KIDDING! My brother wanted to hit me last night when I bounced into his room with Everything Is Awesome playing, saying we were going to The LEGO Movie again today. Actually, Ive been waiting for Noah with some anticipation because I have been a huge Darren Aronofsky fan ever since Requiem for a Dream. After the film my brother gave me a puzzled look. I said, So would you rather have seen The LEGO Movie after all? He sighed and said, Yes; I dont think I got all of that! I laughed very loudly, and said, You just watched a Darren Aronofsky film; youre not *supposed* to get all of it, especially not right away. Its just like a Stanley Kubrick film in that respect: it doesnt give up its meaning and significance until reflection following the viewing has taken place. You might *never* get all of it! I think thats key to keep in mind while watching this film. It is NOT the telling of the biblical Noah story any more than Black Swan was a production of Swan Lake. Aronofsky took elements from the source materials, and then created something quite distinctively *his* artistic production. It was gorgeous to watch. So much of Aronofskys signature style was on display, e.g., the flash-flash-flash of a sequence of emotion-laden images repeated throughout the film, the extended time-lapse sequences, the near-obsession with the theme of transcendence, the eruption of magic into everyday life, evocation of the thin lines between sanity and delusion, good and evil. Dream logic rules the worlds of Aronofsky films. Ive found it most helpful when watching an Aronofsky film to suspend my tendency to analyze and understand and interpret and simply allow the film to unfold before me, let the film happen. I know that for many days after seeing an Aronofsky film that images from the movie will spontaneously pop into my mind, and as the days pass and I continue to ponder the film, it starts fitting together. However, I would never say I *understood* completely an Aronofsky film any more than I can give you a definitive meaning for *any* of Kubricks films. Both Kubrick and Aronofsky go out of their way to be enigmatic and perplexing; I think confounding their audiences is quite intentional. If Aronofsky had heard my brothers comment following the movie, Im sure he would have laughed and clapped and said, Just the reaction I wanted! If you go to see Noah expecting any sort of re-telling of the stories from Genesis, then you are likely to be outraged by this movie. If so, congratulations: you have just been ruthlessly manipulated by Aronofsky, just as Kubrick manipulated fans of Stephen King when he altered key plot elements of The Shining. I think both directors deliberately sought to provoke anger in members of the audience who entered the auditorium with firm expectations of what they were about to witness. No. Youre in *my* world now, Kubrick and Aronofsky say. *I* make the rules here! Abandon *all* expectations ye who enter here. I do not have to be a Christian or a Jew or Muslim to be able to appreciate the deeply spiritual and mystical elements of the stories surrounding Noah. *This* was the rich mine in which Aronofsky was operating, just as in every other movie of his. This is his genius, that he tells a similar story over and over again, yet every time tells it in an original and inspiring manner. Christians who are willing to approach this film with an open mind will see that Aronofsky actually shows significant respect for the Biblical texts even as he tears them to shreds. Even taken at the same level as something like Gilgamesh or Homer, the story of Noah is one of the worlds most enthralling pieces of literature. Echoes of the Noah stories appear elsewhere in world literature, but its not presented anywhere else quite the way it is in the Old Testament. Adam and Noah probably are the two most broadly known names from the Old Testament; these are fundamental stories that have captured the worlds attention for generations. Aronofsky was at his best, I thought, when he depicted the animals gathering to board the ark. These were truly magnificent scenes that I thought well-captured the spirit of Genesis. We get to hear Russell Crowe intone the first lines of Genesis, launching the most exalted and spectacular scene in the movie. The film concludes with a glorious depiction of a rainbow filling the skies. Christians who can get past how much Aronofskys film *isnt* true to Genesis can see how much of it *does* shine through. Although not every note was pitch perfect, I thought Russell Crowe did an excellent job of finding the profoundly conflicted humanity within Noah in pursuit of a singularly divine vision which only he could see. He must do what he must do, even though he hated it all, and understood none of it. He was a man acting on faith and belief alone, prepared to do terrible things believing, sincerely, it was what his God commanded. I *loved* the linkage to the Abraham and Isaac story in the film; theologians and commentators, both Christian and Jewish, have long seen a linkage between Noah and Abraham. Jennifer Connelly was as soulful and compassionate as always. Even though its so difficult not to see Hermione when shes on the screen, Emma Watson does a good job of helping us forget Hermione with some very powerful scenes here. However, it was not the breakout performance Natalie Portman gave us in Black Swan. I do recommend the film, definitely, just be prepared. Be prepared for a dream-like, deeply layered film exceptionally rich in symbol and allegory. Be prepared for a film that seeks, not realism, but surrealism. Be prepared to walk out of the theatre saying, What was *that* about? Be prepared for this movie to slowly seep into your soul in the days and weeks to come. Be prepared for the flashes that will return as the movie reassembles itself in your subconscious. Be prepared for the a-ha moments when understanding a piece of the puzzle. Most of all, however, be prepared never to be able to get a stable and permanent grasp on understanding what the movie means. Meaning is subjective and can be implanted only by the viewer. Aronofsky, like Kubrick, suggests, and suggests, and suggests, and evokes, and evokes, and evokes SO many things in his movies, and I believe both directors do this intentionally with the goal of *forcing* viewers to engage at a very visceral level. You have to turn your mind off, because mind interferes with the experience of the film. Kubrick was quoted saying that he intended 2001: A Space Odyssey to bypass the conscious altogether and embed itself directly in the subconscious. I believe Aronofsky has the same goal. Aronofsky and Kubrick both seek to overwhelm their audiences -- visually, aurally, imaginatively, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually, all at once. Im usually exhausted after watching a Kubrick or Russell or Aronofsky film, but its a *good* exhaustion like what follows a rigorous workout.
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:43:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015