I went to see Noah last evening. I had briefly blogged about it earlier to draw readers’ attention to Brian Mattson’s review, which I highly recommend. I’m not going to recycle his observations. I just wanted to share some impressions.
This is s a weird movie. Not in the sense of being disturbing. Weird in the sense of being a disjointed amalgam of traditions that keep running into each other. It left me with the impression that the director was either utterly clueless or intentionally strategic. I think it’s the latter.
Yes, there are overt Gnostic elements in the film (but it’s not “all Gnostic”). They are so overt (to someone familiar with the material) that I’d say the effort was unimaginative. Those unfamiliar with that sort of material will find the film downright bizarre, as though the director was incapable of getting the simplest things right — whether that means the biblical material or a coherent Gnostic narrative (if there is such a thing – Gnostic cosmologies tend to read like the authors were on hallucinogens).
Perhaps an analogy will help. When I say this film is an amalgam of several strands of tradition (one of which is biblical) but the result is unimaginative, it’s because I couldn’t help comparing it to The Matrix. That movie did the same thing — a strong Gnostic core married to overt biblical content (not surprising since the two are related), with other ancient and modern philosophical ideas thrown into the blender. But the result was a clever, absorbing film with a coherent story. Noah fails in that respect in every regard. From start to finish it changes, inverts, and subverts. Again — either cluelessness or an intentional stratagem.
As I noted above, I’m on the side that this is deliberate. I’d echo Mattson’s thoughts, but feel I need to add an element. A Gnostic who goes to see Noah will have the same complaint as the Bible-believer: “Why does Aronofsky keep throwing stuff in here that isn’t in our texts?” The answer, I think, is so he can claim to not have had an agenda (“If I’d really wanted to take sides I’d have told one side”). In other words: the tortured amalgam that is Noah offers plausible deniability.
So what’s he wanting to deny? I would answer that with this question: “What are the core elements of the story that get repetition — and, therefore, reinforcement?” That’s easy. Two are pretty transparent.
1. The luminescent beings that are supposed to be Adam and Eve and the luminescent character of the serpent’s skin — which is the birthmark of the line of Seth (and so, Noah) in the movie are deliberately connected (via the luminescence) and repeated with some frequency. The skin is also a visual inclusio for the film. It is a unifying theme. This is pure Gnosticism in some respects. But the serpent is not cast as the hero per se. He never says anything, never tells Eve that she’ll be enlightened if she eats. Aronofsky excludes that. It would make the agenda too obvious. Skipping that allows critics of what I’m saying (or what Mattson has said) to say “If he really wanted to teach Gnosticism he wouldn’t have messed that up.” Plausible deniability.
2. “God” is not responsible for creation or what his creatures screw up — the “Creator” is. For those of you familiar with Gnosticism, that will make sense. I don’t recall the word “God” being in the film (though I can’t help wondering if it was there at the Big Bang – which would be a Gnostic feature – someone let me know, please). At any rate, in Gnosticism, the Creator of our world is the Demiurge (“The Maker”). He is an evil, callous being and not the “true God.” In this movie, the creator is not loving or merciful. At best he is apathetic. He seems incapable of making a noble moral decision (which describes the Demiurge well). Even the matter of whether humans survive, the movie tells us, is left to one man — Noah. The Creator was incapable of making this basic moral choice, but Noah was – because he has the spark of divinity in him from the “true God” (he is of the line of Seth and has the serpent birthright).
A few more random thoughts:
1. I really liked the Big Bang to life on earth visual sequence. Hugh Ross ought to love it. It’s basically day-age made visual. I don’t hold that view (I don’t hold any of the Christian views, nor am I a materialist), but this was well done. Young-earthers of course are irate over this.
2. The luminescent beings (Adam and Eve) really cannot be called human, and they are not shown evolving from apes, contrary to young earth creationist reviews. The sequence moves up to primates and then Noah says “And then the creator made humanity” (or something like that). There is no transitional formation. Only the sequence allows young-earthers to get distracted from the messaging. The real message is that humanity was divine but visible and terrestrial. A product of the creator, yet also divinity. Not a complete Gnostic retelling, but faithful to one of its core ideas. So instead of people going back to their churches and saying “we need to understand Gnosticism so we can (like Irenaeus) rebut it,” we get people going back and asking if Ken Ham can be scheduled for a creationism seminar.
3. Yes, its annoying that Methuselah, Noah, and Noah’s wife seem to be trained magicians and alchemists. This is pervasive throughout the film. (Why can’t they just start a fire the way Bear Grylls would – why the “zohar” sparky stuff that looks like fool’s gold?) I kept waiting for Emma Watson (Shem’s wife) to slip with her lines and call Methuselah Dumbledore. I’m betting it’s in the out-takes. If Aronofsky had wanted to pay attention to the Enochian version of events, he could have had the Watchers teaching that stuff, but there isn’t a clear connection there.
4. Yes, the Watchers are dorky. As Pete Enns said on Twitter (we chatted about the film before I saw it), they are a mixture of rock monsters and Ents. But honestly, they are more morally consistent in the film (good guys) than Noah. They come across as pitiable and sad. You root for them. They aren’t the villains of 1 Enoch, mind you, though they bear the familiar names. Aronofsky erased all the villainy (not to mention most of what 1 Enoch says). That isn’t to say their inclusion isn’t a theological inversion. It is. It’s also disappointing. What about 1 Enoch wouldn’t have made great movie fodder in its own right?
5. All that stuff about environmental wackiness driving the film? Yeah, that’s true. In perhaps the only place where Aronofsky is careful to quote the biblical text (Gen 1:28) the dominion mandate is cast as pure cruelty — not a hint of its actual stewardship intent. Oops … sorry for that spasm of biblical theology on my part.
In short, don’t expect to find anything in the film uplifting. Noah’s “turn” at the end toward sparing life is clumsy and contrived (and of course it originates within him – Oprah could have made a cameo there). It’s visually spectacular, but that just means it’s one of those films where the director will get credit for the creativity that deserves to go to the special effects / CGI people.
Mike,
I enjoyed your review and Mattson’s too. Have you seen Steve Greydanus’ comment that Peter Chattaway persuasively rebutted Mattson’s gnostic view? I often like Greydanus’ reviews, but I don’t agree with him this time. As for Chattaway, I believe he is just a film reviewer. It is somewhat irritating to read people who are not scholars in the field saying they know the film’s not gnostic. Chattaway’s review of Mattson is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/no-noah-is-not-gnostic-say-that-ten-times-fast.html
It’s also worth reading Chattaway’s http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/03/the-jewish-roots-of-and-responses-to-noah.html (and he’s got several more posts by now). As for his credentials, “Peter studied history, religious studies, and film at the University of B.C” (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/peter-t-chattaway/).
Personally, I haven’t seen the film yet, but so far the Jewish/kabbalistic arguments have seemed more convincing to me than the gnostic ones. Not least because it’s made by a Jew, and Jews themselves seem to consider it Jewish. While it may be easy to miss gnostic elements if you know little about gnosticism, it is also true that it’s easy to interpret kabbalistic elements as gnostic if you know a lot about gnosticism but little about kabbalah and real live Judaism.
There’s also an interesting piece at https://frted.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/theophany-baptism-and-the-garment-of-salvation-1/ about the Patristic belief that pre-Fall Adam and Eve had ‘garments of light’, similar to Jesus at the Transfiguration and Moses after meeting God. I hadn’t met that idea before, but it strikes me as making a lot of sense.
Hey Michael, you mentioned you do not hold any of the christian views, does that mean you would not call your self a christian? There are heaps and heaps of christian views.
I will state my views, of theology (in the christian realm) this may help people to understand where I am coming from.
First of all ,I do not believe in the classic view of evolution or creation, as the base of both these theories is,.. TIME. I have studied time and its supposed closest relative light. ‘Lene Hau’ has a great explanation of how light works to the best of our knowledge here…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFx8m41QWM ……
To do with evolution theory, I believe there is a’serious and very real’ agenda entwined into post modern scientific bias (modern obviously being a relative{to the TIME} word. The ‘old earth vs, young earth’ debate is just, another form of separation within the body of the Christ. Denominations is a very interesting word. All peace to you, and please ask questions.
Thank you for bringing up light/time regarding creation. This is quite exciting, and I look forward to thinking and reading about it. God is wondrous. Man is created, and limited, yet endowed with the ability to think about his Creator.
That being said, this is my first encounter with Dr. Heiser, and he might possibly be bats.
not bats; just not married to any traditions! I try to be text-driven.
Hey again Mike, I understand where you are coming from now, I agree its good to be text driven.Please check out that ‘Lene Hau’ video its very well explained for such a complex subject.
Wow, Jill, that’s like walking in to someone’s house for the first time and peeing on the rug.
Please lets engage in time and light correlations , I have a great yearning for conversations around these subjects. evolution relies on, human conception of physics and physical interpretations of the omniphysical.
Dr. Heiser,
I also would like clarification of what you meant under Random Thoughts #1, by ” (I don’t hold any of the Christian views, nor am I a materialist)…”
I LOVE your novel, The Facade! Much of your scholarly writing is way over my head, but I look forward to reading more on your new page.
Thank you.
What I mean by that is I don’t think the biblical writers were encrypting scientific information or specific models of creationism in what they wrote. For instance, an old-earther would say the word for “day” (yom) refers to an evolutionary epoch / age. I don’t think that’s what the biblical writer had in his head, so I can’t honestly argue that’s what the word or text “means”. They used the word yom because that’s the word for “day” (they didn’t invent new words). Their content (like the sky being solid – Job 37:18; Prov 8:28) tells me that’s what they thought, so a literal reading (favored by young earthers) isn’t going to yield a scientific model either. I don’t see the biblical writers *intending* any sort of creationist model. They simply affirmed a creator and identified that creator as the God of Israel. Since I believe in a creator (God), I’m not a materialist.
Well said. I keep trying to tell people that the Bible contains immensely transcendent information, but it is related on a “need to know” basis. There is enough to infer much of the complexity of God’s universe, but not enough to predict time and structure. Besides nuances of creation, when did Satan fall? How is it that the angels saw the creation and were glad? Was Satan glad as well? I have my own wacky ideas on this, but it is just that, my own inference on the meager scraps the Lord has given us. Mystery is a good thing, it allows us to keep turning to the Lord in faith and trust, and not leaning upon ourselves.
I think , the whole idea of Satan is a bit more complex than you infer in your comments. The bible is not a ‘mystery book’.
Micheal has covered quite a bit in his you tube vids, podcats and blogs, I would suggest you comb those to find your answers if possible .
Mike, I’ve heard Hugh Ross talk about.(the whole day/period of time/significant numbers) Subject. My opinion is (yom) has nothing to do with evolutionary vs creationism arguments. I do have to mention that, Uniformaterianism thinking ,is mentioned in the bible. And the bible clearly makes the point that , there is a realm beyond known physics of the time, I think this is still the case, so the bible is relative (to 21st century thinking) in that matter.
Sorry, correction (Uniformitarianism)
2 peter 3:4 was the verse I was thinking of.
http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-4.htm
I thought the watchers were – yes nephilim – but also drew on the notion of jinni encased in golem bodies – perhaps shades of Helene Wecker.
And the snakeskin used as tefillin gave thematic unity. I can’t help but think of the fact that today, women are wrapping tefillin, and perhaps that is what happens next in this movie. Women pass down the birthright through wrapping tefillin.
Also bringing Tubal Cain into the plot allowed Noah to have a conversation/debate with an interlocutor. My main problem with the movie was that it was far too loud at the Imax. And I thought the most notable thing about the movie was the costumes, real NY designers at their best!
http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2014/03/29/noah-a-rabbis-review/
nice note on the Jinn.
I came by to ask if you think nephilim really existed as giants. I hope you got my commentary on the Noah movie.
Yes, but I’m quite different in that regard than pretty much all other pop Christian writers/conspiracy theorists. Just search my site for “giants” and you’ll get several posts that deal with that.
From the profile of Aronofsky at the New Yorker a few weeks back I’d say that he’s more into the controversy (he is repeatedly quoted to the effect of “wanting to make his audience think” and “leaving them to decide”) than anything else. I haven’t seen Noah but he is clearly well versed in gnostic traditions given his first movie Pi, that is full of kabalistic references.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_friend
I like very much your interpretation of literalism above that you “don’t see the biblical writers *intending* any sort of creationist model.” Hear, hear.
Hey, I did not realize the Noah movie was made by the same guy that made Pi, Pi now that I think about it, was like bible code , full conspiracy stuff. Also Quadcopters are freaking awesome.
The fallen angels in the movie are Golem, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
Hey man, as far as i know, there is no mention of inanimate objects becoming animate and controllable.
There is a belief that is among the mystery schools,(probably from Gnostic and ancient pagan teachings), It has to do with, the creator using already available substances to create humans,and therefore humans mimicking, God as he was revealed in texts/word of mouth. I think this is one of the main reasons that Idolatry was a big no-no in Gods revelation to the Israelite’, and a common theme (OT and NT) Though I am also sure that, pagans were not stupid and inanimate objects very much did become animate.
On your point 3, I believe one sequence does portray the watchers teaching the use of the “zohar” sparky stuff to humans. I agree, the rest of the magic stuff was annoying.
I found the greatest value of the movie, for me as a Christian, was its portrayal of the flood as apocalyptic. I was raised hearing the Noah story all the time in Sunday school, and so even as an adult my memory and perception of the flood was very “G rated”, with lots of happy cute animals and a fun looking boat, and a fun adventure at sea ending with a nice hike down a mountain to a happy looking rainbow.
Despite its MANY theological problems, I thought the movie’s portrayal of the flood as a horrific, destructive apocalypse of unparalleled proportion to be far more accurate to Scripture than the images I had been raised with. I’ll never forget the dream sequence where Noah finds himself standing in 100’s of acres of crushed human bodies.
I just finished listening to your presentations at Temple Baptist in NC a few weeks ago, looking forward to reading more of your material!
One more question, and I know you’ve addressed this many times already, but with regard to your stance on “creationism”, is there a point in Genesis beyond which you do take the account to be literal? I can understand your position of not wanting to force the text into 6 literal days vs. 6 day-ages, but the fact of there existing one literal man named Adam seems pivotal to me in the rest of Scripture (ex. Romans 4:12-20 of course, among others). Do you start with day 6 onward? Or Genesis 2:5? or 2:7? I don’t mean for that to sound antagonistic, I know this can be a divisive issue, I really am just curious, I haven’t sorted all this out for myself yet.
Thanks for sharing!
– Keegan