|Singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain.|
Noah is the story of Darren Aronofsky trying to rationalize a biblical story that has a lot of blanks to fill in. I like to imagine that Aronofsky as a wildly-imaginative (he is), uber-religious (he's not) dude being adamantly questioned by a group of Atheists attempting to poke holes in the biblical story of Noah, and the film is his response.
Sure, we know the exact measurements of the ark, but how did one righteous dude, his wife and his three kids build it?
From what I've gathered from this one biblical passage about giants, I assume that Noah and his family probably had the help of Sedimentary Prime and the rest of the Rock Transformers.
Okay, I'll believe that seven pairs of all the clean animals and one pair of all the skanky animals will fit on the ark, but how come they didn't eat each other?
God would clearly provide them with magic incense to put the animals to sleep for 300+ days. Catholics use a diluted form of this incense in their church services. That's why mass only makes you drowsy.
If you were a sinful dude–raping and pillaging and eating mythical creatures raw, wouldn't you start to get nervous when the one good guy built a giant boat and somehow filled it with thousands of animals? I mean, after a few days of rain, you're trying to get on that boat, right?
Hmm. Well, the Bible doesn't mention that part. I like to imagine that there was an epic battle between the Rock Transformers and the heathens, in which the Rock Transformers found redemption with God by slaughtering all of those trying to save their own wicked skins. But then again, I've been catching up on Game of Thrones lately.
Can you believe what happened at the wedding last week?
No spoilers, bro.
C'mon, the book came out like ten years ago.
I only read books ordained by God. Pretty much just the Bible and the Twilight series.
Fair enough. One last question. What actually happened with Ham in the Bible? How do you explain that?
I have no clue. Apparently you see your Dad's butt once and your son is cursed forever.
Well, that went on much longer than I intended. I'm tempted to say that Noah did too, but I think any protest to the length of the film is outweighed by my admiration of the choice to insert giant, CGI rock monsters into a biblical story. In fact, most of the film's charm comes from Aronofsky's non-canonical insertions, especially the giant rock monsters and the final third of the film.
A typical biblical adaptation likely would have ended with Noah and his family getting off the ark, praising God a little bit, and then pinky-swearing to make nice babies who will never again let civilization become so vile that there is a need to extinguish it. Instead, Aronofsky provides the notion that Noah's family was supposed to be the last—never reproducing and eventually dying off—but Noah's love for cute babies prevented that from happening. It's a murky theme thrown into a fairly straightforward story which, working in tandem with the anguished screams of those drowning outside the ark, paints a darker picture than you probably remember from Sunday school.
If the Bible didn't exist, Noah would be little more than a mediocre blockbuster. Since it does exist, Noah is mostly mesmerizing. Aronofsky fills in the blanks and tries to rationalize the events of a fantastical plot line with some realistic human reactions and also more fantasy elements. In a narrative that includes communication with God, the destruction of all mankind, and thousands of animals cramming themselves voluntarily onto a boat, what's wrong with giant rock monsters if there's a vague biblical tie-in?
Every rating scale for your enjoyment: