I caved. I saw Darren Aronofskys movie, Noah. (I decided to watch it without reading any of the reviews beforehand though, approaching it without any preconceived notions) Aronofsky is not a literalist. His movie is a fictionalized version of the Flood story. As a commentary on the Flood, its not that interesting. (He does offer several twists on the biblical story that are worthwhile exploring some other time. I was particularly intrigued by his depiction of the Nefilim, physically and narratively. I was, however, less impressed with the smattering of new-agey kabbalistic influences sprinkled throughout the movie.) It is, however, a fairly decent depiction of a story that, surprisingly, has strong contemporary relevance. The way Aronofsky tells it, the Flood narrative is about the tension between conviction and intuition; submission and autonomy. His Noah is depicted as a person who thinks that he has direct access to the Divine will, he knows exactly what God wants. His conviction of what God commands of him, however, is pitted against the ethical and moral intuition of the people around him. While he has the word of God on his side, the people around him realize that in order to save the world they have to subvert what Noah thinks is his Divine mandate. Noah refuses to relent, despite the violence involved in fulfilling that mandate. Russel Crow does a fairly decent job portraying a man intoxicated by the sense of certainty one derives from the assumption of direct Divine access. To Arnofskys credit, he depicts the rebels opposing Noah with nuance. The desire to usurp the word of God is shared by several characters in the story, some of whom have ulterior and less than admirable motives. Another thing worth noting is the role gender plays in the story. As hes shown in Swan Lake, Aronofsky has the ability to present gender issues in a nuanced and sophisticated manner. Here too, there are complex gender undertones that subtly guide the story in various directions. The dilemma between conviction and intuition is fairly well presented. Sadly though, its marred by Hollywoods need to provide a neat, and consequently cheesy, ending. It would have made for much richer cinema if Aronofsky had left the story open-ended. Scorseses The Last Temptation did a much better job depicting this tension. What made that movie even more interesting than Noah is that in Scorseses case the tension between submission and autonomy plays itself out within the lifetime of a single character. Then again, Scorsese had it easy, since his film is based on Kazantzakis fabulous novel of the same title. All in all, Noah doesnt reach the level of gadlus of Aronofskys other films, Pi or even Black Swan. It, nevertheless, is a good movie. See it. If nothing else, at least the issues will be familiar to you. You will enjoy a cinematic portrayal of some of the contemporary debates raging within our own community.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:30:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015