
know in order to make things better (or worse) and there are those who believe
fixedly in life beyond logic or strictly on belief/faith. They look at the realists
as filthy people that are lost in their materialist pleasures who don’t stand
by or support an ideal that will bring benefits later on and so everything must
be committed to this ideal regardless of the dictates of reality. This is why
the Creator wants to drown the world of man because in seeking out materialist
pleasure it makes us ruthless because of the competitiveness required to ward
off challengers who have the same desires. This division
is reflected in the film because tubal and his people are presented as savages
more or less whereas Noah is the holy one who has a higher purpose beyond the
mundane reality. Even though we have to eat, find a woman and make something of
the time while we are here with our backbreaking labour that would not matter
to a man like Noah who believes in the higher purpose of his creator. Tubal on
the other hand who does not receive such visions is, more or less, a political
animal. He forges weapon, he eats meat, and he is capable of subduing the elements
of the earth with requisite brutality. So whereas Tubal can rally support in the form
of other individuals and is therefore more inclusive because of his political
nature Noah is exclusivist and is aided by rock giants that really encase a
supernatural spirit. Noah does not seek to build the world with his own
backbreaking labour he merely relies on magic or high spiritual powers to get
things done. The sight of the battle between these rock giants and Tubal's people seems quite
absurd. In reality Noah would not have a
ghost of a chance.
The other element I liked was Noah coming to grips with his
ideals after the ark is now on the high seas as the flood has engulfed the
earth. His determination to stick to his ideals makes him seem very maniacal because
one with a fixity of purpose does not usually incorporate the elements that
will sidetrack the objective. We see this play out with Illa expecting to bring
life into the world. Noah claims that Man must not survive in order for the
garden of Eden to be restored. He intends to slaughter the children if they are
girls. It all plays out dramatically and so on but it does highlight that
people driven by an ideal can be very uncompromising in nature and so appear
either crazy, exclusivist or setting themselves up for a great fall. It is
always uncompromising people that fall hardest in the world. It is also uncompromising
people that can rise to the highest heights.
It all depends on the situation.
The visuals were ok but not stunning. The contrast between
the rugged look and the very colourful fantastic elements serves its purpose to
an extent.
Negatives
Before I went to see the film I was given the impression that
this would be a radical interpretation of this classical biblical tale. There is
the inclusion of several new elements such as the rock giants but it does not
alter the overall tale itself. Everything goes according to script regardless
of the elements included to give it more detail. The inclusion of elements like
the rock giants and Tubal Cain and co. merely enhances the absurdities in
several parts particularly the final battle. The power of God against man. I suppose
it could not be simple because with every positive there is a negative, the two
are, more or less, one. I understand that Noah must receive opposition and so
forth but for all this it does not alter the simple foundation of the story. It
also does not go further by asking how was the world reborn following the
flood. Aronofsky reverts to the simple in the end and excuses himself. All the
glittering and flashing lights does not mask errors and contradictions
By not radically altering the source material at its core
Aronofsky exposes it to even greater absurdities. With a high concept film
there is a lot that needs to be explained and I was dumbfounded by the
inclusion of the rock giants after being impressed with the rugged look at the
beginning of the film. It is surprising etc for the wrong reasons. It basically
acknowledges that this is a fantasy tale. The whole story is a great fantasy. This
will play into the hands of the disbelievers. The film certainly will not win
any new religious followers. It is more likely to confirm that the story
regarding the creation is inept. For instance when Noah tells the story of Creation
and speaks of Adam and Eve we see them bathed in light as if this was really
man in his true state. Do we show flashes of light once in awhile that would
connect us with our great spiritual past? Aronofsky tries to include some bits
of evolution with the creation story but conveniently ignores the great history
of the dinosaurs. At least this was featured in The Tree of Life (2011). Why would he not if he features a character
like tubal? He tries to explain the great history through the world of man only
and I don’t think much happened between Adam and Noah. Aronofsky gives the
impression that a lot happened for there is a scene that features a great
warrior with a sword that sets a whole battlefield ablaze. It is these fantastic
elements alone that can give some sense of history of our greatness since the
days of Eden. Methuseleh seems like a character that anchors the film but comes
off as another magician tied to an era when man had all of these magical powers.
It seems that as time wears on man becomes less magical or less inclined to using
magic for his own ends. How does that bring Noah in line with the 21st century other than as
escapist fiction?
Another absurdity that is exposed when you enhance this
fantastic story with great concepts is the Ark itself. Building the ark never seems so
straightforward in this film. After giving Noah all of these visions where is
there a historical basis for him to build the Ark? Noah merely says with such
patriarchal gravitas that reflects the ruggedness of the environment ‘We will
build an Ark.’ So he wants to build an Ark. Were men seafarers at this point in
our fantastic history since the days of Eden? Where does the knowledge come
from to build one? The story in the bible is more effective here because at least
god speaks directly to Noah and tells him how to build it. It also makes the
presence of the rock giants even more laughable because this is the only way
that Aronofsky can explain how Noah actually built such a massive ship. The
more epic it appears in scope the more absurd does the Ark appear. This would
have only made sense on a realistic basis if there was the cooperation of many
humans. It should have been the cooperation of many humans and not some rock
giants. This would have made the story about the ark more compassionate. He
does not resolve the absurdity in the biblical narrative therefore but merely
reinforces it. There is no way to explain how Noah and his family could have
built such an Ark without rock giants lol. If noah was a part of a clan or so
on it would have made more sense. When his clan comes into conflict with those
of tubal Cains the battle would be more thrilling because some would have to
sacrifice themselves in order for the boat to be protected. Aronofsky also
never resolved why on earth would god
preserve Noah and his family alone and why does he still give the
impression that Noah and his family alone will build the world anew? This story
sounds like one told by emperors about their great ancestors who founded a
kingdom etc. It cannot resonate with all of us because it appears incestuous. His
wife is willing to forgive him because he left people to die on the mountain
tops but wont forgive him if he chooses to kill illa’s children if they are
female? Incestuous, tribal and dynastic comes to mind here. If Noah is so determined
that man should die out why did he and
his family even bother to board the Ark? They should have just loaded the ship
with the sleep inducing incense to keep the animals asleep for an extended
period. When they are awakened they will find a new world of nature waiting for
them. It seems he only allowed Illa on
deck because he thought she was barren. Lol. He also allowed his wife on
because she was old. If Illa’s child is a boy it will be spared. It comes off
as very patriarchal because even if only women were around there is no guarantee
that they will give birth. Once there are no men no problem. Noah prepares to
kill Illa’s babies if they are girls because there would have been an incestuous
relationship with Japheth.
Describing it
seems nonsensical and at least the Bible was more upfront in its simple tale by
saying that Noah would rebuild a new earth i.e. his dynasty. Simple and
straightforward. Simple is not enough
for Aronofsky because he has to make it relevant and so very complex lol. By making
it complex he makes Noah seem nonsensical and a man driven to bathos. I can’t
sympathize with such a moronic character. God can give you rock giants to aid
you but can’t speak to you directly. He tries to make it realistic and
fantastic all at once and so the film appears torn between the extremes. For instance
Noah comes to the grand revelation that good and evil is in all of us through some
heightened spiritual revelation. Sometimes what we consider evil is good and
what is good evil. It can never be resolved and Aronofsky must get credit for bringing this out but it does not excuse that Noah still hails from a great
spiritual past and receives visions from the almighty creator whereas those
that exist in the real world look like beasts of the wild. Aronofsky merely
calls it evil because these people cannot resort to magic and have to make do
with what they know or can do with their hands etc. Once you have magic and rock giants on your
side you are holy and when you have to do backbreaking work to survive you are
evil. Typical elitist presentation.
Why does Aronofsky have the characters with names like Illa,
naameh and Noah speaking in old English. Is this a Christian/European tale or
what? Give them subtitles with some strange language.
The flood itself is overrated. Aronofsky makes it seem as if
it covered the whole earth when in Noah’s time it is clear that it was unnecessary to flood this vast area because the population numbers of humans were not as large
as they are today. Aronofsky enhances this absurdity to create an ending of the
world known from a tribal sense. It is such a grand flood of the world to
include so few people. If it encompassed the whole world why not feature the
many people being engulfed by the purifying waters. Engulfed by the purifying
waters lol.
There are too many absurdities to discuss. Suffice to say
that Aronofsky does not resolve the conceptual issues he only enhances the
contradictions and cannot resolve them by proposing a radical alternative or
interpretation to the events.
I actually found myself siding with Tubal Cain in some parts
which says something about how convincing or believable Noah and his fantastic
support cast are in this film.
