When you think about it, it is only liberal Hollywood that has been responsible for shutting out the ever-growing population of Christian, and/or very religious potential movie goers. With purity balls taking place all over the country, the ever-widening exodus away from science and towards creationism, Hollywood would be remiss in not taking advantage of this untapped segment of the population.
Enter Noah. Darren Aronofsky’s CGI epic is being sold as both a geek cred movie (they flew several key leaders in the film geek community down there to get an early look) and one that hopes to tap into the ever-growing demand for movie fiction and religious fiction to meet. And why not. Movies aren’t real anyway, most of them, so why should “reality” play a part when it comes to movies. They are movies, most of them. They are mythological at times, inspiring at other times and have taken the place OF religion, probably, for many of today’s youth.
Oscar, though, he’s not keen on religious films particularly. This is perhaps due to those films being primarily Christian based. And in Christianity, as Noah’s story backs up, you are either with Christ or you’re against him. Where does that leave Jews? If you buy the theory that most of the Oscar voters are Jewish, of course. No one has ever really proven that but it is largely assumed and taken as a given by many.
Does the “Jew thing” keep them from acknowledging Jesus movies? I don’t know. Passion of the Christ made $83 million in its opening weekend, eventually earning roughly $370 domestically and around $600 million internationally. Remember Lynda Obst’s book about how only international box office really matters anymore? While the Christian dollars are highly sought after here, it isn’t too much of a shocker that Noah is already playing widely in Mexico.
I will take a wild guess in the assumption that most Oscar voters probably agree with Bill Maher:
But here is the Christian response to Maher:
I have not seen the upcoming Noah movie, and I understand by their own admission the producers have taken many liberties with the text. (With virtually Bible movies, it’s hard not to quip, “The book is better.”)
But [SPOILER ALERT] one liberty the producers have apparently taken with the text is that a character sneaks on the ark. Noah finds out and kills him! (This is in early versions seen in pre-screenings. Hopefully, the producers will cut it.) That implies that Noah and God were trying to keep people off the ark. But that’s not at all in the spirit or text of the Noah story.
The Bible says it took Noah and his sons 120 years to build the ark. That was a long time for his neighbors to see the storm coming—and repent, if they wished. It also says (in St. Peter’s second letter) that Noah was a “preacher of righteousness.” To whom? The animals on the ark? No, presumably to those around who could see the coming judgment as Noah was preparing the ark.
So to imply that Noah and God were trying to keep people from being saved is a sad distortion.
This reminds me of something Jesus said, right after He made the famous statement of John 3:16. (For God so loved the world He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life). He said: For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it.
The world is already condemned. For there is no one good. No, not one. But Jesus (who is fully God and fully man) lived a perfect life and then voluntarily received the due penalty of our sins on Himself. He became sin for us—and for that horrible moment—God forsook Him.
But God raised Him from the dead on that first Easter Sunday. He will one day come back to judge the living and the dead.
Noah’s ark is a symbol of the cross. You’re in or you’re out. Therefore, choose wisely.
It’s like the Passover lamb. Jesus was killed on Passover, the ancient Hebrew celebration when they took the blood of an innocent lamb (without breaking its bones) and put the blood on the top and two sides of their doorway (indirectly forming the sign of the cross). They were either covered by that blood or they were not.
It was interesting to note in the recent Son of God movie that as Jesus was being crucified in the background, you could see a Passover lamb being slain in the foreground.
Seven hundred and fifty years before Jesus, Isaiah said it all, “All we like sheep have gone astray…But the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” I pray for Bill Maher to see this one day.
.
There is little point in denying the brittle disdain Hollywood has for Christian movies. This would ordinarily spill out into the rest of the blogosphere but you just never know where those slippery slopes are going to pop up next. That it’s Darren Aronofsky making Noah and not, say, oh I don’t know, John Lee Hancock that gives the movie immediate geek cred, and potentially film critic cred as well. One could possibly consider it along the lines of The Last Temptation of Christ as opposed to the Passion of the Christ.
The Last Temptation of Christ cost $7 million and made only $8 million. It earned a single Oscar nomination for Best Director — not even for Peter Gabriel’s exceptional score, one that is probably among the best film scores of all time. That’s not hyperbole in this case. The film was a passion project for the Catholic director, who really did struggle internally with all of this stuff. I don’t know, despite Darren Aronofsky’s religious symbolism in his film, that he is that closely aligned with the story of Noah or with the stories of the Bible, which function best when not taken, cough cough, literally.
Money talks, apparently, as Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ earned three Oscar noms to Scorsese’s one, though they were tech nods – ironically, score was among them, along with cinematography and makeup.
Where Noah’s fate rests is another story. There are going to be Christians who protest the film but nowhere near how they protested Scorsese’s movie. No doubt Paramount is hoping that, as we approach Easter, Christians will do what they hardly ever do – pay cold hard cash to go, in mass, to the movie theater.
Paramount is taking no chances letting those potential dollars slip through their fingers:
“To Faith Driven Consumers, changing a Biblical story like Noah by superimposing a revisionist message does not make the story more compelling,” wrote Chris Stone, whose group claims to represent an estimated 46 million Christian consumers who collectively spend $1.75 trillion annually. “People of faith generally, and Faith Driven Consumers specifically, are the core audience for ‘Noah’ and other films in this genre. . As such, our community is deeply engaged on this topic.”
In response to concerns and pressure from Christian groups, filmmakers reputedly tweaked the film and added a statement to promotional material explaining that the work is “inspired by” the biblical story of Noah and is “not a line-by-line retelling.”
If the rollout in Mexico is any indication – pic’s opening box office is on par with Gravity’s opening, and Gravity had Alfonso Cuaron, a native to Mexico, directing the film. Perhaps endorsement by the largely Catholic country will help soothe anxious Christians here about the possible misread of what they think is the “real” story of Noah.
The last thing Paramount wants, however, is another Last Temptation of Christ disaster. They really want it to be Passion of the Christ. But there is the sticking point of Aronofsky himself – one of the Gods Among Directors to film critics, fanboys, geek bloggers and so on. His reputation alone seems to ensure the kind of pass a no-name director wouldn’t get in a million years. That it’s Aronfosky, this film might finally be the crossover that will gain Christian dollars without losing artistic credibility.
Perhaps this review in the National Catholic Register says it all:
Darren Aronofsky’s Noah pays its source material a rare compliment: It takes Genesis seriously as a landmark of world literature and ancient moral reflection, and a worthy source of artistic inspiration in our day.
It is not a “Bible movie” in the usual sense, with all the story beats predetermined by the text, and actors in ancient Near Eastern couture hitting their marks and saying all the expected things. It is something more vital, surprising and confounding: a work of art and imagination that makes this most familiar of tales strange and new: at times illuminating the text, at times stretching it to the breaking point, at times inviting cross-examination and critique.
For many pious moviegoers, I suspect some of the film’s more provocative flourishes will be a bridge too far. Less pious viewers, meanwhile, may be put off by the biblical subject matter. Have Aronofsky (raised with a Jewish education) and co-writer Ari Handel made a film that’s too religious for secular viewers and too secular for religious ones? Who is the audience?
Well, I am, to begin with. For a lifelong Bible geek and lover of movie-making and storytelling like me, Noah is a rare gift: a blend of epic spectacle, startling character drama and creative reworking of Scripture and other ancient Jewish and rabbinic writings. It’s a movie with much to look at, much to think about and much to feel; a movie to argue about, and argue with.
It’s certainly not the picture-book story that most of us grow up with, all cheerful ark-building, adorable animals and a gravely pious, white-bearded protagonist. Noah, played by a flinty, authoritative Russell Crowe, is the hero, but that doesn’t make him saintly. Or, if he is saintly, it’s worth recalling that some of the saints could be off-putting, harsh, even ruthless. We want our heroes to be paragons of virtue and enlightenment. Yet when you get down to it, the difference between Moses or David and corrupt Hophni and Phineas is one of degree, not kind. We are all made of the same fallen stuff.
Hi, I want to subscribe for this weblog to take newest
updates, therdefore where can i do it please help.
^ c. both of the above, because both are factual statements. Humans are incapable of comprehending the first or of explaining the second – to assume otherwise is foolishness. Just enjoy the ride (and the stories).
Buford, if I was beaten and stabbed by a spear, nailed to a cross and left alone to bleed out I’m pretty sure I may not last longer than 12 hours. Overheating can cause death too.
Which is the better option; to accept that there is a lot about the divine and supernatural we don’t understand, something that almost all people would agree with, or alienating seas of humanity by claiming all religious belief in any deity is myth and fiction?
Just a thought.
Means he has seen Logan’s pretty dick
p.s. ruined
“at least half the great art ever is based on biblical stories and characters.”
Brilliant.
I’m sure you’ve conducted a thorough research in order to claim this, including cataloguing all art forms in Asia.
Explaining jokes ruins them.
There’s great wisdom in the Bible if you read between the lines , as in any History book of the follies of Mankind ; it’s about US and the never changing nature of humans …look at it like a ”Rap Sheet ”
It doesn’t even matter if that holy fool , Christ , was even dead ; after all he was only up on the cross for less than 12 hours instead of the usual 2-3 days , and let’s face it , a young man in his prime could possibly of survived that as failed executions are not that unusual in the pages of History …the actual truth of the matter is probably a lot nearer to the ”Life of Brian ” than the Bible …imagine that poor Roman soldier on sentry duty when the Messiah staggered out of the tomb , more dead than alive , white as a sheet , covered in dried blood , looking like a burnt out Hippy ,and pronounced the immortal lines ”Rejoice ,I have arisen ”…that superstitious Roman must of literally seen a G G G GHOST and got the hell out of there leaving the Messiah dazed and confused and mumbling to himself ”But was it something I ate ” ?
Well I mean , It’s not surprising that he only ”hung” around there for a week or so before ascending to heaven as it wouldn’t of taken those Romans very long to have realized what had really happened ; they’d of sent out a patrol with express orders of ”Get that Holy fool and this time make sure he’s dead or you’ll be hanging up there next to him ” !….oooooh sobering words indeed ?….they put out an APB on his ass and so , naturally , he got the hell out of Dodge …he didn’t ascend to heaven , but merely to Lebanon or Syria, but after all , who could blame him ?…being nailed up on that cross all day would surely sober up even the most religiously intoxicated
“P.S. I can confirm this 😛 ”
What do you mean?
‘Logan Lerman, who is just Jewish’
Lol. ‘Just Jewish’.
P.S. I can confirm this 😛
The movie has a Jewish director and stars two Jewish actors (Jennifer Connelly, whose mother is Jewish, and Logan Lerman, who is just Jewish).
I’m a Christian, a filmmaker, and and an avid filmgoer. Many of my Christian friends pay a lot of money a year to go to the movies. There certainly is a market for the Christian demographic and Hollywood has caught on to that, as we’ll see in the coming months with the slate of films being released.
Being a fan of arnofsky’s style, I’m eager to see what he brings to the Noah story and how he fills in the gaps. The Christian post gets away from the issues raised by many people, and the post focuses their argument on a gospel pointed narrative. While the text does have parallels to Christ’s coming, it has to be viewed on its own first, before being aligned with later biblical text.
First I’ll say that since genesis has to be viewed Asa. Historical document as well as a religious text, so it has to be seen from the perspective of the in the writer(s). It was derived from an oral tradition text, so it will keep to the spirit of the original story, like a Beowulf but it is difficult for many to take literally, myself included.
Noah was a human being and imperfect just like anyone else. Since it was taken from an oral tradition account, it is hard to take the story entirely seriously. Though there are many accounts of a flood on the earth, it was obviously impossible to account for all the animals on the ark. It is possible that the ark and the flood affected that particular region of the world and formed one of the big seas in the Middle East.
And yes, the Christian post addresses that God gave everybody a chance to follow him onto the ark, so if someone does sneak onto the ark for their own purposes and NOT to follow God, then Noah would be doing the right thing by killing them. If they snuck onto the boat with the intent of following God, then he obviously wouldn’t need to kill them. Gods intent was to restart, to purge the world of evil doers, or to put it simply, people that chose not to follow their creator.
Statistics, please, to support your allegation in the first sentence: “the ever-growing population of Christian, and/or very religious potential movie goers.”
i’m in support of almost anything that helps artists like aronofsky get funding and then make big box office so they can get money for their next movie.
The Bible is first and foremost a fantastic reservoir of stories that have informed Western culture for centuries. I find it only natural that filmmakers would want to dig in to this well of stories. I for one would love to see a film that engages with the story of Abraham and Isaac in the vein of Kierkegaard’s reading of the myth. Just to name an example.
Shakespeare’s plays will be fodder for filmmakers for centuries to come, which is great since it helps keeping them relevant and alive to contemporary audiences. It’s the same with the Bible. It’s interesting and often enriching to see modern artists and audiences engage with the great mythologies of the past. It’s basically a way of establishing a link to humanity’s past, a way to deal with the cultural memory that is encoded in everything we do.
But when it comes to artistic value, this form of engagement can never be a short cut to great filmmaking. It can be just as lazy or redundant as a Farrelly Brothers movie or just as brilliant and insightful as a WH Auden poem.
The main thing for the audience is to try and steer clear of prejudices in facing up to any work of art, no matter the source material or the apparent boast (or lack) of originality in the way the artist deals with it.
Christians aren’t going to support this – but they will support God’s Not Dead ( and they did this weekend) and Heaven Is For Real. Noah is very unbiblical. And if fans get upset if Lord of the Rings isn’t true to the book, why wouldn’t Christians be upset if Noah isn’t true to the source material? Noah’s director is already alienating Christians. Dumb move.
Good read. Just a minor, yet common mistake: it’s “en masse” rather than “in mass.” 🙂
at least half the great art ever is based on biblical stories and characters. I go to dozens of churches a year to view art and attend church often in order to experience great architecture as intended. I can view and enjoy religious art without even knowing the names and stories depicted.
One thing though, when I view a great religious painting there is no sound track to distract me from art with superstitious drivel. It’s why I prefer church services conducted in languages I don’t understand.
Maybe the thing would be to see Noah in, say, Sweden….. the lilt would be fun.
I saw this on friday and let me tell you… It’s bad!! I used to be very religious when I was younger but I’m not any more, but religious or not, I believe most people who watch this will not be entertained. If I’m being honest, I was bored! I kept asking.. Why did Aronfosky do this, WHY?? I don’t know the answer but I truly believe he is at his best in smaller and more independent films.
How is Noah a Christian movie when the story pre-dates Christ and is from the Old Testament? It also was directed by a Jew and has been a personal passion project of his for over a decade. I think you are trying to read too much into this.
Sometimes (most of the time?) atheist bigots sound even more hateful and conceited than religious bigots…
it’s only natural for Hollywood to revert back to the Bible. Noah’s story was one of the great silent epics. ditto with DeMille’s KING OF KINGS and Ramon Navarro’s BEN HUR (a story inspired by Bible accounts). John Huston’s THE BIBLE was the biggest box office hit of its year. it’s money, folks, that Hollywood worships and the good book open the bank. DeMille’s TEN COMMANDMENTS and is still one of the top 10 grossers (adjusted for inflation) of all time. and the Bible stories are in our genes–told from generation to generation for centuries. all the great art in paintings, sculpture, etc., depict its fables/myths. it doesn’t go away with one or two generations that express apathy. it always comes back.
‘This entire creationist rebirth seems to be confined to certain areas in the US – you won’t find it taking hold in any other developed country. It’s frightening and more than a bit ridiculous.’
#word
The film was screened for christian and jewish audiences both, and neither group was satisfied with it. At least in the UK, the marketing is steering clear of attracting faith audiences, though they don’t rly exist here. Paramount even made its own cut of the film to woo said viewers, a version which included a christian rock track concluding the film, though that too was a failure in pre-screenings, and was dropped.
In short, Darren Aronofsky has won out over Paramount and has made a film connected to christian ideology only in its content, not in its context. There’s precious little attempt at crossover being made, Sasha.
For a current success story among christian filmmaking, look to God’s Not Dead. Its estimated $8.5 million opening over the weekend is the sixth-highest start for a christian movie in fewer than 1,000 theatres.
This movie is arguably as much a passion project for Darren Aronofsky as “The Last Temptation of Christ” was for Scorsese. He’s been developing the script or trying to get it made for over a decade. Most reviews I’ve read confirm what I thought after reading an early draft of the script, that it’s a serious-minded and complex take on the story that is sure to ruffle a few feathers. To me, that’s much more interesting and worthwhile than a harmless and devout movie like “Son of God”.
Not sure how or if it will translate to the Oscars, though. It’ll probably depend on reviews and box office. Between this and Ridley Scott’s “Exodus”, we may see dueling Biblical epics at this year’s ceremony, although I have my doubts Scott’s movie will take anywhere near as many risks as Aronofsky did.
I take the films as seriously as any other fantasy film based on folklore.
So they saw the flood 120 years in advance? Sure. This entire creationist rebirth seems to be confined to certain areas in the US – you won’t find it taking hold in any other developed country. It’s frightening and more than a bit ridiculous.
People are entitled to their own personal beliefs, but not entitled to impose those dogma onto others.
The Bible has some fun fables, as do the Grimm bros, The Arabian Nights, Tolkein, Aesop, and Mother Goose. Just beware the opiate of the masses.