MOVIE: Noah

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrdinaryMelkite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that the main issue for many here is that Noah is not perfect. For example, he interprets God’s message in a wrong way which leads him to ponder murder. *But he doesn’t do it *in the end. He does the right thing, he understands God’s message eventually.

Is that so horrendous? Isn’t that simply human, to be confused, to not hear God’s voice clearly and to wonder what it all means?

I have not seen the film because it will not be shown in this country, but I definitely would if I could.
That is a good way to look at it, I haven’t seen it either and just reporting what I have heard.

But I think one thing should be remembered. Noah was a righteous man, who was blameless in his generation, and walked with God. Sure he could hear God in the wrong way, but to say a righteous man would consider murder is a major stretch.
 
Saw the movie yesterday and liked it.🍿 I didn’t feel it insulted any of my religious beliefs.

We really don’t know what kind of world it was before the Deluge so maybe they did have some advanced devices, knew how to knit, use buttons, put together a nice waredrobe (love the textiles and visable stitching etc.), had some sort of exploding instruments and glowing coals.

snipity-snip-snip

Yes, Noah is an environmentalist and does not consume meat. However, they all have some really nice boots.

Good acting, great animation, missed the giraffes and bunnies. Will give you something to think about and you’ll probably go read about Noah in the Bible. 👍
I have to say, the way that this story was pulled together used some pretty imaginanive though to fill in the gaps that are in the story. I always saw the people of the OT, especially the closer you get to the point of Original Sin to have been really raw, lawless… as the prayer goes “the poor banished children of Eve.” Their closeness to the fall is still something that they speak of like we speak of the Civil war; grandfatehrs and great grandfathers could still point to the path that led back to the Garden, etc.

What really made it a great film for me was that I could see a bit of myself, or people I know in the characters; including Tubal-cain. Noah was righteous, for being of that whole lot… not that high of a standard, but clearly he and his family were way above what they had around them.

I will have to see it again in a real theater, since I saw it in the drive in so I missed a lot of the cool special effects.

I did notice that they had some very nice boots. And if someone is afraid that a movie will waver your fait, then maybe we should all pray for God to strengthen our faith.:rolleyes:
 
ada
so they forget about one of the central elements of the Old Testament. Animal Sacrifice, which is present through the Pentateuch is one of the central elements of the temple sacrifice. So Noah is a vegetarian? I understand that Noah may have been a vegetarian but Animal sacrifice was present in Noah’s life. They brought 7 birds onto the boat for one purpose, to Sacrifice to God when they reached dry land after the flood. Animal sacrifice is in scripture as early as Abel who is the second son of Adam. From what I have heard and what I read in your review, animals seem to be more important than man himself. This is problematic, yes we are to care for God’s creation, but God also commanded animal sacrifice to every generation of Jews from Abel to the time of Christ.

maybe it’s not horrible but I hope you see the issues I brought up are problems.
I may be mistaken, but I recall that at the beginning of the film there is an animal that is sacrificed, or at least consumed in a holocaust; given to the Creator. Noah looked upon animals as property of God that was not for man’s consumption. I didn’t get the whole vibe that the animals were better or more important than humanity. Just that Noah did not eat the animals because God did not say he could. However the wicked men not only ate the flesh of animals, but also ravaged the earth. Instead of caretakers, they abused their position of dominion willfully destroying God’s creation.

Humanity is shown as God’s greatest accomplishment, IMO during the montage as Adam and Eve are shown glowing in their glorified bodies, briefly.
Which to me spoke directly to how quickly they turned away from God to follow their own will. But the story isn’t about how humanity is supposed to be; in glory walking with God. It isa story of how wicked man could be when left to their own devices.

Pablo.
 
For those who like Hollywood action films, this is your film, go fill your boots. That’s all we have here.

If you’re like me, you don’t go to the movies too often – DO NOT waste your 2 ½ hours (including commercials) and ten bucks.

The movie got goofier and goofier as it progressed, for instance when Noah stalked his daughter-in-law in order to kill his grand-kids.

Any similarities to the actual story of Noah is unintentional and purely coincidental.

Just Hollywood using the Noah brand to get free publicity. Religious groups ought to file a class-action lawsuit for misrepresenting the brand. I’d like to sue for my wasted 139 minutes. And computer-enhanced graphics just don’t cut it for me, in a movie.

The movie actually harms the biblical cause. It will not inspire a non-believer to investigate scripture.

Word will get around about this joke of a film but not until they tricked countless curious people on their first weekend ($43.7 million).

One out of ten is showing considerable generosity and charity.
 
It seems to me that the main issue for many here is that Noah is not perfect. For example, he interprets God’s message in a wrong way which leads him to ponder murder. *But he doesn’t do it *in the end. He does the right thing, he understands God’s message eventually.

Is that so horrendous? Isn’t that simply human, to be confused, to not hear God’s voice clearly and to wonder what it all means?
He goes psycho on his family and terrorizes them to the point of nearly killing a newborn baby. “Is that so horrendous?” Um…yes, that definitely qualifies as horrendous. The movie should have been rated R (don’t know what it was rated in other countries) and the Catholic bishops office correctly tagged this as “A-III” (Adults.) Seriously: parts of it made Mel Gibson’s “Passion of The Christ” look like “The Lego Movie” by comparison.
 
There is a priest I know who I will leave nameless for obvious reasons. Who saw a broadway production called the book of mormon, after like 10 to 20 minuets into the show the show was so morally offensive to him that he walked out of the theater. If something is so bad that it turns a view off after 10 minuets I would say that he has a legit opinion that should be listened to.
And I would say that 10 to 20 minutes gives no one a reliable opinion on an entire stage show or film. I remember the uproar over “The Life of Brian” and will never forget the young priest leaving as I entered and chuckling ti himself. He realized the satire and other elements in the film were for entertainment, not offense.

I will say one thing, at least these people entered the theater, There were people criticizing Noah long before it had been released. Agenda driven reviews are also unreliable.
 
👍 What’s the reasons it will not be shown where you are? I know that country is Muslim.
I think the reason is because prophets should not be directly depicted, and Islam considers Noah to be a prophet. I’ll just get it on DVD at some point. 🙂
 
He goes psycho on his family and terrorizes them to the point of nearly killing a newborn baby. “Is that so horrendous?” Um…yes, that definitely qualifies as horrendous.
OK, I see why people are upset.
 
Well, I saw it finally…

And I can say…

While the environmental/animal abuse reason why God destroyed the Earth was shown as part of a larger overall patter of sinfulness and depravity that the Creator looked down upon-------the movie STILL overemphasized the “animal rights/environmentalist” message, giving it the appearance (IMO, at least) of a typical Hollywood environmentalist screed.

And it DOES seem to forget that Noah sacrificed an animal at Ararat after the Flood. It emphasizes the “vegetarian environmentalist” angle for the sake of Biblical accuracy. This comes out especially in the “Tubal Cain’s people” scenes, where they are shown doing the stereotypical things an environmentalist would say bad people do to the animals and environment.

Plus, the “pro-life” angle of the story might lead some people to believe that “pro-life” means “something to do with abortion” instead of Noah (to paraphrase a previous poster) acting like a crazy wild man and attempting to kill newborns and then deciding not to do it. Deciding that girls ARE worth saving for the sake of the human race after all. LOL.

OTOH—great special effects, some good battle scenes, great voice-over by Russell Crowe----Jennifer Connelly looks and acts great, as always, and Anthony Hopkins is awesome as Methuselah.

Like I said on the OP-----Aronofsky is an atheist secular Jew and has also admitted this is NOT intended to be a religious movie-------

But still, I was disappointed. More Hollywood Leftist secular propaganda incorporated into classic narratives. **1/2 out of 5 stars. LOL.

My opinion and I am sticking to it.
 
I keep seeing it advertise, a clip where meteors are crashing to earth.

What has that got to do with anything?
 
Did Noah say anything about, “Trickle down economics?” LOL

I am sure much of the Noah story in the bible is allegorical anyway. If atheists want to play around with bible stories then they should take the premise and make another story with different names and just say, taken from an idea in the bible or some such thing.
 
I wasn’t going to see it anyhow, but this unsold me on even seeing it via netflix:

drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil
Thank you for linking to that; it is a VERY interesting read, and I highly recommend it to the other followers of this thread.

I quibble with one detail; it is my personal belief that the pre-Fall Adam and Eve were, in fact, clothed in light, but I agree with Dr. Mattson that the idea that they did not have physical bodies is ludicrous.
 
'Just been to see it. Good graphics but little resemblance to the biblical narrative. I would recommend it to anyone who likes ‘monster’ movies and baddies chewing legs raw off innocent animals.
 
wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/April-2014/Noah–A-Post-Modern-Midrash.aspx

Noah: A Post-Modern Midrash

By Fr. Robert Barron

"Noah” is best interpreted, I think, as a modern cinematic midrash on the Biblical tale. The midrashim—extremely popular in ancient Israel—were imaginative elaborations of the often spare Scriptural narratives. They typically explored the psychological motivations of the major players in the stories and added creative plot lines, new characters, etc. In the midrashic manner, Aronofsky’s film presents any number of extra-Biblical elements, including a conversation between Noah and his grandfather Methuselah, an army of angry men eager to force their way onto the ark, a kind of incense that lulls the animals to sleep on the ship, and most famously (or infamously), a race of fallen angels who have become incarnate as stone monsters. These latter characters are not really as fantastic or arbitrary as they might seem at first blush. Genesis tells us that the Noah story unfolds during the time of the Nephilim, a term that literally means “the fallen” and that is usually rendered as “giants.” Moreover, in the extra-Biblical book of Enoch, the Nephilim are called “the watchers,” a usage reflected in the great hymn “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.” In Aronofsky’s “Noah,” the stone giants are referred to by the same name.

What is most important is that this contemporary midrash successfully articulates the characteristically Biblical logic of the story of Noah. First, it speaks unambiguously of God: every major character refers to “the Creator.” Secondly, this Creator God is not presented as a distant force, nor is he blandly identified with Nature. Rather, he is personal, active, provident, and intimately involved in the affairs of the world that he has made. Thirdly, human beings are portrayed as fallen with their sin producing much of the suffering in the world. Some of the religious critics of “Noah” have sniffed out a secularist and environmentalist ideology behind this supposed demonization of humanity, but Genesis itself remains pretty down on the way human beings operate—read the stories of Cain and Abel and the Tower of Babel for the details. And “Noah’s” portrayal of the rape of nature caused by industrialization is nowhere near as vivid as Tolkien’s portrayal of the same theme in “The Lord of the Rings.” Fourthly, the hero of the film consistently eschews his own comfort and personal inclination and seeks to know and follow the will of God. At the emotional climax of the movie (spoiler alert), Noah moves to kill his own granddaughters, convinced that it is God’s will that the human race be obliterated, but he relents when it becomes clear to him that God in fact wills for humanity to be renewed. What is significant is that Noah remains utterly focused throughout, not on his own freedom, but on the desire and purpose of God. God, creation, providence, sin, obedience, salvation: not bad for a major Hollywood movie!

There is a minor scene in the film which depicts some members of Noah’s family administering the sleep-inducing smoke to the animals. They look, for all the world, like priests swinging thuribles of incense around a cathedral. I’m quite sure that this was far from the mind of the filmmakers, but it suggested to me the strong patristic theme that Noah’s Ark is symbolic of the Church. During a time of moral and spiritual chaos, when the primal watery chaos out of which God created the world returned with a vengeance, the Creator sent a rescue operation, a great boat on which a microcosm of God’s good order would be preserved. For the Church Fathers, this is precisely the purpose and meaning of the Church: to be a safe haven where, in the midst of a sinful world, God’s word is proclaimed, where God is properly worshipped, and where a rightly ordered humanity lives in justice and non-violence. Just as Noah’s Ark carried the seeds of a new creation, so the Church is meant to let out the life that it preserves for the renewal of the world.

If Aronofsky’s “Noah” can, even subliminally, suggest this truth, it is well worth the watching.
 
wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/April-2014/Noah–A-Post-Modern-Midrash.aspx

Noah: A Post-Modern Midrash

By Fr. Robert Barron

"Noah” is best interpreted, I think, as a modern cinematic midrash on the Biblical tale. The midrashim—extremely popular in ancient Israel—were imaginative elaborations of the often spare Scriptural narratives. They typically explored the psychological motivations of the major players in the stories and added creative plot lines, new characters, etc. In the midrashic manner, Aronofsky’s film presents any number of extra-Biblical elements, including a conversation between Noah and his grandfather Methuselah, an army of angry men eager to force their way onto the ark, a kind of incense that lulls the animals to sleep on the ship, and most famously (or infamously), a race of fallen angels who have become incarnate as stone monsters. These latter characters are not really as fantastic or arbitrary as they might seem at first blush. Genesis tells us that the Noah story unfolds during the time of the Nephilim, a term that literally means “the fallen” and that is usually rendered as “giants.” Moreover, in the extra-Biblical book of Enoch, the Nephilim are called “the watchers,” a usage reflected in the great hymn “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.” In Aronofsky’s “Noah,” the stone giants are referred to by the same name.

What is most important is that this contemporary midrash successfully articulates the characteristically Biblical logic of the story of Noah. First, it speaks unambiguously of God: every major character refers to “the Creator.” Secondly, this Creator God is not presented as a distant force, nor is he blandly identified with Nature. Rather, he is personal, active, provident, and intimately involved in the affairs of the world that he has made. Thirdly, human beings are portrayed as fallen with their sin producing much of the suffering in the world. Some of the religious critics of “Noah” have sniffed out a secularist and environmentalist ideology behind this supposed demonization of humanity, but Genesis itself remains pretty down on the way human beings operate—read the stories of Cain and Abel and the Tower of Babel for the details. And “Noah’s” portrayal of the rape of nature caused by industrialization is nowhere near as vivid as Tolkien’s portrayal of the same theme in “The Lord of the Rings.” Fourthly, the hero of the film consistently eschews his own comfort and personal inclination and seeks to know and follow the will of God. At the emotional climax of the movie (spoiler alert), Noah moves to kill his own granddaughters, convinced that it is God’s will that the human race be obliterated, but he relents when it becomes clear to him that God in fact wills for humanity to be renewed. What is significant is that Noah remains utterly focused throughout, not on his own freedom, but on the desire and purpose of God. God, creation, providence, sin, obedience, salvation: not bad for a major Hollywood movie!

There is a minor scene in the film which depicts some members of Noah’s family administering the sleep-inducing smoke to the animals. They look, for all the world, like priests swinging thuribles of incense around a cathedral. I’m quite sure that this was far from the mind of the filmmakers, but it suggested to me the strong patristic theme that Noah’s Ark is symbolic of the Church. During a time of moral and spiritual chaos, when the primal watery chaos out of which God created the world returned with a vengeance, the Creator sent a rescue operation, a great boat on which a microcosm of God’s good order would be preserved. For the Church Fathers, this is precisely the purpose and meaning of the Church: to be a safe haven where, in the midst of a sinful world, God’s word is proclaimed, where God is properly worshipped, and where a rightly ordered humanity lives in justice and non-violence. Just as Noah’s Ark carried the seeds of a new creation, so the Church is meant to let out the life that it preserves for the renewal of the world.

If Aronofsky’s “Noah” can, even subliminally, suggest this truth, it is well worth the watching.
This is great and does slightly change my view on this movie, I may actually rent it lol.
 
If Aronofsky’s “Noah” can, even subliminally, suggest this truth, it is well worth the watching.
I like Fr Barron’s WOF videos. But I disagree. Maybe it would be worth watching for people who are ignorant of Christianity. But to spend money on this garbage and support people who are attempting to sucker Christians with this… come on. Rather watch some foreign cinema and look for God in other cultures’ works. He is there.
 
I like Fr Barron’s WOF videos. But I disagree. Maybe it would be worth watching for people who are ignorant of Christianity. But to spend money on this garbage and support people who are attempting to sucker Christians with this… come on. Rather watch some foreign cinema and look for God in other cultures’ works. He is there.
lot’s of people are very ignorant on the actual content of the Bible. I haven’t seen the movie so I can’t comment on it’s parallel’s or differences but people could watch a movie that contradicts one of the most fundamental truths of the bible and they would have no idea.
 
I haven’t seen the movie yet (in my country we’ll have to wait until next week!). Actually, after reading all the negative reviews/comments I had started losing interest in it.

… and then I stumbled upon SDG’s wonderful interview with Aronofsky and Ari Handel (co-writer). I haven’t seen linked it here, sorry if it’s already been discussed:

ncregister.com/daily-news/interview-darren-aronofsky-ari-handel

Aronofsky may be a self-proclaimed atheist, but judging from his words it looks like he approached the biblical text with curiosity, passion and respect for its deeper meaning, regardless of how he may have elaborated on the “plot” and characters.
His answers to Greydanus are deep, thought-provoking… and surprisingly in line with Catholic teaching!
Actually, I think he’s done a great job explaining what the tale of Noah is really about in those few words, and some of the points he makes are really interesting.

So yeah, now I’m really curious to see the movie!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top