In Defense of NOAH

NOTE: The following article contains SEVERAL SPOILERS for the Darren Aronofsky's film Noah. I feel it is important to discuss issues raised in the film, but I do not want to spoil plot points and taint your first impressions seeing the film. If you feel comfortable reading on, please do. If you are afraid of spoilers, know I highly suggest the film and give it 4 out of 5 stars, though due to violent and suggestive material in the film, I strongly advise you take the PG-13 rating to heart.

Back in January, I released a list of the movies that I most anticipated for 2014, and one of the first mentioned was a little picture called Noah, an adaptation of one of first stories in the Bible. Lo and behold, several Christian audiences detested it, some even calling it heresy. However, I really enjoyed the film, but because of my schedule I was unable to do a traditional review of it to tell you to go see it in theatres. Months have passed and its presence has pretty much subsided in the cinema, but I still feel that, in the year which is becoming the return of Christian movies in the cineplex, Noah is a film worth talking about and debating. I've wrestled back and forth about when and how to do this--or even to do it at all--and now I feel I should present to you my defense of Darren Aronofsky's Noah.

There really hadn't been a big-name "Christian" movie in theatres since The Passion of the Christ in 2004, which broke several box-office records for R-rated films, foreign films, and Christian films. Passion was actually nominated for several Academy Awards, those of score, cinematography, and makeup--all of which were stunning. In my personal opinion, it's one of the best-directed films I've seen even if the last half of it is incredibly difficult to watch due to the graphic violence depicted in Jesus's final hours. It's considered a classic now among Christian audiences. What worked most for Passion was the divine, transcendental effect it had on audiences aided by successful artistic imagery that served to heighten the story's message even if they were deviations from the literal Gospels.

The  general reaction

Then 2014 comes along with Son of God, a re-release of the Jesus episodes from The Bible miniseries, and God's Not Dead, a sleeper hit that pits God's existence against philosophy, both of which are embraced by Christian audiences. For example, renowned pastor Rick Warren said of Son of God, "If you have to choose between church and movie, go see the movie this weekend." Then Noah is released and, generally, Christians haaaaate it. They despise it but not because it's a "Hollywood" film or even because of a poor acting performance. It's due to several deviations from the literal Biblical text, Genesis chapters 6-9. Now before I go on with my defense, do know that I generally do not mind if a film deviates from a book, but I do not condone when a film makes perversions of a sacred text like the Bible. That said, I believe that if deviations are made from a Biblical text, it has to be for reasons pertinent to the film's message and not completely arbitrary, in which case I believe Noah, for the most part, succeeds--the messages are made clear and the changes are justified by this, in my opinion.

What got people so riled up about this film? Why did it anger so many religious audiences? After much thought and research, I've narrowed it down to four major things: the addition of fallen angels, aspects of the villain Tubal-Cain, elements of the Creation sequence, and how Noah was portrayed.

This was the best representation of the Watchers I could find.

Noah screenwriter Ari Handel came out in an interview saying that everything that was in the film had some basis in the Genesis narrative, so many audiences with some understanding of the story were completely confused when the Watchers came up, especially since they were noticeably absent from Genesis 6-9 and any advertising. Looking back at promotional material, it appears to me as if the CGI creatures were removed from the advertisements purposefully. For example, look at this excerpt of a scene early in the movie. In the clip, Noah and his family walk out of their tent. In the same scene in the film, however, a Watcher they befriend is sitting in background, watching the family become determined to build the ark. This was obviously done to not scare away religious audiences.

Why are they in here if they are noticeably absent from the source material? Well, the Watchers (some refer to them as the Nephilim giants referred to early on in Genesis) are detailed in the First Book of Enoch, an extrabiblical piece of literature (at least from a Protestant standpoint) allegedly written by the first man to be physically taken up to Heaven and that New Testament author Jude seemingly refers to in his epistle (Jude verses 14-15). In the film, they are angels who disobeyed God by going down to the Earth to help the sons of Cain (the first murderer). Due to their disobedience, they are cursed by God and become one with the Earth (literally, their angelic form is encrusted by rock--some critics have referred to them negatively as "Rock Transformers" because of their appearance). However, the descendants of Cain turn on them, waging war and destruction upon them, until Noah's grandfather Methuselah (played marvelously by the legendary Anthony Hopkins) acts as their defender. The Watchers, however, become distrustful of man and become hermits, until they realize that Noah was called by God to save what is good and innocent, in which case they help Noah and his family build the ark. As the floodwaters come, they defend the ark against Tubal-Cain's wicked armies and, in doing so, sacrifice themselves, revealing their holy forms as they ascend to the sky, supposedly to Heaven.

More than once you probably cocked your head reading that. It seems so far out there that the filmmakers likely added these characters just to capitalize on a big fight scene at the ark. I disagree for one big reason: Darren Aronofsky is a very artistic director whose works include Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Fountain, and Black Swan, and every artistic director has a purpose in everything they do. After all, Aronofsky has had a relationship with the character of Noah since he was 13 years old when he wrote a fearful poem about the Flood Narrative and grew up in a "culturally Jewish" household. So why did we need the Watchers in this film which could have floated along without them? Seeing the film and analyzing it for the past three months, the themes of mercy and forgiveness are prevalent. The Watchers serve as a symbol. They had sinned but were later redeemed. They showed love; Jesus did say in John 15:13, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends," and that's what these characters did. For Christians, especially, they can be seen as an example of how God forgives us. I'm not saying that fallen angel demons can return to the Heavenly Choir; I'm saying that despite the seemingly far-fetchedness of the addition, there are lessons that can be learned if we look at film as an art form rather than something to turn our noses at once something smells fishy.

Ray Winstone as Tubal-Cain

The second argument is my favorite to rebuttal, and that's that Tubal-Cain, the villain, stows away on the ark during the big ark battle. Again, red flags are raised, but I encourage you to put them down a moment and hear me out. In the flood narrative, the only biological beings on the ark are Noah, his family, and the animals. So how in the world could the filmmakers dare to put Tubal-Cain on the ark and have their Biblical advisers not remove the material (oh yes, there were Biblical advisers, as seen in this featurette)? Again, Aronofsky is an artistic director, and there is not a better example of this than through the character of Tubal-Cain. First of all, Tubal-Cain is the name of a descendant of Cain in Genesis 4:22 who was "an expert in forging tools of bronze and iron." In the film, Tubal-Cain is the leader of most of humankind (that is, besides Noah's family, the descendants of Adam through his son Seth) and is determined to kill Noah and the Watchers and survive on the ark Noah builds. As any villain arc goes, he fails, but still I find Tubal-Cain the most interesting character in the film in that I see him as a symbol of Satan and sin. Tubal-Cain's monologue to God before the battle at the Ark reminds me so much of the story of Satan's fall from heaven. The gist of the story is that Satan, the most beautiful angel, wanted to take God's throne in his pride and because of that, he was cast down with his followers to Hell. In Tubal-Cain's monologue, he compares himself to God but fails to recognize that God doesn't answer him because Tubal-Cain is clouded with his sin and pride. Now when Tubal-Cain is wounded and on the ark, notice where he is--in the snake pit. What Bible character is the figure most commonly pointed at when a snake makes an appearance? Why, the devil himself! Watching the film, it is my interpretation that Tubal-Cain's purpose was to not only serve as Noah's nemesis, but as the representation of evil like Roger Chillingworth in The Scarlet Letter. Tubal-Cain's appearance on the ark wasn't meant to set up a final fight scene. The way I see it, Tubal-Cain was meant to show that sin stayed on the ark. Just read the Book of Genesis, and you'll see that sin wasn't absent after they land. Only a few verses down, Noah becomes dead drunk and curses his son Ham! Also, in the clip I hyperlinked in the Watchers segment, Noah calls the animals "the innocent;" while on the ark, Tubal-Cain eats animals raw. If we analyze even further, it personifies how Satan (Tubal-Cain) tries to destroy innocence in those who follow God (the animals). I don't believe that an additional character sailed the waters with Noah and his family as written in the Bible, but I do think that Aronofsky provided a stunning symbol in his epic through the character of Tubal-Cain.

The third thing that folks have cried out against are supposed representations of evolution and "overbearing" environmentalism, which many have found in the creation sequence below. I encourage you to take a look at it before reading on.

Before I go on, I must say that that is the most stunning Creation sequence I have seen since 2011's The Tree of Life. The timelapse style is perhaps the best way they could have done it, but it also lends itself to the allegations of evolution, which would be portrayed when Noah begins narrating the sixth day. While that very well may be what Aronofsky was going for--to show a marriage between religion and scientific theories--the sixth day doesn't have to be interpreted that way. The timelapse between the 1:44 and 2:08 mark seems to show reptiles evolving from one to another and then to mammals, but I can appreciate watching it as a display of all of the Creator's creation shown in a short period of time. However, we can look at these little details in the visuals and miss the big picture in the narration. What Aronofsky's trying to get across here in the silhouetted breaking of the fourth wall is that God created everything to be in His image and because we fell into the temptation of sin, we've caused the destruction of the world and each other, a message which is made in the Biblical text. Man sins in the Garden of Eden, falls too far down the sinful rabbit hole, and God eradicates the sin with a flood, though the righteous--those who still strove to follow the will of God--are saved by his grace and their obedience.

The only thing missing from this Noah are two giraffes flanking him.

Then comes the issue many people were uncomfortable with during the film: how Noah was portrayed by the filmmakers. In the Flood Narrative, Noah is a rather static character: he is found righteous in God's sight and builds the ark as commanded by God. After the flood, Noah makes sacrifices and becomes a vineyardsman, then gets drunk on wine. When he wakes up, he curses his son Ham's descendants because Ham saw him naked and did nothing about it. In the film, we see Noah as a much more dynamic character, if less likable. In this, we see two phases of his character. The first is the one you see in the photo above and in the clip hyperlinked in my Watcher argument. He's the Noah many people recognize, a Noah with hope and kindness and full obedience towards God. However, after Noah goes into Tubal-Cain's territory to find wives for his sons Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll), he sees the wickedness of man in the most disturbing sequence of the film, and his heart is hardened by what he sees. The second phase of Noah's character gains this false understanding that when God said to save the innocent, man and his wickedness could not included, meaning that Noah and his family were only tools to save the animals and must die alone when the flood recedes. So when his daughter-in-law Ila (played by Emma Watson in her greatest performance yet) becomes pregnant with twins, he becomes convinced that God needs him to destroy the babies in a plot resembling the Binding of Isaac.

Obedience becomes aggressive as Noah progresses through the film.

This latter interpretation of Noah has gotten folks riled up. How could the most righteous man on Earth be portrayed as an "angel of death" (figuratively, of course) in the third act? We must remember that in the Bible, while Noah was called "righteous" and "blameless," he wasn't perfect; no man is. The "Warrior Noah" phase shows this: man is not perfect nor ever will be. The entire third act of the film (at least what was on the ark) was created by Aronofsky and his team of developers; there is no evidence of any of this tense drama ever happening, according to Scripture. But I have enough faith in Aronofsky as a filmmaker to believe that he didn't "change" Noah's character for purposes of perversion and to mock the source material. As I stated before, the director has had a long history with this character, and this is basically his passion project. He found messages and themes in the Bible story that he related to and needed to portray, and through this he made Noah do things Noah may not have done in Bible times. Aronofsky needed to show delicate mercy contrasted with hard justice. When Noah is in his phase of "kill the babies," God is silent; He does not give approval, but Noah acts on his own accord because that's what he thinks God wants him to do even though God did not answer. When Noah has a change of heart and displays mercy and love on his grandchildren, God shines his light of approval upon Noah's family, and the film has a mostly happy ending. Through this the character of Noah realizes God's mercy on the Earth. God destroyed the world, but he preserved a remnant that was willing to follow His will. Aronofsky makes certain mercy is a concrete theme by having the credits song be "Mercy Is" by Patti Smith and Clint Mansell, which is also sung by Noah to a young Ila early in the film and then later by Ila to her babies before Noah plans to execute them.

These four points weren't the only things audiences had problems with. Many Christian audiences had a problem that God was not mentioned by name and only referred to as "The Creator." To that I say: Song of Solomon/Songs and the Book of Esther didn't even mention God, so it's really kind of a petty argument to make if you ask me. Be glad that God was even called the Creator in a film that apparently promotes evolution; I personally think that being Creator of everything is kind of a significant thing regarding who God is, and if we're going to cry fowl about that, something is very terribly wrong. Some have complained that God doesn't have a speaking part. In the Bible, God's the only person to talk and he gives explicit instructions to Noah. In the film, God speaks through light in the clouds to tacitly say, "Yes, I give my blessing to this," or through bizarre, almost disturbing visions that point to a flood and global inundation. This is clearly a filmmaker's choice on how to present God in a non-cheesy fashion. Consider this: how much would it have taken you out of the film if a deep booming voice came out of nowhere and said, "Noah, build an ark." We've seen this before! And potentially, we'd be leaving the theatre forgetting the message of the film or any great display of filmmaking and instead thinking about how God sounded. ("Was that Morgan Freeman? Why wasn't that Morgan Freeman? It was Christopher Walken?!") Nobody left the theatre confused on who was talking through these visions, folks.

Furthermore, an article came out called "Sympathy for the Devil" written by Dr. Brian Mattson which basically asserted that Noah was a film primarily based on the Kabbalah, a notable book dealing in Jewish mysticism, rather than the Bible, which is apparently evident through the mineral zohar used throughout the film (it happens to be the name of a book in the Kabbalah) or that Adam and Eve are glowing in the Garden of Eden during the Creation sequence (an artistic move, I thought in the theatre). The support for his argument is that the Kabbalah was a major theme in Aronofsky's film Pi. I personally feel that if we're going so far to assert these things we're just looking so hard for something to hate with this film or any film in general and in doing so we miss the point entirely. When I was learning rhetoric, I learned that it is important to understand the author's background to pull out the message, but I feel that if start doing this too much, we begin to lose the impact and message the film can have on us as an audience.

We could have had this!

I feel passionately about this, perhaps too passionately than what's normal or preferred, but I believe in film as an art form, and I feel that Noah was very well made from an artistic standpoint. In an age where many Christian movies are some of the worst things ever made (two bookend my top 13 worst movies list), we were given a great film and ignored the merits the film had. I'm not saying that Aronofsky created a film that was the straight Bible because it wasn't. But perhaps we've become too accustomed to seeing film as entertainment that we've forgotten appreciate a director's vision the same way we read books or look at a painting or sculpture. In all honesty, I'd rather have a film that we can get Christian messages from without being beat over the head (like Signs) or a Christian film that tries to be a great film (The Passion of the Christ) than get a movie that settles for less because "it's all for the glory of God" (see 93% of PureFlix Entertainment's library). Filmmakers of all kinds, I implore you to make films that make us think; give us more Girls in Red and less CGI prairie dogs. Give us a film we can discuss and debate and not something we'll forget in a week.

All that said, I don't think the film was perfect. The third act in the ark fumbled in places, mostly because of changes they took too far or seemed unnecessary, and I felt that Ham's story arc about what it means to be a man was uninteresting and pretty weak compared to the rest of the film. However, the acting performances in the film were phenomenal across the board, and I felt the direction, especially with intricate details, and musical score by Clint Mansell were masterful.

I don't assert that what I say is what the director intended, and I don't pretend that this was the definitive interpretation of the film. I simply provide my interpretation to show the film is not as bad as it has been made out to be. Film is meant to be discussed, so please provide your thoughts, rebuttals, and arguments in the comments below. I'd love to talk about this film with you.