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!
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.
5 comments:
Touché!
If I am not wrong, there were eight that went through the whole experience. From the preaching to the building of the boat, to the earth's repopulation.
What about if everyone told the same story from their own perspective?
I remember family experiences that were a joy to me but a nightmare to my kids. Like visiting "la calle de la amargura".
=)
You raise a good point. There are definitely some differences and again, I can say that the only source which is 100% true is the Bible. So, 8 people actually went through the ark.
That being said, were there two demoniacs or one that Jesus healed?
Or, more importantly, does the number matter as much as what the incident teaches?
And if everyone told the story, you'd get an entirely new story. . . which is what this movie is. Great for teaching the aforementioned points but not great for facts.
Another interesting thing: the movie's Biblical source was based on only Genesis' account, where Noah doesn't preach at all. Got me, too.
Bible stories are not there as material for children stories, or to keep church goers and their children entertained, or to have a "godly" alternative to secular literature.
We have the tendency to focus on numbers, details, etc. as if the Biblical importance derives from its accuracy in this kind of details.
This greek mentality of us, trying to answer the how in everything.
How 8 managed to feed all of these animals for so long?
How the lions, and all carnivores got enough meat to eat? How?, How? How?
We should remember that Bible stories were written with a totally different mindset, unknown and foreign to ours, where the importance of the story is based on its purpose. Therefore the questions should begin with Why? "Why was this written? As you correctly said, "what the incident teaches".
So, instead of watching the movie and rate its worthiness based on the visual effects and details, cinephiles should plan to spend enough time, once the show is over, to digest and think about the why's. Other than that they will only end with less money in the pocket and 139 less minutes to accomplish their daily plans.
Post a Comment