In Defense Of “Noah”

In Defense of “Noah”
by Kyle Durbin

By now, if you’re a pastor or a parent of a youth that went to the movie, “Noah”, you’ve already been riddled with questions about “rock monsters,” “fallen angels,” and “Hermione giving birth on the ark.” If you are an adult that has, or has not, seen the film, you’re opinion has already been biased by an onslaught of reports from the Christian community lambasting the film for its biblical inaccuracy. To say I have been “disheartened” by these reviews is to put it mildly at best.

So let’s get on with it. Before the movie was even released, many in the evangelical church were writing scathing reviews simply in offense to the fact that the film was directed by an atheist and a Jew. For starters, lets remember that “Noah.” the biblical story, is from the “Hebrew Bible,” and was told long before the Gospel ever came into being as Word and flesh. The story of Noah is a rich part of the Jewish tradition, and to have the insight of a director who shares that experience should be considered a blessing. Furthermore, if the director is an atheist, and he fully invested himself in a film called, “Noah,” does that not mean that he would have needed to have spent countless hours pouring through the text of the Bible, not just the few chapters where the story of Noah is concerned, but at least the entire book of Genesis? Shouldn’t Christians be celebrating this exposure from a self-described atheist experiencing one of the means of grace?

Then there’s the community criticizing the film for its financial success. Seriously!? So Roma Downey and Mark Burnett can film a ten week series called, “The Bible,” market it through Christian franchises more than the actual Bible itself, and then simultaneously create a film called, “The Son of God,” that uses the same script, the same location, and the same actors, send that to the silver screen, and they aren’t trying to turn a profit!? What’s more exploitative? A film produced by a Christian company making money off of the Gospel, or a secular film by a secular producer trying to make money in a secular market?

Let’s back up, “The Bible,” that ten week mini-series on the word of God, was produced on “The History,” Channel, the same show that has series about “Ancient Aliens.” However, unlike “Noah,” it was marketed as if it was a literal account of the writings of the Bible, and because it was on a channel that explores historical fact, was intended to be regarded as accurate. However, my Sunday School class, which is studying this film, has already witnessed that this account skips over the stories of Jacob and Joseph in entirety, gives no mention of Judges such as Deborah or Gideon, and somehow combines the prophet Samuel and the priest Eli into the same person. I’m not saying there aren’t biblical truths still present, I’m just saying it’s no substitute for the actual Bible. Meanwhile, the directors of “Noah,” from the start, have said that it was intended to be an artistic interpretation of the account found in the Bible, with considerably liberties taken in filling in the gaps vacant in the book of Genesis (an account, which, by the way, was written by two separate authors, creating a single story told simultaneously from two [sometimes conflicting] perspectives). So which is a bigger threat to our understanding of Scripture, an inaccurate telling claiming to be faithful, or a fantastical interpretation admitting to be an exploration?

Oh yeah, another thing I heard over and over again was how there was no mention of the word “God” in the film. Well, about halfway through the story, Noah’s son, Ham, says, “The Creator is God.” So…there’s that. And what’s really so wrong with God being referred to as “The Creator?” Don’t we do it all the time? And in truth, what had God done up until this point in the Bible? God created! That’s one of the primary ways people of this time would have understood God! Remember, the divine name isn’t revealed until Moses in the book of Exodus, quite some time later.

Speaking of God creating, there is a moment in the film, while on the ark, that Noah tells his children the story of Creation. His lines, like many others in the film, are pulled directly from scripture. So why does Noah tell the story of Creation while on the ark? Why is God referred to as “The Creator,” in the film? Because, finally, a film told the story of the flood for what it is. As Noah says in the movie, “fire destroys all, water cleanses.” There is a baptismal message in the biblical flood story. The story of Noah is not a story of death and destruction as it is so often portrayed (and yes, there was plenty of that in the film), but it is a story of “Re-creation,” and new life. The juxtaposition was explored beautifully in “Noah.”

Now for some things I didn’t like. There are no “rock monsters,” in the Bible. There are, however, Nephilim (i.e. celestial being, “fallen angels), or Giants, referenced in 6:2, and there is a clear relation to the necessity of the flood indicated, but I’ll go ahead and say creatures from The Lord of the Rings voiced by Optimus Prime is a bit of a stretch. Let’s see…Methuselah was an old guy but there’s no reference of any conversations with Noah. In the biblical account, God spoke directly to Noah, there was no deep internal struggle, and Noah was considered “moral and exemplary,” (Genesis 6:9), so I’m going to guess he probably never desired to kill any members of his own family, born or unborn. Also, the only people on the ark were Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives (Genesis 6:18), so, even though it makes for a nice romantic aside, “Hermione” was already married to Shem when they boarded the boat, and any children wouldn’t have been born until after the floodwaters receded. Noah was also never concerned with “justice,” as he declared in his best Bruce Wayne imitation in the film. But then again, Moses never said anything about proclaiming “liberty throughout all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof,” like he did when Charlton Heston quoted the Liberty Bell (not the Bible) in “The Ten Commandments,” but I don’t hear anyone complaining about that! However, that part where Noah gets drunk, Ham sees him naked, and Shem and Japheth cover him up with a robe? That’s straight up biblical, and no, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. So all the Christian communities that are upset about that scene too, you don’t have to like it either, but go check out Genesis 9:18-29 and see if you change your tune.

There is an ancient, Jewish, rabbinical practice known as thought pertaining to the pages of scripture that discusses “black fire on white fire.” The thought is that the pages of the Bible were written with “black fire” and “white fire.” The “black fire” is the ink that goes on the page that forms the words. The “white fire,” then, is the rest of the page. Anyone who looks at the pages of the Bible can see that there is a lot more “white fire” than “black fire.” Out of this thinking came the tradition of midrash, where the ancient rabbis literally filled in the blanks, doing their best to interpret and explain the “white fire,” in a way that was faithful to the text, conveying the deeper messages of truths of God, while taking any liberties they felt necessary. This is, essentially, what we have with “Noah.” It’s a film that takes artistic liberties, some better informed than others, at filling in the gaps left out of the biblical account. Let’s be honest, it would be hard to stretch out a few chapters in the Bible into a three hour epic movie without doing a little midrash. And so, while we have some elements that are not present in the Bible, we can better understand the intent of the director who was trying to create a world that was very “real” in the minds of the authors of the book of Genesis and the accounts of Noah, things like maniacally violent rulers and supernatural giants, even if these things were not real, factual, or historical.

So, was “Noah” a biblical film, so far as it adhered to the strict confines of the short Hebrew text where it is found in the pages of Genesis? No. But was “Noah” a biblical film, insomuch as it explored some of the deeper truths about God and human nature found in the in the flood story of the Bible, themes of “re-creation,” “mercy and love,” and “free will vs God’s will?” Absolutely. Besides, I’d rather have a far-fetched interpretation of a biblical story cause me to read my Bible for verification rather than a bad re-telling of a biblical narrative leave me simply thinking that’s what actually happened in the Bible. Seriously, if all “Noah” does is get people talking about or reading their Bibles, I don’t think Christians have much to complain about. And for those who don’t like it, they can go eat “Crowe!” (Hehe, see what I did there?)

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Some relatively random thoughts – tried to tie it together but well…

    1. I didn’t see ‘scathing reviews’ there were offended by the director’s religious affiliation or heritage. Remember – there are nuts in every tree however – you’ll see crazy shite about everything everywhere. I didn’t see those reviews and I can think of other things I’m far more offended by than the general genetic makeup of the creator of this film. Can you link some of these reviews? I’m sure they exist – but thus far they haven’t crossed my desk.

    2. The ‘lambasting’ I’ve seen hasn’t been from ‘biblical inaccuracies but rather using the bible as the catalyst story behind an ‘epic adventure’ whose primary role is to bring people with their wallets to the movie theater.

    3. “Shouldn’t Christians be celebrating this exposure from a self-described atheist experiencing one of the means of grace?” I’m not so sure he was doing this. In fact it’s my impression that he is probably pleased as most of those in the war on God that he struck such a chord. I don’t see it as a ‘turning point’ in his walk per se. I hope it is – but that’s not my take so far.

    4. I’m not seeing “Son of God” mostly because I’ve already seen it. See your point here – but then again I’ve talked to many folks who aren’t going to see it. It has been a bit of a flop – because most of us aren’t paying $15 + to see this series again. Wasn’t a very good strategy for profit if you ask me – “Son of God” didn’t make a whole lot of sense to put in the theater and if you look at the #s – it’s not doing well. Noah is far more of a clever and directly contrived / marketed money grab than Son of God ever hopes to be. They came up with a way to make millions while exploiting the various sensibilities of different audience demographics. Basically says everything you need to know. That’s what Hollywood does – the Christian Film Community does not possess that level of gravitas…

    5. As for the profit speak – Christian Films aren’t out to make a ton of profit – they are rarely out more than 2 or 3 weeks if they’re lucky. I’m sure profit is appreciated – churches after all take an offering – is that not to keep the church running outreaches moving forward? I’m sorry I find the comparison a bit skewed – Hollywood is out to make money. Provident Films wants to cast a wide net and take up an offering. WAY different.

    6. The “God” word argument – yes I’ve heard this – means nothing to me. See #1. Not every consumer is articulate in their perceptions. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hollywood seeded this themselves either to further their agenda of exploiting the various sensibilities of different audience demographics. Looks like it was successful too.

    Don’t have a lot more to comment on – you left out the premise as to why God chose to flood the Earth in the film (and no I haven’t seen it – and won’t see it – but have had lengthy discussions with an atheist (well Muslim/non-Christian) screener a couple weeks ago. The premise being environment rather than moral overall. He called me and said “You’re not gonna like it”. So far I think he’s right but for far more different reasons than you explain here in this defense of the film.

    This film does little to ‘cast a wide net’ to non-believers which I feel is the sole purpose of ‘Christian’ films or any film that uses biblical resources as the catalyst to sell tickets to largely a secular audience. Kyle I fully appreciate your penchant to rattle the cages of tradition at every opportunity – it’s a healthy approach to keeping the discussions open. We differ on the boundaries sometimes for sure. Without seeing the film and I feel I don’t need to at this point to form an educated assessment, I feel it’s utterly ridiculous and is still a farcical mockery dotted with a few ecumenical truths sprinkled in to keep folks confused as to it’s true purpose. It’s true purpose isn’t casting a wide net to the secular, it doesn’t serve the Faithful, and I would even infer a film like Evan Almighty does a better job of that. What it accomplishes is to further divide the sides; make lots of money; and make my hands hurt from typing all this 😉

    I do believe one statement sums it up: “They came up with a way to make millions while exploiting the various sensibilities of different audience demographics.” Bravo – that part worked and I’m not sure how that serves God or the community in any way. Sure it’s brilliant from a capitalist point of view. But we can agree on one thing and I’ve told most of my Christian friends; that seeking biblical truths and serving God begins largely in a solid bible-based church – not in a movie theater. Movie’s like Grace Unplugged, Courageous, Grace Card, and God’s Not Dead go far further in casting a net in hopes of giving an altar call to the secular in a theater setting and let’s people like me invite every single unchurched or under-churched person I know and give them a chance to be changed. For me Noah would change me by reducing my bottom line by $15 and making me walk out simply annoyed. I’m a gonna pass brutha!!! 🙂 Thanks for the blog Kyle. Peace.

    Tim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s