Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Noah


This film is a mish mash of movie genres; fantasy, sci-fi, adventure and Bible stories. The problem is which reference point do you use? In a sci fi movie like Star Wars you have no problem accepting a Wookie, a Death Star or a guy with a fish head playing a clarinet in a dive since your reference point is sci fi. In Noah, no matter how hedonistic you may be, your reference is the Bible. When fantastic creatures are on screen they are just incongruent. Bible stories themselves have elements of fantasy but there is a commonality to them. The fantasy in this movie falls outside of that commonality. When I saw the Watchers (fantasy creatures), I sat up and said “what the heck” (I did not say heck, I said something else). I guess the writers could not get beyond spit balling the script.

Russell Crowe does not look like a 500 year old pre flood patriarch, rather he looks like He-Man. He has on going battles with the bad guy king Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winston; a British actor who is basically a thug with an Equity card. All the actors are very good. This is about the third time Jennifer Connelly is married to Russell Crowe on screen. Antony Hopkins, Methuselah, is Noah’s grandfather and does some wizardry with Emma Watson (go figure) who is Noah’s adopted daughter. Methuselah gives Noah magic beans (sounds familiar) to get the Ark started.

The Ark looks like a failed wood shop project. It is a long tar covered rectangular box of logs and timber. The animals came two by two, or so they say. Then Noah’s family goes throughout the Ark with incents putting the animals to sleep. Fortunately humans are not affected. This biblical anesthetic is complemented by iron, bamboo, tea, gun powder and iron pipes all in the same time line. Even fantasy needs some rationale and order. The writers never heard of PBS.


Towards the latter part of the story the film focuses on solid dramatic acting without gimmicks. It is a key climatic moment and very well done. Is it that well done to carry the film? I would not go so far. In the end to legitimize the film the writers steal two sub plots directly from the Bible. Noah is seen picking grapes and getting drunken from his five day old wine. In the Bible Noah is the first drunk. The script alludes to the Curse of Ham (Ham is Noah’s son) but it needs to be more revealing (see Genesis 9:20). It is odd that a movie so divergent wants to end on the right side of God. May be sacrificing the writers is justified?

No comments:

Post a Comment