Today was a gray day. A day even Bob Ross could not paint for want of color. There was no thrashing downpour to give the day uncompromising expression. There were only wan clouds. There was no wind gusting from far-off countries to carry exotic aromas. There were no swirls of flakes to at least chill the air and give lonely men something to complain about. The suns incandescent rays swore themselves from the parched, yellow grass. There was no golden light to illuminate girls' flyaways like gleaming halos. All sound was muted somehow, like the land was holding its breath, biding its time for something to happen. But nothing did.
Because of that tempered silence, rapture took measured breaths. The clouds were august in their austerity. They draped themselves like a heavy-stitched quilt over couch cushions and kitchen chairs. And the people huddled underneath them like refugees—their own breath creating stifling humidity. Not even the slow-returning birds could muster melody. Although the pallid, naked branches were starting to bloom, their efforts made the scene look like a funerary pall rather than spring sprouting.
Today reminded me of a story from Elder Boyd K. Packer. A missionary came to him and admitted feeling discouraged and a little depressed. He said of the event, “Unless there was an unusual reason for these feelings, my answer was ‘Well, I’m glad to hear that. At least now we know that you’re normal. Enjoy the feeling—it probably won’t last. And the first sunny day will do wonders for it.’ It helps a great deal if we realize that there is a certain healthy element in getting the blues occasionally. It is quite in order to schedule a good, discouraging, depressing day every now and again just for contrast."
Today was that day.
[Keep Following.]
31 March 2014
29 March 2014
There Were Giants
So I went and saw Noah the other day. There were some things that I didn't like and other things that I absolutely loved. Overall I gave it about a 6/10. As soon as it was over, some dude stood up in the front of the theater and yelled "BLASPHEMY!" So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised today when I saw that a bunch of people on Facebook were saying it was "horrible" and that it was "the worst movie ever made" and that it "didn't follow the bible at all." So I went back and read the Noah story in the King James Version to see if that claim was true. I ended up laughing hysterically because either people don't read the Bible or they don't understand it--glossing over the parts they don't like.
Now whether or not a person will like this movie, like any other movie, is a matter of expectation. If you went into this movie looking for an exact retelling of the biblical story you might be disappointed. (Which is funny because the movie would probably be 45 minutes long if this were the case.) If you went in knowing that an atheist directed it and that he needed two hours worth of story you will probably like it. Expectations are key when walking into a movie. I have seen all of the Fast and Furious movies and I love them because I go in expecting to see ridiculous, over-the-top action, fast cars, and hammy acting performances. I don't walk in expecting to see Oscar-caliber performances and Shakespearean drama. So if you haven't seen Noah yet, change your expectations and you might also like it.
That said, I do take issue with people (especially Mormons) saying that the film "doesn't follow the bible at all." Yes it does. Noah gets instruction from God, builds an Ark, survives the flood, saves the animals, and repopulates the earth. It follows the Bible story. The things that were added or expanded upon was how exactly all that took place. Which the Bible isn't very clear on either. So I guess what people mean to say is that the movie doesn't follow the traditional understanding or interpretation of how it all took place.
It is pretty ironic that Mormons would take issue with a film "not following the Bible" since we are far from Bible literalists ourselves. Our own articles of Faith state that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." In my time at BYU, I took Professor Steven Walker's Bible as Literature class twice. A common practice in that class was to bring in multiple translations of the Bible to bring different flavors and interpretations into our understandings of the stories. The movie Noah did exactly this for me, except in a visual medium. There were some parts of the movie that illuminated the story for me in ways that I had never considered. In ways that, perhaps, only an atheist's interpretation of the story could accomplish. Does the film have worth as an exact, word-for-word retelling? No. Does it have worth as simply a different interpretation? Yes.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead.
Let's put this to bed right now, Genesis 6:4 says: "There were giants in the earth in those days." That part is pretty clear. Could it be that those giants really helped Noah? The Bible doesn't say that they did, but it also never says they didn't. It certainly would have made Noah's job easier if they had. End of argument. Once again, the film follows the Bible, just not how most of us have chosen to interpret it. Is it traditional? No. Is it possible? Yes.
Another example is Noah's vision. I love his vision in the movie. I love how Aronofsky chose to present it to Noah. This follows how I understand that God communicates with us. His vision is a series of images that Noah needs to find the meaning of. I love Methuselah's line where he says, "You must trust that He speaks to you in a way that you can understand." I love the choice that the film makes to make it seem like Noah really did have to have more faith in what he was doing than we traditionally give him credit for.
The traditional belief is that Noah got the vision in exact instruction form, down the the very dimensions of the vessel he was supposed to build. And that he never questioned how loony it must have looked for him to do what he did. In the film, Noah must interpret God's commands (kind of like us? maybe?) and have faith that he is doing what is right. This is Noah's modus operandi through the rest of the film. It then makes sense that if Noah believed that God's intent was to destroy mankind, that also included him and his family (just not by drowning in the flood.) This also fits with the Bible. In Genesis 6:6, it states: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." It also then makes sense that Noah would be willing to kill his granddaughters in an Abrahamic kinda sorta way in order to fulfill God's commandments. In the Biblical account, God does not specifically tell Noah that he should continue to multiply and replenish the earth until after the waters have receded. We see the whole story, not one step at a time as Noah would have experienced it. In this light, Noah's actions, although extreme, are perfectly logical. This also explains why he later falls into a guilt-fueled drunken stupor because he feels so bad for not following through with how he interpreted God's commands. Again: Biblical? Maybe.
I love how the movie humanized Noah. I loved the part where Noah and his family are huddled in the Ark listening to the tortured screams of the drowning masses around them. Noah is visibly shaken and his children feel so bad that they want to help those around them, but Noah sticks to his guns and follows God's commands with exactness. This scene was something I had never thought of before when reading the Biblical account. It must have been an awful, traumatizing experience to be on that Ark knowing that the only things still alive on the entire earth were what you could see. This was an illuminating and perceptive insight into the story.
Glenn Beck (sigh) even chimed in on the movie and called the film (in his typical sensationalist, exaggerated, I'm-trying-to-get-listeners way) the "Babylonian Chainsaw Massacre." In this he only demonstrates his hypocrisy. Mormons should love this movie, or at least find it entertaining and somewhat enlightening. We do not hold a exactly-as-is interpretation of the Bible and this movie embodies this concept, even if it did get some things wrong. Again, it is laughable to decry this movie's approach to the Bible because we also take a similar approach. If you didn't like the acting, or some of the logical fallacies, then I can relate, but don't say it's not Biblical.
And if I were to get really controversial I would say that we believe that Genesis was dictated by Moses anyway. So at best, to us, Genesis is a list of bullet points that communicate the history and story of Noah. In this way, the film is perfectly accurate in terms of its major plot. My biggest complaint about the movie wasn't the plot. It was that it didn't know what it wanted to be. It was a kind of allegory, kind of fantasy, kind of retelling, kind of historical movie. It would have worked better if Aronofsky had simply chosen a theme and stuck with it the whole time. Anyway, this post is way too long. Just go see it already.
[Keep Following.]
Now whether or not a person will like this movie, like any other movie, is a matter of expectation. If you went into this movie looking for an exact retelling of the biblical story you might be disappointed. (Which is funny because the movie would probably be 45 minutes long if this were the case.) If you went in knowing that an atheist directed it and that he needed two hours worth of story you will probably like it. Expectations are key when walking into a movie. I have seen all of the Fast and Furious movies and I love them because I go in expecting to see ridiculous, over-the-top action, fast cars, and hammy acting performances. I don't walk in expecting to see Oscar-caliber performances and Shakespearean drama. So if you haven't seen Noah yet, change your expectations and you might also like it.
That said, I do take issue with people (especially Mormons) saying that the film "doesn't follow the bible at all." Yes it does. Noah gets instruction from God, builds an Ark, survives the flood, saves the animals, and repopulates the earth. It follows the Bible story. The things that were added or expanded upon was how exactly all that took place. Which the Bible isn't very clear on either. So I guess what people mean to say is that the movie doesn't follow the traditional understanding or interpretation of how it all took place.
It is pretty ironic that Mormons would take issue with a film "not following the Bible" since we are far from Bible literalists ourselves. Our own articles of Faith state that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." In my time at BYU, I took Professor Steven Walker's Bible as Literature class twice. A common practice in that class was to bring in multiple translations of the Bible to bring different flavors and interpretations into our understandings of the stories. The movie Noah did exactly this for me, except in a visual medium. There were some parts of the movie that illuminated the story for me in ways that I had never considered. In ways that, perhaps, only an atheist's interpretation of the story could accomplish. Does the film have worth as an exact, word-for-word retelling? No. Does it have worth as simply a different interpretation? Yes.
WARNING: Spoilers ahead.
Let's put this to bed right now, Genesis 6:4 says: "There were giants in the earth in those days." That part is pretty clear. Could it be that those giants really helped Noah? The Bible doesn't say that they did, but it also never says they didn't. It certainly would have made Noah's job easier if they had. End of argument. Once again, the film follows the Bible, just not how most of us have chosen to interpret it. Is it traditional? No. Is it possible? Yes.
Another example is Noah's vision. I love his vision in the movie. I love how Aronofsky chose to present it to Noah. This follows how I understand that God communicates with us. His vision is a series of images that Noah needs to find the meaning of. I love Methuselah's line where he says, "You must trust that He speaks to you in a way that you can understand." I love the choice that the film makes to make it seem like Noah really did have to have more faith in what he was doing than we traditionally give him credit for.
The traditional belief is that Noah got the vision in exact instruction form, down the the very dimensions of the vessel he was supposed to build. And that he never questioned how loony it must have looked for him to do what he did. In the film, Noah must interpret God's commands (kind of like us? maybe?) and have faith that he is doing what is right. This is Noah's modus operandi through the rest of the film. It then makes sense that if Noah believed that God's intent was to destroy mankind, that also included him and his family (just not by drowning in the flood.) This also fits with the Bible. In Genesis 6:6, it states: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." It also then makes sense that Noah would be willing to kill his granddaughters in an Abrahamic kinda sorta way in order to fulfill God's commandments. In the Biblical account, God does not specifically tell Noah that he should continue to multiply and replenish the earth until after the waters have receded. We see the whole story, not one step at a time as Noah would have experienced it. In this light, Noah's actions, although extreme, are perfectly logical. This also explains why he later falls into a guilt-fueled drunken stupor because he feels so bad for not following through with how he interpreted God's commands. Again: Biblical? Maybe.
I love how the movie humanized Noah. I loved the part where Noah and his family are huddled in the Ark listening to the tortured screams of the drowning masses around them. Noah is visibly shaken and his children feel so bad that they want to help those around them, but Noah sticks to his guns and follows God's commands with exactness. This scene was something I had never thought of before when reading the Biblical account. It must have been an awful, traumatizing experience to be on that Ark knowing that the only things still alive on the entire earth were what you could see. This was an illuminating and perceptive insight into the story.
Glenn Beck (sigh) even chimed in on the movie and called the film (in his typical sensationalist, exaggerated, I'm-trying-to-get-listeners way) the "Babylonian Chainsaw Massacre." In this he only demonstrates his hypocrisy. Mormons should love this movie, or at least find it entertaining and somewhat enlightening. We do not hold a exactly-as-is interpretation of the Bible and this movie embodies this concept, even if it did get some things wrong. Again, it is laughable to decry this movie's approach to the Bible because we also take a similar approach. If you didn't like the acting, or some of the logical fallacies, then I can relate, but don't say it's not Biblical.
And if I were to get really controversial I would say that we believe that Genesis was dictated by Moses anyway. So at best, to us, Genesis is a list of bullet points that communicate the history and story of Noah. In this way, the film is perfectly accurate in terms of its major plot. My biggest complaint about the movie wasn't the plot. It was that it didn't know what it wanted to be. It was a kind of allegory, kind of fantasy, kind of retelling, kind of historical movie. It would have worked better if Aronofsky had simply chosen a theme and stuck with it the whole time. Anyway, this post is way too long. Just go see it already.
[Keep Following.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)