With the release of
Darren Aronofky’s Noah firmly upon us
like a pair of tight black spandex pants I have decided to examine the pre-release
waters. I speak specifically in terms of
support and audience reaction. Keep in
mind that only a select few have actually seen this movie yet trillions of
people the world over are already forming diamond hard opinions.
When it comes to a
Christian oriented movie - be it a clearly
evangelistic movie like the recently released God’s Not Dead or one seeking to relate a specific story from the
Bible such as the film in question here – I find there always exists two
extreme groups on opposite sides of the spectrum: Extreme Christians and
Extreme Atheists. Dear readers, please
allow me a brief sentence or two of explanation for these groups. I do not say extreme in terms of commitment
or knowledge (though there may be some overlap) but rather in a measure of
off-putting and often condescending behavior.
Understand, I have no issues whatsoever with respectful Christians or
respectful Atheists. I think it is more
than groovy to live in a happy world of rainbows and ice cream where everyone
has their own accepted beliefs where they are free to practice those beliefs
(so long as those beliefs don’t impinge upon the rights and freedoms of others
of course). Yet these groups do not seem
content to let that happen and would prefer to raise a fuss over nearly
everything that happens in our fair world (even that time I chose to mow lawns naked
in a New York suburban neighborhood using only my teeth and an old Giant Nickel
paper bag for grass depositing). These
are the groups I will make mention of in this post. Just to show there are no hard feelings they
both receive cool acronyms. I shall
refer to Extreme Christians as “EC’s” which is cool because EC was a great old
comics company which published tons of gritty and gory horror and science
fiction comics throughout the industrial boom of 40’s and 50’s America. I shall refer to Extreme Atheists as “EA’s”
which is cool because EA is one of my favorite SI units of electric
current. Before continuing I want to
also note that many of the thoughts and opinions I shall ascribe to these
groups are not necessarily extreme or off-putting in and of themselves. In fact, there is nothing really wrong with
most of these viewpoints. The wrongness
comes from the arrogance and continued attempts to force those views on
others.
To provide a bit of context Noah is directed by Darren Aronofsky whose
filmography includes Pi,
Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler and Black Swan. Those who know me best know I am not a huge
Aronofsky fan though I have seen all of his flicks. I deem The
Fountain to be his best movie though I’m sure I’m literally the only one in
the worlds who feels that way. Generally
speaking I find his approach to character too clinical with the spectacle of
his narratives taking too much of the focus [this could also be fixed with even
less character and a full surrendering to the spectacle rather than the unfulfilling
middle ground which seems to plague his work (only my humble opinion
cinephiles; berate me if you wish but I have to remain true to my heart)] Still, I cannot deny the supremely endearing fact
that he does not have any of the markings of a “for-hire” type director who
simply makes and adheres to whatever the studio offers. Having never met the man I’m going to say
with 100% confidence slash intellectual arrogance that each of his
movies has been a story and work he was passionate about and Noah seems to be no exception. This flick has been in development
since 2007 and while waiting for studio backing he even helped publish a
graphic novel version in 2011. He
has also continued to fight for his final cut of the movie as to not allow for
studio interference.
I will make my
first real reference to the aforementioned groups here and mention there are
some EC’s who feel with the violent/sexual/drug related content of some of his
past movies that Aronofsky should not receive support for directing something
taken from the Bible or something with Christian themes. It is as though
he does not have the “right” to make this movie given his filmography. It has been rather surprising and
somewhat upsetting for me to see the backlash or resentment certain Christian
groups have been lobbying against the director and this film. As stated, this is not even a
director I am passionate about but I believe free artistic expression is highly
important. Also, since the Bible would
teach there is no one without sin I’m not sure who would actually be fit to
direct a Christian film except God him (or her) self. If God directed a movie s/he would surely
cast Sam Neill, Mads Mikkelsen and Salma Hayek in key roles though and I’d bet
there’d be a kickin’ Trent Reznor soundtrack in the mix! I have to backtrack now for all those folks
who get peeved at the word “sin” and clarify I am not suggesting Aronofsky
sinned by making the movies he’s made (see how careful I have to be with any type
of religious discussion?! We should just
go eat waffles and bathe in maple syrup for our troubles!)
The Passion of
the Christ is an
interesting parallel to draw from. This
movie also sparked controversy with accusations of anti-Semitism and
glorification of violence (in fact this movie is so fascinating as a film I am
sorely tempted to write 5,129 pages analyzing it but I think I will save that
for when my kids are all grown up and I have nothing left to do but stare at an
empty house and wonder where the best years of my life went). In subsequent years director Mel
Gibson’s reputation has been essentially destroyed due to his various meany
comments about Jews, homosexuals, African Americans, women, Latinos and pretty
much anyone who has ever existed anywhere in the universe or whoever will
exist. Yet I don’t think
many people who found their faith nourished in some way by this film have disowned
it due to Gibson’s bizarre self-destruction. I believe any piece of art is an
extension of the artist but is also changed by whoever is absorbing it. It signifies and represents much
more than simply the person behind it. For instance, how many people have admired the
painting Starry Night but know nothing about Van Gogh [myself included (I also
love the Iggy Pop song “Starry Night” from his classic 1990 album Brick by
Brick. Honestly, Iggy has some of the
best and most underrated rock albums in history)]? A piece of art takes on a life of
its own and that is one of the most important things about them.
I
believe it is a mistake to criticize something before viewing or listening to
or reading it as both groups are guilty of doing. Aside from the director and his
character it seems the other upsetting thing to some people are deviations from
the source. It has been
some time since I read the story of Noah (even longer since I famously
attempted to construct my own ark out of balsa wood during a particularly rainy
summer when I was working as a women’s shoe salesman in Buffalo) but I don’t
remember it being too lengthy. I
think it is natural that any adaptation would have to make some additions and
alterations. It seems
impossible for any adaptation to be 100% true to scripture.
Returning
to the earlier example, The
Passion of the Christ also
has its share of artistic license, something as simple as the blue lighting in
the scene where Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane (beautifully rendered
depiction) to the more extreme examples of demonic children taunting Judas
Iscariot or Satan’s depiction as this grotesque androgynous figure that
routinely pops up in the crowds during Jesus’s torture and crucifixion. This includes a scene of Satan
holding some kind of stunted figure which Gibson later clarified was meant to
represent a perverse reversal of artistic depictions of Mary holding the baby
Jesus. It is a striking
image in the movie but it has no direct ties to scripture. Even the easy-to-overlook-because-it-is-almost-a-cinema-given
fact that it has a score meant to emphasize certain moments and enhance
emotional impact is an inherently artistic choice that cannot in any way
reflect the true accounts.
However, just
because something is more interpretation than transcription doesn’t mean it is
without merit to a Christian audience. I remember watching The Passion in the theatre and seeing people
all around me being moved to tears. This
reaction is not entirely brought from the movie’s actors and crew of course, as
stated we each bring something to the films we watch and this contributes
greatly to our individual experience but surely the film must be credited in
some regard for moving people. And if a piece of art – one with any sort
of Christian backbone – can bring people to tears or reaffirm their faith or
even simply make them consider different possibilities that should be
considered a success and not reason to grouse for EC’s.
Instead of shying
away from Christian inspired art I believe churches slash Christians should be
more embracing and appreciative. Strictly
messaged themed movies are often the cinematic equivalent of the sex-education
videos one watches in high school with awkward situations which do not ring
true coupled with questionable acting. I
do not believe they are effective as evangelism either (if evangelism is indeed
the goal) because they play mainly to an audience whose beliefs are already securely
in place. From an artistic or even
simply from a narrative standpoint it rarely ever works to start with a theme
and then try to construct something around it.
The more secular works must have equal merit if for nothing else than
because they can reach out to a wider audience which can hopefully inspire intelligent
conversation and thought.
Terrence Malick is
one of my favorite directors and three of his last four films – The Thin Red Line, The Tree of
Life and To the Wonder – all have overtly Christian themes
(especially the latter
two) while not strictly falling into the often stigmatized category of what is
considered a Christian film. I
have heard from people who have no beliefs in a God at all being spiritually
moved after watching The Tree
of Life. Whether
this is the work of God, Malick, the actors, the score, the imagery, what they
themselves brought to the viewing or any combination of those factors (or any I
missed) surely the fact that they were moved at all in that way, and by a film
which while does not adhere to any specific story from the Bible still is
filled with overt Christian themes and images, is a positive thing and should
be a comfort – not a detractor due to a lack of adherence to scripture – for any
Christian.
And what of other
overtly Christian themed works in the secular world? Songs like I Would Die 4 U by Prince from the album Purple Rain or Word
on a Wing by David Bowie from
the album Station to Station or a dozen or more brilliant U2
songs. Or things like William Blake’s paintings or The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, written hundreds
of years ago and still marveled at. These
works were all in some way inspired by scripture or Christian faith. Even
if they do not necessarily adhere to a rigid idea of Christian artistic works
(just as Noah likely
does not adhere to this) I truly believe the inspiration which drove so
many disparate and accomplished artists throughout history to produce such
poignant and enduring works is something to be grateful for and should nourish
any Christian’s faith.
EC’s do a great
disservice to their own faith by trying to somehow monitor and dictate what
should be considered worthy of being associated with their beliefs. Rather than being embracing and understanding
– two things which are often cited as tenants of their faith – they perpetuate
the already widespread notion that Christians are arrogant and judgmental and hypocritical. If this notion is sadly correct it is because
too many spend too much time mired in a desire of cleric-like control rather
than nurturing their faith.
I think EA’s are
also equally guilty of pushing to a proportionately extreme level their
viewpoints. I don’t have as much to say
about this group and I think it is because I find myself less in their company
(more by the way life rolls rather than through any conscious decision). The odd thing about this group is how they seem
genuinely offended that there still exists anyone who believes in the Christian
God (I rarely see these groups responding so harshly to any other faith) to say
nothing of the vitriol and eye rolling which arrives when someone thanks God in
a speech or when a popular artist writes a song referencing a Christian belief
or if someone actually dares to make a movie about a story from the Bible. Those who would simply dismiss the Bible and
call it a book of fairy tales for children invalidate their opinion not because
their beliefs are different but because they cannot discuss their beliefs
without belittling an opposing viewpoint.
Debates are a wonderful thing and if people want to discuss the logistics
or scientific plausibility of a worldwide flood or storing pairs of every
animal in an ark to survive said flood I think that is great. However if someone thinks it is okay to mock
someone for their beliefs or feel they are more intelligent for the
foundation and basis of their beliefs, that is not okay.
The
company releasing Noah had this to say: The film is inspired by the story of Noah.
While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the
essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for
millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the
book of Genesis
This makes the
most sense to me in terms of where people should go if they want to stick with
the source (nothing wrong with that) of if they want to investigate further
(nothing wrong with that either). At the very least I would hope we can
enjoy the movie as a movie, as a piece of art or entertainment first. If lucky, maybe it can inspire a different
kind of discussion afterward. Anyway,
any type of belief – science based, deity based, Shakira-based (one of my
preferred belief systems) – requires some type of faith, there is always
something unknowable, unprovable. I’d
like to think we could all feel a little unified in that.
Pretty!
No comments:
Post a Comment