Postscript on Noah

I have been following a lot of the debate on the film "Noah" where critics like Dr. Brian Mattson, film maker Brian Godawa and others pan the film as decidedly divorced from the intent of the Biblical story.   In particular, the images that seem pulled directly from Gnostic ideas and Kaballah drive a lot of tit for tat arguments about the meaning of the film.

I guess I have to agree with Godawa and Mattson on this particular point - they are pointing to specifics in the film that seem to either contradict the Biblical text or subvert it with specific extrabiblical imagery and content one of the most obvious is naming a strange light-bearing metal after a prime text of Kaballah, the "ZOHAR".   The rebuttals all seem to say the same thing - yes those images are there, but they don't really mean anything negative.

Now this is a curious thing.  On what basis should any normal rational person believe that a filmmaker who stated that he drew on extra-biblical sources, who stated that he was making the "least Biblical" Biblical epic ever, who stated that environmental devastation was a key theme and who included specific Kaballah and gnostic imagery in the film did not intend those symbols to mean anything contrary to the admittedly sketchy Biblical text?   (more)

Darren Aronofsky's Noah - Deceived by the Snake Again

Much has been written about Darren Aronofsky's Noah, so I won't attempt a detailed review.  That has already been done.   I thought it was maybe the most unpleasant film I've ever seen, with maybe the worst score.   The acting was fine, but the telling of the ancient story, though true to the general outline of Genesis 6-9, veered into some rather troubling waters.   

We all know the basic arc of the tale:  The earth is overrun by wickedness, so the "creator" sends judgment in the form of a massive flood.  One man builds a huge floating box to rescue enough animals to repopulate the earth and not coincidentally, saves himself and his family.   That outline is intact.