“Noah” and “Clash of the Titans”

I actually saw the “Noah” movie when it came out and wrote a commentary about it for the Tomorrow’s World website (“Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’: Pro-Satan Propoganda”). I won’t repeat much of what I said there, though I will add that if you are desperate to see Russell Crowe in a boat, “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” is more historically accurate, more educational, more moving, more inspirational, and less depressing.

But I had a number of thoughts related to the movie, and I have planned for sometime to mention them briefly in a blog post. Now that I finally am, I think I will just stick with one. Seeing how my thoughts ran away with me in my last post, I’d like to keep this one more focused.

On reflecting on the junk pile that was Aronofsky’s “Noah” in the days after seeing it, I was struck by the thought that the movie reflected a certain approach to the Bible that reminded me of how Hollywood treats myths and legends.

"Release the Scandinavian Sea Monster from Norway!" cried the Greek Deity (image from MGM's (Warner Bros') "Clash of the Titans")
“Release the Scandinavian Sea Monster from Norway!” cried the Greek Deity (image from MGM’s (now Warner Bros’) 1981 “Clash of the Titans”)

For instance, consider the movie “Clash of the Titans.” I can’t speak to the modern incarnation, let alone its sequel “Wrath of the Titans,” as I have seen neither and didn’t feel to motivated to do so. The 1981 Harry Hamlin-headed (ha! aliteration) “Clash of the Titans” — that I have seen. It was a state-of-the-art stop motion animation fest, the last work of the stop motion master, Ray Harryhausen, and I ate it up as a kid. (Note: Not an endorsement, just an admission. My judgment wasn’t the best in my late pre-teens. It is sad that many of my generation may hear “Laurence Olivier” and think of his role in this flick as “Zeus” instead of — oh, I don’t know — maybe almost anything else Laurence Olivier has ever done.)

But it wasn’t exactly the most accurate representation of classical Greek mythology, right? After all, the “Titans” don’t even show up in the flick. And, “Release the Kraken”? Really? Greek god Zeus is going to release a Scandanavian sea monster? Was the Scylla not available? Surely the Kraken’s trip from Norway all the way to Joppa would have given Perseus a little extra time, now? But I digress…

My point is that Hollywood feels no obligation to honor the “spirit” of old Greek myths. They are all fictions, and writers certainly feel free to do anything they want with them. They are not like actual biographies — not that some writers feel any obligations to accuracy in those, either, I suppose. Unlike biographies or actual historical events, myths — Greek, Roman, whatever — are simply collections of names and ideas for writers, into which they can insert whatever meaning they want. Make bad guys into good guys, good guys into bad guys, borrow a creature from a different part of the world — no harm no foul. It’s not like Perseus is going to send lawyers demanding that the truth be told accurately, when there is, in reality, no truth.

Just look at the versions of Hercules Hollywood has out out over the years. (I still haven’t scrubbed the 1983 Lou Ferrigno debacle from my neurons.) It’s about what the writer wants to say, not any need to stay faithful to a “reality” since there is no reality in the myth to which one owes any faithfulness. I get it. The story isn’t actually history, and it is freely available to the writer to use to say whatever he wants, whether he wants to make a popcorn flick or something preachier.

While it’s not the first of its kind in this way, Aronofsky’s “Noah” helped me to find words to the thought that the Bible is, now, just the same as Greek myth to the entertainment industry. It’s a potential source of stories (regarded by them as) detached from reality — detached from real people or real events or real history — that can be used at whim to say whatever the writer wants to say.

There is no need, for instance, to worry about communicating the events of Noah’s life accurately if you truly believe that there was no “Noah” to begin with. He’s just another Perseus — a character for your Dramatis Personæ. Flesh him out however you will. Put whatever words you’d like in his mouth. Give him whatever motivations your heart fancies. After all: He isn’t real.

And, of course, these being biblical stories, the same goes with God. After all, if the story is not a historical account of God’s actions in the world and if God, Himself, isn’t real, then we can treat Him just as another character, another vehicle for our own message, ideas, and entertaining concepts. He might as well be Zeus or Athena. Have him punish angels for being too sympathetic to humanity? Sure, why not!

Some would say that Cecil B. DeMille did the same with “The Ten Commandments” — not to mention scores of other “biblical” movies — and to some extent I could agree. But not completely. If you watched “The Ten Commandments,” you saw the disclaimer at the beginning. And while the movie that followed that disclaimer took its liberties (did it ever!), there was an air of respect for the source material running through the movie. Enough respect? No, probably not. But compared to what Aronofsky brought to Noah’s story, DeMille can come across like a fundamentalist theologian.

While the creative types in Hollywood may have decided that the Bible is myth — as available to them to preach their own messages and entertain according to their own values as anything made up by the Greeks or Romans — they are still constrained by two forces: (1) the need to make money off of the public, and (2) the public’s tolerance of the abusing the Bible.

Because while the public’s tolerance for Bible abuse is broadening, there is still some resistance. There is still some unease. It may be virtually microscopic, but it still exists.

It is, though, on the way out. The elite of the entertainment industry are already there and have been there for quite some time. To recast a biblical story in your own image is considered “brave” and “bold” filmmaking, especially if that image is far from the actual message of the Bible. (Applying such adjectives to such works, by the way, is ridiculous. There is nothing “brave” or “bold” about mocking the Bible in our society today. It’s practically fashionable. Let’s see a filmmaker in a major movie studio reinterpret a story from the Quran — that might earn the adjectives “brave” or “bold.” But don’t hold your breath.)

And the public is on its way there, too. Tolerance for the Bible-as-myth is higher than ever, with no signs of shrinking any time soon. Perhaps Ridley Scott’s “Exodus: Gods and Kings” starring Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton will pleasantly surprise in December. The teaser trailer looks interesting, yet, at the same time, most promotional material for such a flick will almost certainly focus on those things appealing to the pro-Bible crowd, while hiding the sure-to-offend qualities to be revealed after the ticket is paid for. Concerning Exodus, I am, perhaps irrationally, allowing myself to be hopeful, but guarded.

Regardless, if the Red Sea parts to reveal a stop motion Scandinavian sea monster and Moses rushes in to battle it in the Batmobile, I’m requesting a refund.

8 thoughts on ““Noah” and “Clash of the Titans”

  1. I would have to agree with you totally……we did rent the movie and watched it……..it made me sick but……..my grandkids saw that movie too and now I know what subjects to bring up with them and to set them straight about what they saw. Though my kids were raised in a quote, “Christian” home…not the truth…they are not passing things on down to my grandchildren. At least now when they jibber about things they saw there, I will know what they are talking about. Lets face it, it was so far fetched on so many things, unless you actually saw it you would be mighty confused.

  2. Steve

    The same thing is happening in documentary films. Tacking together different pieces of “fact” that presents a false picture. Highlighting certain things while low lighting others. If you present a political or personal agenda in a documentary format, then it must be true!

    Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” is a very good film and exceptionally accurate. And I would also mention “American Revolution” as a quality piece of work. But I’m afraid those are getting to be the exception, not the rule.

  3. Someone told me a few years ago that the best way to know that the movie you are about to watch is fiction is when they flash “Based upon a true story” on the screen at the beginning. It seems that poetic license is not just extended to poets any longer.

    On the subject of The Ten Commandments, though, there are gaps in the knowledge we have about biblical characters, and a lot of the “filler” was to make Moses more human and relatable. However, a lot of that material actually came from Josephus and other sources and wasn’t all Cecil B Demille’s ideas. It took some real research and effort, and it wasn’t all about promoting one’s own bizarre ideas.

    Speaking of bizarre, I did my own article on it some time back. I did not watch it, and the article explains why (I won’t post the link b/c I don’t want to step on any toes here, but you can search for “Noah the Lunatic (at Least in the Movies)”). My digging into what people were saying was enough to convince me (and give me a headache). What was telling was that Roger Ebert, certainly not a believer to my knowledge, said, “‘Noah’ is a bizarre movie”.

    That, to me, was a nice summation of what I’d learned, including the junk from the Kabbalah and other pagan and mystical sources.

    However, that isn’t the strangest thing. I think the really strange thing are “Christian” leaders who were actively promoting such stuff!

  4. Thanks, March Hare, for your thoughts. Let me take the step of providing the link that you kindly, out of (much appreciated by me) respect for my toes, did not add: “Noah the Lunatic (at Least in the Movies)” — full of good points, to be sure.

    As for Mr. DeMille’s 10Cs, I agree. He still took liberties and went contrary to the Bible here and there, but, in general, there is a relative respect for the source material that I appreciated. What you don’t see in his movie is character assassination and purposeful blasphemy, both of which are at the dark heart of Aronofsky’s odious opus.

    Concerning the Ridley Scott “Exodus” movie coming in December, the trailer is heartening, though I’m not getting my hopes up. My kids saw the battle scenes and was afraid they were going to have Moses take the Israelites into battle against Pharaoh, but I pointed out to them that Josephus mentions the idea that Moses was a general during his time in Egypt and that this is what they were depicting. And I don’t fault a filmmaker with filling in unknown details with good research that does not contradict the biblical details or the spirit of the biblical narrative. If that is all Ridley does, he won’t get complaints from me.

    And as for the strangeness of “Christians” promoting the “Noah” abomination to others, I agree. It was baffling, though very human.

    Thanks, again!

  5. You are right — I totally messed up the href in my back-and-forth copying-and-pasting! Thanks for the working link. I went back and fixed mine, so it should work now, too. Thanks, again!

  6. Norbert

    From what I have read, the ship in Master and Commander, if it were to rely on history, should have been an American captain, not French. But the decision was made that showing Americans as antagonists wasn’t going to be as profitable. The way I see it many movies direct the masses towards what their ears are itching for.

    I do believe that Rev 18:22 in an indirect way, alludes to a total revamp of the entertainment industry as well as other industries.

  7. Well, I did say “more accurate.” 🙂 I find that easy to believe. And I agree: part of the reason, I believe, for God’s taking the world down to its lowest point before Christ’s return will be to build it up again from scratch, and that will definitely include a new, fundamental approach to entertainment.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s