We’ve all heard the legend of Noah and the Great Flood which wiped out the world so many years ago, saving only a handful of people and two of many animal species. This new movie, Noah, directed and co-written by Darren Aronofsky, attempts to dramatize Noah’s heroic mission in new ways. It’s a movie that for both audiences and critics offers a no-win situation.
On the one hand, it’s probably brave for Aronofky and company to tackle the subject, and to do so boldly, instead of relying on the types of visual images we’ve all been subjected to since Sunday school (or other such childhood learning venue). On the other hand, it is just human nature to reject such images when they fail to coincide with what we know, or believe. And Aronofsky’s vision of Noah’s adventure includes fallen angels who live on Earth as rock monsters, a rectangular ark that looks more like a railroad boxcar than a vessel, lots of obviously computer generated animals that are conveniently dazed into sleep for the voyage, a lack of wives for any of his three sons (all three had wives in the Bible), a horde of people desperate to survive, and, perhaps most revolutionary, a stowaway!
All of this sturm und drang turns Noah into a melodrama, especially once the flood has washed away everyone else and Noah decides that his fate is to ensure the final removal of mankind from the Creator’s creation, once the animals are safely deposited back on dry land. To paraphrase a popular societal idiom, this isn’t your parents’ Bible story. Aronofsky’s changes to the traditional legend illustrate what every serious writer fears: that Hollywood will take a story, even one so well-known as Noah’s mythic efforts to save the animal kingdom, and turn it into something else entirely. To be fair, this isn’t entirely different, but it is doubtful to me that any true Believer will find it accurate to what they believe, or even faithful.
The question for me remains, Is the movie any good? I found the first part strangely compelling, as Noah (Russell Crowe) becomes convinced of the task set to him by the Creator (I think God is only mentioned once by name). I felt shortchanged by only seeing a little bit of the Ark-building, especially since much of it is done by the rock monsters! The flood effects were hurried and unconvincing (whatever happened to forty days and nights of rain, with the Ark slowly rising with the flood?). And the film really began to drag as Noah wrestles with his conscience about saving humanity or ending it altogether, until a big finale which has three major events all happening concurrently, all of which affect each other.
It is certainly a watchable film, with decent performances from Crowe, Emma Watson and Ray Winstone. The animal scenes were disappointing to me, and it devolved into way too much hooey by the time dry land is found. I understand that Aronofsky’s intent is to bring the mythic past to vivid life, to inject character into the Bible’s admittedly rather dry pages. Even so, to do so with so much melodrama is a failure to connect with the material. A couple of touches work, and remind me of what the director did in The Fountain, another ambitious project. But as earnest and spirited as this movie is, it oversells its premise, fails to remain true to its source, and loses its momentum with dreary moral theorizing regarding humanity’s end which we absolutely know will not come to pass. ☆ ☆. 10 April 2014.