Now granted it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything, but don’t think
I’ve given up my movie and specialty TV watching. That will never change.
I
just had to take a break while back in post-secondary classes. Now that I’m off
I can get back to some articles and stuff on my mind.
Yep, a lot of good movies
so far this summer. Yes I have seen some, (How to Train Your Dragon 2, being
the most recent one), so I will try to get into those as soon as I can. But
first I wanted to talk about a noticeable pattern I’ve been observing - there’s been an increase of Biblically-themed films, and even a
few TV shows of the same genre.
Some were very direct, like “Son of God”, based
on the Bible series that aired on the History network. Although that was a
pretty decent series, it did focus more towards one denomination of
Christianity than others. Also there were several stories of the Bible that either skimmed through vaguely or skipped altogether. In their defence, the
budgeting for all those added stories would have been too costly and time
consuming to make in one take. Still it would be good if they made a second
volume to add more biblical stories to the existing ones they made, now that
would be good to see. There was one other film however that did catch my
interest: the recent remake of the story of Noah, starring Russell
Crowe.
I did hear a bit of controversy of its make, varying from the director
being a potential atheist, to not adding Christian/biblically themed events
within the film. Ok that last one really doesn’t make sense. How exactly do you
eliminate that of a story that came from the Bible?? That’s almost the
equivalent of becoming a lifeguard, and not knowing how to swim. It makes NO
sense. At any rate, when the film came out in late winter/early spring, I
didn’t have time to see it (was busy with assignments then) so I did not get
the chance to see this film until 5 months later.
One of the first things that
did strike me about the film was in fact they did reference a lot of the Bible
within it. They even pointed out a few theories I have heard in regards to what
it was like on Earth prior to the flood. For example; how it seemed to be more
common to talk directly to God compared to later on in biblical history or
especially in our time. Another interesting part was how both wildlife and the
Earth overall was prior to the flood, even down to they types of minerals and
ore found in earth. In the film, a special ore that was apparently found and
used at that time was capable of producing fires easier than using a flint. It
was also a major contributor of resource overhaul with the most of the current
tribes then as well, particularly Cain’s descendants. A friend of mine
mentioned that it’s possible that the oxygen levels back then were much
different compared to how they are now. Much richer hence the larger growth of
plants, and possibly the reason why many animals (and possibly humans) were
much larger and lived longer back then compared to now.
For me it was
interesting to see the minor details of pre-flood existence being used in this
film. Considering how short the chapter’s involving Noah and the flood, I’ll
give credit to the director for these added areas. Er, most of them, that is.
There were some parts however I did find a little too hard to agree with. First
off was the concept of evolutionary creationism. I get the fact they wanted to
show how different the world was at that time, and from certain standpoints,
the idea of it, would make some sense. For others, this would be a hard sell.
At the same time, we don’t have an exact history of what life was back then
(aside from what’s mentioned in the book of Genesis), we can’t dismiss this
completely. I do agree that if mankind was different back then, why can’t the
same be said about the wildlife, the environment, and the spiritual connection
to God? They even mention Enoch’s walk to heaven through a conversation
Methuselah had with Noah, along with the prediction of what would happen to
mankind if they kept their wicked ways. Ironically this was in reference to the
Revelation end times, rather than the flood, which Methuselah found puzzling
since one involved fire, and what Noah saw in his dream was water. Heh, I had
to laugh at that point, since both end time decrees are true…just one comes
much later.
One other part I also found a bit hard to understand, were the
fallen angel watchers. First of all, when many hear of fallen angels, they
immediately think of Lucifer (now Satan) and the angels that were cast out of
heaven. These angels however are not the same ones, at least according to the
film. These were angels that wanted to help mankind after the fall of Eden and
descended to Earth to do so, without God permission. In doing so, when reaching
Earth they became encrusted with the earth becoming the stone giant watchers
you see in the film. I think the encrustation is to symbolize the recent sin
that was not there until the fall, encasing them to show how sin is in this new
world, and their penance for disobeying God. Like I said before it’s a bit
farfetched.
I was however told by a mutual friend of D.A. and I, that there are
mentions of watchers in the Old Testament. I wasn’t aware of that at the time,
and still need to research it more, but in that case it would prove to be an
interesting area to study. I might need to do a separate article about it. As
previously mentioned, life prior to the flood would have been different, since
the world at the time was different. A catastrophic event like a worldwide
flood would have a fundamental and permanent affect on our world in every
aspect. This film does show this, and really gives that feel on how different
things were. Remember this was only a few centuries at best since the fall of
man from the Garden of Eden. Factoring in the life span of mankind at the time,
it would be considered even less of a time gap since then as well. Overall, it
was very interesting to see this film. I’ve always been fascinated with how
life was prior to the flood, and how many previous films, TV shows, or
specialty series fail to point out how different things were at that time. It
was much closer to the beginning of the world. Despite it being after mankind’s
fall from Eden and sin’s introduction, spiritually speaking, mankind was closer
to God in this time period than they were afterwards. I mean God spoke and
revealed directly to them, so there was no question (no should there be) with
who was communicating with you. Even the descendants of Cain acknowledged this,
although it never happened to them.
The main reason why I have such a interest
in this time period is, despite how things were different back then, there were
similarities. Despite there being a closer spiritual connection to God, there
was still a lot of wickedness on Earth, so much so it had to be destroyed.
Considering how it’s mentioned during the times of Noah are the same how times
are now, one has to ask themselves how wicked have we become now, to start the
end times with fire? Perhaps that day may be closer than any of us realize.
Two
final thoughts, one, considering how this film addressed many areas that many
had questions on life back then (and a few that I didn’t think about until
after seeing it) I’m a bit surprised they did not address where the dinosaurs
fit in with all of this. Secondly, not to stir up a old argument, I can’t help
but notice that pretty much the entire cast of characters were all white,
particularly the survivors of the flood. You mean to tell me they couldn’t have
at least one visible minority in this cast? I mean if they were going with the
strict Caucasian-ized depiction of biblical characters, (Jesus included), then
I suppose it’s just tradition, whether it comes from that or Hollywood casting.
Honestly, it’s really getting tiresome.
Opinions on this film or review?
Any comment on how it portrayed sin, vs the virtue of Noah? I've avoided this movie because it seems like the gritty version of a Bible story, something that Hollywood seems inexorably drawn to do. The result is they always make the "hero" into an anti-hero, and I suspect that Noah in the end comes off not as the person God rescued because of his virtue, but just the guy who's willing to do whatever it takes to get something done.
ReplyDeleteLancer, that's a fair prediction of how Noah was treated in this depiction. There was indeed poetic licence in how Noah was portrayed.
ReplyDeleteI found the conflicts a tad modernistic/anachronistic; the melodrama injected into the story seems very unlikely to have been the case in the society of the time; however, as a modern interpretation of what it may actually have been like, it was a refreshing revisit of a period in history so far back that speculation between the lines of the Biblical narrative seems almost warranted, and brings to life characters that are otherwise sanitized by antiquity.
"sanitized by antiquity" - I like that. While I don't think you can remove the juxtaposition of Noah to the rest of the world without losing the core meaning of the Flood story, some of the liberties that MW describes above sound very interesting. Maybe I'll check it out if it's on Netflix, but I may be more the type to pull out his hair due to Biblical stories that have been polluted by post-modernism.
ReplyDeleteWear a hat...! :-) Can't wait for your thoughts on it. There are a few things I really didn't understand, while a few I found pretty neat.
ReplyDeleteI watched it this weekend. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, and I still have all my hair. Netflix gave it 1.x stars, but I would probably have given it a 2. I still kinda shrug at it, but I'm nevertheless glad you guys challenged me.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I see as its major philosophical difference with the Biblical account. Reviewing it in my head, it seems that it portrays mankind's greatest sin as what it did to the environment. Ie: the Earth was "very good", and humanity wrecked it (by industry, no less). Now there is also the sin of murder show-cased frequently, but that doesn't ever seem to be treated as a major justification for the flood. There is also the sin of eating animals, which I suppose is an extension of the first (but I forgive it for this, because it matches with the Bible's only giving the permission to eat animals after the Flood). In fact, there is only ever one kind of sin on display in the movie, and it's that of people in power abusing what's under their control. The "bad guy" ironically references man's divinely given right of dominion as his justification.
It is a very post-modern/secular view of ethics, where sin only exists if it causes harm. If you limit ethics to this view, the powerful will have the lions-share of guilt, because the powerless are less able to inflict arm. Yet Genesis 6:5 says "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." I believe this judgment was upon both the small and the great alike. A harm-based view of sin tends to overlook sins like lying, covetousness, and sexual immorality. Basically, it has no concept of a sin that feels good. Yet it only makes sense for God to send a flood if all were similarly/equally guilty, and in this respect Noah was the only one to stand apart. In other words, the punishment wasn't just the damage we'd done to the world (or to others), but what we did to ourselves.
I already said that the movie treats the Earth as "very good" until humanity wrecked it. Genesis 1 only uses the term "very good" after the specific creation of humankind. Where the movie sees humanity as disposable, the Bible sees humanity as indispensable. This difference sets up a very different kind of conflict. Instead of people not listening to God, they actually believed Noah about the upcoming flood and so they fought him to get on the Ark! Noah even declined to bring wives for his two younger sons, because what's the point if the intent was to extinguish humanity? We don't read about anyone being denied entrance to the Ark in the Bible, so it's a very different kind of conflict.
So in summary, it differs in its view of sin, and God's relationship with humankind. At least mercy is accommodated in its world view.