Introduction
On Tuesday April 1st I took my New Testament Literature class to see the movie Noah in Austin Texas. Two aspects of this field trip were coincidental but play a key role in what follows in this article. First, the invitation to students was not an April Fool’s Day prank, but there is a growing conversation among fundamental Christianity that Darren Aronofsky’s re-telling of the biblical story was simply foolish. Second, the city of Austin is an unavoidable postmodern context for the audience and its evolving worldview deconstructing every modernist view. Both aspects underscore the content of this article: is Arnonfsky’s re-telling of the story of Noah simply foolish, and what role does a postmodern worldview play in producing the movie fourteen years into a new millennium?
Outline
To clarify this dual underscoring theme the following outline is presented: (1) the originator of the story; (2) the purpose of the story; (3) the incomplete story; (4) the current vehicle of the story; and (5) the outcome of re-telling the story. It would be too ambiguous to write an article that represents the masses and their cultural, religious, or biblical worldviews. I would prefer to leave that ambiguity to the fundamentalist and the rhetoric of those who have not left their apartment, duplex, or house for long periods – apart from a trip to the cinema to see Noah. To that end, this article is limited to the city of Austin and other communities with similar worldviews.
The Originator of the Story of Noah
Who wrote the original story of Noah, what evidence supports this from the Bible and other sources, and why does this matters for postmodernism? First, the Bible itself supports the authorship of Moses in three sections: (1) from the Pentateuch (Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24); (2) from other Old Testament books (Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4); and, (3) from the New Testament (Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26). Second, there are obvious influences from Mesopotamian culture in the Pentateuch. For instance, the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Atrahasis are two examples of Mesopotamian accounts of creation. The Epic of Gilgamesh is another Mesopotamian account of a global flood. Three conclusions about the authorship and original audience of the story of Noah can be presented: (1) that it was not difficult for Moses to believe the story himself because it pre-existed in other cultures; (2) that it would not be difficult for the audience to believe it for the same reasons; and, (3) oral tradition was prolific as the ancient media and social networks of their day.
Long-age geology, big bang cosmology, secular archaeology, liberal theology, and philosophical differences have played a significant role in undermining the authorship of the story of Noah and in a general sense the entire Pentateuch. On one hand, these disciplines fully emerged in the development of a modernist worldview. In other words, the authorship of Moses has only come into intensified questioning for the past 250 years. Ironically, this could be paralleled with the history of the United States of America.
This matters to a postmodern worldview. On the other hand, postmodernism is a dominant worldview in the city of Austin Texas, therefore, it rejects these disciplines and does not struggle with the Bible or any other religious text like the Quran, Pāli Canon, Mabinogion, Smriti, Sruti, Urantia Book, or the Book of Shadows. I am not suggesting belief but an acceptance of religious pluralism. What remains in dispute with Noah is not the theme of a global flood but how it is re-told by Arnonfsky. To that end, the purpose of the story of Noah needs
The Purpose of the Story of Noah
If Moses is the accepted author of the story of Noah by a postmodern worldview and a global flood is not in question in the same view, what purpose does it serve for the God of the Bible and His creation? Turning again to Mesopotamian culture, parallels include a divine being that was not pleased with a created world resulting in an apparent do-over. If this is the case, searching for the purpose of the story of Noah cannot be exclusively reduced to these reasons. If that as the case, the monotheistic God of the Bible would be no different from the pluralism of other gods.
American theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), wrote and preached a sermon in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8th 1741 called Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God. In short, Edwards portrays God differently to the evangelical approach of contextualizing Him in a democratic and capitalist culture of advance and prosperity. Noah captures Edwards’ quintessential portrayal of God. A singular line in the sermon summarizes this portrait and connects it to Noah. “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God” (Edwards 1741). Arnonfsky’s couches the character of Noah in a manner that would not attract the masses from the evangelical pulpit today. He fears God. He wrestles with his own humanity. He is humble. He does not publish himself as successful – if anything – a failure. He gets angry.
The purpose of the story of Noah is what Chris Wright call missio Dei (mission of God) as a metanarrative or continued story of God revealing Himself throughout the history of creation. In this case, Noah reveals that sinners are in the hands of an angry God. It is part of a redemptive story seen in the Bible through the words of Jesus. “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). In eschatological terms, Noah also reveals the corrupt and self-destruct nature of man is a precursor to the Second Advent. In this way, the story of Noah serves as a continued example of missio Dei (mission of God). However, the story of Noah appears to be incomplete in the Bible (Genesis 6:9-7:1-29).
The Incomplete Story of Noah
There are two distinct approached to the story of Noah. I am omitting the authoritative Word of God as a given for Christians, although I will challenge this later. First, in terms of literature, like most of the narrative sections in the Bible, it does not read as good literature because there are many gaps and unqualified statements. I must underscore this approach in the literature of the Bible. For instance, the sons of God are introduced distinct from human beings. These sons are attracted to the daughters of men and conceive children with them (Genesis 6:1-3). The Nephilim are also introduced to the prequel of the story of Noah (Genesis 6:4-8). I think this is what Arnonfsky was attempting with the Giant Watchers who came from God but displeased Him. In this way, Arnonfsky was filling in the gaps where the literature of the Bible gives not prescriptive or descriptive text. This process is repeated through Noah where the Christian may respond, “Hey! That’s not in the Bible.” But in terms of literature this is the point, it may not be in the Bible but the Christian has already filled in the gaps with their own tradition. What comes into conflict is Arnonfsky’s ideas and the Christians ideas. This is also seen in the rapid growth of vegetation, Methuselah’s healing powers, the sale of children in exchange for meat and so on.
Second, in terms of good storytelling it makes for a provoking screenplay in Noah. I must underscore the approach as storytelling different from literature, albeit through the written word. George McDonald (1824-1905) was a master storyteller who became an inspiration for C.S. Lewis allowing for the reader to interpret both form and meaning. Without attempting to put Moses in the same category as McDonald or Lewis, he allowed the reader to do the same. Moses does not tell us any more about the Nephilim as McDonald does not tell us any more about Roverandom, or Lewis telling us much about Santa Claus in Narnia. The reader assumes what they assume where the gaps appear.
An examples of this in Noah is both sublime and ridiculous, but not in a foolish. To communicate the re-telling of this story the entire cast spoke in a sophisticated English language. This is ridiculous in terms of what we know about human history and linguistics. But the Bible does the same thing. Did God speak English to Moses? Obviously not, so at some point the mechanisms of translation were developed to write an oral tradition down in a first language evolving to the screenplay writers. Some things are lost while others are included. I must underscore again that I am not approaching this as the authoritative Word of God but as storytelling.
It is sublime because I can read it in the Bible and see it dramatized in a movie in my postmodern culture. Furthermore, it is environmentally friendly caring for all creation in an Eden-like manner. It is ridiculous in terms of language and the cultural liberties taken to communicate the story. “In late February the studio released a joint statement with the National Religious Broadcasters saying the movie was not 100% biblically accurate but was true to the spirit of the scriptural story” (Time, March 2014). This is what storytelling does – it retains the spirit of the story. Rob Moore, Vice President of Paramount said that a literal re-telling of the story of Noah would not make a great movie – and I agree. There are too many gaps. This needs further thought in the vehicles of the story of Noah.
The Current Vehicle of the Story of Noah
Time Magazine published an article called One Man’s Quest to Christianize Hollywood (Time, March 2014). Unlike the political forum, Christianity is an untapped audience for Hollywood. “The studio wanted Noah to be popular with the general public, but more important, it needed to win over the tens of millions of U.S. Christians who are increasingly sought after in Hollywood” (Time March 2014). There were at least half a dozen versions of Noah before the final cut, which was not Arnonfsky’s cut. In that process, “the studio discovered something surprising: people didn’t really know the story. And it wasn’t merely nonbelievers who had misconceptions about the tale of a man who built an ark to survive a great flood. It was Christians too” (Time March 2014). This is a shot across the bow of Christianity and highlights that that are many guardians in Christianity who are academic scholars but not many fathers who can academically teach with good pedagogy (1 Corinthians 4:15).
After Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ (2004) “Hollywood discovered that there are 90 million Americans who take their faith very seriously” (Time, March 2004). Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and James Dobson supported Gibson’s screenplay resulting in the highest R-rated money earner in the history of R-rated movies (Box office Mojo, 2014). Supporters of Noah include Geof Morin, executive vice president of the American Bible Society, and Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church. The reason behind this backing, according to Time, is that people will see themselves in Noah – and I agree – and it is very postmodern to identify with the struggles of humanity.
It is not a story with three steps, four keys, and five principles. It is a redemptive and savific narrative that has filled in the gaps. Paramount have placed a disclaimer on the website for Noah, its marketing materials, and movie trailer, “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). I’m sure that Hollywood respond to the Box Office and not criticism. With all the balances and checks in place for a provoking screenplay, it did not help when Arnonfsky stated, “it’s the least biblical-biblical film ever made and I don’t give a f### about test scores. I’m outside the test scores” (Time, March 2014). Truly un-Noah-like, and according to the story, he would have drowned.
The Outcome of the Re-Telling of the Story of Noah
As of April 2nd Noah has earned $53,040,776 and only cost $125 million in production. Worldwide it stands at $104,140,776 (Box Office Mojo). Paramount are pleased. But a box office figure is not the only outcome. What cannot be documented are the conversations in rural, urban, and suburban communities both face-to-face and through social networks. If Paramount is not concerned with criticism, is the God of the Bible too concerned about the sublime and ridiculous in Noah?
Do we really expect Hollywood to preach, teach, expound, or develop a theological treatise any more than we expect Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty to contribute to an informed and intelligent social commentary, or for George Clooney to lecture on politics? I expect Hollywood to keep to their own word. “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). For those who have not left their apartment for some time – consider arguing the narrow minded disclaimer of Paramount that the story of a global flood is found in the book of Genesis. It is also found in Mesopotamian culture. It would be in keeping with fundamentalist ranting.
Two questions remain. First, is mankind really the parasite of creation as portrayed in Noah? On one hand, the movie can be viewed casting mankind in the same light as every living thing in creation. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a redemptive story where mankind was worth saving. The latter would agree with missio Dei (mission of God) finding its realization in a man called Jesus, retold by United Artists in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) through the actor Peter O’Toole. If United Artists can retell the story of Jesus through a womanizing hell-raising and brilliant actor – I’m sure Noah will be useful to God.
Second, would you follow a man like Noah who does not pretend about his faith or have a game-face for others? Allowing for a literary license (and a little sarcasm), what would the real Noah say to fundamentalist Christianity having a theological hissy-fit as though Hollywood was the Church? Furthermore, would the same fundamentalists be on the ark or in the drink? If they were on the ark I’m sure they would not be as broken as the character of Noah which is a profound characteristic of the Christian. If they were in the drink, I’m sure they would join preacher who continued to preach even though he was in hell.
Noah is a great fit for postmodern Austin Texas with more ensuing conversations about God than foolish criticism.