A Review of Aronofsky’s Noah (2014)

A Review of Aronofsky’s Noah (2014) by Dave Burke

--[This review contains spoilers]--

Background Information

Darren Aronofsky (the Jewish director of Noah) has described his movie as ‘the least biblical biblical movie ever made.’ While somewhat exaggerated, this deliberately provocative statement confirmed what everyone should already have known: that the script of Noah would not be faithful to Scripture.

Any further doubt was removed by the trailers, which show God communicating with Noah through troubling dreams, Methuselah wielding a flaming sword, and a raging battle in front of the ark—to name just a few of the many unbiblical elements.

No-one entering the theatre should be under any illusion that Noah offered a strictly biblical narrative. Despite this, many Christians have complained that Noah wasn’t as accurate as they’d expected it to be. Don’t be one of those Christians. Inform yourself before watching the film, and you won’t be disappointed.

Aronofsky has told interviewers that the story of Noah is a personal favourite, and its themes have fascinated him since childhood. Although a weak atheist/borderline agnostic today, he was raised in a religious Jewish household, remains a cultural Jew, and retains respect for Jewish theological traditions.

Aronofsky’s research for Noah included extensive reading from ancient Jewish commentaries, and consultation with rabbis from several different Jewish organisations. His source material includes the Bible, Jewish rabbinic tradition, early Christian theological speculation, and the Kabbalah.

While it may seem strange to us, some rabbis have said that Aronofsky’s version of Noah’s story is easily accommodated among the plurality of views which comprise the Midrash tradition (an ancient homiletical commentary). In other words it is ‘kosher’ from a rabbinic perspective. Thus Aronofsky’s interpretation operates within the context of Midrash, and must be assessed on that basis.

Anyone going into the movie without awareness of these facts is likely to be confused and disappointed.

To ensure that my review is as objective and well informed as possible I have spent the past few days researching and reading the extra biblical Jewish texts upon which Aronofsky’s interpretation is based, including Midrash and the Zohar. It has been a helpful and enlightening process.

While this review does contain spoilers it neither comprises nor includes a detailed plot summary.

Cultural & Geographical Setting

Noah lived in the Mesopotamian Basin and was most likely Sumerian (the Hebrews did not exist yet). Unfortunately all of the actors in Aronofsky’s movie appear as white Europeans, which is obviously unbiblical and ahistorical. On the plus side, they all speak with British accents.

Instead of the hot, dry climate we would expect for the setting of Noah’s story, Aronofsky’s Noah lives in a cold, damp region where the hills are covered with lush green grass and several layers of robust clothing are essential (including stout leather boots).

We can read this discrepancy in two different ways: either it reflects the fact that Aronofsky felt no obligation to follow Scriptural details and relocated the story to suit himself, or it is intended to imply that the climate of Mesopotamia was very different before the flood, when God made drastic changes to the weather system (as Scripture implies).

Whatever the case, it refutes the claim made by some reviewers that Aronofsky’s movie carries an explicit message about global warming. There is not a single hint of this throughout the entire film, and no suggestion that the planet is overheating in Noah’s time. Frankly it is difficult to see how such a message could be delivered through an interpretation that situates Noah’s story within the rugged terrain of a chilling Nordic landscape.

Clothes in Noah are realistically portrayed in dull earth tones with an occasional hint of blue suggesting an era in which dyes were largely unknown. They are also quite sophisticated (e.g. trousers, primitive shirts, basic ‘jackets’) and distinctly Western rather than Mesopotamian.

However, since we don’t know how advanced civilisation had become before the flood ‘reset’ everything, I am willing to let this slide. The main point is that Noah’s clothes are appropriate to his surroundings, and that’s a mark of consistency.

God

Some reviewers have falsely claimed that God is never mentioned in Noah. The opposite is true: God is referred to at least twenty times as ‘the Creator’, and twice as ‘God.’

This is consistent with the Jewish aversion to using God’s name and remains faithful to the biblical record, which tells us that God’s name was not revealed until He spoke with Moses. ‘Creator’ is an Old Testament title for God, and Jesus refers to Him as ‘the Creator’ in Matthew 19:4.

In Aronofsky’s film God never speaks to Noah verbally, instead communicating by dreams which Noah struggles to comprehend. This is the opposite of the biblical account, in which God speaks verbally but we have no words from Noah.

Creation

Creation is depicted as occurring ex nihilo within 6 literal days; this is explicitly stated by Noah, who correctly describes the work of each day in turn, as recorded in Scripture (which he quotes).

Contrary to some reviews there is no ‘evolution sequence.’ Instead we see a rapid montage of different animals as the camera pans from sea to land. This sequence does not follow the order of evolution; instead it follows the order of creation in Genesis 1.

The movie does not depict any animal evolving from any other (Noah specifically informs his sons that all animals were created ‘according to their kinds’) and there is no suggestion that humans evolved from apes or ape-like beings.

Adam & Eve

Adam and Eve are depicted as humans covered in a bright golden glow. This idea is taken from the Genesis Rabba (a Midrash composed between AD 400-600) which teaches that the first couple were ‘clothed with light’ until the Fall, after which they were ‘clothed with skins.’

When Noah recounts Adam and Eve’s story to his children he warns them that ‘Temptation led to sin.’ This leads to a silhouetted depiction of Cain slaying Abel, which becomes a rapid montage of human violence throughout history.

Each image is superimposed over the last one, with Cain and Abel replaced by a swift succession of soldiers from many different cultures and eras, including our own. This same technique is later used to great effect in the creation sequence.

Noah

In Aronofsky’s movie Noah is a vegetarian (this is biblical; the sanction to eat meat was only given after the flood) but contrary to some reviews he is not a vegan. 

When Ham asks why the family doesn’t kill animals for food, Noah simply replies ‘We take only what we need, only what we can use.’ This explains Noah’s leather boots, which are clearly visible in several scenes. While he may not eat meat, he has no qualms about using animal skins for clothing.

Similarly, Abel’s animal sacrifice was acceptable to God even though meat-eating itself was not yet approved. In Noah, as in Scripture, faithful believers of the antediluvian era ate no meat and did not kill animals wantonly.

Noah maintains a sustainable semi-agrarian existence, but contrary to some reviews he is not a radical tree-hugging pacifist. Throughout the course of the movie he slaughters an unspecified number of Cainites with ruthless brutality (three in the first 10 minutes!) and cuts down an entire forest. Many conservative Christian viewers have actually complained that Aronofsky’s Noah is not peaceful enough.

In an early scene Noah finds a dying animal hunted by the Cainites for food. Minutes later he is confronted by angry Cainites and kills them all in self-defence. Rather than burying the dead animal he wraps it in cloth and cremates it on an altar of stones as a burnt offering to God while silently and reverently raising his eyes to heaven in prayer. The music track accompanying this scene is appropriately called ‘Sweet Savour.’

In Aronofsky’s movie Noah does not preach to the wicked and is not mocked by doubters. This is faithful to the OT account, which never says Noah preached to those around him and neither states or implies that he was mocked for building the ark.

In Scripture Noah is never described as speaking, consulting God, or praying. We don’t even have any record of him offering sacrifices until after the flood. By contrast, Aronofsky’s Noah seeks God’s guidance on several occasions and presents a burnt offering in the first 20 minutes of the film.

The most confronting part of the film occurs in the final act. Noah and his family have been afloat for an unspecified period, without any message from God. Their uncertain fate breeds doubt in Noah’s mind. Having reflected upon the violence and depravity of the Cainites’ last days he becomes convinced that humanity is irredeemable.

Noah despairs, believing God’s plan to renew creation cannot be achieved as long while sin is perpetuated. He shares these thoughts with his family, voicing his belief that Japheth will outlive them all and die alone as the last human on Earth. This, he says, is the only way the world can revert to its Edenic state. The animals are innocent and must be preserved but humans must not survive, lest their propensity to sin result in a fresh cycle of corruption and violence.

Soon afterwards Noah learns from Shem that Ila is pregnant. At the height of a furious argument he accuses them both of undermining God by choosing to procreate, in open defiance of the Creator’s will. Overcome by grief he tells Ila that if the child is a boy he will replace Japheth as the last man to die; if a girl she will be slain to ensure the end of humanity. This has a predictable effect on the family dynamic.

As the months drag on, Noah is racked with guilt and uncertainty. He goes to the roof of the ark and pleads with God, begging for an alternative to his own bloody solution. But there is no reply, so he steels himself for the hideous task and resolves to carry it through.

I saw this as a deliberate parallel with Abraham, who was also prepared to kill his own child in obedience to God. The crucial difference between these two men is that Abraham correctly understood God’s command but was spared from carrying it out, whereas Aronofsky’s Noah is wrong and must choose to stop himself.

It strikes me as odd that some Christians have condemned Aronofsky for portraying Noah as a man prepared to commit infanticide when Abraham was ready to kill Isaac. Surely the only valid criticism here is narrative inaccuracy, since the idea that a patriarch was willing to kill his own flesh and blood is entirely biblical.

Ila gives birth to twin girls and Noah pursues her to the upper deck. At the last moment he experiences an epiphany and spares the babies. Yet Noah still seems troubled as they start a new life on dry land. In his heart he is wondering: have I obeyed or betrayed the Creator?

The scenes which follow imply he seeks solace in wine. True to Scripture, Noah becomes drunk and is discovered naked by Ham. The episode is tastefully depicted with a long shot of Noah face down on the ground. 

Shem arrives shortly with Japheth, and together they drag a blanket over their father, walking carefully backwards while averting their eyes (another point of accuracy typically ignored by negative reviews). There is no explicit cursing of Ham, but it’s obvious he won’t be hanging around for long (and he doesn’t).

In the closing moments of the film Noah witnesses a rainbow in the sky and correctly recognises this as God’s covenant with man. The rainbow pulses outward from the sun in a perfect, ever-expanding circle as Noah blesses his family with the words of Genesis 1:28, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!’

Aronofsky’s depiction of Noah is a disturbing one for Christians, but Jewish viewers will recognise the darker portrait which emerges from Midrash. In rabbinic tradition the statement ‘Noah was blameless in his generations’ merely refers to the fact that he was more righteous than anyone else by the standards of his day, and does not imply he was above reproach. 

On the contrary, some ancient rabbis appear to have seen Noah as more of an antihero. According to them, Noah might not have been considered righteous in the days of Moses or Samuel.

The Zohar claims Noah challenged God’s judgement, only to receive a stinging rebuke:

How did God answer Noah when he came out of the ark? Noah saw the whole world destroyed. He began to cry for the world and said, ‘Master of the world, You are called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your creatures!’ 

The Holy One answered him, ‘Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly, saying “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood…” [Genesis 6:14]. Because I saw that you were righteous before me, I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! 

But as soon as you heard that you would be safe in the ark, the evil of the world did not touch your heart. You built the ark and saved yourself. Now that the world has been destroyed you utter questions and pleas?’

Notice that in this story the warning of the flood was intended to test Noah’s concern for the rest of creation. God is angry that Noah failed to plea for humanity while there was still time, and openly accuses him of selfishness. The moment his safety was assured, Noah had no thought for anyone else.

Midrash traditionally contrasts Noah against Abraham, who pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah on the grounds that a few innocent should not perish with them. It is implied that this act of mercy uniquely qualified Abraham rather than Noah as the father of Israel.

Other Jewish assessments of Noah are equally sobering:

Three men craved for things of earth, and none of them made a success of his occupation. Cain was a tiller of the ground; we know his sad history. Noah attempted to become a husbandman, and he became a drunkard. Uzziah became a leper [II Chronicles 26:10-20]. 

Even Noah, however, was left not because he deserved it, but because he found grace.

Noah began by being righteous in his generation, but fell back and became a man of earth [Genesis 9:20].

It is texts such as these which informed and inspired Aronofsky’s interpretation of Noah. If we wish to judge the movie objectively we must familiarise ourselves with the source material and learn what Aronofsky saw in the Jews’ own interpretations of this story. 

Noah’s Family

Scripture does not record the name of Noah’s wife or daughters-in-law. The Book of Jubilees says Noah’s wife’s name was ‘Emzârâ. Genesis Rabba says she was called Naamah. 

In Aronofsky’s film her name is Naameh.

The Book of Jubilees says Shem’s wife was called Sedeqetelebab, Ham’s wife was Ne’elatama’uk, and Japheth’s wife was ’Adataneses. In the movie Noah only has one daughter-in-law: Shem’s wife, Ila.

Noah’s sons receive little characterisation (Japheth least of all). Shem is portrayed as highly moral, while Ham is the brooding black sheep. It is established early in the film that he will be a problem. His resentment of Noah is motivated by a tragic incident in which he loses woman he loves. This strikes me as an unnecessary attempt to mitigate—or at least rationalise—his later betrayal.

Ila conceives before the flood commences, and starts to experience morning sickness just as the rain stops. This is a timeframe of ~40 days, consistent with the typical emergence of morning sickness at ~6 weeks.

Aronofsky’s Methuselah has been unfairly misrepresented by reviewers as everything from ‘a sort of witch doctor with mental health issues’ to ‘a crazed warlock.’ None of these ridiculous caricatures are even remotely close to the truth.

The film portrays Methuselah as a wise, ancient patriarch of great courage and virtue. In a disappointingly brief flashback he singlehandedly destroys an entire army of Cainites with a flaming sword. Methuselah is said to have lived with the earthbound Watchers and imbibed much of their wisdom. He also possesses a supernatural ability to heal.

Noah visits Methuselah seeking advice about his apocalyptic dreams, and Methuselah confirms that the dreams are prophetic. Contrary to some of the more bizarre negative reviews, Methuselah does not live on a diet of mind-altering berries and does not provide Noah with a hallucinogenic drug. Instead he provides a soporific which sends Noah to sleep, during which he experiences his troubling dream again, with some variations. This time he wakes with greater insight.

According to the dates and ages given in the Masoretic text and Samaritan Pentateuch, Methuselah died in the year of the flood; possibly just a few weeks before it arrived. According to rabbinic tradition he died 7 days before the flood.

Calculated by the dates and ages given in Septuagint Alexandrius, Methuselah died six years before the flood. Calculated by the dates and ages given in Septuagint Vaticanus, he died fourteen years after the flood(!) 

Aronofsky’s movie shows Methuselah choosing to die in the flood. This is an unnecessary departure from the biblical account for no other purpose than dramatic effect.

Tubal-Cain

Ray Winstone plays Tubal-Cain, hamming up his role with such enthusiasm that in some scenes it is more accurate to say Tubal-Cain is playing Ray Winstone. Aronofsky portrays Tubal-Cain as the leader of the Cainites. In the opening scene he is shown murdering Noah’s father Lamech.

Unlike the rest of the Cainites Tubal-Cain does not die in the flood. Instead he successfully reaches the ark, climbs up the scaffolding, chops a hole in the top storey and hides among the sleeping animals, where he negotiates an uneasy truce with Ham and waits for a chance to murder Noah.

This is a gross departure from Scripture but it does have a precedent in rabbinic literature. The aggadic-midrashic work Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer contains the story of a famous stowaway who survived the flood:

As the floodwaters swelled, Og, king of Bashan, sat himself on one of the rungs of the ark’s ladders and swore to Noah and to his sons that he would be their slave forever. 

What did Noah do? He punched a hole in the ark, and through it he handed out food to Og every day. Og’s survival is hinted at in the verse “Only Og remained of the remnant of the Rephaim” [Deuteronomy 3:11].

Aronofsky has used this tale as the inspiration for his own subplot, in which Tubal-Cain replaces Og and brings violence rather than offering peace.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the rabbinic legend is Noah’s resolution of a moral dilemma. He is not at liberty to take Og on board the ark (Og is a sinner, and God has already established that only Noah and his family will be saved) yet he is loath to be merciless since God has shown mercy to him.

But if Og can be spared while remaining outside the ark, Noah can claim he has kept the letter of God’s command in good conscience (if not the spirit). This is typical of the moral conundrums posed by rabbinic literature and the clever solutions devised to resolve them.

The Watchers

In Aronofsky’s movie Noah is aided by a group of supernatural beings known as the Watchers. The depiction of these creatures is inspired partly by rabbinic tradition and partly by biblical elements. Scripture also mentions the Watchers, albeit not in the context of Noah’s story (see Daniel 4:13, 17, 23) but provides no details about their origin, purpose, or physical appearance. The most we can glean is that they are angelic guardians of some kind (the NET Bible calls them ‘Sentinels’); thus Aronofsky is free to portray them as he likes. In Noah they have six wings (inspired by the seraphim) which become arms when their bodies are encased in stone.

In the Book of Jubilees and the Books of Enoch some of the Watchers breed with mortal women, thereby producing the Nephilim. When Nephilim are killed, evil spirits emerge from their bodies. These become ‘demons’ (‘daimon’ in the New Testament). Aronofsky’s film makes no reference to this aspect of the Enochic/Jubilean tradition, and it is important to understand that the Watchers in Noah are not Nephilim.

In Noah the leader of the Watchers is called ‘Samyaza.’ This is taken from 1 Enoch. Aronofsky depicts the Watchers as ‘fallen angels’, cursed to remain on Earth as punishment for defying God’s will by teaching humanity advanced technologies after the Fall (metalworking, weaponry, etc.).

This is faithful to 1 Enoch, where the Watchers and the Nephilim also pass on forbidden knowledge (‘the instruments of death, the coat of mail, the shield, and the sword for slaughter… the use of ink and paper… every wicked stroke of spirits and of demons’) which humanity employs for evil purposes. The Books of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees also state that the Watchers were punished for their disobedience.

In Scripture the ark was built entirely by Noah. In 1 Enoch the ark was built entirely by the Watchers. Aronofsky combines the two accounts by depicting the Watchers as Noah’s assistants, using their great strength to hasten construction. Noah’s family also joins in the work.

In yet another scene borrowed from Midrash, Tubal-Cain attacks the ark with an army of thousands. The Watchers defend it with their lives, a self-sacrificial act which earns them divine absolution. As they fall in battle the Watchers are released from stone and return to heaven in spirit form.

Zohar

Noah’s land is rich in ‘zohar’, a combustible, highly unstable, brightly glowing ore. It can be ignited by fire or compression, with explosive results. ‘Zohar’ (more accurately ‘tzohar’) is a Hebrew word meaning ‘radiance’ or ‘illuminate’, and also the name of an extra biblical canon upon which the teachings of the Kabbalah are based. This is a very obvious reference to the movie’s source material.

The use of ‘zohar’ also invokes another Jewish tradition. In Midrash the tzohar was a glowing stone which contained light from the first day of creation. According to Jewish legend the tzohar was originally given to Adam and Eve, and later used by Noah to illuminate the ark.

The Cainites mine zohar on an industrial scale with no regard for the surrounding area, which is rapidly destroyed by pollution and strip mining. Noah also collects zohar but takes care not to damage his environment in the process.

Morality

In one scene Noah says: ‘For 10 generations since Adam, sin has walked within us. Brother against brother, nation against nation, man against creation. We murdered each other. We broke the world.’ This is biblical.

Aronofsky shows the primary sins of humanity to be murder, slavery, debauchery, destruction of God's creation, general disobedience to His commands, rape, and cannibalism. 

All of these activities are present in the movie (though the sexual violence is implied rather than depicted) and consistent with the biblical account of extreme human vice during Noah’s era. The Book of Jubilees provides a similar account, with particular reference to sins against creation.

The Flood

Many critics of the Bible claim the story of Noah’s flood was simply borrowed from other cultures. An article refuting this claim can be found here: http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-genesis-flood-24

In Aronofsky’s movie Noah correctly refers to ‘the waters above the earth’ which will be released during the flood; this is biblical (Genesis 1:6-7). The movie depicts huge torrents of water surging up from deep within the earth; this is biblical (Genesis 8:11).

The film incorrectly depicts Noah’s flood as global, with a long shot ‘from space’ showing heavy storm clouds all over the entire earth. By contrast, biblical evidence tells us that the flood was local (see the article here: http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-genesis-flood-14). Rabbinic tradition concurs.

The Ark

The ark is depicted as rough yet sturdy, and its exterior is at least partly real; Aronofsky spent six months building one third of the ark using the precise measurements given in Scripture. Digital imagery was used to complete the rest. It’s one of the most biblically faithful aspects of the entire movie.

Many critics of the Bible assert that a seaworthy vessel of such magnitude could not have been built with the technology available to Noah. An article refuting this claim can be found here: http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-genesis-flood-34

Locating Land & Leaving the Ark

In Aronofsky’s interpretation the raven is sent out by Japheth instead of Noah, while the dove is not sent out at all. Nevertheless I was pleased that this was correctly shown as an act of initiative by Noah’s family, as we find in Scripture.

The Bible tells us that God called Noah out of the ark when it was safe to leave. In the movie Noah and his family simply leave the ark when it runs aground on dry land.

Themes

Sin

The movie shows that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world by succumbing to the temptation of the forbidden fruit when prompted by the serpent; this is biblical (Genesis 3:1-6).

Aronofsky has been quoted as saying that the movie is about ‘family and survival’, and ‘how we all have original sin in us and what we're going to do with this second chance that we've been given.’ This is a central theme and it comes through very strongly.

Imago Dei

There are many references to man being made in the image of God (which even Tubal-Cain admits). This is biblical (Genesis 1:26-27). There are regular references to the sin and curses of Adam & Cain; this too is biblical (Genesis 3:17-19; 4:8-12).

Cities

Cities are described as creations of the Cainites (this is biblical; see Genesis 4:17) in which evil is concentrated and indulged. As the movie progresses these cities collapse under the self-destructive influences of immorality and unsustainability.

God’s sovereignty

Throughout the film we are constantly reminded that God is in control. The Watchers testify to the futility of resisting His will and the necessity of divine forgiveness. Noah recognises the unstoppable purpose of God in the message of his dreams. Methuselah affirms the certainty of judgement. 

By contrast, Tubal-Cain—a self-appointed king—acknowledges the inevitability of the flood but remains defiant even as the rain starts to fall. In a tense standoff with Ham he snarls, ‘You don't know your king!’ Ham brilliantly replies, ‘My father says there can be no king. The Creator is God!’

Tubal-Cain’s eventual death has a fatalistic air which implies that however long it might be delayed, God’s judgement is inescapable.

God’s silence

The absence of verbal communication from God presents Noah with the challenge of interpreting dreams that nobody understands any better than he does. The dreams cease when he starts building the ark, and there is no sign from heaven until he reaches dry land.

Tubal-Cain exploits this by challenging Noah’s claim to divine guidance, saying God has not spoken for generations and is unlikely to start now. Yet it seems this taunt masks a deep rooted insecurity, for Tubal-Cain cries to God just before the flood, demanding ‘Why won’t you speak to me?!’ Is he desperately hoping to supplant Noah at the eleventh hour?

God’s lengthy silence between the building of the ark and the film’s final scene contributes to Noah’s spiritual breakdown in the third act, where he begs God for an answer that will relieve the moral burden thrust upon him by his own misinterpretation of the Creator’s intentions. Here we might pause to reflect upon similar moments in our own lives.

Justice & mercy

At times I felt Aronofsky’s Noah resembled Jonah: a flawed man with a misguided passion for justice, grappling with the demands of an apocalyptic mission. He is merciless with the Cainites but spares Ila’s daughters even though part of him believes they must die.

Aronofsky explains his motivation for this theme as follows:

We started to realize these big ideas about justice and mercy in the film. It started with Noah being called righteous in his generation, and we tried to figure out what that meant. 

What we’ve discovered is that people who are a lot smarter than us and who study theology talk about righteousness as having a balance of justice and mercy. As a parent, you understand that if you’re too just, you can destroy your child with strictness, and if you’re too merciful you can destroy them with leniency. Finding that balance makes you a great parent.

For us, since Noah is called righteous, we asked, “OK, what is his balance of justice and mercy?” So at the beginning of the film, he clearly wants justice, very much like God. By the end, when the rainbow happens, he has learned mercy, forgiveness and grace.

Ila encapsulates these sentiments when she tells Noah ‘He [God] chose you because you saw the wickedness of man and knew you wouldn't look away. But there is goodness too.’ In reference to the sparing of her daughters, Ila says to Noah ‘You chose mercy. You chose love.’

Ila’s words are particularly poignant in the light of the earlier exchange between Noah and Ham:

Ham: ‘I thought you were good. I thought that's why He [God] chose you.’

Noah: ‘He chose me because he knew I would finish the job, nothing more.’

This brooding, pragmatic Noah weathers a perfect storm of spiritual challenges and emerges a better man for the experience.

Jewish Perspectives

Jewish reviews will greatly inform your understanding of Noah, even if you do not see it yourself. Here is an excerpt from one Jewish viewer’s response to the film:

One of Aronofksy's stated central interests in the film was to explore the biblical notion of righteousness. He determined, after a lot of study, that righteousness in the Bible refers to a perfect balance of justice and mercy, and that is what he primarily explored in the character of Noah. 

…For me, Noah was truly great biblical art. I cried through at least a solid third of the film, moved by everything from the aesthetic beauty onscreen to the human tragedy of the deluge. So many moments of this film felt uncomfortably recognisable. 

I know what it's like to follow a path through the murk of my own imperfectly heard communication with G-d, and I know what it's like to overshoot the messages I've actually heard. I know what it's like to be bound in a state like the Watchers are in. What greater metaphor is there for being caught in one's own sinful decisions than being bound up in twisted rock when you were created to fly free?

I am growing in an increasingly desperate need to care for a hurting earth, particularly endangered species, and often feel powerless to stop the exploitative machine around me, but I must learn to do something concrete about it. And some corner within me, no matter how infinitesimal, remembers what it was like to be in the Garden, wrapped in a garment of light.

And that remembrance is, at least in great part, what brings me forward into G-d's redemption as a Prodigal journeying back to the love that bore me in the first place. This is especially poignant to me as Passover approaches, because the blessing of G-d is irrevocable—in every human being, in every dog and fish and elephant, in every blade of grass.

I encourage you to read the full text, which contains many more insights.

Jewish studies PhD candidate Krista Dalton has written a good article on Noah as Midrash. Dr Eric A. Goldman—adjunct associate professor of film studies at Yeshiva University, New York City—has written about his experience at a special screening of Aronofsky’s film.

Goldman’s article includes references to the movie’s use of rabbinic literature. He observes that Jewish audiences are better prepared for Noah than Christians and Muslims because they have been raised in a theological culture which sanctions and encourages the reinterpretation of biblical stories.

Other Perspectives

I have read almost four dozen reviews of Noah from commentators, bloggers, professional reviewers, and regular members of the public. Some praise the movie, some denounce it as a tool of Satan, and others are quite ambivalent. Opinion remains divided over the question of whether it functions better as pure entertainment or a biblically inspired story. 

The following articles may be of interest:

Justin Chang: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/noah-is-the-biblical-epic-that-christians-deserve-1201150333

Brett McCracken: http://convergemagazine.com/noah-film-12561

Steven D. Greydanus: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/noah-controversy

Annette Yoshiko Reed:  http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/7741/who_gets_to_decide_if_noah_is_biblical

Phil Cooke: http://philcooke.com/christians-should-see-noah

Peter T. Chattaway: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/03/the-jewish-roots-of-and-responses-to-noah.html

Peter T. Chattaway: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/no-noah-is-not-gnostic-say-that-ten-times-fast.html

Peter T. Chattaway: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/02/the-righteousness-of-noah-what-did-the-rabbis-say.html

George Fike: http://pastor-george.com/2014/03/31/swimming-against

iPreacher: http://316apps.com/ipreachersblog/2014/03/31/noah

Nearly all of them are written by Christians. Chattaway’s analysis is particularly focused on the Jewishness of Aronofsky’s interpretation, and engages well with its rabbinic source material. He also defends the film against false accusations of Gnosticism and addresses its uncomfortable portrait of Noah’s character.

Concluding Thoughts

Aronofsky’s Noah is not a faithful reproduction of the Old Testament story. I wish the movie had been far more biblically accurate than it is. Some of the changes were pointless and unjustifiable, even allowing for artistic licence.

For example, retaining all eight members of Noah’s family would have expanded the central cast and provided room for deeper characterisation. Reducing Noah’s daughters-in-law from three to one simply made it easier for Aronofsky to fabricate a moral dilemma which exists solely to add drama—as if the story of Noah needed any more!—and drive the plot forward on his terms.

Although utterly disposable, the stowaway subplot was forgivable considering its rabbinic precedent and Aronofsky’s desire to incorporate traditional Jewish interpretations. 

The exploration of Noah’s character was unnecessarily overwrought, and I felt the parallel to Abraham was merely latent where it should have been explicit. This might have gone a long way towards reassuring Christian audiences that the film was not a hatchet job on one of their favourite Bible stories.

However, the more I researched for this review the more I realised just how little Aronofsky had tinkered with Noah’s story. Almost every embellishment—whether addition or omission—was drawn directly from Jewish exegesis, some of it very ancient. Aronofsky contributed very few ideas of his own. Most of the work was already done by long dead rabbis.

This was not a case of Hollywood grabbing the Bible and haphazardly twisting it into a few random shapes. Aronofsky deliberately chose his own Jewish theological heritage as the basis for a dramatic re-envisioning of Genesis 6-9 which brings out speculative subplots and scholarly interpretations well known to Jewish audiences but far less familiar to Christians. 

Above all, Aronofsky is sympathetic to Noah and depicts him realistically. Some of us may feel Aronofsky’s Noah is a far cry from the one we learned about in Sunday School, but in my view he is no more a villain than Samson or King David.

While watching the movie I detected an underlying tension which I’ve found difficult to articulate. The best way I can put it is to say that Noah falls between two stools: a secular interpretation, and a supernatural epic visualised through the prism of Midrash.

On one hand we get an angsty Noah who believes God is speaking to him but doesn't fully understand what He’s saying (the secular perspective). On the other hand we get visions, miracles, the Watchers, and other elements drawn from ancient Jewish writings (the supernatural perspective).

I believe Aronofsky should have chosen one or the other. If a secular interpretation, the film should have had no supernatural elements. If a supernatural epic, the film should have stayed much closer to the biblical text and Jewish traditions.

Aronofsky's Noah is not faithful to Scripture but it is faithful to Judaism. I believe this approach is legitimate and laudable insofar as it provides an authentically Jewish interpretation of Noah’s story, deeply rooted in rabbinic exegesis.

It’s refreshing to see this powerful narrative brought to life without the influence of Christian anachronisms. Perhaps for the first time in history Hollywood has presented a biblically inspired Old Testament movie with a genuinely Jewish voice.