Get PJ Media on your Apple

Klavan On The Culture

The Whole Idea of Noah is Wrong

April 1st, 2014 - 11:49 am

Now all three of these guys are friends of mine, true men of faith, and big brains — and Nolte’ll let the air out of your tires if you even look at him sideways — but I have to admit, without having seen the film, without being able to judge of its quality, it’s Shapiro’s point that sticks with me.  If, as I say, Aronofsky is a declared atheist, if he intended to deliver “the least biblical film ever made,” I can’t help but wonder: why make a biblical film at all?  No? I mean, the Bible is the sacred book of gazillions of people. If you disagree with it, if you have a different message than, you know, God’s, well, fine, but then why not make up your own story, why twist and gut and dishonor this one?

It can’t be because Aronofsky is a radically courageous teller of truths. Attacking the Bible doesn’t require any courage in America and certainly no radicalism. Read those comments above. Is Shapiro going to hunt Aronofsky down and behead him? Sure, Nolte might (the man’s a savage), but he’ll probably think better of it in the end. And hell, Moeller’s practically inviting the guy to tea.

What do you think the reactions would have been if Aronofsky’s film had been called “Mohammed?” If Aronofsky had said, “This is going to be the least Koranic movie ever made?” Do you think the reactions would be so civilized, so thoughtful, so interested in “facilitating important conversations.” Now there’s a film that would take courage. There’s a film that would be radical. And there’s a film that Aronofsky is never going to make!

The idea of using the Bible to make a non-biblical film just seems wrong in and of itself — mean and small-hearted and bullying, and cowardly too when you consider he could’ve taken on the Koran. Regardless of the movie’s quality, it just seems like the wrong thing to do per se. Unneighborly you might call it. UnChristian.

But then, maybe that’s the whole problem.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Not really, since both Moses and Jesus form a continuity that originated in Adam and passed through Noah. The whole point of the Old Testament, after all, is to tell the story of God's work throughout history, through the people of Israel - and through Noah and his descendents up to Israel.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Aronofsky simply sees the tale of Noah as a public-domain legend, and as an atheist, doesn't have any concerns at doing to it what's been done by Hollywood over and over in rebooting successful comic book heroes or TV series.

Since he doesn't hold The Bible or its version of history as sacred, he feels free to rework it as he sees fit (and the fact that Judeo-Christian believers are far more charitable with those who take editing pencils to their scriptures is also why Aronofsky feels free to use the story for his own environmentalist concerns -- he'd probably tell you he wouldn't make a story using his own versions of the Koran because not enough people in the target audience are Muslims, but the truth more likely would be he's a true believer in not having to hide in the shadows for the rest of his life from Islamic fanatics who take less kindly to their texts being altered by atheists or anyone else).
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (55)
All Comments   (55)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Unlike Mr. Klavan, I actually saw the movie.

It was certainly not what I expected to see, but IMHO it was not anti-Christian. I thought it was more like Lord of the Rings - epic battles, mysticism and strange creatures - than a traditional biblical epic.

If Noah offends anyone it will be atheists and Darwinists expecting to see monkeys evolve into humans on the big screen. As for the environmentalism, that was a few lines in a two hour screenplay, not a central theme. IMHO.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
The movie Noah is an attack on the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. Aronovsky seeks to replace these religions with the new religion of environmentalism. Most environmentalists believe that humanity is evil and that the planet would be far better off without mankind. Spiritually, they serve Satan and know it not.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
How much gasoline was burned to make this movie? How much food was consumed and then how much gaseous emissions from humans did that cause? How much electricity was burned making this movie? How many hours of electricity will be burned running this movie in theaters? How much energy is going to be burned making the DVDs? How much plastic will end up in the garbage heap from this movie? There is not too many true environmentalists in this world. This movie maker has the audacity to claim he worries about the environment. What a joke he is.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
But--Emma Watson!
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Eagerly awaiting the no-doubt-in-the-works tender treatment on screen that Aronofsky will give to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses."

Ah, yes, 'twill be quite a sight to behold, 'twill.

Hmm...was the word "behold" or "behead"?? So easy to confuse the two...
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Two points to make:

1) Go see the movie before you write about it...its on the verge of annoyance to hear you go on and on about what OTHER PEOPLE think of this movie, without having YOUR OWN interpretations included to balance it out....

In other words, why should I read the entirety of YOUR article, when you could have just said:

"havent seem it...but some trused friends have, heres the link"

2) Movies like this only magnify my seething contempt for, and shrinking dollars spent upon, the "Entertainment" Industry as a whole....

Oh, brave and smirking Commies, undermining our faith with such dash and daring...how about an expose' on The Wonderful Life of Mohammed someday?

I can picture them using a rocking version of Tulls Aqualung to smooth over his pedophelia into somethng "radical-cool" to be admired...

Whats the matter, its not like half the directors out there dont diddle with children already? What are you afraid of?
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
When you take on the Koran in film, you end up in an American jail.

The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam. - Barrack Hussein Obama
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is one reason this movie was made: that Jesus said, taught and warned that His return would be heralded by days like the days of Noah. And the more misinformed, misguided and confused one can make the population the more defenseless it will be to end-times deceptions.

Therefore, Satan simply wanted no one, and certainly as few as possible, to have any clue whatsoever about the times of Noah; who lived in those days, how they lived, who Noah was, who God was, man’s relationship to God, why the flood came, also the sons of God taking the daughters of men who gave birth to the giants (the ancient mighty men of renown), the genealogy of Noah and his son’s, the rational arguments for the scientific acceptability of Noah and his family the building of the ark (it took a century, you know), and whatever else can be known or deduced from the many passages and extent writings pertaining to that time.

And, yes, Satan is likely happy about it, and especially happy he should be, and it perfectly shows the “did God really say” grain-of-truth-to-tell-a-whopping-lie skills that Satan showed when seducing the first humans into sin.

No, this was a great movie; and it is a demonic movie. Throwing intellectual mud so that part of it can be washed off by rare opportunities for conversation is no acceptable argument for filling people’s minds with such anti-christian nonsense.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most of the biblical criticism of NOAH I hear is unfounded. People criticize environmentalism themes in the movie, yet in the genesis 5 and 6, God had not yet given animals to humans as food. That doesn't occur until after the flood waters recede. Having the villains violent and meat eaters is actually a reasonable portrayal. Sinful man is characterized in Genesis as taking liberty where God gives none, specifically taking multiple wives and murder. Killing and eating animals would fit in line with that behavior.

The other major one I hear is that Noah acts questionably. However, the Bible is clear that there are no righteous men according to deeds. Noah wrestles with the sinfulness of all men including himself. I don't agree with how some of that is portrayed like God setting Noah up to choose to kill or not and then Noah seemingly disobeying God and then God approving of the action. That is where the story telling gets sloppy. But the ideas Noah is reasoning through are all found in the Bible either in the Noah account or others.

Redemption of fallen angels is wrong, adding in flaming swords is a stretch, the pregnancy test is silly, but let's read our bibles before we criticize too much.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
"God had not yet given animals to humans as food. That doesn't occur until after the flood waters recede."
Nonsense.
Animals became food as soon as Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
It can be inferred that God gave men animals as food when he looked with favor upon Abel's offering of a firstling from his flock.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good point. However, Abel's offering isn't clearly for food. There are clear statements by God in Genesis 1/2 about giving plants for food and then in Genesis 9 it clearly states that God gives the animals into mankind's hand for food. It even references God only giving plants as food before. So I think that is a better way to look at it, and should then affect the way you see this movie.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
hollywood pushes "NOAH" , ignores "Lilith"
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Probably because "Lilith" has no name recognition.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All