What could possibly be more shocking than one of today's weirdest directors taking on one of the oldest stories in the Bible? Knowing what I know about Darren Aronofsky, I was prepared to view the film as one interpretation among many. However, there has been a slew of negative reviews, from the Vatican to your everyday Christian blogger, bashing Aronofsky's lack of Biblical "facts" and apparent science-fiction twist on the tale of a global flood.
And I think to myself...why not sci-fi? I mean, it's an epic flood that kills all of humanity except Noah and his family. Animals seem to peacefully hop on a man-made boat and do not wind up eating each other? Fallen angels, giants, all of those things that I know from the story seemed to rub people the wrong way. So I have to wonder...which Bible are they reading?
I'm personally using the Good News version for this entry, along with Many Waters, a novel based on Noah's tale by one of my favorite authors, Madeleine L'Engle.
I must also encourage everyone to watch The Daily Show's bit on criticism of the film, cleverly titled "Haters of the Lost Ark." Among other things, Jon points out that the Genesis we know is a translation of a translation (of a translation of a translation...). If you are bothered that the actors use "Creator" in the film rather than "God," I say go have a cup of tea and read Many Waters.
Both L'Engle and Aronofsky (attempt to) inject realism into their stories with the use of "Creator" or "El," the Hebrew term later translated as "God." It's a bit of a switch, I know, considering the rest of the dialogue is English. However, consider that the point of both film and novel is not to rewrite or illustrate the Book of Genesis, but to interpret it in a new form. The dialogue is a reminder that this is not simply a film version of Genesis, but a way to put ourselves into a more ancient than ancient mindset; we have to separate from what is familiar.
Setting aside the familiar aspects of the story is imperative to understanding the intensely personal and modern interpretation of the flood story. Those who dismiss it as "wrong" and "inaccurate" are missing the whole point. If I could borrow a line from Ken Ham, how do we really know? We weren't there. The following points are twists and turns that embrace the immense distance between us and the time of Noah, and the possibilities of interpretation presented in Genesis.
First, The Watchers: all right, I've read several reviews that scoff at these stony giants as too sci-fi. However, there is plenty of room for such characters in the story. L'Engle uses the Hebrew Nephilim, but it's right here, in plain English...giants!
In those days, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago. - Genesis 6:4A Slate blogger points out this verse too, but then curiously drops the subject. In the Bible, the giants are products of unions between fallen angels and human women. Even in my modern translation, this part made me squirm a bit. There's a tinge of blame, here, as if the presence of women itself is a temptation. And Aronofsky furthers that squirmy concept when Noah proclaims that Ila's child will not live if it turns out to be a daughter who could someday have children herself.
Aronofsky's Nephilim are themselves the fallen angels, who have been punished for sympathizing with Adam and Eve. They become powerful allies to Noah, in terms of building the Ark and fighting off the evil descendants of Cain. I suppose this might be offensive, if you want to see an Ark built by a single man, toiling over the years without assistance. If you want Noah to be an ultimate hero, then the film definitely disappoints.
But this is the age of the anti-hero. We have reinvented and rebooted our Batmans and Supermans to have inner conflict, flaws, and the ultimate Aristotelian downfall. It's the same here with Noah.
My comparison of Superman and Noah also comes out of the more modern twists to the story: specifically the industrialization of the descendants of Cain. They and Noah alike use "zohar" to produce fire; it's a coveted mineral that is a fuel source and a flashpoint for violence. Contemporary connections to fossil fuels, anyone? Cain establishes a civilization of power, metal, and insatiable consumerism. And I do mean consumerism...including consuming fellow human beings. It's an environmental and social side of Noah that I, for one, never considered. But it worked as a plot point, and I do think it is worth exploring further, as some at the website Daily Kos are doing. Tubal-Cain, while an invented villain, exemplifies the greed, power-grabbing, and total disregard of consequences we've all seen in gems like Fern Gully and even The Lord of the Rings. He has a "mind of metal," rooted in the Bible's description of another Tubal-Cain, and with every bite of bloody meat he took, he made me cringe and feel for those animals on the Ark, two by two.
Amid my squirming, cringing, and asking someone to please put their friggin' phone away, I kept thinking to myself, why were people expecting a Sunday School film? In Aronofsky's version of an early earth, they do not live "happily ever after," Noah is not perfect, and I'll write more about why I like it that way in "Yes, Virginia, there is a dove and an olive branch."
No comments:
Post a Comment