Review of Noah
My goal is simply to get you into the movie theater. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to it.
According to Genesis, Adam lived to be 930 years old. Noah was born only 126 years after Adam died. Noah was 600 years old when the flood occurred. Altogether, then, the flood occurred only 1656 years after creation, which was only 726 years after Adam–the first man–died. For me, when put that way, Darren Aronofsky had an immense task ahead of him.
They say the president has a difficult time telling the public about foreign policy because there is so much he can’t say. The same thing is true for any deliberate attempt to re-tell the story of Noah. Aronofsky’s challenge was not deciding whether to use the NIV or King James translation of the story, no. His challenge was to determine what Noah would’ve known–Noah, a man who again, as the story goes, was separated from Adam by a mere 126 years.
Are there parts of the movie that surprise and baffle the movie-goer? Yes. Does the film blatantly disregard the account of the flood preserved by the book of Genesis? Yes. Does the film comically address certain plot holes in the story that viewers would probably have forgiven if ignored? Yes. But the film does not miss the theme of the original story. That’s what makes it remarkable. I could try to summarize the movie and explain how it does this, but then I’d miss my mark, now wouldn’t I? You have to decide for yourself whether he accomplishes this feat.
Oh, and there is an amazing stop-motion creation sequence that is sure to please just about everyone with a soul that you will not find anywhere else. So kuddos to Aronofsky for including that.
In the end, forget every detail you think you know about the story except its “why”. Then fill your mouth the filmy, powdery texture of impossible-to-duplicate movie theater popcorn mixed with diet coke, and “Enjai ta picture show!”
Thanks, Pete. I’m sold. I’m going to see this one!