Review: "Noah"

I am not very good at keeping up with this blog, but I update it when I see a movie that I can't shake. Noah is one of those movies.

Noah preaching to the people

Full disclosure: As a Mormon, or member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I had my preconceived notions about who Noah was before I saw the movie. I believe he was a prophet of God, and that he was commanded to preach repentance to the people of his time. Most ignored his warnings, and in the end only his family was saved from the Flood, which was, in essence, the Earth's baptism by water, preceding it's future baptism by fire, that will happen at Christ's Second Coming. (Genesis 5-9). For a deeper understanding of those events, read The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 8. (additional volume of holy scripture espoused by Latter-day Saints).

First, let's talk about the director, Darren Aronofsky. Jewish by birth, atheist by declaration, I always find it fascinating when he explores the spiritual in his films. The Fountain (2006) is a film that shares many similarities with Noah. Both films explore spirituality in a way that is completely absent in his darker, more nihilistic films (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan). He is a true auteur, or a director with a particular style. His films are generally very dark, and the messages are heavy-handed.

In The Fountain, the concept of the fall of Adam and Eve is explored similarly as in Noah. In The Fountain, it's explained that through the fall (or the eating of the forbidden fruit and expulsion from Eden) death is introduced to mankind. The protagonist in that film works to find a cure for death, what he calls a "disease." In Noah, the fall of Adam and Eve introduces sin into the world. I believe Adam's transgression brought about sin and death, as explained in both films.

Noah has caused a lot of controversy among religious people. Glenn Beck said the film was "terrible," and many Christian viewers have denounced it as Hollywood environmentalist propaganda. Most have complained the film is not accurate to the Bible story of Noah.

I don't see it that way at all.

I reread the story of Noah in Genesis and in the additional scriptures that we use in my faith. I believe modern revelation teaches that Noah preached repentance to the people, and tried to get them to turn from their evil ways or else they would be destroyed.

The Genesis account, however, mentions nothing of Noah's preaching; in fact, it never even mentions that he tried to get the people to repent. He just said "bump y'all," essentially, and got on the boat with his family and the animals. It also says that it "repented the Lord" that he had made made on the earth, giving the impression that God made a mistake in creating man in His image. 

I personally take the Genesis account with a grain of salt. Most traditional Christians, however, do not. Neither do the Jews, who regard Noah as a failed prophet because he they believe he did not try to save the people from the flood. This is why he is largely an afterthought in Jewish teachings and is not counted as the father of Judaism. That title belongs to Abraham, whose posterity God covenanted He would make as numerous as the "sand which is on the sea shore." (Genesis 22:17) With Noah, God made a covenant for the earth's sake, that he would never destroy it by water again. (Hence the significance of the rainbow at the end of the film-see Genesis 9:13-16). He did not make a direct promise to Noah. 

Many have dismissed Noah as inaccurate to the Bible's version of events. While artistic license is definitely taken (especially with the Tolkien-esque Watchers, or giant rock monsters who help Noah build the ark), the film remains true to the essence of the Genesis account. The Bible does say there "were giants in the earth," (Genesis 6:4, Moses 8:18) and the Watchers are Aronofsky's weird, yet functional interpretation of that passage. Russell Crowe's Noah never asks the people to repent of their wicked ways, and he is really only concerned with saving his own family. Sounds like the Bible account to me. 

So what's the problem?

I think Christians and biblical fundamentalists bashing this movie need to reread Genesis 4-9. They are so ready to strike when someone not of their faith or ideology takes on a project like this. The story is very dark, and somewhat vague concerning the events surrounding the Flood. God hates the people's wicked ways, and warns Noah that he is going to destroy the world, because it grieved him that he even created man. The account never mentions how Noah feels about all this, a question which I think the film does a great job of confronting head on. The Bible account shows a Noah who is unquestioningly loyal to God's will. The film shows a Noah tormented by the screams of the people drowning outside the ark. Why can't he let them in? Because God said so. 

I personally believe in a more merciful God than the one depicted in the film and in the Genesis account. I believe that God gave the people a chance to repent, and they rejected Noah as a prophet. Their punishment was heaped upon them after multiple warnings. 

OK, enough scripture study. 

The movie: Dark, edgy, melodramatic, powerful. It doesn't know what it wants to be in the first half-hour. Then it becomes an entertaining and thought-provoking study on obedience to God, faith, a crisis of faith and the importance of love and compassion in a world seemingly devoid of it.

The most entertaining section of the film was the second act, where Noah completes the ark, and the animals obey the Lord's command to enter. We are also introduced to Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone, who was added to the film very late in production), a character not in the Biblical account, who serves as the movie's villain. He and his people want in on the ark, but Noah will not allow them. So they try to take it over. The rains come, and the Flood begins. Amazing visuals and very melodramatic scenes make the Flood sequence very powerful, if heavy-handed. (There is a shot where the ark is floating in the background on the stormy sea, and in the foreground you see screaming men, women and children clinging to a rock that has not been submerged. Like something out of a painting. Very Cecil B. DeMille.) There's a horror to that shot that stays with you.

The third act is where many viewers just had enough. Some have likened it to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Ila (Emma Watson), who is Noah's barren adopted daughter, becomes pregnant after Methusaleh (Anthony Hopkins) uses his priesthood to make her fertile. She and Shem (Noah's son- it's unclear if they are married) are ready to raise the child in this post-apocalyptic world. Noah believes God commanded him to let humanity be exterminated, and means to kill his own family. When he discovers Ila is pregnant, he vows to kill her baby as soon as it is born. Very gnarly stuff, not at all in the Biblical account. Noah's wife (Jennifer Connelly-who deserves award consideration for her role here) pleads with him to spare his family. Noah basically goes insane, and his son Ham (Logan Lerman) has had enough, and there's a full on mutiny on the ark.

OK, I loved the third act. It's nowhere in the Bible, but so what? In DeMille's The Ten Commandments, Nefertiri (fictional) loves Moses. That's not in the Bible. Joshua has a love interest. That's not in the Bible.

Get over it, folks.

Noah has a brutal spiritual wrestle with God in this section of the film. The world has been destroyed, and he wants to die with it and bring his family with him. Who's to say the real man didn't feel that way? If you were living in a post-apocalyptic world, wouldn't you experience some sort of faith crisis, and possible insanity? Noah goes crazy, and without spoiling too much, he redeems himself (sort of) in the end.

I thought this was very gutsy filmmaking. A very hard story to tell cinematically, Aronofsky pulls it off in a respectful way, especially considering his atheism. The name "God" is never mentioned in the film. "Creator" is the term used throughout. Another point of controversy.

Christian Bale as Moses, Exodus

Who cares? Creator, God=tomato, tomahto.

I, for one, am glad that movies based on scripture, even loosely based, are being made. It's a return to very old school filmmaking. In December, Ridley Scott's Exodus will be released, starring Christian Bale as Moses and Aaron Paul as Aaron. Can't wait to see the eyebrows that raises.

If you liked Noah, I definitely recommend The Fountain- Similarly frustrating, challenging and beautiful. Gorgeous score by Clint Mansell, who scores all of Aronofsky's films.



I give Noah 3 out of 4 stars. A good effort by Aronofsky, who is known for challenging, thought-provoking and sometimes frustrating films. Safe to say he achieved that.  This is not the cute Sunday School Noah with all the fuzzy animals you learn about in church. Aronofsky introduces us to a very conflicted character. Noah is a film that deserves to be viewed with an open mind, no matter your beliefs.

Review: '12 Years a Slave'

20 years after Spielberg's masterpiece Schindler's List, director Steve McQueen hits it right on the head with one of the best chronicles of human suffering and triumph since then in 12 Years a Slave.

12 Years a Slave is based on the autobiographical book of the same name by Solomon Northup, a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in Louisiana in 1841. This book, to my knowledge, is not used in schools to teach about slavery and before it was a movie, I did not know it was a book. 

The film is brutal. American movies rarely take a look at American slavery. Awards and accolades typically go to the films about the Holocaust (i.e. Schindler's List), and directors are afraid to go into this territory. Tarantino satirized slavery and its ills in last year's Django Unchained, which was nominated for a few awards. Spielberg tried to tackle the subject in Amistad. But no one has really taken a serious and realistic look at American slavery until now. Steve McQueen, ironically a British director, is the only filmmaker to effectively explore the subject of America's shameful past. The movie is very hard to watch, but the audience is left with a feeling of self-reflection and awe at the resilience of the main character.

Many critics have called the violence in the film too preachy and heavy-handed. Being from the South, slavery and what happened years ago are rarely talked about, especially among white people. It's just something we are ashamed of, at the end of the day, and much like German atrocities in World War II are for the German people today, it's not something we like to dwell on. I'll admit, as a white male, I get tired of heavy-handed "white guilt" movies. But this was different. It's told from the point of view of a slave, based on a firsthand account of a slave. It's not sugarcoated, as in Gone with the Wind, and it's not an overblown revenge fantasy, like Django Unchained. 

For all of its brutality, 12 Years a Slave is an extremely uplifting film. My favorite scenes involve music, and how music was key in the survival of these people. Solomon was a musician in his former life, a talented violinist. His talents are abused throughout the film, but we know how much music means to him, and when his violin breaks, so does his spirit. In the movie, African-American spirituals make up a large part of the soundtrack. As slaves pick cotton and bury their dead, music is what gets them through. 

Technically, the movie works brilliantly. Bob Nesbitt is the cinematographer, and he captures the beauty of Louisiana and juxtaposes it against the horror of life on the plantation. 12 years pass throughout the film, and McQueen conveys the passage of time through long nature shots, which are breathtaking. Unlike Schindler's List, which is shot in black-and-white and in very bleak settings, the locations in 12 Years a Slave are attractive. I think that is what makes this film so horrifying, that something so evil could happen in such an idyllic place. 

The performances are great, too. Lubita Nyong'o is particularly devastating as Patsey, who is the object of her married master's desire and his rage. For one scene alone, she should be considered for every Supporting Actress award this season. Michael Fassbender is terrifying, Paul Giamatti is devilish and Paul Dano is racism at its worst as their respective characters, who follow Solomon, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, through his episodic journey over twelve years. Benedict Cumberbatch plays a compassionate, yet cowardly slave owner and Brad Pitt is the only good-natured white man in the whole film. Sarah Paulson plays Fassbender's evil and jealous wife, who punishes Patsey for her husband's infidelity. There will be many acting nominations for this film, and they are all deserved. 

That being said, history tells us not all slaves were so brutally treated. That doesn't make it right, but the problem some critics have is that 12 Years a Slave is so relentless in its brutality, depicting only one aspect of slave life. I think it works, and McQueen, who is black, handles the material very tastefully.

My one complaint, in the end, is that the film doesn't exactly soar emotionally as it could. I could have used a little more payoff, a la The Color Purple. McQueen takes us to the bottom emotionally, but doesn't bring us all the way to the top at the end. 

12 Years a Slave is the definitive historical drama of this generation. You leave the theater knowing you have just seen a classic that will be celebrated for years to come. That's a rare thing these days. 

Angelina Jolie gets malevolent in Disney's 'Maleficent'

Angelina Jolie is perfect for this. I think I could be a fan of Disney doing spinoffs of their classic films from the villain's point of view. Check out the teaser below!

Elle Fanning is Princess Aurora, in this spinoff of the 1959 Disney classic Sleeping Beauty. 

Will this go the way of Oz: The Great and Powerful and be nothing but CGI? I hope not, but the teaser shows otherwise. However, this looks like a fun flick.

If this works, I think Disney should consider other live-action spinoffs with the villains as the protagonists. I think a movie about Gaston from Beauty and the Beast would be great, as well as a film about the life and times of Jafar.

Great films of 2013

2013: By no means is it 1939, in fact, this was one of the worst years of movie-going in my recent memory. Dear Hollywood, the superhero genre is for lazy filmmakers and viewers alike. Stop saturating the market with reboots and sequels of boring Marvel and DC storylines. We want originality.

That being said, 2013 has had a few great movies.

Let's take a look.

6. The Great Gatsby, Directed by Baz Luhrmann. This movie looked terrible and got horrible reviews. 49% on rottentomatoes, which almost made me skip it. However, one fine Saturday as the stresses of life compounded (job search, dating life) I went to the theater to forget my problems. And that I did. Baz Luhrmann's style is always so over-the-top during the first 30 minutes (see Moulin Rouge), and I was prepared for that. But once the first quarter of the film was through, The Great Gatsby became a great movie. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is great, as well as Joel Edgerton's as Tom Buchanan. The scene in the Plaza Hotel is scenery-chewing great acting by everyone involved. This is one of those stories you don't appreciate when you read it in high school, but when you're an adult, your experiences with life and love in America make you a little more perceptive to The Great Gatsby's dark themes of rejection and the emptiness of the American dream.

5. Gravity, Directed by Alfonso Cuaron. One of the most buzzed about movies of the year, Gravity was called the "greatest space movie ever done" by James Cameron, who has a right to say that, given his track record with Alien (1979) and Avatar (2009). Gravity is an edge-of-your-seat, perfectly-timed space opera that will go down as the definitive space film of this generation, much like 2001 (although I'm not a fan of 2001). Gravity is one of those films that works better on the big screen. While implausible, it really gives you a sense of what it is like to walk in space. I'm guessing it will be nominated for multiple Oscars next year, including Best Picture and Best Visual Effects, possibly Best Actress for Sandra Bullock.

4. Prisoners, Directed by Denis Villeneuve. Dark, disturbing almost to the point of unwatchable what-would-you-do? film about the horrors of losing your child. I'm not a parent, but I plan on being one, and this film, led by the great Hugh Jackman, is terrifying. The cinematography by Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men) creates suspense that I haven't felt in a film since No Country for Old Men. Two young girls are kidnapped as their families celebrate Thanksgiving together. Both families have very different ways of coping, each family member creating a sort of personal "prison" for themselves to which to escape, and the film asks the audience to think about what they would do in that situation. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a disturbed cop who helps in the search for the girls. In the end, it perhaps feels like a really, really good season finale episode of Law and Order: SVU, but it works, and I can see Jackman and Gyllenhaal both being nominated for their incredible acting in this film.

3. The Place Beyond the Pines, Directed by Derek Cianfrance. A brooding Ryan Gosling, who drives stunt motorcycles, loves the down-on-her-luck Eva Mendes, who just can't seem to make good choices when it comes to guys. Halfway through the film, we meet an over-zealous cop played by Bradley Cooper, who takes the movie over in the second act. The third act features the on-screen sons of Gosling and Cooper, and this "sins of the father" film takes a look at the consequences of the choices we make in life. It's a little like The Godfather trilogy squeezed into one film, though definitely not as compelling, as the third act really needs better actors to play the sons. Cianfrance shows us how our choices affect those we love and sometimes shape their destiny.

2. Blue Jasmine, Directed by Woody Allen. Cate Blanchett plays a raging alcoholic whose husband is in prison after participating in a Ponzi scheme. She's forced to leave her pampered lifestyle and move in with her sister, whose marriage and finances were ruined in part by said scheme. Some say it's loosely based on A Streetcar Named Desire, but I can't say because I haven't seen that film in years and I don't remember the plot. The downfall of Blanchett's character is fascinating, hilarious and very sad to watch. I am fairly certain she will win the Oscar for Best Actress this year--and she should.

1. Captain Phillips, Directed by Paul Greengrass. Taut and realistic, Captain Phillips is Tom Hanks' best role since Cast Away and will get him at least a nomination for Best Actor. While there is controversy about the veracity of the film, it makes us feel what all the characters are feeling, and even makes subtle references to the current political and economic climate in America. It's an action movie with brains, and the last 10 minutes are devastating as we see Tom Hanks succumb to PTSD in a scene that will win him the Oscar, I think. I didn't expect this to be my favorite film of the year, but it is (so far).

The year isn't over, but I doubt we'll see much else in the way of great movies. I am excited for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug because I am a huge Lord of the Rings nerd. However, I haven't read the books, so maybe I'm not really that big of a nerd. I'll get around to it.