Published: Friday, March 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Are Noah and his family really "hardcore vegetarian environmentalists"?
You see, that's exactly the kind of stupid thing I worried about. Watcher
rock monsters helping build the ark? Sure, whatever. That's exactly the
kind of thing I'd actually enjoy, given that at least watchers are a
biblical(if apocryphal) thing. A stowaway on board? A good chance for some
surprise tension.But the only righteous fpeople on earth are
hippies? That kills the whole movie.
"The verdict is simple: If your expectations lie in chapter and verse
authenticity, “Noah” will confuse and disappoint."So
it's easy to believe Noah lived 950 years, when we know for a fact that
early humans rarely lived longer than 40 years, and our life expectancy now is
around 80, but a few Hollywood adaptations are going to confuse you. Wow!
Please! It's just entertainment, not religion.
I guess I'll give it a look. But if I don't see a long parade of green
alligators and long neck geese, some humpy back camels and some
chimpanzee's, I'm going to march right to the managers office and
demand my money back. Oh--and some koala's!
I was hoping the film would stay true to the origin of the flood story, the
inundation of the black sea basin by seawater as the last ice age ended.
Actually, I wasn't really hoping that; I just wanted to say it. It's
just a movie, it might even be entertaining, and I don't expect accuracy
out of it any more than religious people should.
The author feels the Directors' liberal use of artistic license
"results in a deity whose actions are confusing at best."And
that is different how from Diety we read about in the Bible?
It is truly amazing, ironic, and amusing to watch Hollywood miss the boat on so
many opportunities to make money, its core value.
Of course Noah and his families would have to be vegetarian. With only two of
each animal on board you wouldn't want to wipe out an entire species every
time you woke up with the munchies.
Hollywood has never done religion well. I guess the Ten Commandments is the
exception. You can't expect people with a mixed up value system to
understand people who gain strength from the Bible. It's like oil and
water. They just don't mix well.
I have not seen such media coverage and supposed controversy addressed like
this, over a movie, in a long time. Fundamentalists believe the story is literal
history. This is even though there are at least two different versions of the
story in Genesis - such as 40 days or 180 days, and two or seven of each animal.
Likely half of all Christians believe it is metaphorical. A close friend of
mine, who is a Presbyterian minister, believes in biblical truth as metaphor,
allegory and parable. The last statement of the director should have a slight
variation, "We are taking [a myth] and making it [more] mythical.
@Banderson: "It is truly amazing, ironic, and amusing to watch Hollywood
miss the boat on so many opportunities to make money, its core value."That was one of the best puns I've heard.
Much ado about nothing. It's pure entertainment. And besides what do we
really know about the behind the scene trappings? The biblical story
doesn't give us a play by play...it's a synopsis. There are more
unanswered questions nevertheless the believers still revere Noah for who he is
and for what he did. When the flood occurred Noah was old by our standards, but
the film's portrayal is far from coming close to the biblical age. Again,
it's entertainment. Can one imagine if a movie was done about Ammon? It
would be rated R for violence, but it would be cool.
The more pious and gullible among humans have never really cared to understand
the art of filmmaking. You can't expect people with a value system built
around fairy tales to understand people who treat myth as myth and don't
feel bound by literal interpretations of fantastic stories. It's like oil
and water. They just don't mix well.
There's a significant difference between "Not eating animals on the ark
because then you won't have them anymore" and "the people who are
right before God don't eat meat ever, despite their circumstance".As for "not being religion", it is very true that it's
not-it's a movie. But independent of any given religion, if you do a story
about a man named Noah who's told by God to create an ark to survive a
global flood, you really constrain your ability to take liberties when it comes
to the characters involved.it comes to a question of what
"hardcore vegetarians and environmentalists" means. I don't want
to spend the time or money to see a movie where someone I revere as a prophet of
God is depicted as as someone who would tend not to like divine commandments
@ Justmythoughts, Not just Hollywood. No one has done religion well on film.
This is when GLOBAL WETTING started. Our moisture that we direct into the
atmosphere has ruined the environment ever since.
Jamescmeyer said: "I don't want to spend the time or money to see a
movie where someone I revere as a prophet of God is depicted as as someone who
would tend not to like divine commandments very much."Not sure
what you mean, but....(Genesis 1:29), "See, I give you every
seed-bearing plant that is upon the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing
fruit, they shall be yours for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the
birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the
breath of life, [I give] all the green plants for food."So, the
image presented - the plain reading of the text - is that in the Edenic state,
people were to be vegetarians. And not only people; all the animals were
vegetarians as well.
Re: Elliott BaySeattle, WA"Of course Noah and his
families would have to be vegetarian. With only two of each animal on board you
wouldn't want to wipe out an entire species every time you woke up with the
munchies."Your comment and Happy Valley Heretic's comment
both reveal a lack of knowing and/or understanding scriptural truth, which is
that the animals were saved on the ark in pairs, male and female, except for the
edible (clean) beasts and birds. They were taken on the ark by sevens. And as
soon as the ark landed on dry ground a sacrifice to God consisting of the flesh
of one such edible (clean) animal was cooked (burnt) and consumed by Noah and
Going to see Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ when it was released was
the one time in my life I was confronted by a protestor just for going to see a
movie. As I left the ticket window to go in, a man standing just outside the
entrance began calling to me, “don’t go in there, don’t you go
in there! That movie lies about Jesus.”I walked past to not
let him engage me in debate. When the movie was over and I came out, he had been
joined by about fifty people, some carrying placards. It was an orderly crowd.
They were just making their presence and disapproval felt.
"Aronofsky may have left God in the equation, but the director’s
twisting of the narrative to suit his own purposes results in a deity whose
actions are confusing at best."This is exactly the critique of
the source material--the Bible--that many non-believers have. How does one
square the idea of a caring God with stories of drowning almost the whole
population of the Earth, demanding of his people that they commit genocide by
wiping out all men, women, children of a rival clan, or who would cause extreme
pain and suffering in a follower (Job) just to prove Satan wrong.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments