Why We Don't Need to be Scandalized by Noah

In 1964, Pier Paolo Pasolini wrote the screenplay for and directed The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo). The film depicted the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in strict accordance with the gospel text. While receiving critical acclaim amongst the art house intelligentsia, the film caused consternation among the faithful. Why? Because Pasolini was an atheist homosexual marxist.

In 1988, Martin Scorsese directed The Last Temptation of Christ, provocatively portraying Jesus as "just another guy," conflicted and struggling with all the same temptations that humans do (and succumbing to more than a few). The film failed to impress critics and was a commercial flop, until Christian groups decided to boycott the film, which fueled public interest and  ultimately led to high box office receipts.

In 2004, Mel Gibson produced and directed The Passion of the Christ. Brutally violent, many critics denounced the film as "torture porn." The evangelical community defended it earnestly (and rightly), while remaining mostly silent on embellishments to the gospel narratives.

This weekend, Darren Aronofsky's Noah released in thousands of movie theaters across the country. Since Friday, the internet has been abuzz with reviews, blogs, tweets, and postings about the film. I bring up these other films because the arguments I've heard from the evangelical community (and I am a card-carrying member) are arguments I've heard before, most of them suggesting that a) because Aronofsky is an atheist he should not and ultimately cannot film a worthy account of the Biblical story), b) yelling loudly and unintelligently in a negative fashion is the best strategy by which to discourage public interest, and c) embellishments to the narrative are the litmus test for whether or not one should see the film.

This is silly.

First of all, it's just a movie. But here's what I really like about the film:
1) The film is beautifully shot. This is a captivating film to watch in terms of location, cinematography, and mise-en-scene. It is surprising and imaginative, and as valid a guess at what primordial, pre-flood earth was like as anyone could make.
2) The film is beautifully acted and directed. The actors are professional and earnest. The direction is extraordinary. This is not a B-movie, straight-to-video one-off, but a heavily budgeted and lavishly produced epic which, I'm just guessing, is incredibly difficult to pull off.  Kinda what you would hope for and expect of a Biblical story, no?
3) The film is, very generally, true to the Biblical text. I encourage you to go read the account of Noah and flood (Genesis 5-9). Now read it again. And again. There is a lot going on in this story. Sons of God? Nephilim? To dig a little deeper on what these entities might be, dust off a copy of 1 Enoch. Fallen angels consigned to the matter of earth and rock? Okay, I guess. It's as good a guess as any! Caveat lector: The film is a Hollywood production! It does not intend to be the Bible (or even an accurate depiction of the Biblical account)! Embellishments were made in order to tell a filmic story. The Watchers as protectors of Noah? A little strange, but it fits within the film. The secondary plot line involving Tubal-Cain? It was, to me, unnecessary and silly, but it was evidently necessary for Aronofsky's vision of the film. What was surprising to me was not how the film strayed from the Biblical narrative, but how it paid attention to even the smallest details of the Biblical narrative! As evangelical Christians, perhaps we should be (very) excited about that! The film unflinchingly addresses the meta-themes of the story: human sin, God's judgment, God's mercy. But it also pays attention to the particulars, and at the very least takes a stab at answering some interesting questions. For example, I heard one critic lament how Genesis 7:13 was violated in the film. Genesis 7:13 states, "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark." The critic was appalled that two of the three wives were missing in the film. To be sure, I was terribly (viscerally!) disappointed when Ham's potential wife-to-be was tragically left behind. But was Aronofsky not true to the text? In the film, Shem's wife enters the ark...carrying two babies in her body. Sisters. It is plausible that these girls became the wives of Ham and Japheth. The point is, Aronofsky (imaginatively) tries to make it work, filling in details to a Biblical story that does not give us all the information. And, remember, this is a film, not the Bible.
4) The film wrestles with Noah's conflict. Is it plausible that Noah did what he did without blinking an eye? Without questioning himself for even a moment? Do we know? No! The Bible doesn't tell us. To speculate is surely eisegesis (adding one's own biases, presuppositions, or prejudices to the text), but we do that all the time! Gibson did it, quite movingly really, in his film (involving a table and imaginary chair, if you recall). Does Aronofsky not get the same license? Did not Noah's conflict reveal something rather significant about the human condition (from which he was not, by his own admission, exempt) and his own righteousness (revealed through humility and dependence on God). This deconstruction of Noah is not something to be upset about; rather, it lends a certain realism to the film, avoiding shallow platitudes and trite sentimentalities.
5) The film removes anything cute from what is truly a horrible story. This is a "text of terror." Human beings are destroyed on a massive scale. (And, by the way, this film very seriously earns it's PG-13 rating. It should be rated R...parents, you have been warned!) It again made me wonder why we decorate our church nurseries with this story. We can educate our tots about God's judgment (I've no problem with that, as long as it's age-appropriate), but cloaking this story in an alternative story about cute animals and a cozy ship on the ocean is wrong-headed.
6) The film takes justice seriously. Humans are sinful. Not just a little messed up. Not just prone to bad decisions, but seriously depraved. The film erred on a couple of accounts regarding this: 1) it suggests that animals are "innocent." As Christians, we believe that the effects of the Fall were so profound and so pervasive that all of nature was affected--the ground produces weeds and thistles; animals became not only victims of sin but actors in sin; 2) it suggests that humans have the will and capacity to not sin; that righteousness is ultimately a decision any one of us can make at any time. Again, this fails to acknowledge the depth and pervasiveness of our sin. What the film failed to fully capture is that, at the end, when Noah does not commit infanticide, this action was not an action that emerged from the blank slate of Noah's heart, but emerged only by the mediation of God who had so shaped and formed Noah's heart throughout life (that he would desire justice and mercy at all!). To Aronofsky's defense, how would you show that.
7) The film leans toward evolution but doesn't go all the way. The evolution gambit was disappointing, however unsurprising. Rather than complain, however, it must be noted that Aronofsky is obviously working hard in trying to wrap his mind around the creation account (which, by the way, he presents as unequivocally true). In fact, the entire creation story is told in the film! Furthermore, while he could have continued from monkey to human, he didn't. There is a gap (the only one) before humans are presented (alas, glowing androgynous humans), suggesting they are the crowning work of God's creation. This was not scandalous in the least. Rather, this is theology: faith seeking understanding. It seems that Aronofsky really wants to get it!
8) The film leans toward environmentalism. One complaint I heard about the film was in regard to the antagonist Tubal-Cain's line that humans are to "subdue" and "rule over" creation (I don't recall if he uses these words or "have dominion over"...the point is the same). The line is to be received negatively, of course, but not because this isn't the mandate given to humans, but rather how this one human has misinterpreted the mandate. Tubal-Cain understands this to mean that humans can and should exploit and pillage creation. A thoroughly orthodox interpretation is that humans are to tend and care for creation. The film doesn't attack the doctrine, it attacks a false interpretation of the doctrine.
9) The film imaginatively fills in gaps to tell a story. Yeah, how in the world do you get thousands of species of birds to shut up? Who were the Watchers? How was Noah and his family protected from men whose hearts were inclined to "only evil all the time" as they built the ark (Gen. 6:5b)? How did the boys find their wives? Why did Noah plant a vineyard and get drunk (Gen. 9:21)? A good filmmaker is ultimately a good storyteller, and Aronofsky embellishes in order to tell the story as best as (he believes) it can be told in the medium.
10) The film gives Christians like you and me a lot to talk about with our non-Christian friends. There is so much in this film to unpack. Instead of complaining about the film, perhaps we might look at it as an opportunity. Would you consider taking a friend to watch the film together? And then, perhaps you would consider inviting your friend to go through the Biblical account with you. Where was the film true to the text? Where was it not? What, in the end, does the film (and text) say about God? About humans?

The 20th century script to understanding the Bible has been called into question (whether we like it or not). Longing for the past is not going to help our friends who are dying to know Christ. This film (and its response) is a sign that things are changing, and as we continue to proclaim the gospel we must be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16).

Bottom line: remember that this is simply a film. It will be forgotten in a few years (perhaps months). Don't make it into something its not. Don't give it power that it does not have. If our God is sovereign (and he is), then he is not scandalized by this film in the least. Perhaps he is more interested in seeing what you and I will do with it. In the meantime, enjoy the show!