Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Noah: Is this a good movie? Is it good ancient history?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Weenie.



















































    FYI: the question was actually 'why did you bring up AIG...
    Because one type of person who might be disappointed by this movie and want to burn me at the stake would probably heed the opinion of AiG. I will refrain from commenting on your 'weenie' remark because I don't want to make you cry again, 'though you'll probably use that as an excuse to start crying all over again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Weenie.



















































    FYI: the question was actually 'why did you bring up AIG...

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Because I have a family to support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Why?

















































    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Okay....

    Why?
    Because I did not want someone to go see this movie thinking that it gave a strictly biblical account of Noah and then be disappointed and try to burn me at the stake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Actually, I think I may have brought it up first (#16), but only because I did not want anyone to get the wrong idea about this movie.
    Okay....


    Why?

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Beats me - ask Cath, she brought it up.
    Actually, I think I may have brought it up first (#16), but only because I did not want anyone to get the wrong idea about this movie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Why is what AIG thinks important?
    Beats me - ask Cath, she brought it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Depends on who you're asking - they're either evul Creationists or the vanguard of creation science. My personal opinion is that both views are overblown and if we aren't actually discussing evolution, it's a moot point.

    Am I the only one that finds the gnostic theory far more important than whether or not AIG likes the thing?
    Why is what AIG thinks important?

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Thanks, John. There's no question that the movie offers a subversive reading of Genesis based on extra-biblical texts. I would not recommend it to anyone who does not expect this and is not prepared for this.
    Just watched the film today. Didn't catch the serpent skin/Teffilin connection, but yeah, that's pretty dern subversive. In the end, I had mixed reviews about the film. There were some elements I loved, and others I hated. Things I really liked included the epic soundtrack, the fantastic acting by both Jennifer Connelly, and Emma Watson. I also thought the subplot with Noah and the grandchildren interesting, especially in how it got us to Noah's post-deluge predicament. Things I hated about the film was that, based on the commercials, its a bait-and-switch. I don't know if that's Aronofsky's idea, or the film's marketers, but I found that really underhanded. People are going in expecting a traditional, or relatively traditional, historical retelling of a well beloved and sacred narrative, and are instead getting a sort of anachronistic, sci-fi/fantasy-ish, humanist fable, that screams at you "DON'T TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE I SURE AS HECK DON'T". One of the scenes that I thought exemplified this bait-and-switch tactic was in the trailer where we see Tubal-Cain telling Noah that he's all alone, and Noah replies "I'm Not Alone". A powerful scene that implies that Noah is referring to God the Creator, but...when we watch the movie we see that that's not who he's actually referring to.

    This film isn't like any of Aronofsky's previous works with the exception, maybe, of The Fountain. IF you don't know your Book of Enoch, or the Apocrypha, the Talmud, and Jewish mysticism (are the Watcher's stone nature supposed to be based on Kabbalistic notions of Golems?), then maybe you won't be too thrown from the beginning, but the audience I was watching the film with guffawed big time 20 minutes in. Somewhere after the half-way point it begins to resemble more of the traditional narrative (sort of), but by that point you've lost a good portion of the audience base.

    I didn't hate the film. I just feel like its an opportunity wasted. I was never bored so there IS that, but the feeling I got, that the film was ultimately a bait-and-switch was condescending to its intended audience.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Rob: Okay, cool.

    John: Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Thanks, John. There's no question that the movie offers a subversive reading of Genesis based on extra-biblical texts. I would not recommend it to anyone who does not expect this and is not prepared for this.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Reece
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Are you saying Mattson belongs to AIG?

    Besides, AIG doesn't seem to be alone in having problems with this thing.
    I do not think that Mattson has anything to do with AIG.
    Dr. Brian Mattson Welcome to my website !

    I am a theologian, writer, speaker, singer/songwriter, recording artist, and I avidly follow current events, cultural and political, as well as the Minnesota Twins Baseball Club.

    I was born, raised, and currently live in the State of Montana, Big Sky Country, or, as we like to call it, "The Last Best Place." Educationally, I obtained a B.A. from Montana State University-Billings, an M.A.R. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland). I now serve as Senior Scholar of Public Theology for the Center for Cultural Leadership. I am honored as well to serve as faculty for the Alliance Defending Freedom's Blackstone Legal Fellowship and Collegiate Academy. I also co-host and produce Dead Reckoning, a weekly web video show and podcast.

    I hope you enjoy my musings, my music, teaching, web show, podcasts, and other contributions. Thanks for stopping by!

    There is much good stuff on the website that cannot be linked individually. I found this entry to be interesting:
    NOAH'S CO-WRITER SPEAKS

    Ari Handel, co-writer of Noah, was interviewed by Relevant Magazine about the controversial theology in the film. He's one of those guys that just gives a terrific interview (he's one of the reasons I saw it in the first place), and I recommend it to you.

    My takeaways:

    Handel's a really intelligent, diplomatic, and articulate guy. Smart to have him be the "voice" of the filmmakers.

    A key passage:
    "What I’d tell people is it’s very important to us that nothing we actually did directly contradicted the Genesis story. There are some places where people think we did, and I’d just say, 'We didn’t.' It was all grounded somewhere. It wasn’t just the Genesis story the way you expected it. But it’s grounded. Anything we did that isn’t explicitly there isn’t arbitrary."

    It was all grounded somewhere.

    Exactly. Grounded in texts outside the biblical narrative. That's not, in and of itself, problematic. But the texts they used, as far as I can tell, are a hodgepodge amalgamation of things, some of which are esoteric traditions that have an interest in subverting the biblical story, not affirming it. Also notice that he confirms that nothing in the film is accidental. Everything was thoughtful and "grounded" in a source somewhere. That's what I suspected.

    He insists that nothing "contradicted the Genesis story." First, I take that as an admission of my original point: many details, themes, and symbols are simply not from the Genesis story. Second, he's just wrong that "nothing" contradicted the Genesis story. Plenty of others have plowed that field, so I needn't rehash it.

    About the snake skin thing, Handel ought to know what he was thinking, and I'm glad he cleared it up. The idea of a "skin" of immortality that the Serpent shed is found in nascent form, (one source, no doubt, among others) in Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis, I, 33. His idea is that the snake wanted to appear young and innocent, so as to deceive Eve into thinking he had the key to remaining... young and innocent. Suffice it to say, there's nothing about passing this skin along as an artifact.

    It's interesting, to be sure. But if you're unaware of who Philo is, let's just say that he is the father of reading the Hebrew Bible in obscure, allegorical ways that conform it to Platonic philosophy (i.e., the "graded" universe of spirit/mind/male="higher and good," matter/flesh/female="lower and bad"). He's the head of a stream that ultimately forms the river of precisely the kinds of Neoplatonic speculation I originally identified in my review.

    As it is, Aronofsky and Handel have taken the symbol of the Serpent (a Gnostic "dog whistle" of all dog whistles) and turned it into a magical blessing; they have the characters wrap it around their arms reminiscent of Jewish Teffilin, the small, black boxes that contain the Torah.

    Replacing Torah with a Serpent.

    If people still want to believe (perhaps even Handel himself) that this isn't a subversion, they can. But I'm not buying it.
    Last edited by John Reece; 04-05-2014, 03:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Took a group of kids to see Captain America last night. Not as interesting as Noah.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Don't think so but see for yourself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about
    When you get around to it, post the citations, please. I'm not familiar enough with it to look things up without a lot of time and effort I don't have time for right now, but I would like to read up.
    They only say they are an apologetic ministry. I will if I find the time.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X