Question: Noah Movie Bashing Too Harsh?

[jpat1975]

This is a bit of an older subject, as this movie came out a while back, and is no longer recent. I came across a movie review of the Noah movie that came out starring Russell Crow. Ken Ham and a panel really bash the movie, and don't seem to try to balance their commentary, which seems geared to prevent people from watching the movie, by portraying it in the worst light possible. I generally agree the movie was disappointing and had a lot of flaws, and came across pretty disturbing - albiet cryptic and OPEN TO INTERPRETATION - which I will delve into below. Curious to know your thoughts on the review, and my own alternate take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwrxBUlqgM

I agree the movie took way too many artistic licenses, and unnecessary changes - but again I had a problem with some of the criticisms raised as well:

I don't think the movie necessarily portrays Noah as an unrighteous psychopathic killer. I could see how one watching the movie MIGHT get that impression. But consider this: Here's a guy who is keeping himself and his family separated from an fallen society. The bible teaches Noah was righteous, and therefore it stands to reason that such a person, desiring to follow God, will not have any part in the abuses. In the movie we see him separate from them. So far so good. I will go into further details soon.

The "environmental agenda", the panel was complaining I could see to some degree. Yet there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to take care of the environment that God created. God certainly would not want us to abuse it. So far so good. I also don't see any indication that Noah is worshipping the environment or valuing it above man, as the reviewers seem to be trying to suggest here. Even so, I could see how one MIGHT get that impression, based on the activists and tree hugger's today and past pagan religions.

Don't destroy a flower if you're not going to use it for some useful purpose. Likewise for an animal - which prior to the flood - we actually see no indication of God giving man permission to have for food. Noah, in this movie, seemed to be against abusing either of these things. Nothing wrong with that - nor does it contradict the bible at that point in history.

Killer Noah?: Noah was not murdering those three men who were hunting the animal in the opening of the film. His life was in genuine danger. They thought he was taking their food, and they attacked him, and would probably would have killed him. Noah reacted in SELF DEFENCE. The bible is not against ALL forms of killing - rather ONLY murder. For example: Capital punishment in Israel, or God authorizing Israel to drive out the inhabitants of the promised land. Therefore it is wrong to portray this movie's Noah as a killer (e.g. valuing animal and plant life above human life). That's too far a leap for these reviewers to make. They didn't even attempt to offer an alternate point of view here, which was disappointing.

As for Noah wanting to see all humanity wiped out - even his own family. This actually is not necessarily a contradiction. Let me explain.

The bible shows clearly that God was, and did wipe out all but Noah's family. Noah wanting to go along with whatever God wanted was righteous on his part.

The bible gives very brief account of the events. We are not privy to how Noah came to learn this. The bible gives the impression that it was a short conversation, while the movie portrays it unfolding over a series of cryptic visions, where Noah is not sure what exactly will happen. Maybe God revealed it over the course of days, months, years? If the bible doesn't specify, then there's room for artistic license for the film to make.

Later on, in another vision, Noah later even seems to see himself as evil, when visiting a prison camp (I have to rewatch this scene, but it looked like he saw a vision of himself doing something evil). This made Noah realize, he himself, was also very much a part of this fallen human race. This also is accurate. None is righteous apart from Christ. You cannot be righteous and self-righteous as the same time.

It would be very easy to see therefore how, FOR A TIME, Noah would see himself and his family DESERVING of death. This was clearly a struggle for Noah in this movie.

This is biblical. Apart from God's grace, none of us deserve to live forever with God.

ACTUALLY, one parallel I see here is when ABRAHAM was TESTED to sacrifice his own son Isaac. FOR A TIME he was prepared to go through with this sacrifice. Did this make Abraham a "psychopathic killer"? No. Likewise Noah in this movie was willing to go through with his own family line being the last generation on earth. His original plan in the movie was to finish unloading the animals off the ark, and then living out the natural course of their life. He never did kill anyone of his family. I also don't expect that any character in the bible is without their own personal shortcomings and flaws. That would be unrealistic. People make mistakes. You see it with everyone in the bible except for Jesus. Showing Noah with personal failings is not unlike the apostle Peter putting his foot in his mouth; slicing off someone's ear; or misunderstanding a vision God was giving.

He was very zealous to obey God in the movie. This is in line with what a righteous person is in the bible - willing to obey God.

So I saw this whole episode as a PROCESS where Noah comes to realize God's will OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. All of us OVER A PERIOD OF TIME likewise SLOWLY come to know God's will. None of us are without our faults. Why would we expect Noah's case to be any different?

As I said before the bible only gives us a brief summary of what happened and why. In actuality this might have been realize over a longer period of time, but only summarized to spare the readers the unnecessary details. There's a number of books, now lost to us, which the Old Testament makes reference to in 1/2 Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. I'm sure there was plenty of other history and details we'll never know about that were not important. I see these extra details in the movie like those things. Historical, but not relevant to the edited summary God presents in scripture.

So I don't see any of this necessarily as a contradiction.

As for his grandfather Methusalah and the "magic" potion to see visions. I was troubled by that as well. But maybe God had some original PURE use for certain plants and herbs? It's possible. Abuse of drugs and wines is wrong - but there might be a proper usage of those things as well. A medicinal purpose, etc. So I'm not totally against this part of the movie either.

The golden shedded snake skin was weird. I'm not sure what to make of that. There are passages in the bible that seem to talk about Satan falling at some point. Prior to that he might have been good (as everything originally created was). Maybe that shedding of the skin was portraying something good he lost, he had prior to that fall. Satan lost something, and man gained it instead. That was weird, and a bit disturbing. I'm trying to see an alternate point of view here, and other ways to interpret this part of the movie.

The rock fallen angels thing was weird, and quite a big stretch. Not entirely sure what to think. Angels fallen, may have had mixed motives and were themselves perhaps complex characters. Hard to say. The extra biblical writings about the watchers being stuck in the ground, could possibly be interpreted as these giant rock people being angels trapped, but permitted to move around.

So technically all these things seem to work.

I think there were some details, about the sons of Noah being the wrong age or order. That was a mistake if so.

So any way, I have a less harsh view of this movie.

They really should NOT have called it Noah, but instead called "the flood" and gave Noah a slightly different name (Noe or maybe a generic name like "dad" or "sir" or "dear" by his wife/children, leaving the name a mystery and open to interpretation), and said "a composite of the biblical and apocryphal flood accounts". This way the movie goer would not think they were seeing a movie about the bible, while still getting the message that there was a flood sent because of man's evil, but also God giving man an opportunity to continue by following his plan.

[steve]

Not everyone has to see it my way, but I always object to movie-makers changing a Bible story in their portrayal, unless the changes amount only to conjecture about conversations which may or may not have occurred, but which do not conflict with the truth of the story.

The Noah movie did not resemble the true story in any particular, except for the following:

1. There was a flood
2. There was a man named Noah who built a floating box
3. He had three sons, whose names are the same as those in the Bible story
4. There were animals in the box with Noah's family

To me, these similarities do not justify representing the movie as the story of Noah. The movie made Noah out to be a madman, not a holy man. One of his sons did not have a wife on the ark, which means that a third of the present human race should not exist. There was involvement of fallen angels assisting Noah.

These are not minor deviations from the true story. It is these deviations that become the focus of the movie plot.

I am not against environmental responsibility. However, the suggestion that God wiped out all people because they were destroying the environment cannot avoid the conclusion that God values the welfare of the non-human creation more than the He values human life. Save the trees, by killing people? The fact that God, in the flood, wiped out the whole non-human creation as well as the humans makes it seem absurd to suggest that it was in an attempt to protect the environment that God sent the judgment.

The worst of it, for me, is the gratuitousness of the alterations. The movie was not better for these strange anomalies. It was more hokey. When a movie-maker has the possibility of taking a true story and representing it and its characters accurately, one has to ask, Why did he deliberately refuse to do so? It can't be that an accurate portrayal would make a "boring" movie. What could be more dramatic than a worldwide flood? It seems to be the movie-maker's way of expressing his contempt and disdain for the real story (which, in this case, turns out to be exactly the case).

I object, even, to English versions of the Bible that paraphrase to the extent of changing or obscuring what is clear in the original text. How much more when a movie changes an entire biblical story, morphing a biblical hero into a common religious nut?

If someone were to make a movie about Billy Graham, after his passing, and depicted him as a womanizing, money-seeking charlatan—and his Crusades as wild Pentecostal extravaganzas, with his converts rolling on the ground foaming at the mouth—and represented his family in an unflattering, fictional light—would we encourage people to see the movie because it is at least correct that there was a man named Billy Graham who preached to large audiences? I wouldn't.

[Singalphile]

I saw it not too long ago. Got it from the library (where I get 95% of movies).

The worst of it, for me, is the gratuitousness of the alterations. The movie was not better for these strange anomalies. It was more hokey. When a movie-maker has the possibility of taking a true story and representing it and its characters accurately, one has to ask, Why did he deliberately refuse to do so? It can't be that an accurate portrayal would make a "boring" movie. .... It seems to be the movie-maker's way of expressing his contempt and disdain for the real story (which, in this case, turns out to be exactly the case).

Thus says just about every person who has watched any movie based on his or her beloved book. "Why did they do that!?!?"
Perhaps movie-makers want to make it their own creation rather than just faithfully translating to screen.

In the case of this Noah movie, the movie-makers only had around 2,500 words to go on, and a lot of it is repetitive. It's understandable that they'd have to fill in some gaps and invent the character-based storyline.

I didn't expect Noah (or the recent Moses movie) to be accurate to the spirit or letter of the text, so I wasn't disappointed. Like most movies, I didn't think it was good. But I've seen worse. So I pretty much agree with you, jpat1975.

[jpat1975]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I also wanted to share a couple links sent to me which were quite interesting regarding the symbolism imported from pagan sources:

http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/ ... -the-devil

http://godawa.com/movieblog/subversion-god-noah/

Reading through these there was a link to a series of novels that seem a lot more faithful to the scriptures. I started reading this, and so far it looks promising, and I would definetly consider seeing this, should it ever be adapted for theatres:

http://www.amazon.com/Noah-Primeval-Chr ... 083&sr=1-1

[jpat1975]

THIS would make a better movie! It's already adapted to script, but I doubt they'll ever film it. They're better to make this an animated movie, and use production funds for skilled animators and voice actors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd6di7IUlt0

"NOAH PRIMEVAL This is not your Sunday School Noah's Ark. Noah Primeval is a speculative retelling of the beloved story of Noah for a new generation. In an ancient world submerged in darkness, fallen angels rule as gods and breed giants and monsters. Mankind is enslaved to evil. Noah, a tribal leader, has been prophesied to bring an end to the rule of these "gods" and save humanity from coming destruction. But Noah's wife and son are captives of these dark forces. To rise against this supernatural evil and rescue his family Noah will need an equally supernatural army. But why has God told him to build a huge box out of gopher wood? Godawa is known as an author who both entertains and educates. Inspired by Michael Crichton's novels, Godawa has adapted his Hollywood screenwriting background into his prose style to create a reading experience that is like watching a movie. Also similar to Crichton, Godawa has sought to provide the scholarly research that undergirds the fictional adventure. Noah Primeval has an additional 100 pages of special appendixes that provide an explanation of Biblical concepts in the novel such as the sons of God, the Nephilim, Leviathan, and the ancient Mesopotamian Cosmography in the Bible. Noah Primeval is written in the spirit of The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, blending fantasy and mythopoeia with history to retell the Biblical narrative with a fresh perspective,"

I'm at least 5 chapters in, and this guy seems to have done his homework on the bible, other writings and ancient cultures and religions.

[Paidion]

I downloaded the movie and am in the process of watching it. The story as depicted in the movie is interesting.

However, Noah seems to have been confused with Abraham. The destruction of Sodom is in the movie; Noah asks God not to destroy Sodom if 10 righteous people are found there, and Noah talks with lot, etc., etc.

[steve]

Paidion,

It sounds like you are watching the older "Noah" movie, made for TV in 1999, with Jon Voigt as Noah. The movie being discussed here was made last year, starring Russell Crowe.

[Paidion]

Thank you, Steve. I thought I had downloaded the one under discussion.