FILM: Noah

The story of Noah’s Ark is not a story one would typically associate with a high-budget theatrical  epic Hollywood film. I have been anticipating Noah since is was first released (whenever that was) as a personal fan of Darren Aronofsky, as I was intrigued to see how Aronofsky’s style would take to the story. Aronofsky is perhaps better known for his unique psychological thrillers, such as Requiem for A Dream and, more recently, Black Swan. Biblical stories seem uncharacteristic of Aronofsky’s style; then again, he was responsible for The Fountain, a rather mediocre melodramatic science-fantasy film. Nevertheless, I was skeptical upon the film’s announcement that Noah’s Ark could possibly beget an interesting film.

Aronofsky managed to surprise me with Noah, as his signature psychological style managed to work to the film’s advantage. It is quite a sophisticated interpretation of a rather simple story, and draws upon other biblical ramifications to expand on the concept. Noah is a story of a Man of God (i.e. Noah) being slowly corrupted by the very teachings of his God; his moral character deteriorating over the course of the film to the point where he is willing to murder newborn twin girls to cure the world of Original Sin. Through this, he becomes the very thing he is fighting against; he even states “there is darkness in us all” and goes so far as to prove it. In some ways, it warrants comparison to the Abrahamic story, in which Abraham demonstrates his willingness to kill his own son to prove his love for God. It calls into question the inherent moral nature of the Bible - whether surrendering to God’s will is righteous, regardless of what God’s will may be.

The film portrays the slow but steady deterioration of the protagonist; while events may begin well, Noah gradually loses touch with himself and his principles, and we can see the madness and the darkness growing in him. Through his moral absolutism and martyrdom he proclaims that no man is innocent; that we are all sinners and should therefore be punished via extermination. Inevitably, his claims lead to nihilism and misanthropy, the antithesis of his original moral platform. We can see this theme of the psychological decay of the individual in Requiem For A Dream, 

In this rendition of Noah’s ark, there are two groups of people: the Men of God and the Men of Cain. The Men of God follow God’s will, and are considered good; they are kind, supportive of one another, and loving. The Men of Cain are individualistic and self-serving to a level which would have made Ayn Rand proud. The latter group’s philosophy more closely resembles Satanism of Luciferianism - the idea that “you are your own god” and one should therefore follow one’s own principles to lead a more fulfilling life. More relevantly, however, the people of Cain hold the view that men should dominate nature; whereas the men of God believe that men co-exist with nature and should respect it thusly - incidentally, these two views represent two conflicting accounts in Genesis.

Aronofsky’s films are somewhat difficult to criticize, because his mind appears to operate on a completely different level such that his work is just fascinating to watch in its own right. Psychological reflection is a common underlying theme in his works, and it’s always interesting to watch merely out of intellectual and artistic curiosity, if nothing else. Noah is a study of some of the darker implications of the classic Biblical legend, and it forces you to rethink and questions everything you’ve previously learned about the story. It also exposes the Old Testament (if such a thing was necessary) as a rather brutal mythological anthology; there’s nothing pleasant about the gritty, survivalist pre-messianic period of humanity depicted in the Bible’s Old Testament. Noah’s Ark becomes a very dark and sinister story when you think about it in this light, and in that sense this film is just really fascinating to watch.

Some have criticized Noah for either disrespecting religion or not adapting the story accurately, and often at the same time. Anyone who happens to be a regular reader (if such a thing exists) will no doubt be familiar with my thoughts on adaptations, and I don’t think this is any exception. If anything, Biblical stories are more deserving of creative liberties and subjective interpretations, because they are so well known by now, and so dull, that there’s no other conceivable reason to adapt it to film. My view of religion is somewhat related: in a truly free and civil society, nothing should be immune to criticism, and religion cannot be excepted in this case. I don’t think art should ever be censored or restrained for the sake of sensitivity to certain groups of people - particularly when that group has been the primary oppressor of others for the last few thousand years. It is almost sickening to claim that Aronofsky should have been more considerate to religion when he made this film - the role of art is not to pander to any group, and we should not stifle anyone’s creativity for this sake. 

In some ways it should be commended as a brave effort, to tackle such a culturally famous and well-known Biblical legend in film. It must also be said that Russell Crowe performs astoundingly well in this role. He manages to portray both the kind and gentle family-loving man at the start of the film, and the ruthless absolutist martyr at the end, with great strength and conviction, and I’m finding Crowe to be an actor I’m growing increasingly fond of.

Noah earns my recommendation simply for being different and interesting, and well executed. Some of the mediocre visual effects can be forgiven by the end; it’s the sort of film you watch for its own sake. It is well worth the watch.