“NOAH” REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

To start things off…I am writing this review for two reasons. The first reason is for myself to collect all of my thoughts I have for the film “Noah” and second for my friends who have expressed an interest in hearing my viewpoint on this controversial film. That is it. This is in no way me saying that my opinion or views supersede anyone else. Great, so now that I got that out of the way 🙂

I decided that I was going to approach reviewing this film from two different perspectives. The first being purely from a technical production view, which will include cinematography, directing, acting, plot, etc. The second perspective being a theological/faith based view of the film. I decided to do this since they are two very different things to judge by and with this film I feel strongly that intersecting the two would not be beneficial in sharing my thoughts about it, but rather potentially confuse them. So here it goes!

TECHNICAL REVIEW

Directing is no easy task when it comes to telling a story of epic and biblical proportions. Noah is a tale at heart around two central themes, those being destruction and redemption. Aronofsky is no stranger to these themes when it comes to his previous films of “Black Swan, The Fountain, Requiem for a dream and now Noah”. Aronofsky spent significant time, roughly over a decade with the process of investigative research, funding, approvals, set-design management and ultimately directing the project. If there was ever a project that he was completely invested in it was this. For those viewers are unfamiliar with Aronofsky’s prior work they should understand that his films are usually quite disjointed and typically are a collection of themes. His focus on themes has often been criticized by others since it often has impacted the cohesive nature of plot and ultimately comprehension of the film that the viewer is watching. Aronofsky however, does not care about this sacrifice as he is more interested in emotional engagement, resonance and artistic expression. You could say that Aronofsky is the Pablo Picasso of modern film today in that every project he takes on has a point to have his art (film) be a reflection on the human condition. The condition that he chose to focus on for Noah is exactly that…the human one.

Aronofsky chooses to use Clint Mansell, a heralded composer that he has worked before on a few occasions to provide an ominous and creative themed soundtrack. This adds to the elemental and mythological feeling that the film exudes with. As viewers, we often fail to realize that music in film changes our interpretations, emotions and ultimate response. Aronofsky was going for a specific tone with Mansell and I personally feel that it nailed the exact response of destruction and redemption.

From an acting perspective you really cannot fault the performances in any way. From Russel Crowe’s conviction, Jennifer Connolley’s compassion to Ray Winstone evil countenance each person brought their A-game. With the large amount of CGI and set pieces that each actor had to work with it is a marvel that the performances given were so raw and unfiltered.

The cinematography in the film is breathtaking. Aronofsky chose to have a blending of large set-pieces, CGI and live actors. That is a difficult task in an of itself but then he blends in hand animation and long exposure camera work to create an epic sense of time and space. The film’s cinematography cultivates a setting that is perfect for miracles, creation, beauty and ultimately a earth shaking flood. Work was also done in conjunction with Industrial Light and Magic as they have continued to help directors push the boundaries of film to new heights. “Noah” takes that one step further to challenge the medium of film once again.

The last element regarding the film’s technical aspect I would like to discuss is the plot and story structure. Aronofsky tells the story of Noah as mentioned earlier less focused on cohesion but more revolving around themes. This can cause the viewer to feel that the plot is lacking or missing significant pieces. To some degree that is true. Aronofsky chooses deliberately to focus on certain important aspects of the story over others. Some of these are questionable as to the “why?” but nevertheless it stays true to the theme structure. Noah’s plot will ultimately be the one area of the film’s technical merits that both viewers and critics may leave the theater with some dissatisfaction.

 THEOLOGICAL/FAITH BASED REVIEW

To start off in this section I would like to first say that “Noah” is a film that plays loose intentionally with the source material (The Bible) but does not sacrifice it’s core message. Many Christians over the course of the past few weeks have shared the message that the film is not only un-biblical but heresy to the Christian faith. I couldn’t disagree more.

The film pours on heavy biblical themes such as obedience, faith, creationism, love, forgiveness, compassion, hate, evil, truth and countless others. Yes, Aronofsky made decisions to be creative with a major story from the Bible that only has a few dedicated chapters to it. If any director were to make a film solely based upon the text that is in scripture there wouldn’t be much of a film. Not only does the Bible not have narrative in the story of Noah but it does not explore the human journey that many of the characters in the story go through over decades of time.

To address this issue, Aronofsky used many extra-Biblical texts such as the book of Enoch 1 & 2 and other Jewish Midrash (Folklore) texts that have been passed down over thousands of years at this point. Many Christians have pointed out this very fact as a reason why they would not appreciate Aronofsky’s interpretation of “Noah” but I would like to remind that there have been many well-known “Christian” films that have been lauded as masterpieces that have done the same thing. Examples for this would be The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and The Passion of the Christ. Each of these films are magnificent but they all add or change significant elements of the story that have been included to drive an overall theme or message. Why Aronofsky’s version of Noah has received the response it has is truly puzzling to me.

As a firm follower of Christ my hope is that the Christian community would be excited about Hollywood paying attention to the Bible. To tell stories that have an impact for the kingdom, whether perfect or not, should be a thing to praise God for. I can tell you personally that throughout the film I was praising God in my spirit for how much truth was shining through on the screen in front of my eyes.

There are a few specific choices in the film that I would like to tackle due to recent criticism from the Christian community. This may includes spoilers for those who have not seen the film but I think it is important to address these directly and not avoid them as they are integral aspects to the interpretation of the film. These items are, “The Watchers, Evolutionism in creation, Noah’s family struggle and lastly a stow-away.” So here I go 🙂

– The Watchers

The Watchers are mentioned several different times in both the Bible and in extra-Biblical texts. In Noah, they are shown as angels that were sent from God to watch over mankind at the beginning of the Earth and then ultimately man turns their back on them. Very little is known or understood around these angels other than what has been discovered from the dead sea scrolls, the Book of Enoch and a few scriptures in the Old Testament of the Bible. Aronofsky chooses to use this information creatively to have the watchers see God give Noah a message to build an ark and therefore the Watchers decide that they will help this one man who has been given a task from God like they were. Is it a stretch? Maybe…but it definitely seems like an interesting thing to guess about. Since we know that it took Noah a long time to build the ark it makes sense that Noah would have had some kind of help. Does this element of the story change the outcome or message of the story of Noah? Absolutely not. It simply adds more of a mythical and fantastical element to the story. But why is that a surprise to us? After all, isnt much of the Old Testament mythical and full of imagination? Things like animals coming from far and wide to an ark? Men living for hundreds of years? Giants watching over mankind? Sounds to me like Aronofsky wanted that mythical element to be foundational to the story. Interestingly enough, after the flood there is no more mythical elements shown to be a part of the new creation.

– Evolutionism in creation

I personally found the creation story to be not only breathtaking but to be fascinating. To be clear, Aronofsky clearly says that God made man seperate from the beasts and all of the characters in the story understand this as well. Even the villain, Tubal-Cain says that God created man to rule over and subdue the earth. Aronofsky shows in a time-lapse style how God created everything in seven days and those seven days could be interpreted onscreen as a literal seven or a millennia for each day. It is left completely open.

– Noah’s family struggle

Aronofsky took a big risk with this part of the film and this may be what has back-fired with audiences the most. Noah is shown as a man that struggles through his initial visions from God, the horror that he witnesses of a mass genocide and by understanding grace/mercy in a world where none exists any longer. It is completely understandable that for the decades it took for Noah to complete his task that doubts, fear, confusion could have entered his mind. After all, he was human too. How many characters from the Bible have we flannel-graph to make them into more than what they were? For example, King David in the Bible was a murderer, lier, adulterer and many other things yet he is the greatest king of Israel and he was a man after God’s own heart.  Noah is shown going through the struggle of understanding the purpose of God’s mission and his part to fulfill it. He ends up becoming so obsessed and focus on that mission that he comes dangerously close to losing himself and the man God shaped him to be in the first place. I resonated deeply with this part of the film.

– Stowaway

Tubal-Cain, the main villain and ruler of the land finds his way onto the ark and hides in the ark’s darkness to try to overthrow and take Noah’s family from him. This is definitely a stretch from scripture. I understand that Christians could be very upset with this piece. I will come out and say that I didn’t appreciate this creative decision as much as the others but once again, as everything else with Aronofsky’s work it serves a thematic purpose. It was placed in the story to show just how easy it is to corrupt the heart of a man and how as God’s children we need to be on constant guard from evil.

CONCLUSION

To wrap us this review I would like to say that “Noah” is an uneven but effective film. It is not a simple story. It is complex and layered with real human issues and comes asking the viewer to make a real investment in energy, emotion and thought. For viewers who are not expecting that sort of requirement I can understand how they would walk away feeling dissatisfied. But for those who desire to ask tough questions and to think about the story that God weaves throughout time in a new way…I would encourage them to see this film and talk about it with others. It is also a story about a man who is tortured with his own sense of justice and an earth-shattering responsibility. The film is rated PG-13 for violence, some implied sexual content and for frightening scenes about mass genocide.

OVERALL RATING – 4 out of 5 Stars

Please feel free to comment and talk with me about your thoughts on the film. I would love to hear your take on it or simply your comments around this review.

 

Noah earns its PG-13 rating with a lot of violence, an implied occasion of “being fruitful and multiplying” and, of course, the drowning of countless souls.
Read more at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/noah#vlrB3T1FGox

Noah earns its PG-13 rating with a lot of violence, an implied occasion of “being fruitful and multiplying” and, of course, the drowning of countless souls.
Read more at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/noah#vlrB3T1FGoxTdDUb.99

Public Enemies

Directed by: Michael Mann

MPAA Rating: R for gangster violence and some language

Runtime: 2 Hrs. 23 Mins.

Theatrical Release: July 1st, 2009 (Wide)

Notable Cast: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Jason Clarke

TRUE REVIEW*

Introduction: No one could stop John Dillinger and his gang. No jail could hold him. His charm and audacious jailbreaks endeared him to almost everyone — from his girlfriend Billie Frechette to an American public who had no sympathy for the banks that had plunged the country into the Depression. But while the adventures of Dillinger’ gang — later including Baby Face Nelson and Alvin Karpis — thrilled many, J. Edgar Hoover made Dillinger America’s first Public Enemy Number One and sent in Melvin Purvis, the dashing “Clark Gable of the FBI.” However, Dillinger and his gang outwitted and outgunned Purvis’ men in wild chases and shootouts. Only after importing a crew of Western ex-lawmen (newly baptized as agents) and orchestrating epic betrayals — from the infamous “Lady in Red” to the Chicago crime boss Frank Nitti — were Purvis, the FBI and their new crew of gunfighters able to close in on Dillinger. – Yahoo

Directing: Michael Mann directed Public Enemies in an authentic and gritty style. He chose well known actors the likes of Channing Tatum, Emile De Ravin, Giovanni Ribisi and Billy Crudup to play insignificant roles and that didn’t distract from the film. He also chose to have the film shot in a first person perspective. This intensified aspects of the film and involved the audience in a more intimate way. This risk paid off in the end and it showed that Michael Mann is a Director that likes to be adventurous in his filmmaking.

Score = 4.5 out of 5

Acting: The acting was nothing short of brilliant. Depp and Bale both play their respective roles flawlessly. Depp once again displays an ability to be versatile in whatever role he plays. Bale plays a federal agent with the sole purpose of brining John Dillinger to justice. Bale expresses large amounts of emotion in his character even though his speaking parts are limited. All of Dillinger’s thugs and Agent Purvis’s federal agents are perfectly cast. Lastly, Marion Cotillard, who won the Academy Award for best actress, plays the love interest for Depp’s Dillinger. She may get a nomination for her role in Public Enemies. She plays the role with innocence and unlimited passion.

Score = 4.5 out of 5

Cinematography\Editing: Mann decided that having the film shot in a gritty first person perspective would involve the audience much more. The camera moves much like a person would. Many of the perspectives that the audience sees are extremely familiar because of the movements. There are scenes where the perspective is being shot from within a crowd. This gives the perspective that the audience is watching history unfold and they are part of that crowd. It is a unique way to shoot a film and in the end it seemed to pay off. It did not take away from the film.

Score = 4 out of 5

Plot: The plot was clear and intelligent. There is an obvious beginning, middle and end to the story and all of the plot points are tied up nicely. The film’s plot is involving and filled with intrigue. Even though the film is based on real life events, there is never a moment where the audience won’t care about what will happen next. There are no obvious plot holes and characters are written so that the audience has the freedom to interpret the characters actions.

Score = 4.5 out of 5

Redemptive Value: There is little redemptive value in Public Enemies. The film is about an infamous bank robber that has no clear focus or future goals and when he decides to finally change his life around it may be too late. The protagonist in the film is a man that is a total mess and he ends up regretting the life that he lives. There is a large amount of violence with many characters being killed. Some of the death scenes are graphic in nature and may be difficult for some to watch. There is little language which was somewhat surprising for a rated “R” film. Parents who allow their children to watch Public Enemies should talk about crime and the punishments that society gives for living a life of crime.

Score = 2.5 out of 5

Conclusion: Public Enemies is a well thought out film that is literally littered with great acting and an engaging story. Its unique cinematography is a welcome change of pace for big budgeted Hollywood films. All of the actors are perfect for their respective roles and the plot is as tight as one could hope for. Public Enemies is a solid action drama that should have fans of gangster films smiling and rushing out to see it. If you like great acting and a smart story then Public Enemies may be the film for you to head to the theatre for.

Overall Score = 4 out of 5