By Kyle Osborne
The deal breaker for me wasn’t whether ‘Noah’ took artistic liberties with the Bible’s ancient story from Genesis. It wasn’t that Noah (Russell Crowe) and his family wear clothes akin to jeans and hoodies—or that they do that dramatic removal of the hood (kind of like when actors remove their eyeglasses in an overly dramatic fashion) anytime they are shown in close-up. Nope, what killed it for me—and this isn’t a spoiler, it happens early in the film—was the team of monsters made of lava rock. They move with an unrealistic, herky-jerky gait, reminiscent of the old ‘Jason and The Argonaut’ type films. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I can’t find a studio photo of them anywhere, and they aren’t included in any of the video made available through the publicity department.
Director Darren Aronofsky makes you believe that flowers can sprout fully developed from just a single rain drop. He and Crowe make you believe that a man such as Noah could have existed and have genuinely felt he was being called by God to build an Ark (although many of us of a certain age will instantly hear Bill Cosby’s voice in our heads, as he imagines a skeptical Noah answering the booming voice of God by saying, “Riiiight (pause—pause) what’s an ‘Ark?” Crowe’s straight faced, slow burn performance is just right. Jenifer Connelly and Anthony Hopkins are competent in their roles as wife and grandfather, respectively.
But Aronofsky’s digital embodiment of these creatures, mentioned fleetingly in the Bible only a couple of times as Nephilim, a set of Giants, perhaps, in Canaan, immediately took me out of the story. Two of every creature into one big, wooden, storage shed? No problem. But clunky, mineral-based Transformers, who actually help to build the Ark and kill the bad guys? I’m out.
Well, not literally out. A professional reviewer stays until the bitter end, hoping that things will turn around, dramatically speaking. It takes ten years in the film for the Ark to be completed and ready for the rains—and it feels like ten years have passed. Up until then, Aronofsky’s semi-artsy, semi-schlocky take on the material feels very much like what they would have called a “Head Film” in the late 60’s and into the 70’s; Trippy visuals, surrealistic landscapes, and a less than forward moving narrative that might not be as appealing to those not “herbally enchancing” their movie-going experience.
Once the waters begin to sweep away everyone to their deaths, things briefly get intense, though not too graphic, the film is rated PG-13. It’s all rather anti-climactic. Some early scenes suggest that Noah is an environmentalist, and possibly even Vegan–while urban areas are broadly painted as dens of depravity.
It’s well known that the studio, Paramount Pictures, along with the director, have sought the approval of certain Christian organizations, insisting that the film adheres to the ‘spirit’ of Noah, if not the actual text. The video press materials put more than a little emphasis on their wish to stay somewhat true to original story. I have no dog in that fight, and I have no problem with the expectations of either religious or non-religious audiences. But the pressure to turn a profit on a film that reportedly cost 130 million dollars is enormous. And it seems that by trying to please everyone, they’ll end up pleasing no one. The film is both too literal and too fantastical, weaving the two tones into an awkward mash-up.
For 25 years I have defended filmmakers who come under fire based on how ‘accurately’ they adapt the source material—whether it be a best-selling novel or the Good Book, film is a medium that, by definition, can never be a simple recitation of a transcript. Even the great Tracey Letts couldn’t adapt his amazing play ‘August: Osage County’ into a satisfying screenplay. It’s hard. Expectations are always unrealistically high.
My beef is so simple: I was bored, I was taken out of the story by what really amounts to not-so-great visual effects, and I was not entertained. In fact, Noah comes across as something of a psycho—not because he thinks the world will be destroyed (I mean, he ends up being right within the story) but because he lets an innocent girl die and even threatens to kill babies with his own knife. If we’re gonna play loosey-goosey can we at least have a protagonist to root for?
Yep, I just don’t like it because, to this critic, it’s not a good movie. It’s not good storytelling. That’s all a movie goer can ask for.
Finally, a note for my Mom and others who may wonder: It’s been widely reported that the film never mentions God, or rather never uses the word “God.” Not true. It’s easy to miss, and at least two of my colleagues who attended the same screening didn’t hear it, but there is a moment when a character says, “The creator is God.” Otherwise, the film always refers to “The Creator” or uses the pronoun, “He.”
Mom had heard from a priest, who had read somewhere, that God doesn’t get much screen time, but he is referred to often—even the villain, Tubal Cain (the great Cockney actor, Ray Winstone) believes in God, although he thinks God has abandoned the world and bemoans the fact that God speaks to others, but not to him.
I firmly believe that everyone involved in the making of this film had their hearts in the right place. There’s an old saying, “No one intentionally sets out to make a bad movie.” True. But it happens, even to talented and admired movie makers.
I wish I could say something nicer. Sorry, Mom.
Noah is rated PG-13. It gets 1 out of 4 Stars