The Good, The Bad, and The Art in Aronofsky's Noah

Have you ever walked into an ice cream shop expecting to eat your favourite flavour, only to find out that it tasted different from your expectations? Or maybe, it's your must-order dynamite roll at a sushi place, only to find out that they are missing the avocado and sesame on top.

I think some people have this approach to watching Noah.

How did this...

Turn into this...?

I know. Silly analogy. But I do think there's some truth to it. If you go into the theatre expecting to see a certain version of Noah, you will probably be disappointed, shocked, or even angry. This is Aronofsky's interpretation of Noah, and it's definitely not the Noah that you and I grew up with. It's a bit like a cross between Black Swan and Lord of the Rings. And truth be told, I think Aronofsky has done what filmmakers ought to do. Filmmakers need to re-interpret stories, creating narratives that leave us hanging on the edge of our seats because of its well-paced and well-told story that is not predictable (but with coherence that makes sense). 

So here is... 

The Good, The Bad, and the Art 

in Aronofsky's Noah

(this will be spoiler-free...so if some of my points seem to make a point without reference, it's because I don't want to spoil it.)

The Good

1. The acting is raw, dynamic, and superb. 

After seeing Russell Crowe sing in Les Misérables I had lost some hope for this former Gladiator. However, his acting in Noah has given a brand new perspective to Noah, one that evokes aspiration, doubt, devotion, and longing. Emma Watson plays her role so well that you feel what she really goes through (no spoilers here). Great actors drive a great movie. In fact, Russell Crowe paid a visit to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the movie at the Lambeth Palace

2. The film portrays the mythological/primeval narrative genre of Noah. 

You can feel so clearly from the start that this is an ancient world, which is foreign to us, and requires us to listen, watch, and observe closely in order to understand what's going on. This sense of strangeness draws us into the story, much like LOTR creates a mythological world that is new to you. For those of us who grew up on Noah and are tired of the zookeeper Noah imagery, this is a breath of fresh air.

3. Aronofsky does not try to provide a moral lesson, but instead poses a question: What does it mean that we are created in the image of God? 

This was brilliant. Noah asks this question. So does Tubal-Cain (if you think this is made up...look at Genesis 4:19-24. It's great that they paid attention to this detail in the genealogy). These two characters have vastly different ideas of what it means to be created in God's image. In turn, this provokes us into asking what the image of God means. 
However...there does seem to be some moral conclusion at the end in Illa and Noah's conversation. I won't spoil it here though. See for yourself.

4. Aronofsky presents us with a different worldview of Noah. 

In this worldview, there is a longing for prayers to be answered, for the voice of God to be heard, but it is nowhere to be heard, except for physical signs (again, I won't include spoilers). While certainly Noah is not a Christian film, I think it is very helpful because it presents us with a different worldview, closely aligning with our postmodern North American culture. This helps Christians understand the struggles of our friends who do not have faith in God and ask: Where is God? Does he really hear us?

The Bad

1. The God in this film is reduced to a "Creator" and becomes a deistic God. 

I believe Aronofsky intentionally uses "creator" as opposed to "God" or "Lord" because he does not want to portray the "Christian" God. This film encapsulates Deism. Deism is a worldview developed in the 17th century, originating from Lord Herbert Cherbury. In brief summary, Deism implies that there is a God who created the world. However, he is not involved in this world with his people. He is detached. Some philosophers have used the image of a "Watchmaker God." This implies that God designed the watch (the world) and allows it to run on its own. This worldview is quite rampant in Noah. I will not spoil the film by pointing to what happens, but if you have watched the movie you will know what I am talking about.

Ask yourself the questions: "What is the role of God in this film? Does he speak?" When you begin asking those questions, you might find your interpretation of the movie changing.

2. The Creator in this film, as a result, seems almost vindictive, destructive, and evil. 

I know some Christians are offended by the film because it tends to portray the Creator as a god of destruction (I respectfully disagree with this blogger but I can see where he is coming from). It is evident that Aronofsky gets biblical story "wrong," because he is trying to tell a different story! However, I do not find a problem with this, because it is Aronofsky's interpretation of the story. I recognize this is the worldview he is wrestling with, so I would not expect to see the loving, covenantal God of Israel to be presented. Certainly, I would not be expecting to see hesed (God's loving kindness). Yes, some will say that this film is an attack on the Bible, but instead of avoiding and condemning the film, I think Christians have a privilege and responsibility to engage well with this film.

update: check out the update at the bottom on the Gnosticism in this film. Dr. Brian Mattson argues cohesively and convincingly for the Gnostic and Kabbalah influences on this film, which explains the vindictive creator (think "demiurge" in Gnosticism) that wants to destroy all material things.

3. Aronofsky has said that his film is a "dark parable about sin, justice, and mercy" (click here)

This film is not fluff for a sunday school lesson. It is dark, gritty, grim and full of violence (but I'm surprised there weren't more Gladiator-esque scenes). Sin and justice, the film certainly pays much attention to, and one would question what kind of mercy is portrayed in the film. Certainly, it does not look the loving mercy of Yahweh, but resembles more of a "choose-to-do-good-and-you-will-receive-mercy" attitude. I'm sure some will call this Pelagianism (simplistic definition: work for your salvation).

However, I think it is appropriate for this film to be as "dark" as it is. Read through Genesis 1-11 again. Those were dark times, especially in the context of Noah's story. How else would you expect this story to be told if it were not dark? Proponents of "Total Depravity" (a theological term meaning that each of us has been effaced with sin) will certainly recognize the gravity of sin in this film. It takes sin very seriously. And this leads me to the final section...

not your typical zookeeper

The Art

1. Sin, or the depravity of humanity, is illustrated by repeated and almost poetic (grimly poetic) images that linger in your mind.

I can still see those images. Don't worry; it's not gruesome. There is something about the way Aronofsky paints his imagery that leaves a mark in your mind. And this, I think, testifies to the lingering of sin. Aronofsky doesn't need to use dialogue to tell you about how terrible sin is. In addition to this is Aronofsky's use of light and shadow imagery, especially in the beginning parts of the film. As a cinematographer, I think that he creates excellent cinematography.

2. The story of creation is told with beautiful poetic words and imagery that is almost liturgical. 

Honestly, I have not seen a "biblical" movie tell the story of creation (according to Genesis 1) as profoundly as Noah has through its artistic use of repetition, rhythm, and imagery. This occurs at the beginning of the movie, but more dramatically halfway through it.

Conclusion

There is much more I want to say about this film, but I shall leave the rest up to you, the viewer, to experience. For all my friends who are still doubtful of this "least biblical" film of all time, I ask you to consider this. 

Why do you think there are so many "biblical" movies that are coming up now? Think: Noah, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Heaven is for Real, Son of God, Mary of Nazareth. What kinds of opportunities will this give us for conversations with a biblically illiterate culture? There is so much hope as these films engage the public sphere, whether they are based on or inspired by the Bible. Hear what Dr. Krish Kandiah (executive director of the Evangelical Alliance in the UK, and sessional lecturer at Regent College) has to say about it on his blog. 

Maybe, we're tired of movies that try to teach us moral lessons. 

Maybe, we need art that stimulates us to think about who God is, why humans have purpose on this earth, and how we are to make sense of that.

Maybe, our culture is longing for films that give us a chance to engage our different worldviews. (Yes, we do need discernment as we watch films. Check out Brian Godawa's book Hollywood Worldviews)

And maybe, that calls us Jesus Followers to step into gracious conversations with our friends, as the apostle Paul exhorts us, "let your conversations be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone" (Colossians 4:6)

So maybe, it is a good opportunity for you to watch Noah and sprinkle your friends with some salt.

Every blessing.

UPDATE (4/3/2014):

I just read two fantastic blog posts. So helpful!
While I referred to Deism, I think Mattson and Godawa helpfully point out that there are blatant Gnostic elements in the film, which I did not address in detail.

One is from Brian Mattson, who recognizes in great detail the Gnostic elements that Aronofsky incoporates. While I did comment on the "creator" aspect of a detached God and noticed that this resembled the "demiurge" of gnostic accounts, I did not see in the details that Mattson observes:

Darren Aronofsky has produced a retelling of the Noah story without reference to the Bible at all. This was not, as he claimed, just a storied tradition of run-of-the-mill Jewish “Midrash.” This was a thoroughly pagan retelling of the Noah story direct from Kabbalist and Gnostic sources.

The other is from Brian Godawa, author of "Hollywood Worldviews". He argues that Aronofsky is subverting the Biblical worldview by a pagan interpretation of the Noah story. He writes: 

"God does not speak...he never speaks. Remember, Aronofsky is an atheist who believes that man was NOT made in God's image, but God was created in man's image."