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

[Teallaura]

For what it's worth...

BOX OFFICE: ANTI-GOD 'NOAH' DIVES, 'GOD'S NOT DEAD' SOARS

by JOHN NOLTE 12 Apr 2014

In its second weekend, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is in a fight for the top spot with new release "Rio 2." Both sequels are circling $40 million-plus weekends. No surprise there. But proving you can only fool people for so long, in its third weekend, director Darren Aronofsky's creepy attempt to fool the public into believing his anti-God "Noah" was a biblical tale ran aground with a paltry $7.1 million weekend.

As of Monday, Russell Crowe's Gnostic bait-and-switcheroo will sit somewhere around $84 million. That will officially put it behind the pace of Russell Crowe's previous big-budget flop "Robin Hood," which managed to only reach $105 million at the North American box office.

"Noah" is now in real danger of losing money. Between its $125 million production budget and promotional budget likely in the $50 to $75 million range, the anti-God epic needs to gross something close to $400 million worldwide just to break even. Depending on how many countries remain for the film to open in, as of now $400 million is a long ways off.

Going forward, "Noah" is also facing serious headwinds. The Vatican newspaper just blasted the film, a lousy CinemaScore rating of "C" usually means terrible word-of-mouth, and after fooling moviegoers and many in the Christian media through its first weekend, the word is now out that "Noah" is an attack on God, not biblical.

Meanwhile, a truly Christian film, "God's Not Dead," continues to soar at the box office. In its fourth weekend, the story of a student's confrontation with an atheist teacher (played by Kevin Sorbo) grossed $5.3 million, for a total of $40.7 million. With a production and promotional budget that totaled $4 million, "God's Not Dead" has to be closing in on a record as far as return on investment.

The rest of the story is here.

[One Bad Pig]

Meanwhile, a truly Christian film, "God's Not Dead," continues to soar at the box office. In its fourth weekend, the story of a student's confrontation with an atheist teacher (played by Kevin Sorbo) grossed $5.3 million, for a total of $40.7 million. With a production and promotional budget that totaled $4 million, "God's Not Dead" has to be closing in on a record as far as return on investment.

The Blair Witch Project ROI probably blows that one away (though they may have spent more than that on promotion once it took off).

[rogue06]

A simple 'no' would suffice. I skimmed AIG's piece - Mattson's is far more damning in that he demonstrates that the movie draws heavily from Gnosticism - which, last I looked, was still heretical.

Seriously, the obsession with AIG is silly. There are a number of Christian and related sources that have raised objections so the issue is hardly one of following AIG.

Sorry. Misread what you said as that AiG didn't have a problem with it

[robrecht]

I know some here have complained about the environmental theme included in this movie, but this is acceptable as a midrashic theme. See, eg, the Midrash Rabbah on Qohelet 7,13:

בשעה שברא הקב"ה את אדם הראשון נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי, שאם קלקלת אין מי שיתקן אחריך

http://www.on1foot.org/text/kahelet-rabbah-713

Note also how the midrash is itself rather contradictory to the plain sense of Qohelet 7,13.

[Teallaura]

I know some here have complained about the environmental theme included in this movie, but this is acceptable as a midrashic theme. See, eg, the Midrash Rabbah on Qohelet 7,13:

בשעה שברא הקב"ה את אדם הראשון נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי, שאם קלקלת אין מי שיתקן אחריך

http://www.on1foot.org/text/kahelet-rabbah-713

Note also how the midrash is itself rather contradictory to the plain sense of Qohelet 7,13.

Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.

[OingoBoingo]

Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.

What were the gnostic overtones in the film?

[Teallaura]

What were the gnostic overtones in the film?

http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/20...-for-the-devil

Mattson does a much better job than I could addressing your question.

[robrecht]

Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.

Transformer moviesonly text, but it is clearly one of his texts. (He later acknowledged his statement was hyperbolic.) Mattson does not fault the studio for false advertising, as some do, but rather admits it was never advertised as or The Biblical Story of NoahThe Biblical Story of Noah

[OingoBoingo]

Dr. Mattson's speculation is probably right-on in a lot of places, but I guess I didn't come away from the film with the same impressions.

The glowy Adam and Eve didn't make me think of disembodied persons, but a symbolic representation of the pure and innocent state of Adam and Eve until they ate the fruit.

I'm certain the fallen angels were Nephilim not Archons. I'm not familiar with any texts that claim Archons were embodied in molten earth (I guess the same can be said for Nephilim though). Are there any texts that mention embodied Archons at all?

I don't doubt Kabbala influence on the script, but is that strictly the same as gnostic influence?

A lot of the Kabbala influence that Dr. Mattson sees you could take from the Bible as well. The division of evil and good between the lineage of Cain and Seth is set forth in Gen. 5, and in some readings of the beginning of Gen. 6.

I don't know exactly what the snake skin is supposed to represent (other than a sort of tefillin) but I'm not convinced by Mattson's argument that the serpent is symbolic of the greater God (Wisdom/Sophia/what have you).

My biggest problem with the assertion that Noah is Gnostic propaganda is that, if true, its poorly represented. The major focal point of the film, from beginning to end, is the preservation of the earth and the animals therein. The material nature of the earth and animals would have been considered just as corrupt by the Gnostics as the material state of humanity.

Mattson writes:

First problem with this is, Noah is never commissioned in the film to wipe out all life. He's commissioned to save life on the earth, both animal and man. He later comes to the realization (not voiced by the Creator) that he and his family are as corrupt as those he's saving the world from, and so, humanity deserves to end. The film ends with a message of hope for humanity, and a change of Noah's heart based on what the Creator really desires.

Second problem, why would the lesser Creator desire the destruction of the material world he created? Wouldn't that be the desire of the greater, non-material God?

Coincidentally, while trying to refresh my memory about certain scenes in the film, I came upon this rebuttal to Dr. Mattson's article called No, Noah is not Gnostic. (Say that ten times fast!)

I haven't read through it all, but this stuck out to me:

[OingoBoingo]

Great reply robrecht. Guess I didn't need to post, since you nailed my thoughts on the film exactly (even down to the Transformers/Nephilim silliness).

The article I linked actually goes into what the serpent skin may have represented:

Source: Peter T. Chattaway

My friend Steven D. Greydanus makes a similar point in his review of the film:

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Yes, that's a good interpretation of the snake skin. I didn't realize that it too had been glowing initially and did not glow for Tubal-Cain, but is encouraging that a few of us independently did not necessarily assume this to be symbolism of evil.

[RBerman]

Yes, that's a good interpretation of the snake skin. I didn't realize that it too had been glowing initially and did not glow for Tubal-Cain, but is encouraging that a few of us independently did not necessarily assume this to be symbolism of evil.

Ari Handel, the film's co-author, addressed what the snakeskin meant for him here.

And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?

Mattson responded to Handel's comments here.

As for the observation that the environmentalist theme doesn't fit easily with Gnostic ideas about the physical world being evil: I agree. That's the trouble with meshing ancient worldview material with modern worldview material. In the Relevant Magazine article I linked above, it sounds like Handel (and possibly Aronofsky) were appropriating the "glowing Adam" idea just as a way of saying that there's good inside everyone, battling to get out. That's a point of contact with Gnosticism's "spirit=good," but it doesn't mean that Handel and Aronofsky are full-blown second century Gnostics transported into the 21st Century. It means that artists appropriate whatever symbols they find at hand, for purposes of their own. They're subverting Gnosticism while simultaneously subverting the Old Testament Scriptures that Gnosticism itself subverted in a different manner.

[OingoBoingo]

Ari Handel, the film's co-author, addressed what the snakeskin meant for him here.

A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?

Chattaway replies to Mattson's reply to Handel here. I really think that Mattson's grasping at straws on the whole Gnostic issue, and a number of reviewers (including Christians like Chattaway) are attempting to set the record straight. You're right that a shed snakeskin doesn't seem like very effective garment, but as Chattaway points out by way of Dr. Avivah Zornberg:

[robrecht]

A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?

I am not familiar with this particular midrash and I'll have to look at your links later, but in the meantime, I don't think the snakeskin should be understood as the entirety of the garments made by God for Adam and Eve. Note also that Handel here seems to emphasize its function as more of a spiritual symbol:

[robrecht]

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.

OK, I've finally gotten around to looking up some of the references that I was looking for. With respect to the supposedly gnostic Kabbalah theme of Adam and Eve being luminescent spirits. This is a much older motif that is found in Jewish/Christian inter-testamental literature. The earliest occurrence I've been able to track down is actually a midrashic interpretation supposedly based on an aurally indistinguishable textual variant on Gen 3,21 attributed in the Great Midrash on Genesis to a 1st century Torah scroll owned by the great scribe, Rabbi Meir. He says that that a single (silent) letter of the text was different, instead of a silent ayin (ע), the scroll he speaks of had a silent aleph (א). Thus:

ויעש יהוה אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבשם
ויעש יהוה אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות אור וילבשם

Though the text would sound exactly the same (in some dialects, including modern Hebrew), the change in letter changes the meaning of 'skin' to 'light':

And the Lord God made for Adam and his woman tunics of skin [light] and he clothed them.

This was later understood to be their original clothing of glory prior to their disobedience, and hence we find intertestamental texts such as 3 Baruch 4,16 (cf also Ephraim the Syrian) speaking of Adam being condemned on account of the tree incident and being stripped (literally 'made naked') of the glory of God (τῆς δόξης θεοῦ ἐγυμνώθη)
http://ocp.tyndale.ca/3-greek-apocalypse-of-baruch#4-4

This, like much of the celestial Adamic imagery, has messianic implications, ie, the Messiah as the second Adam. It is said in the Pesikta de Rav Kahanaἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας), Hist Rech ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν, 1 Cor 15,53-54).
http://ocp.tyndale.ca/history-of-the-rechabites#12-12Noah. Specifically in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan, we see the infamous serpent skin:

ועבד ייי אלקים לאדם ולאיתתיה לבושׁין דיקר מן משׁך חויא דאשׁלח מיניה על משׁך בישׁריהון חלף טופריהון דאישׁתלחו ואלבישׁינון http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm