God's not a linear God, II (or, a Critical Review of Darren Aronofsky's "Noah")

I'm infuriated.

I cannot stand the twisting lies that are being told.

Let me back up a bit.

There's a certain British actress which has caught my eye for quite some time now named Emma Watson. Classy, smart (straight As all throughout British school system and a soon-to-be graduate of Ivy League Brown University), and beautiful, I've been following her career.

She announced she would be in a project called "Noah," about the Biblical character. At first, I had no idea how the heck this would work. Any Biblical adaptation to the big screen can be really sketchy. I can count on one hand the Biblical movies that have been good and at the same time well-grounded.

I saw the trailers and was amazed at the visuals. Then, I researched the movie.

Turns out, the director had co-written a graphic novel on Noah that had been controversial with conservative Christian reviewers, most of whom said in their reviews that they hadn't read it because (and I'm paraphrasing) they didn't want to have anything to do with lies.

I researched it and read bits, and I found out that Daronofsky (raised a Jew, yet an Atheist now) intended to create another flood myth and combine aspects of many other flood myths (read the Qu'ran's version of Noah, Epic of Gilgamesh, Chapter 3 of the Popol Vuh, Trentren and Caicai Vilu, and others) to create a "master" myth. He found that basing the main story arc in the Bible's point of view worked best.

This became the movie.

The night before the movie came out, a horribly one-sided review came out following months of people criticizing it for not being Biblical (since the author wanted to create another  myth mostly based on the Bible but not the Bible's version, he put a disclaimer on all the trailers stating that creative license had been taken and if one were so inclined to read the Biblical story, one could visit Genesis). 

This review was exaggerated, and the author had been under fire for calling President Obama a racist.

A comment war on facebook exploded. I joined only to disregard the article, not the movie. Soon, the movie became the conversation. I explained the mono-myth approach, to which (and I've heard this argument many times since, including in an Amazing Facts review of a review of a review) someone argued that Noah was a mage who had demons help him build an ark out of a magic forest. 

I had done my research.

Noah plants the forest, just like in the Qu'ran's version. That's when I noticed that all the other criticisms could be utterly wrong.

Thursday (opening night for the movie) after our play performance, two literature/film buddies of mine decided to go watch it. Heck, we thought, there's a theater that has comfy seats and free popcorn and $5 movies for students. Let's go learn something--even if we're disappointed, we'll know why the movie was wrong and not rely on hearsay.

All I can say is that this movie is one of the best films I have ever seen.

First thing I did as I arrived in my apartment was take out my Bible. After reading and re-reading and re-re-re-reading the story, I was astonished at how much I thought I knew  the story and how much I really didn't. (How much of the Bible do we really know and not just remember vaguely from sermons and Bible stories?). I appreciated the accuracy.

Everything that is in the Bible is in the story. Things that aren't only work to advance the main plotlines: man's wickedness (which caused the flood) then and how it relates to today (soldiers from all eras including modern are depicted when the subject of brother against brother is brought up after Cain and Abel), redemption (arguably the underlying and main plot story arc), a merciful God who is willing to give us a choice and a second chance (In Noah's hands the fate of the human race is left), stewardship (one of the main wickedness is our inability to serve nature and creation around us, including a bit about vegetarianism and eating meat--only after the flood are we allowed by God to eat meat, so it stands to reason that someone just would have been vegetarian), A God who speaks after the point of desperation (many people lose their faith because God seems silent at the time of most apparent need. This God is silent many times, but in the end comes through even after all hope seems to have been lost--I feel an accurate view, because hope is never lost when He's around).

I only had one problem with the story: a certain storyline--brilliant, by the way--could have been cut and the plot could have advanced just the same. But that's just a literature freak talking.

Throughout the movie, there were several parts of the movie where I wished I could have paused it and thought for a minute.

The ride back was full of conversation. My two friends and I concluded that the movie was grandiose. As I tweeted, "Majestic in scope, masterful storytelling," and I might add "compelling, thought-provoking, and moving. Not for entertainment purposes. A stern warning." The Bible verse "as in the days of Lot and Noah" came alive as the director mirrored man's wickedness to things we do today. 

When I read the Amazing Facts review, I was astounded at the gall and ignorance of the post. The reviewer says: "We’ve been paying close attention to the reviews of this film from both Christian and non-Christian critics alike." Then he lists lies spread about the movie:

• Satan’s fallen angels protect Noah while he builds the ark
• To stop the earth from being repopulated, Noah tries to kill his son’s pregnant wife
• Noah is portrayed as a uncaring, coarse man reluctant to follow God’s instructions
• Methuselah is characterized as some sort of witch doctor who guides Noah spiritually!

To which I can say (for I saw it, not just paid attention to reviews) that 1. They are not Satan's fallen angels. 2. The second one must be taken in context, since Noah is put with the choice (and Emma's character then explains) with the fate of humanity, and as Emma's character says, (paraphrase) "God knew you'd make the right choice." 3. Not at all. He is not uncaring. He cares too much. And is never reluctant to follow God's instructions. If anything, it is His want to do everything God tells him that drives Noah to make bad decisions, much like the Pharisees. 4. No, Methuselah is the only person in the world with a strong relationship with God, having been close to his father Enoch and knowing Adam and Eve. He can work miracles through his faith in the true God, not as a witch doctor. And he never guides Noah anywhere--instead, he tells Noah to keep asking God questions.

The worst lies in the article are these: "it's likely the filmmakers believe Genesis is a mere fable and seek to change your perceptions about God and the Bible." Never to change your perception, just give you another view which you don't have to agree with. I don't agree with Gilgamesh and still find it edifying. How dare we say that God allowed all civilizations to live without any light until they were reached by us.

The article is right: the Bible isn't meant for amusement. It is wrong in that it accuses the movie of doing that, when the film clearly cannot be seen if you are not ready to learn and discuss afterwards.

We, as Christians, do not  hold the legal and the only rights to the truth. How dare we take claim over those. While I can say that the only source material I trust 100% is the Bible, that will not stop me from learning from others that have the limited light available to other cultures, while they wait for Christ to illuminate them himself.

If one only wants to find faults, one can do so watching this or even a Doug Batchelor sermon. Mindset is everything. Point of view matters--especially from a world wide flood. If one does not understand that there have been countless cultures with their own literature and that the Bible's account itself came from spoken stories, it is easy to discount it.

If you are not educated outside of what you grew up hearing, do not watch it. If you want to be entertained, stay home or don't download it.

Otherwise, you'd be a fool to miss it.

On the topic of the problem of evil . . .

The author was 13

The Dove
A Poem by Darren Aronofsky
January 13, 1982

Evil was in the world
The laughing crowd
Left the foolish man at his ark
Filled with animals
When the rain began to fall
It was hopeless

The man could not take the evil crowd with him
But he was allowed to bring his good family.
The rain continued through the night
And the cries of screaming men filled the air
The ark was afloat
Until the dove returned with the leaf
Evil still existed.

When the rainbows reached throughout the sky
The humble man and his family knew what it meant
The animals ran and flew freely with their newborn
The fog rose and the sun shone
Peace was in the air

And it soon appeared in all of man’s heart.
He knew evil would not be kept away
For evil and war could not be destroyed
But neither was it possible to destroy peace

Evil is hard to end and peace is hard to begin
But the rainbow and the dove will always live
Within every man’s heart.

The problem

The thermostat is set to 67 degrees, but it feels like it could be twice as much as that. 

The question I set out my four guests was, I thought, simple. "What is evil?" I asked, by trustworthy black and white composition book ready to write down the wisdom I was sure would flow from these great minds. 

Instead I got blank looks. Fyodor slurped at his coffee, and Augustine merely stared at his, fighting the bitter aftertaste. I passed the sugar. 

That was two hours ago. They said we needed to define other things first, but we've been arguing about what should be defined first. 

Augustine was the first. "We should define first what good is, God." 

"No," says Fyodor firmly. "It's not about God, it's about why people do evil." 

"Why God lets evil happen—" And so on. Augustine is insistent on theodicy. David just nods and smiles while Augustine talks, and then shows how God cannot exist because—much to Augustine's chagrin—evil does exist. Mackie is jumping in his seat, and with every argument David pulls out Mackie gets increasingly more ecstatic. Dostoevsky doesn't speak. Apparently, he wants to be the one with the last word.



(Probably some definitions wouldn't be bad here. Theodicy is "the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil." The problem, of course, is what is Evil?)

Four philosophers, a student, and a cup of coffee

Okay, I'm gonna need everyone's help with this. I will be posting parts of my paper and I want y'all to discuss the problem/thesis raised in that particular part of the paper. I will post the next section as soon as I get a comment.

In this paper, I am dialoguing with four philosophers on the problem of Evil. This problem is legend in the religious circles: how can there be a good God and yet Evil is present? It also takes on other forms: Does Evil exist? Where do our morals and ethics come from? Why is something Good and the other not? Who decides what is Evil, or what is Good?

I am talking to St. Augustine, of the original apologetic masterminds. Much of the theology adopted by Christianity today can be traced somehow or other back to Augustine's beliefs. Although he was a bit controversial--and still is, there has been a rise in his reading with the advent of Postmodernism and the return to High Church tradition among today's people (see my reblog Why Young People Are Leaving the Church . . . it might be under the name "Worth a read from CNN's belief blog"). He held that everything was created good but ultimately corruptible . . . I won't give too much away right now.

I'm also talking to David Hume. He was an eighteenth-century skeptic who held that God doesn't exist because there is evil. Hume, an empiricist (knowledge comes  through experience) is famous for inspiring Immanuel Kant, in my opinion one of the most extreme philosophers out there (we can't know anything except that we can perceive it....yeah, I know, me too).

The other two are Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment) and J.L. Mackie. Dostoevsky likes to give his opinion and then shoot it  down by saying that he could be completely wrong except when he's not. Mackie is most famous for stating that ethics were inventions.

Okay. These are oversimplified versions of what they actually thought, but the paper will delve deeper into that.

Have fun!

Wait I'm not done!

I am invigorated.
In the midst of applying to about a thousand jobs and graduation coming close I made some time for my philosophy paper I'm a bit weary of. This means a lot of different books and--boy oh boy--I'm so full of ideas!
I will continue posting here. I will also post my philosophy paper, probably not the final draft so that any comments can help shape the argument past the assignment deadline.
All this after getting a purple bow tie for 99 cents.