criterionforum.org

Mr Sausage wrote:

knives wrote:No worries, all these variations (even the Hebrew version has a few minor different editions) would drive anyone crazy.

So it'll be interesting so see what variation Aronofsky is using (or even making).

On twitter he mentioned extensive use of the apocryphal book of Enoch.

As a big mythology nut, I unabashedly love The Fountain (among other reasons, I've never seen a movie that more closely adheres to the tropes of sacred apocalypse literature) and am pretty excited for Noah, cheesy song in trailer notwithstanding. I have a certain love for movies that bring mythology to the screen with unironic Romanticism and earnestness, unafraid of lapsing into silliness. Excalibur is another favorite I put in this category. As far as Aronofsky's take, aside from the ecological aspect, he mentioned survivor's guilt playing a major role (as in Genesis 9, when Noah plants a vineyard and gets trashed).

Also, if he's working from Enoch, I'm hopeful that the portrayal of angels will be unique. In the bible, even good angels are pretty terrifying and weird. Just about everyone who comes in contact with one has a reaction of abject terror. But every movie I've seen with angels, they're always happy, peaceful presences. But angels are especially weird in Enoch, which in part expands upon some odd passages in Genesis, portraying fallen angels breeding with human women who give birth to evil giants. (And this corruption of the Earth by giants and fallen angels precipitates the flood.)

Spoiler

I read an article that mentioned a scene where Methuselah, played by Anthony Hopkins, is guarded by "Watchers", which is a term for angels found largely in the apocrypha.

If the movie's consciously treating the story of Noah as something traumatic and horrifying, borne of obedience to a God whose dictates can't be wholly understood in human terms, that sounds a lot more interesting than what the trailer seemed to be selling.

Matt wrote:

domino harvey wrote:This looks about exactly how I expected a 2013-filmed Biblical epic to look, not sure what everyone is dumping on it for?

Maybe people were expecting the relatively restrained storytelling Aronofsky of The Wrestler and Black Swan, not the feverish effects nerd who made The Fountain. Of course a shitty trailer with awful music could just be a desperate studio attempt to sell an unsellable movie that's actually pretty decent?

Indeed. Putting aside moral misgivings with regard to the story itself, I have little doubt that Aronofsky will innovate by layering an ecological lesson, as many here are suggesting (and perhaps as Aronofsky himself has indicated). Whether that collides perversely with the original story's insanely unforgiving theme of tested faith, I guess the film's execution will have to speak to that.

At the same time, the story is completely buried under millennia of translations, emendations, and hermeneutics; I would imagine it's difficult to say what it means precisely at all by this point. It is this living, mutating thing, an organic, nearly inscrutable palimpsest that people--mainly Christians--appropriate now and then for their own purposes, sadly asserting positive meaning in something that should remain flexibly interpreted. Was it, for example, originally a darkly comic, satirical story, à la Harold Bloom's theory regarding the author "J" in the court of Solomon? Is it inherited from the flood story in Gilgamesh (or vice versa), perhaps even prior to that, an ancient oral folk tale that has wormed its way into religious traditions? And what did it mean at that point in time?

All of which is to say: why not reinterpret the story radically?

As for the music, I just hate it because it's anachronistic.

(Edited for grammar.)

Wouldn't any music by anachronistic? I don't think we have any idea what was on the Top 40 5000 years ago...

Sorry, captveg, for the confusion. It was a wee joke in reference to a discussion in the Thief thread. See my response for precisely your point.

Official trailer is pretty much the same as the leaked one.

Except it's 45 seconds shorter and doesn't have that stupid song at the end, so it's got that going for it, at least.

I would have liked more of a Take Shelter approach, personally

The best stuff in that article is how one of the biggest problems the studio ran into in trying to appease the faith-based audience was said audience's ignorance of the details of their own professed faith.

The Hollywood Reporter wrote:In some cases, Moore says, "people had recollections of the story that weren't actually correct." For example, there was Noah's ability to open and close the door to the ark. "People said the door to the ark is supposed to be so big that no man can close it. Well no, that's not actually what it says. What it says is that God ultimately shut the door of the ark when the flood comes, so it wasn't Noah shutting the door on the rest of humanity -- it was God making a decision." And then there's the scene -- which actually is in the Bible -- in which Noah, back on land after the flood, gets drunk by himself in a cave. "But most people do not remember or were never taught the fact that after Noah's off the ark, there is a moment in the story where he is drunk," says Moore.

Of course. And on top of all of this, we're talking about a story in which a man puts two of every animal on a boat. It's very strange to be a human being sometimes, to have to even have a conversation about the validity (or lack thereof) of a story that could not possibly happen.

mfunk9786 wrote:Aronofksy, studio butting heads - the version of the film that gets released will very likely not be his director's cut

Did you miss this part?

Hoping to woo the faith-based crowd, Paramount made and tested as many as half-a-dozen of its own cuts of the movie. "I was upset -- of course," Aronofsky tells The Hollywood Reporter in his first extensive interview about the film's backstory. "No one's ever done that to me."

Both director and studio say that's now all behind them. "There was a rough patch," Aronofsky allows, but at this point, Paramount is fully supporting his version. Vice chair Rob Moore says the studio is launching an advertising campaign designed to communicate that this film -- an exploration of Noah's emotional journey -- flows in large part from Aronofsky's imagination.

What I found a little surprising was Aronofsky believing that there was no way the studio could re-cut his version of the film without it becoming incoherent! Anyone working with a major studio should know that there have been plenty of released films that became incoherent during re-editing.

mfunk9786 wrote:Of course. And on top of all of this, we're talking about a story in which a man puts two of every animal on a boat. It's very strange to be a human being sometimes, to have to even have a conversation about the validity (or lack thereof) of a story that could not possibly happen.

Well, everyone knows the devil is in the detail.

The Hollywood Reporter wrote: "But most people do not remember or were never taught the fact that after Noah's off the ark, there is a moment in the story where he is drunk," says Moore.

So it's safe to assume we won't be seeing the interpretation of the Noah story where his son Ham rapes him while he's drunk? You've lost a ticket sale, Aronofsky!

Free advice: do not read the comments. Trust me, unless you're looking to put blood pressure meds to the test

domino harvey wrote:Free advice: do not read the comments. Trust me, unless you're looking to put blood pressure meds to the test

Oh my God. Why, why, why do I not listen to you?

domino harvey wrote:Free advice: do not read the comments. Trust me, unless you're looking to put blood pressure meds to the test

Must've been linked to from Drudge. He links to Hollywood Reporter a lot.

swo17 wrote:Did you miss this part?

Both director and studio say that's now all behind them. "There was a rough patch," Aronofsky allows, but at this point, Paramount is fully supporting his version.

Got it. Sorry, I must admit that I skimmed toward the end.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing this more after reading that. And of course I had to take a peek at the comments too. Kind of like looking at a car wreck.

mfunk9786 wrote:Of course. And on top of all of this, we're talking about a story in which a man puts two of every animal on a boat. It's very strange to be a human being sometimes, to have to even have a conversation about the validity (or lack thereof) of a story that could not possibly happen.

Except that's not exactly what the Bible says either.

It's a bit vague even before translation. For english I suppose Crumb has got the right level of ambiguity. Go to page 19 to see the offending passage. Obviously though he wouldn't really need to help fish or animals that exist where humans do not.

I was speaking more of him taking seven of "clean" animals and some birds rather than two as one detail everyone always forgets.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to. Is this another Mormon thing?

Genesis 7:1-3, NRSV wrote:1Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. 2Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

(If I'm not mistaken I believe captveg was not contradicting your point as to the unlikeliness of the story, but merely correcting the precise reference.)

Yeah, just clarifying what I meant. In all most people know such a shorthand version of the account (Genesis or apocryphal sources) that I also laugh when those same people cry about inaccuracies. I'm glad they are including the drunken moment aspect and exploring how the weight of the responsibility as Gods mouthpiece during such a calamitous event would effect Noah. Its not a story just about covenantal rainbows.