Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Noah news round-up: snubs from church leaders, props from Christians who have seen the film, and more

Noah news round-up: snubs from church leaders, props from Christians who have seen the film, and more

Last updated on: March 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Noah news round-up: snubs from church leaders, props from Christians who have seen the film, and more 2014-03-18T14:24:46-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The European promo tour for Darren Aronofsky’s Noah soldiers on. Following the film’s Berlin premiere on Thursday, the filmmakers went to Madrid for another premiere tonight, while Russell Crowe attended his first Noah premiere at the other end of Europe, in Moscow; he had missed the previous events because he was shooting a movie in Turkey.

Alas, the European tour has already encountered one hiccup of sorts: Variety reported today that the Vatican has cancelled tentative plans for a photo op that would have featured Pope Francis and a few of the filmmakers, including Crowe and Aronofsky.

Crowe, via Twitter, had been openly asking the Pope to screen the film for a few weeks now, and the Vatican reportedly gave the idea enough consideration to set some time aside for a meeting on Wednesday; but they eventually decided against it because Crowe’s presence would be too distracting to the Vatican’s other visitors.

The studio, however, has denied the story, and told The Hollywood Reporter that a meeting with the Pope was proposed by the studio but “never scheduled.”

Interestingly, Aronofsky himself has cited the Pope and his message as one of the reasons why people might be interested in his film.

In a video from the world premiere in Mexico City last Monday that went online today, Aronofsky tells one of the red-carpet interviewers: “The Pope is talking about how we should be stewards of the environment, of creation, and if you think about it, Noah was the first one to go out and save the animals, save the environment.”

While the film has not yet been rated in Canada or the United States, it has been rated 12A in Great Britain, which will get the film on April 4, one week after it opens in North America. The British Board of Film Classification notes that the film runs 138 minutes, and gives it a warning of “moderate violence, injury detail, threat”.

Meanwhile, i09 has posted an interview with Aronofsky and his co-writer/co-producer Ari Handel in which they talk about both the film and the graphic novel that was based on an early draft of the script and is coming out tomorrow:

io9: What’s your fascination with the Noah story?

Darren Aronosky and Ari Handel: Destruction by water — everything we know being washed away, but also everything being cleansed — we think that’s universally fascinating. There’s a reason why so many religions and cultures have flood narratives. It’s a fundamental story. . . .

The graphic novel is beautiful, thanks to Niko Henrichon’s art. How much has the comic informed the design of the film?

For the most part the design of the film and the graphic novel developed in isolation from each other. Niko really had a lot of freedom to draw the story as he saw it. In one or two instances, like the Ark itself, we gave Niko some design ideas we were developing with for the film, but mostly they are two separate works.

Story-wise, how closely will the finished movie resemble the graphic novel? Are there any significant changes?

The graphic novel is based on a first draft of the Noah script. While Niko was working and drawing based on that early draft, we kept on writing and refining for a few years before we started filming, so the two stories diverged quite a bit. Of course they both track along with the story in Genesis so they have a lot in common — and the themes and characters have remained very much in line. But scene to scene there are a lot of differences.

Is there anything in the comic you were unable to bring to the screen?

Obviously, film and comics are different media. For film there are some things, especially with vast landscapes and intricate sets, that are hard to do photographically or even with visual effects. But Niko does everything with his pen, so he was only limited by his imagination. Probably the biggest thing that’s in the comic that isn’t in the film is being able to go inside a city full of the wickedness of men. . . .

In other interview news, Flicks and the City posted the following set of soundbites from the red carpet in Berlin last week, and one of the more intriguing quotes comes from Ray Winstone, on how he tried to find a sympathetic side to the villainous Tubal-Cain. “This man wanted to save humanity in his own way,” he says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ZpvUP4nCQ

Meanwhile, we’ve seen a flurry of new opinions and op-ed pieces regarding the film.

First, Rick Warren — who played a big part in promoting Son of God and even said people should skip church to see that film — slammed Noah via his Twitter and Facebook accounts yesterday. He subsequently deleted the Facebook post and one of his tweets, but the following fragment survives on Twitter:

Director of new “Noah” movie calls it “The LEAST biblical film ever made" then uses F word referring to those wanting Bible-based,

— Rick Warren (@RickWarren) March 16, 2014

And here is the Facebook post, as quoted by Crossmap and The Gospel Herald:

The Director of new ‘Noah’ movie calls it ‘The LEAST biblical film ever made.’ The director then insulted millions of potential viewers by using the F word. Thanks for the warning Mr. Director. You just saved me from wasting my money.

There are a few big problems with Warren’s comments here.

First, the misquote. What Aronofsky actually said was that his film is “the least Biblical Biblical film ever made.” Note his double usage of the word “Biblical”. He is clearly using the word in two different ways: one, to signify that the film is based on the biblical text (which it is), and two, to signify that his film marks a major departure in style from the biblical adaptations of the past (which it does).

The most prominent big-screen adaptation of the Noah story to date is probably the one directed by and starring John Huston, in The Bible: In the Beginning… (1966), and that film plays into many of the Sunday-school tropes that Aronofsky is consciously shying away from (the Ark as a cuddly zoo, and so on). I happen to like Huston’s film, but I think Aronofsky’s film is a valid take on the story, too.

Second, the profanity. As someone noted on Twitter, U2’s Bono cusses all the time and is loved by many Christians anyway, so why can’t Aronofsky?

More to the point, Aronofsky did not use the f-word in reference to “those wanting Bible-based” films. In the most widely-reported instance where he used the f-word, he wasn’t addressing American evangelicals at all. Instead, he used that word when speaking to the audience at the film’s world premiere in Mexico, to emphasize that his film would be different from what they might be expecting. (Again, he was emphasizing the difference between his film and the Bible movies of the past.)

Third, Warren’s declaration that he will not “waste money” on the film. His statement clearly suggests that any Christian who does see the film would be wasting their money. And if Warren played any part in boosting Son of God’s grosses ($50 million and counting), then he arguably could play a part in hurting Noah’s.

But it’s more than a little irresponsible for Warren to go around undermining the movie when he hasn’t actually seen it yet — especially if he’s doing so on the basis of two short quotes from the director that have been yanked out of context.

Enough about Warren. Now let’s turn to two Christians who have seen the film.

Scott Landry of Catholic Online offers eight reasons why Catholics should see the film. The full explanations are in his post, but the point-form bullet points are these:

It inspired me to read the Scriptures again, closely.
The movie gets the big aspects of Noah’s role right.
It’s great that Hollywood is making big-budget biblically-inspired epic films.
The film will spark great conversations.
The Noah movie can foster what Pope Francis calls a culture of encounter.
The movie should make us more aware of evil and goodness in the world.
The movie makes a strong pro-life stand.
The movie treats life as an incredible gift from God.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service asks why the same evangelicals who are complaining about the film’s lack of “biblical accuracy” were so quick to proclaim the “accuracy” of other biblical adaptations — such as The Passion of the Christ and The Bible — that were somewhat loose with the text themselves:

Why the double standard?

The difference is that some of the other biblical productions were made for Christian audiences by Christian filmmakers as evangelistic tools. In some cases, the forces behind these movies kissed the rings of evangelical gatekeepers, convincing them to use church budgets to buy entire theaters on opening weekend and generate ticket sales with film-inspired Sunday School curriculum and sermon series.

Or, as I have written before, some people would rather treat films as tribal boundary markers than engage with them in any sort of meaningful way. Merritt concludes:

Like other artistic endeavors drawing on biblical themes, “Noah” requires that audiences actually think about symbols and forms. Aronofsky adds elements to Noah’s story, for example, that reflect the grief God must have felt over having to destroy creation. The movie doesn’t get every detail right, but it captures the spirit of the scriptural narrative and the character of God displayed therein. If approached as an artistic work, “Noah” will ignite audience’s imaginations and raise profound questions about sin, grace, mercy, and faith. So inconsistent Christian critics should stop raining on this film’s parade lest they become the ones who miss the boat.

On a much more glib note, Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post basically asks why people are taking the film so seriously when it’s just a commercial product “intended to entertain, inspire and — bear with me, I know this is crazy — make money.”

She also repeats the canard that the National Religious Broadcasters threatened a boycott of the film, which NRB chief Jerry Johnson insists they did not.

Finally, Aronofsky has tweeted a few new images from his Noah-themed art show, and I have added them to the collection at the bottom of this post. Whew.

Update: The Harry Potter fansite Snitchseeker has rounded up some more photos and videos from the Berlin and Madrid premieres. Also, I have revised the first paragraph to reflect more accurately who was at which premiere today.

Blog

ari handel

bible in the beginning

Previous Post

March 16, 2014

Son of God news round-up: a box-office update, thoughts on Peter Bart’s “open letter” to Mark Burnett, and more

Next Post

March 18, 2014 Noah news round-up: novelizations, ratings, and more

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the Bible say about "bearing each other's burdens"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ignore troubles Help each other Complain Only help yourself