Those words not only aptly describe the newly-released, super-hyped blockbuster “Noah” but also the psyche of its primary writer-director, Darren Aronofsky. As for the film, add dumb, dull, and depressing as well. I’d give it three stars, one for the special effects, one for Jennifer Connolly, and one for Emma Watson. Otherwise, “Noah” gets zero stars; okay, to be generous, half a star.
A skilled and much-heralded director, Aronofsky drops the ball with “Noah,” especially with the depiction of the massive, ridiculous-looking Watchers. The rocky Watchers do add a certain, unintended comic touch that would appeal to my seven year old grandson but he can’t see the movie anyway because it’s rated PG13.
Aronofsky has enigmatically said his latest effort is ”the least biblical biblical film ever made” yet he believes every part of the story fits the biblical narrative.
Umm, not quite.
The narrative relates to the story in “Genesis” involving Methuselah’s grandson, Noah or Noach, who is told by a vengeful God to build an ark so that he and his family will survive the flood that God was planning to punish the rest of evil humankind but the director takes a great deal of creative license from that point.
With the convenient assistance of the powerful Watchers, Noah does as instructed, builds a nice, big ark, loads it with two of every living creature on Earth, floats off into a raging storm, and ultimately saves the world even if he’s very unhappy about his accomplishment.
What’s most curious about God in Aronofsky’s film is that God gets no mention in it.
“The Creator” gets frequent references but not God. That omission may reflect the Jewish-born director’s atheism but still doesn’t account for the existence of a “Creator” who must be someone other than the Deity. But who? If “Noah” is in fact “the least biblical biblical film ever made,” just who or what is that mysterious “Creator”?
If God didn’t save mankind, then why didn’t Aronofsky just title his flick, “A Crazy Guy Builds A Big Boat”?
And, Russell Crowe’s rendition of the protagonist is indeed nuts. However, I won’t spoil it for those who still want to see “Noah.” I also won’t spell out the blatant, liberal-leftist propagandizing in the film particularly the heavy-handed environmentalist bullsh*t since those have already been vehemently articulated.
I would cite one particularly unsurprising omission, though: the curse of Ham, not the cold cut variety.
Ham, Noah’s second son begat when Noah was over 500 years old, has a confrontation with his father and storms off to parts unknown.
The biblical “Book of Genesis” as opposed to Aronofsky’s “least biblical biblical film” includes an anecdote concerning Noah’s drunken curse on his son’s son, Canaan, that may have been caused since Ham, unlike his siblings, had seen “the nakedness of his father,” i.e., a glimpse of Noah’s genitalia which was almost tantamount to patricide to ancient Jews.
Compounding that offense, the Talmud contends Ham then supposedly castrated his father and some contemporary Jewish scholars have speculated that Ham also had intercourse with Naameh, Noah’ s wife.
In any event, the “Genesis” Ham and his offspring were cursed, according to interpretations by many Jews, Christians, and Muslims, to be doomed to black skin and lives of slavery, a politically incorrect biblical reference avoided by Aronofsky as studiously as he avoids direct mention of a God.
Creationist Ken Ham (no relation to Noah’s son) condemned “Noah” as a “pagan film” both insulting to Christians and with “barely a hint of biblical fidelity.” I’d have to disagree but only because it does feature a really impressive ark.