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.
Anyone who has actually read Genesis knows that there Noah is commanded to bring
more of the clean beasts than the unclean beasts, indicating that he clearly was
a meat eater.
Hmmm... not sure why the movie was made in the first place. Who is the target
audience? Bible believers? Non bible believers? If the former, why not make it
bible based? If the latter, why bother at all following the bible story? Just
make up a general story about a guy, a boat, and a big flood and call him Steve
or something. This can't surprise anyone that Hollywood didn't get
this right. Rock monsters? Hilarious.
ultragrampa,I agree. The bible can seemingly paint a confusing
portrait of God... but it's understandable why. If you and I witnessed an
event yesterday and wrote about it- our accounts would differ. God isn't
confusing, but people are.This is why we weren't just given a
set of books, but instructions on how to use them./////"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.But let him
ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed."/////With ongoing
revelation, a prophet, and a quorum of apostles... there's not much to
confuse. That's what makes general conference so great. Not only is it a
time of being taught and encouraged. It's also a time of clarity.
Everything makes more sense when we're hearing the truth from the source
instead of things like a Hollywood film.
Uptight comments? One's interpretation/belief of Noah's
Ark (and there are many perspectives and beliefs) can't be perfectly
presented only for them? Even if so, it wouldn't quell controversy. Look at
all the factions of the complainers of this movie. Many don't agree one
with another. Yet they share some sort of murmuring forum. Countless
evangelicals can't agree on the 'Noah' interpretation. Muslims
and other Abrahamic roots of faith also apply.If you decide to see
the movie, maybe aiming for something positive with your kids or whoever you see
it with is a good idea. Or how about just enjoying the movie if you can? If you
are waiting to be offended, relative to vague descriptions in the Old Testament
that your ecclesiastical leader told you how it played out, then you might not
want to shell out money or time for the movie in the first place. Seeing this film won't hurt those lacking a belief window in Noah's
story right? Actually, it could spark their interest. Rather completely accurate
or not, the former being impossible to portray on screen, we can appreciate the
Could this be just a case of liberal-leaning Hollywood's recognition of the
huge success of REAL religious films, like Son of God and The Bible? Then,
consequently, wanting to get in on the money action from the religious viewers
(who may avoid their PG-13 and R-rated movies)have they now coated their liberal
agendas with the appearance of religion -- with a God who promotes their causes?
Could "wolf in sheep's clothing" fit here?
Really like Russel Crow in just about everything he's been in - really good
actor. As far as this movie....well I recall watching the ten commandments and
seeing the tablets get carved by some cool fire in the sky effects
(really?) ...so what. I understand Moses and who he really was especially from
the Perl Of Great Price and no so much from the Old Testatment which is full of
translation errors anyway and Cecil tried his best with Heston and the ten
commandments and did a pretty decent job. Movies are movies no matter what the
subject matter is ....a little bit of truth thrown into a alot of made up
special effects fiction. Set back - eat some popcorn and have a nice night out
with the wife.
@Elliot Bay - I know it could be hard for people from Washington to believe, but
not everyone, certainly not Noah, smoke/smoked marijuana, and therefore
didn't get the "munchies." See Linus' clarification for the
I would never give the folks who made this movie my money. Never do anything
that would help any liberal try to spread their theology.
It's simultaneously hilarious but saddening to see fellow LDS members
mistakenly take the Bible literally. Christ's teachings from the NT were
full of parables and since we believe him to be Jehovah of the OT it explains
why the OT is full of similar parables involving great floods, living in the
stomach of a whale, etc... etc....Equally funny is their disdain for
the portrayal of Noah and his family as "hardcore vegetarian
environmentalists" which is precisely what the Word of Wisdom advocates we
Haven't seen the movie, but I heard one thing that will make run screaming
into the dark......someone, a young child, requests that Crowe sing them to
sleep. NO, don't do it. Russel Crowe can do many things well,
but singing isn't one of them. Save us all from him ever singing on film
It's a story about how a petty god kills all humans--men, women, children,
babies and animals and then feels bad for it. How much can we really get from
We know for a fact that early humans lived 40 yrs? Please, Why can't
evolutionists accept that their facts are theory. Theory based on flawed science
that judges things that happened well out of our lifetime.
@Esquire.Of course it's entertainment. That's what the
reviewer emphasized throughout the article. But any time a producer takes on a
theme that many believe to be truth and the producer considers to be fiction,
he/she is playing with creative fire. I predict the film may recover it's
production costs but little else.
1stmeridian - Riiiight... because the "evidence" you have that early
humans lived close to 1,000 years is so much more convincing than petty things
such as established science regarding evolution and the origins of modern-day
@stalwart sentinel So if the story of Noah is a "parable", does
that mean the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Joseph, and Abraham are
you say you are LDS but you seem to believe in established science regarding
evolution and the origins of modern-day humans more than the bible.
StansburyFann 9:31 a.m.Yep, pretty much.
Thank you for the review- Right on with every other one. Hollywood, period-
what'd you expect?As for LDS bemoaning 'leaving the
Biblical text'- surely you jest. Ether says it best...Wow- is
all I can render after reading the hate-filled, ignorant comments from the
agnostic stripes.And I'd rather sit through a filibuster than
listen to disrespectful atheists lecture believers on a subject of which they
The upside.....perhaps people will start having an interest in the Bible.
Biblical or not, it lost me at the rock people. I thought I had morphed into The
Lord of the Rings' tree people. Maybe that explains the petrified forest.
And how do you explain Noah's switch from a desire to save to a desire to
kill? Why put the family on the ark to begin with?
Cecil B Demille and Charlton Heston believed in God; one directed a classic
movie on a key subject "The Ten Commanments" and another respectfully
portrayed a prophet of God in that production. DeMille sought the assistance
of religious leaders of many faiths including the President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They made a movie that people still watch
and still find inspiring today.Hollywood today seems largely to have
unbridled contempt for God and the many majorities who believe in Him and His
morality in western, middle eastern and African nations. The Hollywood elite
are arrogant and think that this dirisible attempt to insult and mock believers
in Judaism, Christianity and the Muslim faith is going to make them money and
win people over to their philosophies?? Amazing.I hope that this
movie bombs as it richly deserves. I am one of millions who would not spend a
penny to enrich smirking, malevolent enemies of the moral core of nations or
further their unholy aims. I am hopeful for some of the non-Hollywood
film-making industries to which so many now have perforce begun to turn to see
something laudable or enriching.
StansburyFann - Yep; everything from talking serpents to nonagenarian childbirth
to parting seas - all illusory. I know that may seem somewhat alarming to
certain Mormons but whether those events actually happened (they didn't) or
not really doesn't matter - the lessons we take from those parables for our
personal lives is what is important. And no, I don't
"believe" in any one thing more than holy scripture; rather I see
intelligence, science, math, etc... as gifts from God that we are obligated to
culture and grow. To deny evolution is to deny God, just like Ama claimed that
to deny the movement of the heavens (which we humans can explain thanks to
scientists/mathematicians) and the planetary orderly fashion is to deny God.
Go Gildas! Two Thumbs Up on your review.Being Stalwart at opinions
doesn't make you bright or right. It just makes you entrenched. Astro
phycisists are the first to tell you we haven't even got dark matter or
black holes figured out. Pre-Hubble and W.I.S.E. textbooks are out of date.
And everything streaming in just verifies every Biblical creation claim, from
the Cosmos to the nano cell:Where'd the Data come from, Stalwart?Who is "Ama"? I teach Hebrew and haven't found that person
extant.Hollywood shot a thriller, full of darkness and death. How
original. And a lost and hungry world languishes while "Ama/Mama" Jolie
and Franklin Graham spend their lives trying to rescue the desperate. Carry on
American movie goers.
Stalwart- when Christ was in the tomb for 3 days and arose, was that literal or
a parable? "For with God, nothing is impossible"
Do NOT go see Noah the movie!!!! I walked out of it (one of the first I have
ever walked out of). I went trying to give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt,
knowing that they would need to add some artistic interpretation given the small
storyline from Genesis. However, when Hollywood injected the idea that Noah
couldn't get answers from God and wanted to murder his granddaughter, I
couldn't stand it anymore. I was disgusted by the portrayal of an axe
wielding Noah who kills countless people. I was appalled by the fact that they
made up a storyline that a bad guy secretly snuck on to the boat and conspired
with Ham to kill Noah while on the boat. I was offended that they portrayed a
prophet as a man not preaching repentance but as a man determined to end the
human race including his own family. Besides the fact that there is a man with a
boat and animals, this movie in no way follows the story found in Genesis.
I loved the film. Parable or fact, the Old Testament is incredibly messy,
unclear, and confusing. I thought the film did a great job of encapsulating
that. Yes, they added all sorts of other plots, but I thought those plots at
the very least reflected the themes otherwise existing in the Bible. When
Noah's wife, rather than Noah himself, is the one pleading with her husband
to continue the human race rather than letting everyone parish, I saw parallels
with the wise role Eve played in the Fall. I saw parallels between Noah's
belief that God was commanding him to end the human race with the story of
Abraham and Isaac - a prophet is promised that his posterity will be
innumerable, and is then told to sacrifice his son, the symbol of his posterity,
only to have the whole thing be a test that God calls off at the last minute.
Yes, it's a terribly dark plot, but so is the source material.
I had a friend say that he didn't like it because Noah seemed to be without
guidance from the Lord for most of the film, rather than being portrayed as a
prophet constantly being guided by Him. I'm not so sure the film's
version isn't incredibly accurate, in many circumstances. From Joseph
Smith languishing without answers in prison, to Lehi being told to flee
Jerusalem, without knowing what the next step would be, to the brother of Jared
only receiving piecemeal instructions over the course of many years regarding
how they were going to cross the ocean, I think God often instructs his prophets
only to the degree they need to take the next steps, because they, like us, need
to walk in faith. Sometimes, that means they make mistakes, even terrible
mistakes, but that doesn't diminish their capacity as prophets.
Putting aside all of the religious interpretation debates concerning Noah and
his story--this poorly made movie was a tedious endeavor to watch. Hollywood
uses a D version of a biblical template to tell Noah's story using Lord of
the Rings imagery. Two plus hours of my life I can't get back (not
including the time I used to write this post). Your time would be better spent
doing something kind for a neighbor or your community.
Back in my youth a Saturday Night Live sketch started with a disclaimer (I
paraphrase from memory) - "The following program is a historical docu-drama
which means that it is based on real events but some half-truths and out-right
lies have been added."There was contention about details in the
movie "Lincoln," based a the life of a very public figure and covering
very public and well documented events that happened some 150 years ago. Noah? Perhaps the Bible gives an accurate telling of real events,
although science does not support it. Perhaps the Bible gives one version of
civilization disrupting events that happened in various ways at diverse times
across many cultures - the historical and geological record would seem to
support that view.In any event, a guy made a movie. It was based on
a story - or stories - from pre-history, that survived as oral history and then,
finally, a written tradition. The stories helped define a tribe and their
relationship to their local god. It is entertainment, a historical docudrama
with creative bits added to make it more sellable to a modern market.
"I am one of millions who would not spend a penny to enrich smirking,
malevolent enemies of the moral core of nations or further their unholy aims. I
am hopeful for some of the non-Hollywood film-making industries to which so many
now have perforce begun to turn to see something laudable or enriching."My, my, my. Read that three times now and it gets funnier every time.
Smite them, brother.I guess this means you don't spend any
money at all on movies or TV not expressly made by righteous conservative folk?
When you go shopping, do you make sure that no-one of the malevolent enemies of
the moral core of nations benefits from your purchase? Gotta be consistent in
The take home lesson is, you really shouldn't rely on Hollywood to teach
you the scriptures. You will always be disappointed. I encounter some
Evangelicals who are really getting worked up about the Biblical accuracy of
this movie, and I find myself asking, "What did you expect?" The loud
disapproval ends up drumming up more publicity than this movie even deserves.As for me, I don't care if anyone wants to see it or not. It seems
like a waste of money to me and something I couldn't take very seriously
anyway. Let it die.