What is the source of the quote from Eugen Drewermann, Europe's bestselling
theologian, in this article?
What is the source of the quote from Eugen Drewermann in this article?
"Borrowing the words of Eugen Drewermann from another context, we might say
of Aronofsky’s "Noah" that “every religious symbol,
especially those having to do with eternity, immortality and the survival of
love, becomes nothing more than nostalgic memories of lost hope ... too weak to
call forth the reality it evokes.”"
I echo "LittleStream's" comments and add that having watched this
movie and expecting fiction but was still disappointed at just how much it
detracted from the scriptural Noah. I agree that it shouldn't have been
called Noah because there are many people out there who will think this IS the
story of Noah from the scriptures so it should have been called something
else!At the end of the movie some viewers in the cinema actually applauded
which perplexed me but I guess they found something about the film redeeming.
I wouldn't recommend it for anything else other than the pure fiction
it is. Certainly not a movie about THE Noah of the Bible. Read your scriptures
and find out what really happened whatever your faith is.
RE: Noah's Ark, "…while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is,eight souls were saved by water. .).Peter makes it clear in this verse
that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united
with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good
conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter
3:20-21). Noah’s Ark is a ’type of Christ’:
Faith in Jesus is what saves. Baptism is a symbol, after-all The 8 who were
saved did not get wet.
I've long since given up on Hollywood to provide anything that would stoke
the spirit of my religious beliefs and enlighten me on what I call
"divine", hence I don't go to movies for that purpose. Nonethless,
last night I paid the $10 to pass a couple hours watching a Bible story be
hijacked by Transformer and Lord of Rings themes. This movie was not made, I
believe, to deliberately offend the believer nor was it made to edify the
believer. Aside from the name Noah, an ark and a flood, this movie has nothing
to do with the Bible.It's just more proof for me that the ideas
of man are continually being used to make sense the divine and that man's
hearts is far from God and that "denying the power" thereof is not only
politically correct but actually the motus operandum du jour. All
this just makes me excited for God's denouement instead of
Hollywood's. Bring on Conference!
An LDS perspective? What is that exactly? I think it's unhealthy to assume
we all think alike and that certain doctrinal understandings can always cover
all perspectives on a relative context within biblical times. It's not
realistic to know all spiritual content from the scripture we have in our canon,
especially that of the Old Testament. We have a huge gap between the fall of man
and the story of Noah's Ark. There is more information available to us, now
more than ever, that lends more understanding to what led up to the need for the
world to be cleansed. I have not seen the movie, and I am well aware
of the concern many have with the film. Some of it I understand, and some I have
left judgment reserved. I do plan on seeing the movie though.
The movie was fiction.The story of Noah in the Bible is fiction.What is the problem?
Just went to Noah and found the movie highly disturbing. Scriptural
inaccuracies aside, this is another Hollywood concoction to avoid. My wife and I
both had serious thoughts about walking out but did not share those thoughts
until after. Too late!!!
Thank you for that review! I very much appreciate the background of where some
of the ideas came from. I have seen the film, and honestly, if I had gone
expecting a SciFi or a Fantasy film, I would have been just fine. The movie is
advertised, however, as Biblical in nature, so when I went I was expecting that,
and didn't get it. I think the problem I have and many others have with
this film is discrepancy between the advertised product and the result that was
significantly less then what it should/could have been. The acting was flawless
(I, for one, loved Russel Crow as Noah, he is a consummate actor, as are they
all, the performances were flawless by the way--it was the story I had issues
with), the content, however left much to be desired. I generally don't
mind poetic license, but when it messes with points that change the whole
substance of the story, I get annoyed. For me, without a doubt, this was a case
where the book is far better than the movie.
RE: Suburbs of SLC,”I still don't get where these criticisms are
coming from. I'm an active member of the LDS Church, and I loved the
film”. Mormons should,(Gen 6:4 NIV) The
“Nephilim” were on the earth in those days… “Nephilim
“= plural of Nephi or Nephites.There were ”giants” in
the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto
the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown.(Gen 6:4 KJV)(Jesus)There will be a
great abundance of sin in the end times(latter days) and that there will also be
a coming judgment. But as in the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of
the Son of man be.” (Mt 24:37-39 KJV)
I wonder how many of the critics of the Hollywood movie NOAH, watched
fictional portrayals of "The Book of Mormon" movie, "Passage
to Zarahemla", "Nephite who wore Tennis Shoes", etc.
et.al....Give it a rest people.
@Ernest T. Bass:"Whats so neat about the Noah true story is that
pretty much all DNA and archeaology show a huge die-0ff about 4,000 years ago
and animals and plants and people can all trace their family history to that
flood event. Science backs us up!"Whoever told you that was
completely wrong and I would advise you to never listen to anything that person
says ever again. I remember one time listening to a radio station in Texas and
they were interviewing someone who was doing research in creationism. He was
definitely certain that there was proof that the earth started 6000 years
ago,I have studied geology, I know Christian geologists who talk
about the earth being around for billions of years ago. In his case, (and
probably in yours) being too strict in the interpretation gets it so you are
missing important parts and insights.
This is a well researched and scholarly article, although the main benefit I had
from it was to learn that the verses in Genesis that referred to Noah being
drunk should have been translated that he was "in vision". That is
consistent with the "perfect in his generations" man of which the
scriptures speak. As a Latter Day Saint I identify Noah with Gabriel and one of
the two great patriarchs of the human race.Otherwise I think it
treats too lightly of a gross slanderous attack on a great and holy prophet.
Let Hollywood try the same with Muhammed if it dare and we will see if it is so
bold (which of course it is not). It is time, I hope, for the
Church of Jesus Christ, or rather members thereof, to make its own version of
the story, one that is true to the scriptural account. Ezra Taft Benson, if I
recall correctly, asked for saints to employ media to bring scripture and sacred
history to light in an inspiring way. Many such productions followed; it is
only a matter of time I suppose until the great scriptural epics may be treated
in the same way.
I went to see The movie Noah expecting to be entertained and not expecting the
movie to be spiritually uplifting. I was extremely disappointed. There was no
real resemblance to the Biblical account of Noah. I really enjoy reading The
Deseret News article. When we came out of the movie most people who were leaving
Seemed very disappointed as well. I posted on Facebook Avoid wasting your
money. The Movie neither entertains or enlightens. The comedy's written
previously were more fun. This movie seemed designed to destroy faith in God.
all that pseudo biblical reference rhetoric just to avoid the obvious... It
I still don't get where these criticisms are coming from. I'm an
active member of the LDS Church, and I loved the film. Thinking this portrayal
was somehow disrespectful to Noah as a prophet shows the unfortunate way in
which members of the church worship prophets - We don't know what was going
through Noah's mind as he received God's instructions, but one can
imagine that it was difficult, that he had doubts, and, most certainly, that he
was imperfect. Yes, Aronofsky added in CGI and action scenes (as DeMille did in
the Ten Commandments), but he absolutely approached this film respectfully,
raising thematic questions of faith, spirituality, revelation, tension between
good and evil, etc. Mankind has spent all of history struggling to understand
God's will, struggling to please God, struggling to follow God, and this
film insightfully shows a family experiencing precisely that.
It does seem like most of the criticisms of this film from Christian reviewers
do fail to take into consideration the fact that the Bible does not contain
every tradition associated with the story of Noah. This article does take a
broader approach, although it still is a rather lukewarm review of the film
itself. Again, I just have to see it and decide for myself.
"Had Aronofsky read a little deeper into Jewish tradition,..."I
don't think the director had any intention from the beginning to go beyond
making a fictional action movie titled, "Noah" let alone delving deeper
into script and religion!I have no problem with that direction. I do
think, however, the author of this article is going a bit too deep in trying to
analyze a script that is probably not worthy of such analysis. "Loosely
based on the story of" is the maxim here.
The way I think about it is. Would you rather have movies that are have a tiny
bit of the bible in it or one that has a bunch of random super heros fighting
aliens?I would rather take movies of any type that promotes the
scriptures in whatsoever fashion whatsoever.If a child went to the
Noah film don't you think he would likely to be more interested and
imaginative towards the scriptures.Far to many of us simply look at
the scriptures too literally.This could partially be the reason why
some people don't like religion in the first place because very few people
actually use their imagination with regards to the scriptures.
I bet each and every single person who saw this movie [and many who did not],
sat down, opened up their bibles and read it just to compare.As far as I'm concered...Mission Accomplished.
This film is nothing more than Lord of the Rings with a few bible words thrown
in the mix. I'm surprised Noah didn't land the Ark somewhere in Middle
Earth to be greeted by Orks. Having an Atheist write about God is like having
Hitler write a commentary about the Jews. Perspective is everything.
Movies are for entertainment. I do not look to Hollywood for moral guidance or
teaching, just for fun. Haven't seen the movie but I could see Crowe doing
a good job as Noah. I wasn't planning on going but after reading this
review, I just might.
Why is anyone troubled by the fact that this movie is not strictly faithful to
the Bible?After all, I have read this author's "In
God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel", and
his wild and rambling interpretation is also not strictly faithful to any
canonized doctrine about Noah.And contrary to the title, I
didn't see a lot of official "LDS perspective" in this article at
I saw the movie, and I enjoyed it. The Bible story is pretty short, it
doesn't give a whole lot of detail, definitely not a feature length
film's worth. Even in the parts that were changed, or made up completely, I
felt like led me to ponder on just what life for Noah and his family would have
been like. I would say that the movie did inspire me to more wholly consider
Noah and the challenges and blessings that he received from God.
Whats so neat about the Noah true story is that pretty much all DNA and
archeaology show a huge die-0ff about 4,000 years ago and animals and plants and
people can all trace their family history to that flood event. Science backs us
to bluebullet94God is omnipresent. So, he was part of the movie.
to JonathanPDX"...Needless to say, I wish I had that 139 minutes
back."Thanks. I decided to go see Sabotage and sounds like I
chose wisely.... sort of.re: J-TXShouldn't this
version of Noah sent out his son in a dinghy to see if the end of the planet had
ended??p.s. Man Of Steel reference
Is it worth even seeing? My pops and I want to go see it but have been torn by
all the different critics.
Oatmeal,"....There is absolutely no physical evidence of a
global catastrophic flood. None...."______________________________In 2004, an earthquake beneath the Indian Ocean caused a tsunami that
killed a quarter of a million people. It’s not hard to imagine how a
catastrophic regional flood of such magnitude and destructive force might have
been explained 5,000 years ago. It would be a flood of the only world a tribe
knew, the entire world.as they may have believed. The toll on human life and
civilization becomes an event that endures in human memory passed on to children
and grandchildren. That’s how legends emerge.
I think one problem is you're not turning a book into a movie, you're
turning less than 5 pages into a movie so you sorta need to add... something to
pad the length. Which is not to say all these particular non-Biblical plot
points put in is the way to go, I'm just not sure how you could possible
have a feature length movie on something a couple pages long and have it not
contain a bunch of non-Biblical elements. Probably why this sort of thing is
more ideal for 5-10 minute cartoon videos for kids in Sunday School or a
documentary on something like great flood accounts across history.
@Oatmeal:"There is absolutely no physical evidence of a global
catastrophic flood. None. Nada. Zip. "Polynesians have flood legends.
So don't be so sure about 'nada'.The one that I am
familiar with is that the warriors of Tevaitau on Rapa admired the rainbow god
for his beauty so they climbed up into the sky. They covered their eyes with
grass so that the sun would not blind them. They stole the Rainbox God and they
brought him to earth. He escaped and he broke open the sky and everything
flooded. The only people who survived floated away in a gourd.
It's just too bad Charlton Heston and Cecil B DeMille can't come back
and do this movie right based on the actual account of the Bible. And heaven
forbid, actually include God as part of it.
"...the preponderance of historical and scientific evidence of a Biblical
worldwide flood?"There is absolutely no physical evidence of a
global catastrophic flood. None. Nada. Zip. I take the Bible
seriously. The Flood could be metaphorical language for something else.
Personally, I just didn't see the point in subsidizing the movie industry
when they present such a denigrated view of a prophet of God. Noah was a
courageous and righteous man, who deserved better. No amount of entertainment
or amazing special effects can overcome that negative aspect of the movie for
"If everyone were like me, Hollywood would go broke in a month; it
can't happen too soon."Never fails; produce a movie about a
figure or event which plays an important role in someone's religion, and
out come the "Hollywood stinks!" crowd with a faith-based bone to pick.
If you don't like movies, why is this something you would bother to comment
on? You don't like movies . . or at least nasty, immoral, liberal
"modern" movies. Fine and dandy; you actively avoid going to the cinema.
That's your choice, but don't act like you still have valuable input
regarding something you know nothing about.As for the "Oh, they
deviated from the Old Testament story!" crowd . . just stop it. Honestly,
STOP. There is no conceivable way anyone could produce a feature film of this
story and please you. Your silly, predictable objections are duly noted. Bye
slcdenizenI guess we do not follow Jesus according to your
interpretation of what Jesus said. But that is a broad brush to paint ALL
christian conservatives with. You are one who says not to judge but turns
around and judges arent you? You ask for tolerance when you will not be
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are
here?" Russel Crowe as Maximus in Gladiator.I guess Noah should
have reminded its audience.
Could it be that the powers that control Hollywood are running up a white flag
of surrender to the preponderance of historical and scientific evidence of a
Biblical worldwide flood?
I was watching the preview and all this water is shooting out of the ground.
Where did it come from? It made me think about string theory and quantum
mechanics. Some physicists have the idea that the universe started out with 11
or 12 dimensions and that only four unrolled. That opens up the possibility of
several parallel universes. One theory about why gravity is much smaller than
other forces, is that it is leaking in from a parallel universe.If
someone could somehow open up the gap between our universe and a parallel
universe so that a lot more gravity leaked through, or energy in our universe
got sucked out, etc. Or whatever things besides energy or mass or charge that
we don't know about crossed over, it would be awfully hard for someone like
a bronze age shepherd to describe. Actually, it would be hard for people in our
time to describe.If someone tried to describe it, people without
much imagination would seriously wonder if this was the result of a delusion,
pscychedelic mushrooms, whatever.
I'm with Little Stream - movies are for entertainment purposes, with a
trifling hope that any on a biblical theme will inspire someone to pick up their
own scriptures and read from them. Being both a member of the
Church and part of the industry, I'm often asked why I don't use the
medium to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. The short answer is probably
because I don't want it subjected to ridicule. No more rabid critics exist
than those in film. Many outstanding members manage to lead quiet,
exemplary lives here, while others are swept into the deluge. Conversion comes
from a pinprick to the heart, not in massive 3D technicolor. Movies can inspire
questions, but the answers come only from heaven.
Thank you for your thorough, and excellent review! I don't think this is
one for me, but I enjoyed reading your take on it.
@oremtigger7"the liberal atheists take the bible and mock
conservatives by twisting their stories to fit their views."When
Christian conservatives start following Jesus, let us know. Until then,
we'll continue to challenge and provoke.
I cannot remember if I have ever seen a movie that was really factual so I
expect to see much interpretation. But then, I am also the type of person that
won't waste my time on entertainment that is depressing so reality is not
really something I find all too often in films. Part of me may still give the
film a chance, but I read another article written by a religious scholar who
said he was bored with the movie's story line. Well if the director wasted
a couple hours of my time and I wasn't even entertained? Well, I am still
on the bench.
I get the entertain me value of the movies. But its the in your face "re
invent history with my liberal perspective" direction that was most
ridiculous. Noah was some environmental nut who believed man was lesser than
the animals and flowers. Why no wood stock moment with the tambourines?
Trees? Gone? When an animal dies he is mortified. But killing his own grand
babies or letting innocent girls die, ho hum. Tubal cain saw man as
God's highest creation and that we survived by our work, or capitalism.
Very strange movie. The rock transformers was just odd. I found myself
laughing through the movie. The reason it is such an affront is the liberal
atheists take the bible and mock conservatives by twisting their stories to fit
I had a different experience seeing the Movie "Noah". At 909pm Friday
night (3/25) Just as God Almighty finished drowning all of Earth's
inhabitants, save for one one disfunctional family, He let loose a 5.1
earthquake whose epicenter was some 3 miles away from my Movie Theater. Needless
to say my party and I left the theater. We came home to a house with hairline
cracks in the walls and home objects knocked out of cupboards. All in all we
were glad we were at the theater. The Power was out for about 10-15 minutes
afterwards. The local outdoor Electric substation was showering sparks during
the seismic event. I went to see the movie with an open mind. It was
entertaining how the director wove the multiple Flood Narrative stories into a
coherent movie. Decide for ourself my fellow readers.
Saw the movie and wouldn't recommend for any of my family to see it. Left
the theater feeling that I had just seen a movie that was 95% fiction. About the
only things he got right in the movie vs. Biblical account was their names,
there was an ark and a world wide flood. All the stuff in between was like
watching Transformers or another episode of Lord of the Rings. Very
I go to movies to be entertained, not to learn history or see an exact
replication of a book. If one expects strict adherence to historic fact or every
detail correctly transferred from a book, what would be the point? You can do
that for free in your own mind.
Why would I want to go see a movie about the Bible created by a group of people
who openly mock me for believing in the Bible?
A fine review, well reasoned and thoughtfully written. Rather than praising or
condemning the film for pedestrian reasons it points us to Apocryphonic texts
and interpretations from the Midrashic authors which most are unfamiliar with -
and which can - in conjunction with modern revelation - sometimes give us deeper
understandings.Well done.Regardless of the personal
vision (or its lack) held by the director, producers and writers, I am glad that
they made the movie - if only for this review.Let's use Noah as
a springboard to read or re-read Genesis slowly and thoughtfully with our
Why the space, time, and effort to try and "explain" or justify how an
avowed atheist wrote a script as if the Biblical accounts were myths? It is
clear he wrote this as if it were a story like Hercules or Peter Pan.
Unfortunately, unlike the one Noah sent out prior to the doves, this Crowe will
I've toyed back and for with going to see the movie; especially when the
only adds I have had were on the radio and presented by the makers of the film
with the verbal assurance that this film kept closely to the Biblical account
with little dramatic license taken.I'm glad I got a chance to
read this review as it, if nothing else, helps to keep this 'epic' (so
called) film in perspective. I'm sure if I had seen it I would have easily
noted the partings from scriptural accounts. At least at this point I
won't waste my money seeing the film. As stated in another comments,
I'll wait until I can check it out from the library if I am desperately
needing to see it.
Considering how many years and translations we're looking at this myth
through, I think 'perspective' is a bit strong as a term, and no one
has claim to anything more than mere wild conjecture as to the veracity of a
story this old. It's a movie, like Iron Man or Nixon, a character made up
to amuse us.
What we read in Genesis is only the surface of multi-layered traditions going
back so far that their origins and developments are unrecoverable to history.
What was preserved is the essence of a story deemed important by a particular
group making its way toward Sinai and its emergence as a distinct people with a
peculiar understanding of its relationship with God.That alone is
enough to have reverence for. It’s endured for ages and will continue to
do so long after the Hollywood hunger for box office gold was thrown into the
mix. I concur with the view that there is no harm in seeing the movie whether
it’s a tribute or sheer exploitation.
Excellent review. Christians, including Mormons, who severely condemn this film
for not being "accurate" seem to miss the point. Our own "Bible
stories" for children sometimes distort what the Bible really says or does
not say. Hence a film like "Noah" invites us to rethink assumptions and
reminds us of the complex mix of facts, myths, and how the past is told.
I'm not sure why there has been such a big fuss. This movie is just as much
fiction as the story in the bible is. They are both meant to inspire and
I wonder how the real Noah feels about this movie...
First, it's only a movie. It's entertainment. Nothing more. Second,
it is based on a story in the Bible that is not only short on detail, it is
written by Moses, based on oral tradition handed down over a period of more than
a thousand years. That's like you or me writing about events in 1014 AD.
There is no way, none, to say that the story is reliable, true, accurate, etc.
Further, to quote, "The Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, composed about 2500
BC, contains a flood story almost exactly the same as the Noah story in the
Pentateuch, with a few variations ... the flood story in Genesis 6–8
matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt" that it derives
from a Mesopotamian account. What is particularly noticeable is the way the
Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in
the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives". So if
the movie deviates from the Bible, I don't see it as a big deal. There is
no big religious question here, couched in academic language or not.
Excellent review. If you go to see this movie as just one man's
Hollywood version of an artistically loose, quasi-interpretation of a biblical
event with a mythic, pseudo-sci-fi quality, you won't be disappointed.Needless to say, I wish I had that 139 minutes back.
I think the most amazing aspect of the reactions to this movie, which I have not
seen, is that there is apparently so much controversy about the
"Hollywoodization" of it. Especially when comparisons are made to other
"Biblical" epics as "The Ten Commandments". I have seen that
movie, more than once, and each time I'm entertained by the comically
overwrought acting and general theatrics.True, I think DeMille was
more sensitive to the idea of hewing to the Biblical story line and including
obvious and frequent references to its Godliness, something that is apparently
almost completely absent in "Noah". But DeMille certainly didn't
spare on the equivalents to 1950's CGI in terms of the grand spectacle of
the Red Sea parting or the writing of the tablets.From the
descriptions given by many people, I've concluded that for me
"Noah" is another movie for which I can await seeing until its DVD
arrival at my local library, if then. But, like "The Ten Commandments",
I won't bother worrying about its adherence to scripture at all. I have no
expectations from Hollywood for devotion to anything but money.
Noah Crowe, yea right....don't think so.
I didn't finish reading the article and I won't go see the movie.
Hollywood has never been accused of making an accurate movie---they're all
fiction. Something as recent and well-documented as the Kennedy Assassination
is just full of cinematic license and interpretation. How would film makers get
anything right? Just remember that movies are intended to do one thing above
all else: entertain, and that is why they can charge such huge prices for a
movie ticket. If everyone were like me, Hollywood would go broke in a month; it
can't happen too soon.
My recommendation would be to watch the movie to be entertained but not
inspired. I felt it was the "Bible meets Transformers". I didn't
understand the "rock monsters" and don't remember that being
presented in Sunday School. I did, however, appreciate the enormous task and
burden that Noah was presented with and his conflict of fulfilling that
commandment. The movie presents biblical fantasy, not historical reality!
Really? This atheist director didn't follow the biblical story? That's
weird. My question is why did he bother calling the movie "Noah"?
Everything else was fiction, why not call the main character "Bill" or
"Steve" or "Mack"? I'm amused so many people are up in arms
about the departure of this movie from the bible or writing articles like this
one to show the rest of us how this movie failed to follow historical documents.
Well written. I appreciate the literary perspective, as all the reviews have
merely panned the movie from a biblical perspective.That said, I
believe I have better things to spend my money on....
I guess maybe I look at films and books differently than most people. I ASSUME
that they are fiction, developed for my entertainment. If this movie causes
more people to read the scriptures it will be a good thing. This article does
well in pointing out the many translations and interpretations of scripture. If
someone states they are doing a movie following scripture, then we should read
scripture and see if that is true. Until then we should look at this as another
entertaining (or not) piece of fiction. Too many people today believe film and
video games to be fact.