New film on Noah and the Ark offends both Christians and Muslims

The movie “Noah” is coming out soon, and I have no idea whose crazy idea it was to do this movie (the director is Daren Aronofsky, director of the overrated and execrable “Black Swan,”), nor how they got all that talent to star in it (e.g., Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Nick Nolte, and Emma Watson). And it’s ironic that Jennifer Connelly, who apparently plays Noah’s wife Naameh, also played Darwin’s wife Emma in the movie “Creation.”

Here’s the official trailer:

Judging by the part of the clip beginning at 1:15, there are more than just a few “kinds” loading onto the Ark. Look at all those snakes—surely more than one snake “kind”! I wonder if they consulted a baraminology expert for this? According to Wikipedia, though, no real animals were herded in the making of this film:

Regarding the film’s extensive use of visual effects, Aronofsky said he and his crew “had to create an entire animal kingdom”, using no real animals in the production but instead “slightly tweaked” versions of real creatures. Industrial Light and Magic said their work on the film represented “the most complicated rendering in the company’s history”

You’d think that good Christians would be chuffed that a major film (put out by Parmount) was being made about the Noah, portraying this ludicrous story as something real.  But no. According to The Raw Story, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) made Parmount add this disclaimer to the film (this is only part of it):

 “[t]he film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.”

Well, it’s bad enough that the film is supposed to cater to those who believe in a a bogus story that somehow serves as a “cornerstone of  their faith” (and if its value is solely as a metaphor, what, exactly, is the story supposed to mean?).  What’s worse is the reason the NRB pressed for the disclaimer:

NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrapthat the disclaimer was necessary because the film is “historically inaccurate.” It is, Cooke said, “more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling.”

WHAT? Historically inaccurate? What would historically accurate mean? How many animals would there be, and how would they be taken care of? How would the “penguin kind” make its way to Antarctica, or the giant tortoises to Aldabra? Nobody can answer these questions, and so the question of “historical accuracy” is moot.

But other Christians have objected as well. Their beefs, given below as quotes from the Raw Story piece, are hilarious:

  • Writing on his blog last year, Answers In Genesis president Ken Ham noted that the film’s script “is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis.” Ham believes the trailer for the film is “a Hollywood con” designed to lure unsuspecting Jews and Christians to witness “an unbiblical production.”He lists the many ways in which the film does not accurately reflect his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He notes that “Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.” Moreover, “[i]t appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.” [JAC: if there's every species in the Ark, and of course "kinds" could well be biological species, then there must be at least 7 million of them!]  Most problematic for Ham, however, is that “Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood,” and that “[t]he Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.”

And Noah is too much of a hippie, too! There’s too much environmentalism!

  • Brian Godawa, a screenwriter whose Christian films have repeatedly failed to be profitable at the box office, wrote that Noah‘s script “is deeply anti-Biblical in its moral vision.”“Noah is a kind of rural shaman and vegan hippie-like gatherer of herbs. Noah explains that his family tries to study and heal the world whenever possible, like a kind of environmentalist scientist,” Godawa writes.“Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded creatures or those who survive the evil ‘poachers,’ of the land. Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.” The environmental message, however, is not Godawa’s central complaint — he is mostly considered with the “postmodernist fancy” that Aronofsky brings to the script. He initially acknowledges that anything not explicitly written in Genesis 6 is fair-game for creative license. “Saying ‘That didn’t happen on the ark,’” he writes, “is sheer ignorance because nobody knows what happened on the ark, because it wasn’t written down!” [JAC: so much for "historical accuracy"!]However, “postmodernists fancy playing God and changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it’s okay to ‘make the Bible say what we want it to say.’ This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense[.]”

I guess Biblical literalists have the final say in how the Bible is portrayed. No metaphors allowed! I wonder how “The Ten Commandments” would have fared under the watchful eye of Ken Ham.

Finally, and curiously, the screenwriters are chastised for not accepting God as the tyrannical, genocidal brute that he is in the Old Testament (again from Brian Godawa):

  • Another problem with Noah is that it fails to acknowledge that while, from a Christian perspective, “[k]illing all humans but eight in order to start over (as the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds…it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil.”

That makes absolutely no sense. Man has value because God kills off all of humanity because they were evil. Were all of them evil, even the babes in arms? And why couldn’t God just prevent those people from becoming evil? Apparently, as it says in Genesis 5, God had made a big mistake—showing that he’s not omniscient, and certainly not benevolent:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The directors and producers can’t catch a break, for Muslims are objecting, too. As The Hollywood Reporter notes, their objections are apparently not on supposed historical inaccuracy, but on the fact that Noah is simply depicted in a movie as a living person:

On Thursday, censorship boards in Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates informed Paramount they will not allow the release of the film. Similar rulings are expected in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait, according to Paramount insiders.

In Egypt, the leading Sunni Muslim institute Al-Azhar issued a statement on Thursday condemning the Paramount movie, saying it should be banned in that country.

“Al-Azhar renews its rejection to the screening of any production that characterizes Allah’s prophets and messengers and the companions of the Prophet [Muhammad],” the statement read. “Therefore, Al-Azhar announces the prohibition of the upcoming film about the Allah’s messenger Noah — peace be upon him.”

Al-Azhar said any such film is “contrary to faith and to the fundamentals of the Islamic Sharia [law],” adding that such movies antagonize the “feelings of the faithful.”

God forbid that Muslim feelings be offended once again.

I wonder when the Jews will weigh in.

154 Comments

  1. John Schneider
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Triple face palm.

  2. gbjames
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    What’s the big deal? This is epic comedy, no?

    • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      Yes. Yes, it is.

  3. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I would grant historical accuracy could be questioned in so far as the approximate time of Noah, the socio-political landscape, tools available, dress could be accurate even if the biblical story is purely fiction.

    I won’t bother with Noah, just like I didn’t bother with any of the Ancient Greek shows: 300, the upcoming one with Xerxes, Troy.

    • Jesper Both Pedersen
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      “…even if the biblical story is purely fiction.”

      Don’t you mean even though?;-)

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

        No, I secretly believe the bible is the literal truth. You found out because of my grammar slip.*

        *the above sentence is fiction
        :D

        • Jesper Both Pedersen
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

          I knew it! :-)

      • Bob J.
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

        Didn’t you read the intro to Genesis, “Based on previously published myths”?

        • Matt G
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

          No, I did not see the disclaimer. Looks like plagiarism to me! Now, who sues and who gets sued?

    • darrelle
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

      I think “historically inaccurate” was a transcription error. I think it was supposed to be “hysterically inaccurate”.

    • Tim
      Posted March 24, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      You’re not the target audience Diana, Christians are. The producers could care less in fact, would probably not want people of your opinion to patronize this film. My guess is that to make a killing, the producers are hoping to pack those theaters to bursting with Christians. Muslim countries are already banning the film and that news helps bolster the Christian attendance numbers. Bad pre-review through Christian press can conspire to make this the next “Heaven’s Gate” and consequently, a
      20 megaton bomb…

      Just my opinion..

  4. Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    As an ex film business (sort of) executive, I can answer your question about how you get big time actors to star in a lousy huge movie: You pay ‘em lousy huge bucks.

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Hard to argue with your analysis…

  5. Matt G
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Ooo, I hope they also treat the early parts of Genesis to cinematic rendition. It would be a twofer: one movie for the first account of creation, and one for the second!

  6. Anna
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Xtians: Waah, Hollywood doesn’t make moves for us.

    Hollywood: Here’s a move for you.

    Xtians: Waah, it’s not what we want!

    • Matt G
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      +1

  7. Barry
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Look who is playing Noah. That’s why there’s nothing to Crow about.

    • Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

      Hippity-hopkins to the barber shopkins, with apocryphal of candy…

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

        ;)

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      If Yahweh were to preserve only eight good humans today, I don’t think Russell Crowe would be on the short list.

      • gbjames
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:42 am | Permalink

        Now you have me wondering. I assume Mel Gibson wouldn’t make it either, but then he might come back from the dead to haunt us with bloody moans.

  8. tubby
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    So I kind of want to ask Mr. Godawa what the difference is between a True Christian and a postmodernist is, but I have a feeling the snark would be completely lost.

  9. Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Weighing in for the Jews: “Oy vey” :)

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      What about the Hindus? Will no one seek out the official Hindu response?

  10. uglicoyote
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Road and commented:
    Should offend anyone with half a brain

  11. Shawn Beaulieu
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I actually quite liked Black Swan, although it hardly even compares to Aronofsky’s opus, Requiem for a Dream.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      I liked Black Swan as well. I particularly liked the teasing tension where the camera follows the actress (very much like in a horror film) and you expect the worst but the tension is relieved when the worst doesn’t occur. It really lets you imagine what is there and what you imagine is far worse.

  12. Timothy Hughbanks
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    OMFG. It is as if they’d made the Flintstones into a serious drama: starring George Clooney as Fred Flintstone, Kristina Hendricks as Wilma Flintstone, Matthew McConaughey as Barney Rubble, and Jennifer Lawrence as Betty Rubble. Danny DeVito does a surprising turn as Mr. Slate.

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      Ann Coulter could play Pebbles, and Ken Ham could be Bam-Bam.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

        Bill O’Reilly would make a good Bam-Bam as well.

        • Moarscienceplz
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

          I see Bill O’Reilly more as Dino, always yip-yip-yipping annoyingly.

          • Filippo
            Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

            Then what would Sean Hannity get to do?

            • Notagod
              Posted March 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

              Dino’s girlfriend.

              • Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

                or a toilet

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

                Yeah any of the animal appliances. I think you found the best one though. :)

    • Diane G.
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Did you know that the people in Dubai don’t like the Flintstones?

      But the people in Abu Dhabi doo.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

        Nice one!

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 3:07 am | Permalink

        I love it!

        • Diane G.
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

          Afraid it’s actually a chestnut; no idea where or when I heard it. First time I’ve ever had a chance to use it, though. :D

  13. marksolock
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.

  14. Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    The Christian Right is bound to complain that gay marriages aren’t depicted as the real reason why God turned on the tap.

    • Matt G
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      Exactly WHY are two of the sons unmarried? Have they not yet met the right girl, or are they “confirmed bachelors” (wink, wink).

      • Moarscienceplz
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

        LOL! One bright shiny internet for you!

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        And how are they going to meet the right girl after the rest of humanity is wiped out?

        • Harbo
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

          Cain and Able had already “solved” that one.

  15. Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    All that manure.

  16. Sastra
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    I still don’t plan on seeing the movie, but it does cheer me to hear that the religious are upset. That increases the thin, vague possibility that some of the serious moral issues might be addressed — such as God violently punishing the violent or the ludicrous description of millions of ordinary people with “every intent of the thoughts of (their) heart(s) was only evil continually.”

    Right. Because reality is like a cartoon.

    • Matt G
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Including the children. Even the infants. And probably even the pregnant women….

      • Moarscienceplz
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        Well, the pregnant women are obviously sluts, and the children probably teased some prophet about being bald or something.
        (/sarcasm, in case it’s not obvious)

        • Matt G
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

          What’s sarcasm?

        • Reginald Selkirk
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

          And the unborn children were probably guilty of the sin of Onan

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      Good points. Also, to answer Dr. Coyne’s rhetorical question: and if its value is solely as a metaphor, what, exactly, is the story supposed to mean? I’d say that its not-very-well-hidden message is that god is a genocidal bastard, which at least makes his supposed instructions to his people a bit more comprehensible.

      • Sastra
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        It’s also hard not to wonder why God didn’t just start with Noah and his family and saved all the drama and horror? Didn’t He see the “wickedness” coming?

        • Achrachno
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

          He’s divinely stupid.

          • Richard Olson
            Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

            God IS divinely stupid. That isn’t to say god didn’t see the wickedness coming, though.

            God spares no creative imagination and goes to no end of effort to create wickedness because god needs wickedness — and an endless stream of it — for plot points.

            Because god is all about the drama. Drama is why god created itself ex nihilo. God exists* to enjoy all the drama it can stir up, from mild to horrific.

            *god is not real; like the content of the film, my post is fiction

            • Posted March 8, 2014 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

              Your post is also basically the argument sophistimacated theologians like John “Hot Beverages” Haught make.

              Why did god create the diversity of life using evolution, red teeth and claws and all? Drama.

              Why tsunamis? Drama.

              Why childhood cancer? You guessed it. Drama.

              They suppose they can whitewash any tragedy by calling it “drama.”

              • Matt G
                Posted March 8, 2014 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

                You make a good point. A big flood is far more dramatic than, say, plague or synchronized worldwide heart attacks. He must have foreseen the green screen and CGI, what with being omniscient and all.

      • Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:58 am | Permalink

        The message is “Toe the line and don’t mess with us: we’re the chosen 8 of God!!”

    • Filippo
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps one ought to go, and laugh at inopportune and “inappropriate” times (at least in the view of the pious surrounding one.)

  17. Mark Joseph
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    As for the muslim objections, I think an easy and relatively inexpensive way to mollify them would be to add a few scenes in which he beats his wife, and maybe one in which it is explained why her testimony in court is only worth half of his.

    • Achrachno
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure that would work. They oppose “the screening of any production that characterizes Allah’s prophets” so merely having some portray Noah would be a problem, no matter how abuse and subjugation of women is also included. I presume they also strenuously object to all films depicting Jesus, though I’ve not heard too much about that.

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 3:15 am | Permalink

        Does this mean that they’ll be issuing a fatwa against Darren Aronofsky?

        • Draken
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:26 am | Permalink

          I’d expect it, but since Aronofsky is born from jews he’s probably already subject to a blanket fatwah on everything jewish.

    • gravityfly
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      In that case it would be “beating his 4 wives”…plus an unspecified number of bondwomen…

  18. codemonkeysteve
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    <blockquote… changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it’s okay to ‘make the Bible say what we want it to say.’ This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense

    Also known as “Christians”.

    • JohnnieCanuck
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:14 am | Permalink

      I remember a pastor emphasising that the way Creation happened was that God ‘spoke it into existance’, so language creating reality is a familiar concept to them.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:47 am | Permalink

        I bet he got that from the genesis “in the beginning there was the word”. I’d like to slap the lazy monk who translated λογος as “the word”. Try harder monk.

        • JohnnieCanuck
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

          Yes, that was it exactly. I took it to mean it was something like a wizard’s incantation where where for example, pronunciation and emphasis are critical to making the end product.

          The Logos entry in Wikipedia shows that it was more than just one lazy translator. Greek philosophers, early Christians, Gnostics and theologists like Frank Stagg have all tried to make something out of the concept for themselves.

          It doesn’t translate well it seems, making it a point where schisms can happen.

          The JWs, not being Trinitarians, take Logos to be a god. Or something.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

            We learned logos also means, “order” and that the logos bit in Genesis is a way to say, “hey, we agree about that Plato stuff you relate to”.

  19. Achrachno
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    The trailer makes it look like this film was inspired more by the success of LOTR than by biblical mythology.

    • SA Gould
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      I do like the part where the remaining mob storms the Ark, desperate for a seat on the ship. A classic disaster movie scene!

  20. Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    It probably is a good idea that this Christian movie isn’t shown in the Islamic world. More then likely it would have resulted in a bomb at the box office… literally

  21. Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Were any pregnant women drowned in the Genesis flood?

    • Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

      what do you think? Is it likely that in drowning everyone except Noah’s family, that a pregnant woman was not in the numbers of those drowned?

      • Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

        What I think is not very interesting. However it would be amusing to hear Ken Ham’s take on mass feticide.

        • Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:43 am | Permalink

          I hear Ken Ham says if it contradicts the bible, it is wrong. I would love to hear his opinion on that too

  22. francis
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    …why the hell are people so easily offended these days??? How about us??? How come were not offended by their bull shit stories??

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      I am offended that you would suggest we are not offended. We have merely managed to callous over our offendity by eating Christian babies and drinking Johnny Walker Black.

      • francis
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        LOL

  23. bluebirdsister
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I can’t figure out who is going to go see this movie.

    If Christians won’t go, Muslims won’t go, and I doubt if Atheists would waste their time, it looks like a no show, and no profit.

    • Vincent Kargatis
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Film fans. Aronofsky, Jerry’s (irrelevant) dislike notwithstanding, is a highly regarded director with many interesting films under his belt. This atheist won’t hesitate to see it.

      I’m not sure I understand the tenor of some of the conversation here – why is it particularly notable to present a film based on mythology? The surrounding religious nonsense is an issue separate from the project itself.

      • bricewgilbert
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

        I’m on the same page as you and feel like an alien language is being spoken here. This is fucking Aranofsky! He’s spoken in the past about how this film is based of his graphic novel (which has fantasy elements) and how this is an “eco” story. Parallels to global warming will be obvious. Plus he’s not a Christian… We’ll see how the film turns out but a ton of the religious pandering is pure marketing.

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        why is it particularly notable to present a film based on mythology?

        1) A large segment of the population disagrees that it is merely mythology.

        2) The disclaimer which fails to take a stand on whether it is mythology or history adds to the humour.

        • Matt G
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

          A myth is different from a story in that a myth is actually believed. By some people, anyways.

          • Achrachno
            Posted March 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

            I’ve managed to get a few people to believe some of my stories, implausible as they always are.

            • Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

              Sounds as if you could start a religion with a little more effort!

              • JohnnieCanuck
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:56 am | Permalink

                Ah, yes. Following in the footsteps of L. Ron. Certainly worked for him.

            • gbjames
              Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

              You’re just saying that!

          • gbjames
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

            I’m not sure that definition of “myth” holds up. There are plenty of myths that nobody believes. (Who thinks Sisyphus is pushing that rock up the hill every day?)

            Perhaps it is enough if the story was once believed as true by some bunch of folk.

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

              Sometimes I think I’m Sisyphus and I like to describe tasks as “sisyphean” rather than “herculean”. I don’t think anyone gets what my message is though. :)

              • Richard Olson
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

                For at least one of those persons, at some future moment while engaged in some ordinary task — perhaps washing the dishes or driving to work — recognition of the error arrives, suddenly and unbidden, into consciousness. Doh! Temporarily, they are decimated. :)

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:56 am | Permalink

                This is why I don’t make my bed.

              • Filippo
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

                From my own experience:

                laying carpet – herculean

                cleaning carpet – sisyphean

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

                Diana:
                “This is why I don’t make my bed.”

                Odd you should mention beds. My description of my organisation’s business processes is “Procrustean” – whatever the nature of a problem or a project, it will be made to fit the endlessly proliferating procedures that our brain-dead management thinks constitutes, err, managing. ;)

                It usually goes over their heads though.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

                Ha ha! It’s less Procrustean these day at my work, thankfully!

              • Diane G.
                Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

                From my own experience:

                laying carpet – herculean

                cleaning carpet – sisyphean

                giving birth – herculean

                raising kid – sisyphean

  24. Hempenstein
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    But with a little luck, the actors may find themselves on US postage stamps.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      From the article, “….some American stamp enthusiasts say….” so about 5 guys then. :)

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        “Harry Potter Stamps Apparently Not American Enough”

        Ironically**, I agree with that. This is an American stamp series being released for the US internal market, surely they should find an American-themed movie to publicise. English schoolchildren just look – weird, in the context.

        (**Coming from someone who normally regards patriotism with deep suspicion and distaste)

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

        Looks like the USPS is doing everything it can to create new young stamp collectors.

      • Steve Gerrard
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

        One of my hobbies is not collecting stamps.

        • gluonspring
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

          You sound strident.

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 3:23 am | Permalink

        Remembering Robbie Coltrane’s early days as a minor Scottish stand-up comedian, it’s hard to believe that, back then, he could ever have imagined himself portrayed on a US postage stamp.

        • Hempenstein
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:50 am | Permalink

          Yep, and ordinarily you have to be dead for ten yrs before you can appear on a stamp. I guess if you’re playing a fictional character, it’s different. Coming soon, Russell Crowe et al as Noah et al stamps?

  25. krzysztof1
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m torn. I’m kind of curious to see it, for the effects and just to see how it’s presented. I did not and would not go see Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, however.

  26. Fred Rickson
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Mel Brooks would have made a great Noah.

    • merilee
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

      +1!

    • Matt G
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      And Bill Cosby as “The Lord”.

      • Filippo
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

        “How long can you tread water?”

        • Matt G
          Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

          Riiight!

  27. irritable
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Does the film explain how Noah got the male and female viruses onto the Ark, or does Aronofski “conveniently” gloss over this cornerstone of the story?

  28. W.Benson
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    How did they get pigs on the ark? Just wondering.

  29. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    “may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds”
    – so he’s stuck in the 1920, then? ;)

    (or else he started writing ‘thoroughly modern’ and couldn’t stop in time, his train of thought captured by a meme)

  30. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Brian Godawa: “Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.” What, lets them slowly die in terrible conditions while he travels first class? (Quite possibly, on an overcrowded Ark. I’d like to know where the captain’s quarters were). I don’t think his metaphor means what he thinks it means, certainly not to us cynics.

    • jimroberts
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      +1

  31. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    (again from Brian Godawa): Another problem with Noah is that it fails to acknowledge that while, from a Christian perspective, “[k]illing all humans but eight in order to start over (as the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds…it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil.”

    And it undercuts a moral argument used by theists.

  32. Marie
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    So when to the complaints start about how white Noah and his family are?

    • SA Gould
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      In America, never. We loudly complain if actor is too dark. Comic book fans are up in arms because Michael B. Jordan will play a black version of The Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie.

      • Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:50 am | Permalink

        The silly fans might also be in arms at an ad I saw in a sporting goods store the other day. Why? Black Superman.

    • john taylor
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Noah is only white in America, not in the bible, not anywhere else

      • gbjames
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Radagast is only brown in Middle Earth.

      • gbjames
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Radagast is only brown in Middle Earth.

  33. Filippo
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Does this Noah saga include Noah’s post-Ark ride, stress-reducing, decompressing quaffing of the nectar of Allah in his tent where (according to sacred scripture I read as an impressionable child under the watch care of the Southern Baptist Church) his pudenda are swaying metronomically in the gentle balmy breezes, greeting any and all who enter unawares?

    • George Martin
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

      According to a comment over at PZ Myers blog,
      yes the ending of the Noah story is included. And guess what? Ken Ham, after complaining about what was left out, complained about this being included in the movie.

      George

  34. MikeN
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Well, they might show how Noah cursed Ham and turned him black so he would become a slave to his brothers.

    As for the Jewish perspective, it could certainly add something.

    “The Talmud deduces two possible explanations, one attributed to Rab and one to Rabbi Samuel, for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse.[6] According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son. Emasculating him thus deprived Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, a judgment that he based on analogy with another biblical incident in which the phrase “and he saw” is used….. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, “both indignities were perpetrated.”

    Although the story can be taken literally, in more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father’s wife.[8] Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the “product of Ham’s illicit union.”[9]”

    Wiki.

  35. cremnomaniac
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    HAA! I didn’t get past the title of the post before I chuckled :) OF COURSE they’re offended. Isn’t that the only thing they have left?

    This whole po6 thing, with him wiping out humanity because he screwed up. That really doesn’t sound like much of a supernatural Bean. I mean being. I take that back, bean works.

  36. Cathy Newman
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    I interested to see what the general public’s ratings will look like for this film. If it’s well-made with nice effects, I might go see it. From what I’ve read, this isn’t like Passion or like Roma Downey’s new Passion remake, Son of God.

  37. BillyJoe
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    I don’t care if its a christian myth story, or that the christians are pissed off with it, or that the muslims are complaining again, or that there’s a christian centric disclaimer, I’m going to see it because J.C. is in it.

    …um…that’s Jennifer Connolly.

    Oh…and Russell Crowe (hey “R.C.” Roman Catholic…I’m starting to see a trend here).

  38. Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:52 am | Permalink

    I find it hard to believe that Ham and Co. were given copies of the script while it was still in production, so is this just another rush to criticise a film as anti-God by people who have not yet seen it?

    Is this simply an opportunity to stir some heat and stoke their own fires of shameless self-promotion?

  39. Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    I just want to add that I hope it upsets EVERY religious group and makes a mockery of the whole subject .. as it actually is.

  40. Pirate
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    Is there any reason to think the film is portraying Noah’s story as historical fact, rather than a myth? I see nothing wrong with a film about Noah’s Ark per se, assuming the purpose of the film is not proselytization or pandering.

    Aronofsky is (or at least, was) an openly admitted atheist, by the way. Check out this interview, where he refers to himself as “godless” and says “my god is narrative filmmaking.”

  41. Ray
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Gotta see that! After all, a movie that offends both christians and muslims has to be good.

  42. immovableobject
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to see a Monty Python adaptation. Who could be offended by that?

  43. dalem
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    I am sure Jews are perfectly fine with the film. Mostly just only amused by such a tizzy the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims get into.

    By the way, no way in hell Ken Ham speaks for all christians – apparently even pat robertson thinks he’s a whacko.

  44. Ryan
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Am I the only one who reads Ken Ham’s statements in his voice?

  45. Vincent Hess
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what all of the christians who don’t like this film think about the Epic of Gilgamesh that was thousands of years before the story of Noah, and almost virtually identical..

  46. Sean
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    If Godawa is upset about Noah being a hippy, wait until he finds out that jesus was a Jewish liberal!

    • Diane G.
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

      LOL!

  47. Dominic
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    If the godly not like it – I MUST see it! Sounds like a sword & sandels 2012!

  48. Posted March 11, 2014 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    Yeah I have been thinking that this movie looks horrible and not just because it was based on a bible story.

  49. Cat MacKenzie Hyde
    Posted March 14, 2014 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Oh for Gods sake!!! As an atheist, these daft religious numpty’s make me want to go watch this!!! Russell is a fantastic, believable actor. And as for religious movies offending people, ummm, I never heard a complaint about ‘Thor’ ? Or do they forget that he is also a Norse God!

  50. Ross Kardon
    Posted March 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    So Christians and Muslims are offended by the upcoming NOAH movie?

    If major filmmaker had the courage to make an NC-17 movie about Sodom and Gomorrah, for whom would this movie offend? Would it offend Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Or would it offend the Gay community?

    There are many other sections of the Bible that could also be made into a pornographic NC-17 movie. what if Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, or an another major filmmaker, made an NC-17, or X-rated, movie based on a section of the Bible? I would how the Christians, Muslims, and Jews would react to it, after seeing screenings of such a movie.

    I would especially be interested seeing how the Bible-belt, red states, and the American religious right, would react to such an explicit movie based on the Bible!

    • Diane G.
      Posted March 15, 2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      That’s such a good point. And no one could protest that it was unfaithful to the text.

      So many possibilities…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible#Specific_incestuous_relationships_in_the_Bible

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

        That link brings to mind another famously incestuous dynasty, the Pharaohs. I just came across, on Youtube, the old 80’s BBC series ‘the Cleopatras’, a fascinating story full of drama, intrigue, politics, doublecross and naked dancing girls (which was all I noticed the first time around). When one gets past the latter, though, it seems the Ptolemies spent all their time marrying, deposing or assassinating their sisters, brothers, half-sisters, cousins, aunts, mothers, wives (some of whom were also their sisters / mothers) in a sustained display of intergenerational familial relations and dirty dealing that makes the characters in the Bible look like amateurs.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 16, 2014 at 6:26 am | Permalink

          The Ptolemies adopted the Egyptian brothers marrying sisters thing and ran with it. I suspect though that some of the things handed down about them were Augustus’s propaganda to make sure Rome saw them as immoral. A lot of what we know about Cleopatra comes from the Romans.

  51. Posted March 16, 2014 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    You wonder how they got all that talent to star in the movie? Hmmm, let me count the ways. Evolution is about increasing fitness, economics maximizes utility. Making money maximizes a persons utility.

  52. Posted March 16, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    You wonder how they got these stars would make the movie? Hmmm, let me count the ways. In evolution fitness is maximized, in economics it’s utility. They are only following economic natural law.

  53. vorian
    Posted March 23, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    This has to be one of the oldest disaster stories.
    I love animals and I love disaster movies; so I look forward to this one.
    Stories about this great flood predate Jewish, Christian and Muslim belief; so they don’t own this story; some idiots just like to be offended.

  54. Drew
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    I just saw Noah and as a movie it was actually awesome! As a non religious person I was skeptical, but it was a very interesting tale that was a lot more brutal than I expected. Along with that I wouldn’t say that Christians are entirely the target audience. For one the write is an athiest who just respects the story. And along with that there are inconsistencys that a lot of Christians would probably hate haha. But seriously if you look at it as just a movie and nothing more then it’s actually really well made and a good movie!

  55. Drew
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    Oh and along with all that, when telling the tale of creation the movie shows both the Big Bang and evolution occurring over a time lapse!

  56. SA Gould
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    A story with the central theme of saving the animals? Yes, I saw Noah, too. But scenes with animals were a lousy FOUR MINUTES! (If you saw the trailer, you saw the animals.)

    And it was a sloppy mix. They had:
    • Rock-transformer creatures (They were good, stars of the movie, but they don’t count as animals.)
    • One made-up creature, a dog/something with scales. (Nicely done.)
    • One woodpecker, to show how Noah puts them to sleep for the trip, by waving it over a smoky potion. Then, shot from above:
    • All the birds of the world enter the ark!
    • All the snakes of the world enter the ark!

    They don’t even show them leaving the ark. Instead there was a two-second video montage with a Noah voice over, explaining how they just all went out and multiplied. Representing all the animals, were:
    • a bluebird, feeding it’s baby
    • a few capuchin monkeys;
    • a brown bear and cub.

    And they looked like cheap stock videos. For a movie about saving the animals of the world, I expected so much more.

  57. Posted May 29, 2014 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    These imposing stone structures were rather drafty, moist and cold. Large ornately embroidered or woven tapestries could be held on interior walls, partially to bar the drafts and partially to take in the dampness. Rushes around the flooring also assisted to help keep things a little warmer underfoot. http://narrativeportraiture.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/04/22/122948 http://narrativeportraiture.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/04/22/122948


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] week ago I wrote about the upcoming movie “Noah” with its all-star cast including Russell Crowe in the title role and also featuring Jennifer […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,593 other followers

%d bloggers like this: