Search options (Page 1 of 3)

Sorry about the late reply, I’m on a tight schedule this week and my brain is fried.

I read Watson’s speech at the end as the director speaking through her character. It’s classic cinematic language, this is how the theme or the moral of a piece so often is conveyed. Though Aronofsky may not have intended to use Watson as a mouthpiece, movie language makes it appear so. That this was God's will all the time is heavily implied not only by Watson, but also by the fact that there are no repercussions to his choice, they find land and live on. It has a happy ending and a rainbow.

I don’t think Aronofsky ever intended it to be expressly pro-God, but reading the movie by itself it is. And I’m not sure it’s really anymore pro-human than most stories, all humans in this movie, except a few, die. It's pro-human only if humans decides to do what God secretly wants them to do. It’s actually aggressively anti any human not sharing Aronofsky’s specific philosophy, and a scathing criticism of most of humanity in general. But it has hopefulness, it’s a plea for rehabilitation, which I honestly at times found quite effective, though a bit blunt, but that may well be necessary.

Haha, that’s so, well, jewish, i love it!

Noah is the agent of God in this movie. It is Noah we follow throughout, and he is portrayed as able, smart, caring, concerned about nature, so basically your all-round good guy. After all, he saves all the animals. He builds the ark, which seems to be the thing God wanted as all the animals flock to it when it's done. And the bad guys are portrayed as not men of God and very bad. In the climax we are to root for Noah because he makes the humane choice of sparing the children. Then Watson speaks to Noah about God, and as I said above, I read Watson’s speech at the end as implying that this was what God wanted and that it is good, and then a rainbow! It is heavily implied throughout both what God wanted and that it, in the end, was a good thing.

There is nothing in the movie implying this is some interesting experiment by God, I think that is reading into the movie, not out of it. That would have been interesting and subversive, but I don’t think this movie is subversive in any other way than that it deviates from the story in its form.

I believe it, I think this is in line with the mentions of the Jewish god previous. Though, I don’t think of Crom in any way as I think of God. I think of him more like a greek god than the god of all. And, Crom’s place in cultural awareness and importance is infinitely tiny compared to God’s. As I’ve said above, I think it unreasonable and a miscalculation expecting people to read the movie with disregard to the common cultural awareness of both the ark story and God himself. So I think this is reading into the movie rather than what Aronofsky has you read out of it.

That’s a cool little resource to know about, tucks it away for a rainy day

I kind of think this discussion speaks to the movie’s failure. Everybody’s talking about God, the ark story, history and religion, no one is talking about the movie’s environmentalist theme.

On another note: The movie was commercially successful, and it was bound to, how could it not be? A lot of christians will see it by default, a lot of cinephiles will see it because Aronofsky is tackling a Bible story, a lot of people in general will see it because it is the ark story and because Russell Crowe stars in the movie. Controversy only makes this more the case. Was this ever a risky movie really? A conventional Bible movie would be the risky thing.

Yeah, I was really surprised to learn it wasn't highly regarded, I remember loving it when I was little. I've been thinking about rewatching it from time to time, I should get on that some day, autumn's up so that's good excuse. And of course if the guys do it.

Tone inconsistency is always an interesting topic, it's so often a culprit.

A tenner to top you off:

Burton's Alice in Wonderland (it’s horrible!)
Ravenous (it’s…delicious)
Lemony Snicket’s A series of unfortunate events (it’s a series of different things)
Brotherhood of the Wolf (it’s a LOT of things)
Snowpiercer (it’s COMMENTARY (and quite awesome))
The Road (it’s fantastic if you didn’t read the book)
Road to Perdition (it’s just gorgeous)
Tremors (it’s the best monster movie movie)
Drag me to hell (it’s the way they used to make them)
Robocop (so we can do Robocop 2!)

I guess the essence of my contention is that I question the value of the tale, why did the director tell me this story?

I also guess that I actually don’t think the movie is ambiguous, I feel it is very clear from the mechanics of the narrative, and that is really the issue. The character of God as portrayed and the epilogue is at odds with each other. The movie tells us that we are to read God as an able and benign player, but the movie shows us a God that is either an idiot or a jerk. To me that is not ambiguity, that is inconsistency. I feel if there’s any ambiguity it lies with Aronofsky himself. The point of ambiguity in storytelling is to make us ask questions, but when that question becomes about the quality of the carpentry I feel that is a problem.

“Noah is about humans trying to interpret the will of a god who clearly exists, but doesn't give much info about what He's up to.”

Isn’t that just the narrative, and not what the movie is about? I feel the movie is about how humans have ruined the earth because we take more than we need and that we should take only what we need, as told in the first scene of the movie. Everything that follows explores that theme. And then the second movie happens, where the theme switches to Noah’s relationship to God.

It feels like Aronofsky was so excited by his framing of Noah as an environmentalist that all his attention went into the first part of the movie, but because of the source material he was stuck with the obligation to also tell the second part, which I’m not sure he entirely knew what to do with.

A bit more on the God device:

How is the God device in this movie in any way compelling? It amounts to nothing but a series of needless guesswork. It begs the question why don’t you just tell him? It’s the plot of a badly written romantic comedy. We are given no reason for God not to tell Noah. Now, had the movie not been clear about the existence of God it would have made things much more interesting. Then the focus turns to Noah and his judgement and whether he is right, has gone insane or whatnot. Having everything rely on Noah would make a huge difference, in fact, all the difference. Taking the story from God’s hands into human hands. The story would have had poignancy. In God’s hands the story is moot, what will happen is God’s will. Now the only thing the movie is saying is that we should listen to God, cause God.

The existence of God is an answer, that’s the whole point of God, God is the answer. From a nonbelievers point of view there is nothing to take away from the second half of the movie. From a believer’s point of view it is a foregone conclusion, cause God. The second part of the movie won’t change anyone’s mind on anything, neither believer nor atheist. It is a trifle. The device of God in the movie amounts to nothing.

Had a believer made this movie there wouldn’t be an issue, what confounds me is that an atheist did.

Maybe it just comes down to me having a hard time identifying with someone suffering from stockholm syndrome.

I probably should watch the movie again, but I’m feeling less and less inclined to. Well, I’ll probably watch it with the commentary again though

Still, I love the directorial hand on this movie, just not the construct.

So, firstly: I just love the lyrical filmmaking on display here, the expressionist shadow play, the battle of hymns and the gorgeous river scene. I wish we had more of these movies daring to be more directly poetic. The body in the car, sumptuous. The surreal nature of the movie gives it a dark fairytale quality that very effectively evokes the horror of the situation, is there really anything more scary than the prospect of being eaten by an ogre?

Secondly, on another musical note: I was quite surprised and thrilled to discover this movie to be the source of the “pretty fly” song, because it is quoted in its entirety on the Dies Irae album by Devil Doll. An Italian/Slovenian musical project active in the 80s and 90s, whom I listened to religiously back in the day. A truly unique patchwork of rock, synth, folk, choral and orchestral music woven into compositions about 40 minutes of quasi theatrical narratives. Perhaps the most notable and trademark feature of the act is the so called "sprechgesang" performed by main composer and vocalist going by the stage name Mr. Doctor.

To anyone not intimidated by the weird, dark, and surreal I suggest having a listen. “Pretty fly” isn’t the only work referenced, in fact all through their catalogue you’ll find quotes musically, lyrically and cinematically in nature, their first album “The girl who was…death” is actually entirely based on the 60s series “The Prisoner”, and a good starting point by the way. Not easy listening by any stretch of the imagination, kind of demands your attention. All their music can be found on youtube, I’ll link the on topic Dies Irae here, “pretty fly” quoted at 28:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBPahhsU6E

Must admit that I found this movie to be an absolute snoozefest. The main character has no character, who cares about your dreams of flying? Not me! I like the dude, but his character has nowhere to go. The nazi plot should have been introduced way earlier, as it is now the plot has no tension, in fact most of the drama is spent on a tepid love triangle. And the Rocketeer does an awful little amount of rocketeering, almost none of it awesome. Timothy Dalton, on the other hand, is awesome.

There's probably something to having some knowledge of the era and some nostalgia for what they were trying to emulate. It didn't work for me and I think the throwback style, the really unexciting plot and the heavy reliance on romance alienated the movie to a lot of different people in different ways. Little depth, unbalanced, too little too late, I think.

The carpentry is serviceable, the decor has that old timey charm, but the party is a dud. And the music, the music is horrible! I think the movie would be twice as good without that horrible score to be honest.

Sorry, very harsh (too harsh?), but this really wasn't for me it turns out. And it is nowhere near Raiders, Back to the Future or Star Wars, not even close.

Though nice surprise seeing Melora Hardin as a sultry songstress.

And I'm with Phi, Anthony was a great guest! Too bad Trey couldn't also make it though.

I want to see that movie that you guys said.

Also, I actually think, while not strictly necessary, it greatly enhances the experience to watch the movie, part of the fun is seeing the carcass picked clean, also there's a lesson there that would be lost otherwise.

I want to thank Brian for this PSA, thank you Brian!

And I really liked this movie, the compression of time and the claustrophobic tense atmosphere of the night dissipating into an uneasy but welcome release in the rosy morning is right in my wheelhouse.

I would love to see them making a supernatural bent to the story work.

Congratulations guys! I had to catch up on these after the fact, but that was one heroic effort!

Admittedly, the Potter series doesn't do much for me outside of the quite impressive production feat they represent. As someone who hasn't read the books, the story as told through the movies just isn't compelling as either drama or world building. But it's always fun listening to you guys, even though for a moment there that color grading debate got a little dark.

(I did a thing!)

I think the fact that they're kids makes them redeemable almost by default. Kids are stupid and impressionable and gets lured into doing stupid shit all the time, beating up people, starting fires, stealing. Doesn't mean they can't grow up to be decent.