Noah

Over the past few months, a lot of talk has emerged over the movie Noah, which is helmed by director Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan).  Most of the conversation was not centred around the typical anticipation and hype that a star-studded film would receive, but rather from different camps of faith over the style of the film and its accuracy to the Bible account in the Old Testament. 

Hoping to gain the same sort of audience that The Passion of the Christ was able to attract, Paramount went about screening their own cuts of the movie to faith groups, a move that is far from normal in the land of movie making.  What ended up happening was a battle between the studio and the director over which version would end up making it to the big screen, with Aronofsky coming out the champion.  Paramount then made sure to include in its advertising that this film was meant to be an interpretation of the events and that the themes from the story were still held within the final product.

When there is so much discussion from different camps around a movie, from Glen Beck railing against it even though he had never seen it, to the Vatican inviting Russell Crowe to meet with the Pope in the run up to the release, it can become hard to audiences to enter into the experience without preconceived notions on what the film will end up being.  While the groups that were focused on bringing negative attention to the film were very vocal, it also proved a bit counterproductive as it raised the unaided awareness of the film greatly.

So many times there are movies that are ‘based on true events’ or ‘inspired by true events’ that basically end up using the original source as a mere launching point.  Peter Benchley’s Jaws is a great example, as it was inspired by the true story of a shark attacking swimmers on the Eastern coast of the United States, but took no more similarities into the book or even the film.  Other movies attempt to depict a story very close to the source material and take painstaking efforts to get them right.  In the end, is one more right than the other?  Should they both be held up to the same level of scrutiny or should we accept that they are made into a story with their own artistic interpretation and goals?

For myself, I am fine with a movie going in whatever direction it wants as long as it serves a purpose to the greater story that it is trying to tell.  Documentaries are meant to be real life experiences, whereas feature films allow for different narratives to come forward.  The only time I have felt at opposition with a movie’s claim to be true events was in Pain and Gain, where the action was frozen in the middle of a scene and text was added to assure audiences that this actually happened (even though the depicted scene had a fictional character in it).  In that case, adding the basis of real life truth into the story became a part of the movie itself and that is a ground that should be treaded lightly on if you do not want people to glare at any mistakes you had made.

While Noah is not taking steps to stay completely within the confines of the Biblical account, it uses a wide range of themes to stay true to the concept and the heart of the tale.  We see the family of Noah (played by Russell Crowe) as one who is committed to the stewardship of the earth, showing great respect and care for what The Creator has given them.  They are the last of a line who see this value, and come into opposition of those who view the world as something to rule over, devouring resources, destroying the land for their own needs, and then moving on to consume the next locale.  It creates the backdrop of the character of Noah, a man who refuses to live in a way that is out of harmony with what was given to him by the divine.  In one way, people can take this theme and transfer it to our mentalities today about pollution and resource consumption, and it is presented in a way that can remind us that we may be out of tune with where we are living.

Aronofsky uses visuals and symbolism throughout the film to serve his task of delivering the heart of the matter.  It is not all about the death and destruction of the world, but about commitment to faith and beliefs as well as the human nature to possibly succumb to temptation when faced with it.  While it is about people horrifically drowning, there is plenty of time given to show the argument over whether people are good or not, and just how both poles of the righteous spectrum can live in everyone. 

A person, such as Noah, can be able to stick to his task in an unwavering way, but still be able to find himself off course at times.  This aspect was perhaps one of the most interesting sides of the movie, as we get to see the toll that Noah’s obligation takes on him both emotionally and mentally.  We may think upon the well-known story and see a man who serves perfectly, but Aronofsky shows the human side of Noah.  He is a man who is warned about the destruction of the world, the death of almost everyone, and in the carrying out of such obligations it would only be natural to assume that there would be a personal cost to enduring an event such as this.  Russell Crowe portrays the title character with art, depth, and skill to take the character out of cartoonish pictures that we may have seen in Sunday School and show the agony and turmoil that staying true to faith can take on someone, even to the point of not acknowledging when behaviours have reached an extreme and that they are no longer in line with what was intended.

The visuals of the film were one spot that felt a little weak at times, where computer generated animals had the ability to look fake, as well as getting some blurring effects on panning camera shots.  For the most part, it held up well, but the moments here and there where it fell below par felt enough to take me out of the moment.  Perhaps this was because of the size of the budget and the worries that the movie may not be attracting the audience it wanted which lead to stricter spending of money.  I am just not well informed enough to say anything other than speculation, but it did have the feel as though everything was not touched up as neatly as it should have been.

The main aspect of the film, the destruction of the earth from a deity who had seen the evil of men and had a desire to set things right, was pulled off really well.  Because of the various other themes at play in the movie, there was a lot more weight to this movie that made the flooding prove to be an important measure to take.  God (or The Creator, as the film refers to Him) is never shown without mercy, care, or the ability to provide for the few who stood apart from society to live in right standing.  We are shown that the heart of forgiveness is prominent, and that The Creator accepts those who may have once turned their backs but now attempt to serve.

I have mentioned the themes of this film many times, because that really is where the movie is strongest.  Yes, there are some wonderful acting performances from Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, and Anthony Hopkins, but they worked to add colour and flavour to the greater story.  One of the best things about a movie experience is being able to talk about it afterwards with others, picking through various aspects of the film and attempting to see the larger picture of a well-crafted tapestry.  Noah succeeded at this, offering my wife and I different points of entry in conversation to digest and process what we had seen.  Most importantly, everything in the film is easily translated to current day living.  It does not just contain itself to the distant past, but rather delivers its message in a relatable fashion that merges with the realities of the world we live in, making the lessons of the film and the story timeless.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4