Noah

I wonder what it says about me that I can believe in eternal damnation, but I can no longer believe in redemption or salvation.

The movie was a lovely spectacle, but that is all it was - just a lovely spectacle. Everyone involved gave solid performances, especially the women.

That Noah had Rust Cohle's world view made sense but fails in the movie because there is no way to follow that line in thinking to its logical conclusion without having Noah fail in his faith and fail in his mission, so its inclusion in the movie is problematic structurally and philosophically. In the context of the movie and the story the director was attempting to tell, Noah fails in terms of his final decision about his grand children. I wonder if the director realizes that.

Spiritually the only part which bothered me is the Watchers finding redemption - that soured much of the movie for me.

I suspect many people will make gifs comparing Noah to Jor-El and Inspector Whatzisface from Le Mis. While not directly funny, the film can easily be hacked to become funny.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't think Noah is a movie I'll be watching. At least not in theaters. Maybe if it comes on TV later on this year, and there is nothing else for me to do, or anything else to watch, I might see it.

In any case, I had a question for you since you saw the movie. I read some articles about the movie, and it seems the director got a few people angry because he said this movie's Noah was the first environmentalist. Is that something that actually comes through in the movie? Or is it just a talking point to get people riled up about the movie and get them to go see it?
 

The movie is environmental, but less silly than "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake. There is no statement of "this is happening because of our reckless carbon footprint," rather it is "God is sending the flood because we pissed him off." The environmental damage is just part of the package, a symptom of man's terminally ill soul rather than the be-all, end all.

As a movie is it very pretty, so watch it on as big a screen as you have.
 

I don't think Noah is a movie I'll be watching. At least not in theaters. Maybe if it comes on TV later on this year, and there is nothing else for me to do, or anything else to watch, I might see it.

In any case, I had a question for you since you saw the movie. I read some articles about the movie, and it seems the director got a few people angry because he said this movie's Noah was the first environmentalist. Is that something that actually comes through in the movie? Or is it just a talking point to get people riled up about the movie and get them to go see it?

They make the statement in the film about man as a 'steward of the land', which contradicts the view of some that Man was placed in dominion of all the beasts, etc, etc, ie, Man is on the top and everything else in Creation serves him. You also have the people that conflate any whiff of 'environmentalist' with 'nature worship/pagan'.
 


The movie is environmental, but less silly than "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake. There is no statement of "this is happening because of our reckless carbon footprint," rather it is "God is sending the flood because we pissed him off." The environmental damage is just part of the package, a symptom of man's terminally ill soul rather than the be-all, end all.

As a movie is it very pretty, so watch it on as big a screen as you have.
I don't know how much The Day After Tomorrow really fits the whole environmentalist thing. Wasn't it a gravitational shift in the poles that cause the whole thing in that movie?

In any case, I'm just not sold on Noah. You know what it is? The whole evil army coming for his boat. At least that's what it looks like in the previews. It just feels as if they needed to throw some fighting and people dying to make the movie interesting.
 

They make the statement in the film about man as a 'steward of the land', which contradicts the view of some that Man was placed in dominion of all the beasts, etc, etc, ie, Man is on the top and everything else in Creation serves him. You also have the people that conflate any whiff of 'environmentalist' with 'nature worship/pagan'.
I heard this movie was based on some graphic novel. It's supposed to be a post-apocalyptic-like setting. I wonder how they do it in the novel.
 


To spin off from the main topic a bit, even if Man were supposed to have dominion over nature, that doesn't excuse misuse and waste of nature. If a teenager's parents give him a car and tell you him can drive wherever he wants, but then they find out the kid has let the car get infested with roaches and is using it to run down the neighborhood's pets, that kid's losing the car.
 

To spin off from the main topic a bit, even if Man were supposed to have dominion over nature, that doesn't excuse misuse and waste of nature. If a teenager's parents give him a car and tell you him can drive wherever he wants, but then they find out the kid has let the car get infested with roaches and is using it to run down the neighborhood's pets, that kid's losing the car.

Precisely the dominion referred to is that of a wise king (like Solomon) who rules for the benefit of his domain. We must recall that the divine right of kings is not absolute but alwayd subordinate to the divine

(Ok thats as close to religion I want to get)

I'm eager to see this movie just to see what an antediluvian pre-apocolyptic world might look like. The world hinted at in Genesis and the other Apocryphal books would imho make a great setting and I think does give enough material to fill in the Noah story.

I also recall reading a novel based on Noah too which featured flying machines and genetic engineering experiments including a mermaid in a laboratory tank...

Link A review of the graphic novel http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/03/27/graphic-novel-review-noah
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top