Noah, the movie 2014

[Skye_Ariel]

Yes, that does make sense, but strange that a flood sent by God for the very purpose of killing these things off, would not succeed in killing ALL of them.

I also wonder about how they will return, since the bible clearly tells us the end times will be like the days of Noah, and the nephilim will be around again…So Satan must have something up his sleeve in order to get these things going again, but as the senior priest at my parish told me, the nephilim that appear in the end times may not be actual giants, like they were back then, he said satan can try a number of things in order to corrupt the human seed, maybe this time, we wont even recognize them if we pass them on the street?!

Ive pondered whether the whole alien abduction events are nothing more than Satan trying to work some evil plan, if his demons are actually what we are calling aliens from another world, and they are abducting people and then returning them to society, they are clearly doing something to them in this time…I think this is the key to what is going on (if this is really what the alien abductions are)

Yes, I see what you’re saying. But He didn’t kill off all humans or all animals either, He saved Noah and the animals in the ark. He just wanted to kill off enough to be able to have a fresh start.

And I do agree about the Nephilim returning in the end times, but they won’t be physical giants but a more sophisticated form of a giant, like mental giants maybe or technological giants. Back then brute force was what ruled but today we are more sophisticated so the Nephelim’s form will reflect our level of sophistication. And I do believe that if alien abduction is real, it does sound suspiciously like how the Bible described the fallen angels taking human women and using them to reproduce with. In Bible times people believed in devils and angels and other worldy beings were considered as devils if they did evil and angels if they did good in today’s time people believe in science so other worldly beings are considered as aliens. So I think they are one and the same just called by different names. Technically an angel is an alien because they are not of this world, they are of/from Heaven so a fallen angel is the same as a fallen alien since they are not of this world. So I believe they are the same beings from Bible times that went under the name of Nephelim back then. That’s why if aliens suddenly appeared in the open today, they would not contradict the Bible or Christianity because they are the same beings that were called the Nephelim back then. The devil can possess people as well as abduct people, when it’s possession it’s considered the devil, when it’s abduction it’s considered an alien. They are the same beings. Like being an American and being an Arizonian. They are both the same thing, but not all Americans are Arizonians but all Arizonians are American. Or like being human and being a woman, all humans are not women but all women are humans.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Della, have you watched or read Father Barron’s review of the film? I linked to both versions (text and video) earlier in the thread.

All through the film Noah ASSUMES God’s will instead of simply DOING God’s spoken will.

That’s the problem here. Noah was not devoted to God, rather this Noah was devoted to doing what he ASSUMED God wanted.

Aronofky’s Noah deserves more credit than that. God doesn’t “speak” to Noah in the film. In this film version, remember, the revelations and instructions come through dreams and visions. There are no words.

This movie’s Noah was attempting to interpret, and he had to since he wasn’t given verbal instructions of any kind.

If you don’t like that God didn’t verbally speak to Noah in some kind of cliche Bible cartoon way, that’s fine; we’re all entitled to our opinion. But what’s not open to dispute is that this film’s Noah always acted on his intention to follow the will of God. Yes, he got it wrong for much of the movie. But he was indeed trying to do God’s will, and he had to figure out what that was because God’s commands came in images.

Fine, but the audience gets the impression that it is God who is ordering Noah to do things God never commanded him to do

What? No, they don’t. Everyone knows that in this story, Noah and his family survive the flood. God never tells Noah to exclude people from the Ark, or that he should kill his granddaughters.

I don’t really think you believe that people could get that impression from the film. In the film, it’s obvious that Noah comes up with that stuff, not God.

But he should have erred on the side of mercy. A truly righteous person would do that.

Did Moses err on the side of mercy when he instructed the Levites to slay all the Israelites who worshiped the golden calf? God didn’t explicitly tell him to do that.

Was Elijah erring on the side of mercy when he ordered the prophets of Baal to be killed? God didn’t tell him to do that.

This stuff is all over the Old Testament. It makes no sense to hold it against Aronofsky and yet give a free pass to similar behavior actually recorded in the Bible. A lot of these Old Testament figures to whom great righteousness is attributed choose sometimes not to show mercy.

Indeed, that was the implication. The movie is filled with implications with nothing to back it up except the filmmaker’s slant on the story.

Why is that a problem? The Biblical text is sparse and entirely bereft of psychological detail. Of course a filmmaker is going to add in other dramatic, personal aspects.

I exhort you to check out Father Barron’s thoughts on the movie. He makes a pretty compelling case that the film’s elaborations are true to the Biblical spirit of the original.

God does not ask us to assume his will but to follow his will.

Again, what was Noah supposed to do? The instructions came in images/visions. To follow God’s will, Noah had to discern it first. He tried to do just that.

No, it doesn’t show that at all. It only shows what I cited above–that Noah had a natural love for his grandchildren, which is fine, but it’s not enough to show that mankind is worth saving.

Alright, fair enough. That’s just where the film was trying to go with it, though. That’s why Ila suggested that God left the choice in Noah’s hands.

So even if you disagree, it’s still clear that the film, through Ila, depicts Noah’s mission as a success rather than a failure.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I always had the impression that God chose Noah and his family and **only **Noah and his family because their bloodline was untainted. I never had the impression that God wanted Noah to allow just anyone in the ark. Just like how in the Bible God chose the animals by sending to Noah the ones he should take in the ark, God sent the animals to him, Noah didn’t go get the animals. I always believed God was specific in who He wanted in the ark and what animals.

 

[Della]

First of all, no film is meant to be a blow-by-blow representation of an original work, if it is based on a book or other existing source. So, I don’t expect films to be true representations in that sense. But, I do expect them to be true in essence to the original work, and “Noah” simply isn’t.

Noah did not receive God’s instructions in vague dreams that he had to interpret as best he could. God spoke quite clearly and was quite specific as to what Noah was to do. If the filmmaker wished to show a character making it up as he went along, he should have made up his own story and left the biblical account alone.

As to Moses and others assuming God’s will, that’s not the case. God’s standing punishment for idolatry was death. There was no need for them to consult God further about it.

I stand by my statements because I know what I saw on the screen was a gross misrepresentation of Noah’s story. Having said that I did like some aspects of the film. For instance the creation story was done quite well. I wish I could excise that one part just to have it to watch again and again. And the depiction of mankind as totally depraved by their sins with a corrupt leader egging them on was all right, too.

But the film got the essence and basics too wrong for me to overlook them merely because someone decided, in our day in which religion is treated with such contempt, to make biblical epic. It’s not “The Ten Commandments” it’s more like “The Last Temptation of Christ”–another attempt to retell from a skewed prespective the story of God reaching out to man in his sin.

 

[gabriel_yafet]

I loved the movie. Of course, you have to go with an open mind.
The movie is not 100% accurate to the Bible, and the film maker takes a lot of “artistic freedom” in order to tell a story that in the book took only 3 pages. He didn´t have enough material to create a whole movie, therefore he added things that he created. I still think that the message was adequate, and I like the idea that probably this will make people go to the Bible and read at least that part.

 

[WilT]

I loved the movie. Of course, you have to go with an open mind.
The movie is not 100% accurate to the Bible, and the film maker takes a lot of “artistic freedom” .

Overall, I liked the movie and I wasn’t to bothered by the storyline because of the artistic freedom that usually comes with it. The Passion of Christ is the only biblical story done as a movie that follows carefully our scriptures. When can bother me is if the Noah movie intentially meant to mislead and corrupt the scriptures by adding his own philosophy or ideology to it.

 

[Elizium23]

When can bother me is if the Noah movie intentially meant to mislead and corrupt the scriptures by adding his own philosophy or ideology to it.

I feel that that is what happened.

The overarching dominating theme of the film is environmentalism. If you have bought into environmentalism then you will love this film, Catholic or not. If you are skeptical of environmentalism then you just may hate it like I did.

The only sin depicted in the world was destruction of the environment. Tubal-Cain and his ilk were naughty because they had occupations such as mining and metalsmithing. Sure, they got a little irritated when they found out they were slated for extermination, but even I would become warlike in that same situation.

Noah’s murderous attitude toward his own offspring was not pro-life. And the truest words about God in the film were from the mouth of Tubal-Cain in the Ark. I forget exactly what he said (something about God’s relationship to mankind) but I was cheering for his preaching of sound doctrine. I am not sure why the arch-villain was made to say that unless it was to further some kind of atheistic or anti-Christian agenda.

The whole film had an atheistic agenda, as avowed by Aronofsky who gleefully stated he made the “least biblical biblical film ever”. I was soundly duped by NCRegister and Fr. Barron who gave glowing reviews to this pile of horse manure. That is $8 and 3 hours I will never, ever get back.

 

[Della]

I think some reviewers, especially Christian ones, were just so gosh darned happy to see a bibilcal story on film they simply overlooked “Noah’s” major flaws. I read a very good review by someone less ready to jump on the “Gee ain’t it great they made a film based on a Bible story” bandwagon who wrote that the major theme was Gnostic with God never being called God or any other biblical name for him, only “the Creator.” It was quite an insightful article but of course I can’t recall who wrote it or where I read it. Anyway, when my dh and I left the theater we were disgusted and angry. Not the same reaction we get when we watch Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments” or “Jesus of Nazareth” or “The Passion of the Christ” or even “The Son of God” (which we thought had gone over old ground and said nothing new).

UPDATE: Did a google search and found severral negative reviews of NOAH: noah movie gnosticism.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Oh, come on. You (plural) can’t be taking seriously that criticism that the film is somehow Gnostic. That’s absurd. This link will help explain why that’s a ridiculous claim to make.

By the way, God is called “God” at least once in the film (Ham tells Tubal-cain that Noah says “Only God is king,” or something to that effect).

Anyway, what matters is that “the Creator” - as He’s most often called - is always presented as the sole monotheistic creator and sustainer of the Universe, as an all-powerful personal being. It’s actually quite Biblical: God is not a force; He is not impersonal, etc. He is a real, personal being with a divine will.

That He is called “the Creator” is quite appropriate, as some reviewers have pointed out: this is a point in Biblical history when God has not been revealed very much to sinful mankind. Not only is Jesus not here yet, but we don’t even yet have the prophets, the Law, or the patriarchs. God’s divine Name has not yet been revealed. He must seem to these characters like a truly strange, transcendent, unknown entity, and the “other-ing” of God through this name is quite appropriate in context.