NOAH: Book from Rizzoli on Aronofsky's Masterpiece

A picture book with a screenplay in the back is available from Rizzoli, New York.
A quick review is in order.

As you may know from my longer posts on Aronofsky's NOAH (contributed over several weeks when the movie came out) I found the movie, from a Moral Premise standpoint, good and challenging in many ways.

So I bite my lip and paid for the book and the novelization. I'm not into novelizations, but since I coach writers a lot, I thought this one might be interesting to look at sometime in the future. But first the picture book. It's worth a few comments.

THE ONLY TEXT IS SCRIPTURE

No doubt, in part a dig at Aronofsky's "Christian" critics who claimed the movie was not Biblically accurate, the editors chose to use ONLY Scripture as textual explanations in the picture portion. Insistent critics will no doubt point out that the Scripture text used is not from any modern translation but rather a "translation" or "paraphrase" by Aronofsky and Handel found in their screenplay. Such criticism is disingenuous, however, because no modern day translation is inerrant or infallible—
labels that can only be assigned to the original manuscripts none of which exist. And, if a Christian writer were to paraphrase a passage of Scripture to make a point, his work would be accepted as inerrant or infallible, e.g. Peterson's THE MESSAGE from Navpress.

But the presence of only Scripture in the picture book reinforces the effort Aronofsky and Handel have repeatedly claimed, that their intent was to take the Biblical record as true and authentic and to then fill in
the gaps of the record with gleanings from other oral and written traditions, being careful never to step on the literal Scriptures. Much of the argument against the film by Christians concerned the incorporation of such material, as if it could never be true. But, as my longer post points out, Aronofsky has proven to be the more honest Biblical scholar and not given in to those Evangelical ideologies not found in the Bible.  The vast differences in Protestant doctrine, supposedly all based on the Bible, creates a vacuum for such arguments. The movie is based on the Bible and here the writers and publishers remind us of that.        

PICTURE REPRODUCTION QUALITY

Normally, in this blog, I'd have nothing to say about "print quality." I try to stand apart from commenting on aesthetic elements and stick with story structure. But that is what I'm doing here. It's clear that the editors/producers of the book made a decision that their creation would reflect the tone, arc, and structure of the movie by how they printed the inside pages. I got a kick out of this because I've said from the beginning of writing The Moral Premise, that the concept applies to ALL aspects of a story, right down to the marketing,... and now I can say it can apply to the printing techniques of the ancillary picture book.

The beginning and end of the book is printed with glossy stock that allows the ink to lie on top of the paper providing sharp edges, and  rich color as the light is able to reflect it all back to the eye. But the center of the book is printed on drab, ink-absorbing, matt. The photos are washed out, lacking in color and sharpness. The contrast is low, and the blacks are gray. The center is truly ugly and depressing to look at.

But this was on purpose. It's not a budget consideration. Indeed, the turning point up front, is a spread that changes from beautiful to ugly. It is in a section where Noah and his family (particularly Ham) come to grip with the sin and ugliness of the world around them. In the photo below, compare the left page with the right. The left is bright and glossy and the right is dull and matt.

This is the spread that follows Noah reflecting on the world's condition as described by this Scripture:

 The World was filled with violence. And the Creator looked upon the World and saw it was corrupt for all flesh and corrupted his way upon the World. Genesis 6:11

The spread above shows Ham and the girl he tries to rescue from the World's violence and from a mass grave. But as the story unfolds in the minutes that follow, the girl is lost to the mob and Noah pulls Ham to safety and the ark.  This is the ugly side of humanity...it seems that all is lost.

Near the end of the story, the ugly pages end and transform back to the beautiful pages. This spread occurs precisely at Noah's Moment of Grace, where he realizes and accepts the truth of the Moral Premise. Examine the photo below. Notice the transition from dull and matt (left) to bright and glossy (right). This too, on the right, more viscerally reveals the blood that has flowed to the surface of Noah's skin.

The center of this spread is Noah's Moment of Grace, when he finally figures out that God does not want to destroy all humanity, but rather give humanity a second chance by saving Noah's family and his off-spring. The pages on the left will be re-created later by Abraham when Abraham believes that God wants him to kill his only son, Isaac with a knife upon an altar of wood. And here is Noah, foreshadowing that later scene. On the left, because Noah is righteous he is determined to obey God. His righteous does not come from omniscience and understanding God, but from obeying what he understands. And so, Noah, like Abraham, prepares to sacrifice the two baby girls on an altar of wood (the top of the ark). 

But right in the middle of this spread (and I think the middle two pictures are actually a single frame), is the moment when Noah looks at the babies and (later explains): "I looked down on those girls and all I had in my heart was love." He puts down the knife and kisses the babies with his blessing. This scene can only remind us of the anguish that Abraham must have experienced in preparing to follow God's command to sacrifice Isaac. 

Now, notice again, what the editor did with the printing. The left is the last of the ugly pages in the book. And on the right we have the bright, glossy beauty restored. This is the moral premise realized in the books' production:

Justice without mercy leads to dread, death, and annihilation (UGLY); but

Justice with mercy leads to hope, life, and a new creation (BEAUTY).

THE SCREENPLAY

The included screenplay is a big disappointment, although it is smaller than normal (6.5" x 8.5") and is cleverly inserted in a box built into the back cover.

The disappointed is due to its violation of many screenplay formats rules that the industry demands for practical reasons of reading, scheduling and budgeting.  And because those of us in the industry read so many screenplays, picking up this small monstrosity is distracting and provides a wrong role model for aspiring screenwriters.

Among the violations:

• The slug lines are CENTERED and BLUE.
• The transitions are CENTERED and STRUCK THROUGH
• The action lines are nearly the same width as dialogue making it difficult for the eye to quickly distinguish the difference. It's easy to confuse the two.
• The action lines are fully justified, creating awkward gaps between words.
• The dialogue lines are centered.
• The character tags are centered. 
• The page numbers are at the bottom of each page and centered.
• The page is 23% smaller than normal. Not easy to read. 
• But HEY, the font looks like Courier. (what a concept).

My advice to Rizzoli, whoever made this decision, correct them. We want real looking screenplays that we can share with students. What you published is very much in keeping with the ugly world of Noah that needed to be destroyed. In Hollywood vernacular you "sinned."

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln loved the play. 

Can the "Moment of Grace" Be at the End

Recently, I was asked this question: Can the Moment of Grace (MOG) for the Protagonist be at the end of the story?

There are several ways to answer this.

A. IF you’re writing a straight ahead redemptive film, the MOG for the MAIN PLOT (13-18 beats), for the PROTAGONIST must be in the MIDDLE. This is because you want to create a fairly even roller emotional coast ride for your audience both (1) morally and (2) physically. 

1. The moral up and down is related to the psychologically of your protagonist’s and the audience’s understanding of the truth of the moral premise. This is a very subtle roller coaster ride because it is NOT explicit or obviously visible except in metaphors and non-verbal. Yes the MP is true, no it’s not, yes it is, no it’s not. But it is very critical because it is the foundational motivational factor in the protagonist’s actions and are seen on the screen. 

2. The physical up and down is the explicit answer to the story questions: Will your protagonist’s reach his/her goal and will your audience reach it’s expected cathartic moment when the goal is reached? Yes the goal will be reached, not it won’t, etc. Those peaks and valleys of those two interrelated roller coast rides must be evenly spaced or the movie will flatten out and you’ll have too long of a dry or boring sequence.  

Recall the macro effect of the turning points, how every other one is from the antagonistic force or the protagonist making a decision to pursue the goal in the face of that force.

B. NOW, if the MOG for the Protagonist’s main plot is put off to the end and the film is still redemptive then you have a near tragedy where the audience is taken down, and down, and down a very dark roller coaster with tunnels ….and there’s no hope too close to the end. Aronofsky’s NOAH did this. As you may have read on my blog posts about that film, I liked it and found it Biblical etc. BUT, the MOG for the film's main plot is not until the very end of the film, and to the audience you have what looks like a tragedy with a madman at the center of the story. He’s mad to do what he thinks the Creator wants him to do, he doesn't see the clear ways in which God is communicating to him, and thus the MOG is not until the end... and many Christians could not understand that kind of a story character. In his defense I understand how Aronofsky could see the character that way because (a) so many of us humans can't "hear" God clearly, and (b) since Aronofsky was 10-years told he always saw the Noah story as very dark because of all the people and innocent babies that died in the flood. All his life he wondered if he was in that situation, would he be good enough to get on the ark?  But the structure of such a film requires that the protagonist NOT understand (even a little) the truth of the moral premise until it’s almost too late. (In Noah's case it's almost axiomatically, Too Little, Too Late.) … and it’s a hard, dark ride for the audience, even if it is true. I’ll point out that the NOAH movie did not do that well at the box office, and I think what I just pointed out is there reason.   

C. THERE is a horror film titled CLOVERFIELD where the MOG is at the Act 1 to Act 2 crossover. The act breaks is late (44% instead of 25%) and the MOG is early (44% instead of 50%) and because there is no emotional bump in the middle where the MOG should be, and because the crossover is late, I think the movie suffers from being  to slow in a couple of places like in the middle. The coaster track levels out, so to speak. I blog about here: CLOVERFIELD: Is There Danger...

D. YOU may think you have a MOG at the end of your story, but it may be that you’re confused by the placement of the MOG and the final realization by the protagonist.  You may be working on a story where the final TURTH is CONFIRMED at the end, but you can still have a MOG in the middle. Usually the MOG is not a “come to Jesus” moment where everything changes. But rather a moment where the truth is realized and now must be tested. Thus, the truth of the MOG is not confirmed until the battle is finally won. But from the mid-point's MOG to the Act 3 Climax (the last 50% of the story) the truths of the MP are being applied with increasing effectiveness. Remember the roller coast hills get steeper in the end of a movie, which is the opposite of a real roller coaster. 

In such movies the audience experiences a great cathartic moment at the very end. That is not the MOG, but the final confirmation of the truth of the Moral Premise's truth. 

FINALLY, just to tie up the obvious loose end of this question: The minor characters can have their MOG at the end, as Collette in Ratatouille does when she's running away from the kitchen on her motorbike.  She stops at a red traffic signal, sees her former boss's book in the bookstore window (Any One Can Cook), has a realization of the truth (the red light turns green), and in the next scene we see that she's returned to the kitchen. In fact, such minor characters can have a MOG just about anywhere in the story, but they work best when their MOG is after the main MOG of the protagonist, and before the main plot's final climax, say from 55% to 95%. 

Aronofsky's NOAH, Story Structure, and the Christian Backlash.

Here is the link to my earlier blog about: NOAH's Moral Premise and Its Biblical Accuracy.

During the 2014 Biola Media Conference Jack Hafer moderated a way-too-brief panel about the controversy surrounding Aronofsky's NOAH. On the panel were Dr. Stan Williams, Brett McCracken (both who generally found merit with the film), and Brian Godawa who disliked the movie. Because our time was so short on stage we agreed to continue the conversation at Biola Campus later in the week. Unfortunately, Brian was unable to make the taping, so Williams and McCracken gave it a willing crack. Below are the YouTube links to the six segments.

Dr. Stan Williams & Brett McCracken at Biola's Cultural Conversation Studio

Comments are welcome and moderated.

1. Why Are Christians so Divided About Darren Aronofsky's "NOAH"?

2. Justice, Mercy and the Darkness of Aronofosky's "NOAH"

3. Gnosticism, Environmentalism and the New Eden in Aronofsky's "NOAH"

4. Message, Moral and Myth: Christian Approaches to Film

5. Why Christian Filmgoers Should Care More About Beauty

6. Can an Atheist's Art Bring Glory to God?

ARONOFSKY'S NOAH - The Moral Premise and 31 Things That Agree with the Biblical Account

Pam and I took in Darren Aronofsky's NOAH last night at one of Emagine Entertainments E3 screens. Great ride. Did not disappoint. Good story structure. Criticism from Christian circles is unfounded and based on confusion about the mythic nature of stories. The criticism from religious circles that the story is pagan, atheistic, and anti-Biblical is a scandal.  I try to show why below... while revealing how filmmakers or story makers can be faithful to the source text why making the story fully anew.

[For an explanation of movies, myths and truth, see The Truth of Myths.]

For YouTube Conversations I had with Brett McCracken about the film and why some Christians disliked it and others loved it see NOAH YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

An early derivation of the moral premise for Aronofsky's NOAH is:

Justice without mercy leads to dread, death, and annihilation; but

Justice with mercy leads to hope, life, and a new creation. 

[If you're unfamiliar with the moral premise, it's a single statement that describes the physical and psychological arc of the story. If it's true to natural law and consistently portrayed in a story, we have a strong indicator of audience connection and financial success.]

This moral premise for Noah, is true, and appears to be consistently applied in all the character arcs, especially in the various subplots that surround Noah's character. The truth and consistency of this premise will resonate with audiences as true at a subliminal level and will be a major reason for the film's success.

Sub-Themes & Moral Premises

One of the sub-moral premise statements, which dovetails well with the above is:

Belief in the Creator without righteousness leads to annihilation; but

Belief in the Creator with righteousness leads to salvation.

There are clearly no atheistic characters in this movie. EVERYONE believed in the Creator. The difference is that NOT EVERYONE obeys the Creator. Those that believe and disobey are evil, those that believe and obey are righteous. Faith alone doesn't save Noah and his family. It's faith and righteousness, or to put it in more common language, faith + good works (c.f. James 2).

Another sub-premise statement might be this:

Embracing a selfish understanding of what it means to be man 

leads to evil and annihilation; but

Embracing the Creator's understanding of what it means to be man 

leads to righteousness and salvation. 

This is made explicit in the speeches and actions of Tubal-Cain in how Ham is tempted and led astray.

Cause and Effect: The Logic in Ham's Subplot

Oftentimes source material (in this case the Bible) tells us what happens but doesn't provide the backstory for why it happens. But Natural Law demands and audiences require that every story event has a cause. So, when source material doesn't tell us what that cause is, filmmakers have to imagine the cause, so audiences can follow the logic. That is one of the challenges of adaptations. (By the way, there's a good explanation of this in the Behind the Scenes documentaries for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit where Tolkien only provides a few words to describe something for which Jackson needs to create whole scenes.)

Thus, in Ham's subplot of Aronofsky's NOAH, we are given an understanding of the causes that effect Ham's exile in the Biblical story. The Bible suggests that Ham was exiled because he looked on his father's drunken nakedness. But "cause and effect" asks the question, "why did Ham disrespect his father and look on his nakedness in the first place?" The Bible doesn't explain that...so Aronofsky' and Handel (Aronofsky's co-writer) offer some suggestions to complete the story thread.

Explicit Biblical Accuracy

There are two levels of criticism often leveled at Biblical motion pictures. One is explicit and on the surface, and it has to do with whether the motion picture (or other media presentation) is "accurate" to the Biblical narrative; (this point is addressed in this section). The second level of criticism is implicit and perhaps even subliminal in the critics mind, but it uses the first level as it's excuse; this will be covered in the next section.

As to a movie's explicit Biblical accuracy, critics should be careful to discern between three different sources of information:

1. The original Biblical text, which many religious scholars claim is inerrant, 
2. The hundreds of various translations which can be reasonable extrapolations of what the original texts said, and 
3. The interpretations and imaginations generated by the translations.

Of the three items above, only No. 1 is inerrant, and unfortunately none of those texts exist today. Yes, Biblical texts are said to have been reconstructed with good accuracy. But the extrapolations are not inerrant.

Thus, Biblical proponents should also be aware that the following are not inerrant, and that these are what most people refer to when they claim what the Bible says:

• a particular Bible scholar's opinion (of what the Bible) text means to say. 
• a particular translation's footnotes
• a particular Bible translation,
• an individual, pastor, or other authority's opinion.
• a parent or friend who embellishes what they heard like gossip.

In terms of spiritual truth, all of the above are more or less trustworthy, but to claim they are inerrant is false.

Arguing from Silence or Anecdote

Another thing that Bible critics should be careful about doing, when claiming something is not Biblically accurate, is arguing from silence. Such arguments are fallacious if it claims something did not happen simply because it is not mentioned in the text. For instance: Did Noah get angry at God? Did Noah doubt his mission? Did Noah confuse his mission? Did he rail unjustly at this family? The Bible leaves open the possibility that all those questions could be answered "yes" without infringing upon the Biblical record. 

And there is arguing from anecdote.  Similar to arguing from silence, this argument hypothesizes a cause which is not mentioned in the Bible from the effect (Noah's drunken nakedness) which is mentioned.  The Bible mentions that Noah got so drunk he passed out, naked. Now, why would Noah do such a thing? Aronofsky and Handel suggest it was because of the great stress that Noah experienced. Can such a man of faith and righteousness like Noah get naked and pass out drunk. You bet, if you believe the Bible. All that Aronofsky posits is some of the logical particulars of WHY that happened.

Implicit Biblical Accuracy

Two ways of communicating truth are: (1) through stories, and (2) propositional statements. The first is risky for the seriously religious because through the use of symbols, metaphors, anecdotal experiences, and the visceral arc of a character's journey... the interpretation of the story is left up to the audience or reader. But with propositional statements there is little left to the interpretive imagination.  Stories find home in novel,  movies, news article and such. Propositional Statements find home in theology. A well-told story, while it leaves some of its essence open to interpretation, will emotionally and intellectually involve the audience in such a way that the story's meaning (or moral lesson) takes on a personal and cathartic identity. The audience "experiences" the story as if they were in the story. [This works well because "experience really is the best teacher" and the simulations of life that movies and novels provide are the second best thing.] In such, stories SHOW the verisimilitude of real life, audiences make the moral decisions along with the characters, and the audience emotionally lives out the natural law consequences. Memories are made through such simulations.

None of that happens, however with propositional statement presentations (like we find in most homilies and sermons). Although sermons filled with propositional statements may be laden with absolute and clear truth, the statements fly at the audience one after the other like rubber cup tipped arrows hitting flannel. They don't stick. Why? Because the audience is TOLD what to understand and believe, and there is no internal identification with the concreteness of life, there is no internal emotional or experiential processing.

Movie goers who may be seriously religious have little philosophical trouble with the propositional style of communication because truth is made clear in the formalized, precise language. Remove the propositional element, however, and insert a story that requires personal processing of the elements to derive the meaning, and these same people become uneasy, and unsure of what meaning is being communicated. To counter that fear they will look for ways to question the vehicle in order to protect the truth.

Okay, enough of the didactic explanation...back to the movie.

SPOILER APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT

Let's examine one other instance from the movie that is fairly easy to explain but to some seems unBiblical. The Bible says that the wives of all three sons were on the ark? Emma Watson plays Ila, Shem's wife. But did the movie show the wives of Ham and Japheth on the ark? Many people who think they are correctly interpreting the Bible will say that the Movie did not include the wives of Ham and Japheth, and therefore the movie disrespects the Bible's infallibility. But the movie leaves open the interpretation that Shem and Ila's two daughters become the future wives of Ham and Japheth. And those two little girls were conceived before Ila gets on the ark. So, if you believe that life begins at conception, then the movie allows that the wives of Ham and Japheth were indeed on the boat....especially if you're writing about this perhaps 1,000 hears in the future as Moses is claimed to be. And thus, Aronofsky gives us a story that indeed follows the Biblical account that there were eight souls on the Ark, 4 women, and 4 men.

AND A FEW OTHER SPOILERS...
31 Things Aronofsky Gets Right About the Biblical Account

Here are the numerous ways in which Aronofsky's NOAH follows the Biblical Story or, at least, does not contradict the story.

1. Noah is the man that God chooses to build the ark and lead a righteous family to safety.
2. The flood destroys all life left behind. 
3. God supernaturally communicates with Noah, and Noah obeys, even though what he's asked to do seems ridiculous. 
4. Everyone believes in God. Even Tubal-Cain the villain. 
5. In a great show of consistent faith, Noah reminds his family that the Creator will provide all they need. Noah: "The Creator has supplied all our needs," even wives for Ham and Japheth, although Ham could not trust God.
6. We see miracle after miracle by the creator and illustrates general and particular grace.  
7. Noah obeys God, and is so desirous of obeying God, that he becomes obsessed about it to near madness. Like many of us he wants to listen to God, but can't always discern how that is happening. 
8. Noah is tempted many times to turn from the Creator, but he remains true. He repeatedly proves his righteousness.
9. Redemption is possible, even for the fallen. We see this in HAM and in THE WATCHERS. I particularly thought the redemption of The Watchers was true to the Biblical concept of redemption, even if the Church says it can't happen. Even though The Watchers are fallen angels, when they make a moral decision to get back on God's side and help Noah and defend God's will against evil even to the point of death, they find redemption where they didn't expect it. Such sequences remind us of how the most sinful man can find salvation by turning back and obeying a God who forgives.
10. As already mentioned, there are eight souls (4 men and 4 women) who survive the flood. Looking back from the time of Moses to Noah, it's easy to say (per the movie) that the three girls are the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11. The Creator created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. We can debate how, but the movie makes it clear that GOD did it. It wasn't chance.
12. The Bible doesn't say how the ark was built, but it befuddles the mind how 4 men and 4 women could have done it alone, even given 100 years. You can't argue from silence to determine how such a huge craft was made ready without supernatural help. God provides.And it's just like God to provide using those that seem alien to goodness. Throughout the Bible God transforms evil to good.
13. Another fallacious argument from silence is that Noah never got angry or mad at God or anyone else. Considering the task that faced him, at the time it faced him, and the miracles that were required to make it happen...any normal, human man is going to be tested to the limits of patience, endurance, and faith. Aronofsky shows us this verisimilitude. And Noah comes down on the right side of the issue.
14. The flood springs not only from the skies but from the ground.
15. The Creator is Just but he is also Merciful. Mankind has always struggled with the balance of these attributes of God's character. Noah struggles. With the help of his wife's spiritual insight they both succeed. When Noah shows mercy it's because of God's mercy to him.
16. A bird brings back a twig to the ark signifying that the flood is receding. 
17. Noah gets drunk, Ham looks on his nakedness with disrespect, Shem and Japheth cover their father's nakedness.
18. Ham is exiled. 
19. In the end Noah and his family give thanks to God for their salvation, and Noah recites the covenant from God.
20. There is a glorious rainbow.
21. (Here's one my wife recognized.) Adoption and being grafted into the spiritual family of God is a ubiquitous Biblical theme we see in the lives of personages like Ruth and Rahab. Then in Christian New Testament Scriptures we read how believers are grafted into relationship with the family of God as part of salvation. This is perfectly illustrated in the movie's portrayal of Ila who is an orphan Noah's family adopts. With Shem, she gives birth to two little girls and at the end she is the one to tell Noah that you didn't let the Creator down. He was giving you the chance to join with him in showing mercy and you did.
22. Noah asks for God to speak to him to tell him what to do. Noah's expecting another vision or a voice from heaven. But, as is true throughout the Bible and our persona lives, God speaks loudly and clearly in ways that surprise us. In the movie's case, the sign from God is the twins born to Ila about which Noah says,  "All I see is love"... and bends down and kisses them. It is a perfect representation of redemption from God to man, and then from man to those he's charged with protecting. 
23. When Tubal-Cain mocks Noah for standing alone against his army, Noah says, "I'm not alone." This is Biblical -- that the people of God, even though persecuted and out numbered, are not alone. The first thought that comes to our mind is that Noah has God. But the filmmaker's challenge is to make visible what is normally invisible. Aronofsky choice surprises, but it's an apt metaphor for how God works in strange and unexpected ways. 
24. The movie shows us that "the Creator" is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
25. The movie shows us that "the Creator" created all the land, the animals.
26. The movie shows us that separately form the animals (if you're worried about evolution of animals to humans) that God created human beings separately.
27. The movie shows us that "the Creator" created Adam and Eve.
28. The movie shows us (repeatedly) that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and that the fruit of a tree was involved.
29. The movie shows us that Cain murdered Abel.
30. The movie shows us Tubal-Cain (a Biblical figure) was a leader and builder of cities and metal worker worker. 
31. The original creation is visually portrayed as "good," Noah reinforces this in dialogue with his defense of nature and the environment. Genesis makes it clear that material creation is good.  (This should squash the claims by some that the movie is Gnostic in nature. Gnosticism, in its basic form, claims that the material world is bad, and only the spiritual realm is good.)

Adding as I get comments back:

Reader wrote: 

I’ve only heard on the news unanimously from "experts" plus Fr. Morrison on Fox news and others, the fact that it seems to put the climax of humans ruining the earth rather than their sin and pushing God aside which is the reason for the flood. Of course there’s more as well.

My partial response: The line in the film about humans ruining the earth is there. But it is minor and it can be understood in several ways:

• Humans disrespected creation…. which is true.
• Humans disrespected God’s moral rule on earth…. which is true.
• Humans were responsible for the flood through their disobedience… which is true.

Thus, the environmental destruction we see in the film, and Noah's line about man doing it, becomes a valid visual metaphor for man's moral destruction, which is generally invisible. While I'm not an environmentalist, per se, the environmental destruction we see in the movie fits the Biblical precept given to man to care for the Earth and all that's in it (Gen. 2:15).  To the extent we screw that up, we’re responsible. We can debate how much man has screwed it up, but sin does that… to everything God has created. So, I’m confused as to why Christians sometimes make it sound like humans have a right to mess up what God told us to care for. Fr. Morrison is clearly wrong. The film is much more about faith and obedience to God and the consequences of obeying God or not. And the comments about the environment and such, while perhaps a little P.C. for modern times, are not in contradiction to the movie's overall moral premise nor do they conflict with the Biblical account and man's charge over the Earth.

Does NOAH lead to Godless Humanism?

Brian Godawa continues to claim that because Aronofsky is atheistic the movie must subvert God and lead to something contrary to traditional Judea-Christian religious principles. In making this claim Godawa subjects reason to the ad hominem fallacy that a message cannot be other than a man's claimed philosophy. I'm not convinced Aronofsky is an atheist, but Godawa claims that Aronofsky has claimed the title, and therefore anything Aronofsky says or does must have the pure intent of leading people to atheism. On it's face, this type of argument is silly. If it was true then Godawa's intent to be a Christian would make everything Godaway does purely Christian. But since Godawa (like all of us Christians) are imperfect, we can hardly claim our actions, words, and thinking to be as pure as our intent. In a court of law "intent" is sometimes admissible, but intent can never supplant action. When I run a red light and get a ticket, it's not likely that my intent "not to run the red light" will stand a chance of obliterating my action.

So, it is with the ad hominem fallacy. You cannot judge a message or action based on intent or even the character of a man. What judges the character of a man is his actions.

So, in Noah, the best counter-argument to the movie leading the audience to some godless form of humanistic  philosophy, is the final dialogue between Noah and his step-daughter, Ila. She explains to Noah (and to the audience) what was going on in the near tragedy of the Noah we see depicted on screen. She tells Noah that it was the Creator who was in control.

Here's the end of the movie  (transcribed from the DVD).

EXT. BEACH - DAY

Ila sits on a beach alone. Noah is dressed now, coming off his bout of drunkenness, comes and sits next to Ila on a rock facing the waves. 

    ILA: I have to know. Why did you spare them?

NOAH: I looked down at those two little girls, and all I had in my heart was love. 

ILA: Then why are you alone, Noah? Why are you separated from your family?

NOAH: Because I failed Him. And I failed all of you.

Ila lets a smile escape, one of compassion for Noah.

ILA: Did you?

Noah looks curiously at Ila.

ILA: He chose you for a reason, Noah. He showed you the wickedness of man and hew knew you would not look away. But then you saw goodness, too. The choice was put in your hands because He put it there. He asked you to decide if we were worth saving. And you chose mercy. You chose love. 

Shot: New born antelope getting to its feet to feed from its mother's breast.

ILA: He has given us a second chance. Be a father.

Shot: Bird feeds its young in a nest.

ILA: Be a grandfather.

Shot: An adult monkey cuddles its young.

ILA: Help us to do better this time.

Shot: A mother grizzly protects its cub near its breast.

EXT. HILLSIDE GARDEN - DAY

Naameh stops hoeing a new garden to watch Noah returning from the beach. She's reticent about seeing him. She doesn't know what to expect. She kneels in the dirt and by hand clears the small rocks. Noah kneels beside her, and gentle begins to help her. He takes her hand still in the wet dirt and caresses it tenderly, as if to ask her forgiveness. She breaks down and sobs. He leans over and kisses her forehead. They embrace. She cries. He holds her head. Looking at him she smiles, laughs and places her arms around his neck in gladness.

EXT. MOUNTAIN TOP - SUNSET

Noah stands with his family and a standard of posts and cloth.

NOAH: The Creator made Adam in His image,... 

Noah removes the illuminated snake skin from a linen pouch.

NOAH: (CONT.) ...and placed the world in his care. That birthright was passed down to us. 

Noah wraps the skin around his hand. 

NOAH: (CONT.) To my father, then to me, and to my sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham.

Noah completes the winding of the illuminated snake skin around his forearm. 

Noah turns to Shem.

NOAH: (CONT.) That birthright is now passed to you, our grandchildren. 

Noah reaches out with the skin wrapped around his finger and touches the finger of the infant in Ila's arms...

NOAH: This will be your work...

He then moves his hand of blessing to the hand of the infant in Shem's arms.

NOAH: (CONT.) ...and your responsibility.

Naameh smiles deeply.

NOAH: (CONT.) So I say to you, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. 

Noah looks heavenward. The sky fills with a glorious rainbow.

FADE OUT

The critics of this film may argue that letting Noah decide and Noah voicing God's post-flood blessing, is pagan humanism. But it's Judea-Christian humanism: God puts the power in man's hands to decide. Ila tells us that the power to decide  comes from God's mercy:  "The choice was put in your hands because HE put it there." God's gift of dignity to humanity is freewill. The movie depicts this. The movie does not depict mankind as a puppet of God, nor is man autonomous. Noah is a prophet, and God chooses his prophets and lets them decide. That is not pagan, that is Judea-Christian theology.


Other Supportive Links

Here are links supporting Aronofsky's respect for the Biblical account of Noah.

Moral Theologian, Dr. Monica Miller's insightful theological review.

Phil Cooke's promotional trailer with supportive comments from religious leaders.

Biblical Advisor for NOAH John Snowden, Responds to the Movie's Critics

Peter Chattaway's Extensive 4-Part Interview with Aronofsky and co-writer Ari Handel
where Aronofsky explains Noah's character arc and the conflict of values between Justice and Mercy and challenges Chattaway to come up with something that contradicts the Biblical record (and not argue from silence). 

David Buckna's TERRIFIC list of 30 reasons Noah is Biblical, many of which I did not list. 

DR. JANET SMITH, a Catholic theologian, has posted a remarkable analysis.

DR. LORI PIEPER, SFO

More from Chattaway on Aronofsky's Environmental Take on Genesis

Elijah Davidson's Reel Spirituality Reivew