Noah and Anti-Noah

I disagree, respectfully but rather sharply, with Mr. Greydanus’ review of Aronofsky’s NOAH. I wrote a review giving an opposite opinion, and he was kind enough to correct certain errors or oversights I had made. Nonetheless, there remains a point of polite disagreement between us which any reader who has seen the film, or toys with the idea of seeing it, might be edified or amused to hear discussed.

No spoiler warnings will accompany the essay below, because I want to spoil this film, and deter people from seeing it. The surprise ending is that mankind survives, despite Noah’s best efforts.

I submit that this movie was so bad that for Mr Greydanus to recommend it was an inexplicable lapse of judgment. I cannot explain why this film would be the one where his otherwise impeccable judgment was negligent, and I will not speculate.

In a previous essay in this space, I said was that the film was bad on three levels: first, the film was not to my personal taste, being drab and cheerless; second the film was poorly written ; third, because Aronofsky’s film portrayal of Noah falls somewhere between indifferent to actively hostile to the source material. By ‘indifferent to hostile’ I mean the film was at best a non-Judeochristian interpretation of the Noah story, and at worst an anti-Judeochristian interpretation of the Noah story.

The first is a point not open to debate, because tastes are personal. The second is a point which may or may be not open to debate, because this point involves matters of judgment, and matters of judgment are those where reasonable men can differ. In any case, I do not debate that second point here.

The third is very much open to debate, because one side has one theory of the meaning of the film and the other side has an opposite theory, so only by debate can either side present evidence to lend weight to its theory of the film. Whichever theory explains more of the basics and also the nuances of the film should be the one the jury find more convincing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.