Noah: Neither/Nor

On March 29th, Matt Walsh wrote a wedgie-twisting diatribe on Aronofsky's Noah, describing the film as "the most insipid, absurd, unimaginative, clumsily contrived piece of anti-Christian filmmaking to come along since, well, probably just last week."

And Brett McCracken roundly praised it: "Most importantly I believe the film — which ends up being an epic somewhere between Tolkien’s The Two Towers and Shakespeare’s Hamlet — retains the theological themes of the Noah story, powerfully bringing to life a 'second Eden' tale that highlights both the justice and mercy of the Creator, a God of grace and second chances."

Neither/nor.

Darren Aronofsky's Noah is not a flimsy, foppish anti-biblical attack on bull-pig-pseudo-Christian America, nor is it a great flower of Western culture. It is a somewhat interesting exploration of the Noahic themes that yet struggles to portray a convincing interpersonal conflict.

But let us first clarify something very pertinent if we are to avoid Walshian troubles.

Noah's success as a work of art is the only relevant plane on which it may be evaluated. The rest is observation and commentary, valuable to a point, but not ... well ... all that relevant in judging a film ... at which point I inadvertently stumble into a quote by Kierkegaard: "Anyone who is something, and is something essentially, possesses 'eo ipso,' the claim to be recognized for exactly this special thing, and for nothing more or less." (The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress)

For instance, if you found Noah offensive, this may be because you misunderstand the presuppositions of the movie theater. When one enters a playhouse or a movie theater, it is with the expectation that he is going to see a play or a movie, respectively. He is going to see a good story. On less frequent occasions, he may see a political, historical, or religious documentary.

However, Noah is not advertised as a documentary. It is advertised as an epic story that postures a man named Noah as its central figure. In no fashion is the film represented as "the biblical tale" or "the literal, word-by-word retelling of the flood story with fancy moving pictures". The lack of boundaries from preexisting material allows the story to be what it is, and this is true of any film. At the same time, those boundaries allow a certain depth by implied allusion, but that's another story. ;)

As a fictional story in the form of a movie, Noah proffers some worthy considerations, some new perspectives that invigorate the perceived dustiness of the OT story. As Brett McCracken posed:

• What was the mindset of Noah (who, apart from Gen. 9:25-27, never actually speaks in the biblical narrative) during this crazy episode in his life? What did his family think? What were the interactions between Noah and the wicked population doomed for destruction? Did Noah have a relationship with his grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins)? The film explores all of this in the spirit of midrashic interpretation, and takes the story far beyond the source material. Some of it works and some of it doesn’t, but (as far as I can tell) none of it directly contradicts anything in the biblical account. 

Unfortunately, there is contradiction. And I say "unfortunately" not for any other reason than that the introduction of a wifeless Ham is indeed "unimaginative". Were the story of Noah wholly new to us, the conflict perhaps may have worked. But as this story is woven so deeply into the fabric of the Western imagination, we see Aronofsky's manipulation as irresponsible in light of the artistic tradition. It appears that the director could not sufficiently develop the themes offered from centuries of paintings, sculpture, stained glass, and oral tradition, and thus sought to embellish a tale of such a magnitude that it renders significant alteration laughable if not incredibly pretentious.

There are certain departures in the film that are very interesting, but they find their origin in a profuse mythological structure: the Nephilim/rock angels, the wicked men/industrialists, the dramatic visions of "death by water".

Another very interesting departure is Noah's psychosis regarding the destruction of humanity, including his own grandchildren. This too could have more effectively provided a profound insight were his psychosis not so sudden in onset and not so drawn-out as to bore the viewer. The complexities of such a psychomachia were also obscured by their external consequences: Emma Watson all freaked out, Noah's wife in a tearful rage, Shem getting violent.

Overall, the film has an unfinished feeling to it, some major mashwork in the plot that brings it to its knees. However, we are certain of what the film is -- a colorful but limping depiction of an ancient myth -- and what it is not -- a bible-school-friendly reenactment or a primordial Hamlet.

As for Russell Crowe's performance: fairly compelling. Fairly. He is proof that it is possible to be a well-skilled actor while completely lacking discrimination. It may be that this record will mar his oeuvre as it has his ethos.

Regardless, I think that the film is worth watching as long as you fast-forward a bit through the arduous annoyance of life on the ark during the flood.

Thoughts Concerning Homosexuality

Boys (game boy) -- Kuzma Ptrov-Vodkin, 1911

Note: I have deleted the second and third parts of this post, as, while relevant to American society in general, they were not appropriate within the context of this blog, whose primary mission is to highlight the artistic forces at work in the Transfiguration of culture.

I am not appalled or disgusted by homosexuality with any particularly strong sentiment. There are many other faults that I find more disturbing, and these include sexual faults, sins, such as rape, molestation, sexual obsession.

Homosexuality, in fact, has a very logical place in our current society. It is the most intuitive sin for our times. It fits in the setting like an atheist mega-church.

Among all the other enticing and frustrating vices, to me it most closely resembles gluttony. We see that this Quail Pot Pie (for instance, you know) happens to have the most pleasurable appearance and rich fragrance we could ever imagine, and so we take two scrumptious bites ... and cannot resist devouring its entirety, after which we feel overfull, immobile, and regretful.

In my own experiences with homosexual attraction, I have found that quite the same case unfolds after a particularly indulgent mental fantasy. A close friendship may provide the perfect circumstance for imperfection, and when friendly affection becomes erotic attraction, one has not quite reached the boundary.

Yes, I believe that eros can exist between two males without sin. Eros can occur when a sort of mild mating of minds occurs, when two young men -- or perhaps women -- recognize in each other, as Anne (with an "e") would say, "kindred spirits". They come so close as to observe in each other that beauty that God hid deep in the heart, only waiting to flower before loving eyes.

Boys playing soldiers -- Francisco Goya, 1779

Yet this eros can lead too far if left unpruned ... just as it can in any relationship between man and woman. In either situation, eros may lead to a lust to have for one's own gratification. Conversely, it may lead, in either situation, to a greater love, a profounder care.

But whereas the fulfillment of love between males lies in the exchange of that saccharine fume for brotherly gaiety and the camaradarie of arms, a unique love unto itself, the fulfillment of love between man and woman bursts into a more complex passion of familial trinitarianism.

But this mystery is lost upon us. We are, after all, the most singularly selfish nation on the face of the planet.

The Austin Institute recently released a video about the "Economics of Sex." In a few fundamental ways, it hits the nail on the head. In other ways, it is deeply flawed.

The head-hitting of Austin's hammer lies in its estimation that American men can bide their time when it comes to marriage. They are in no hurry, having the upper hand in such a sparse arena. They may experiment, demand probationary periods of sexual trial. In such an arena, why would a man find interest in a woman at all (besides the merely carnal sense-probing)?

The women who wish to marry but concede to modern values when it comes to courtship are precisely the sort of sell-outs that no one likes (I am not defending the men ... just making a rhetorical point). They are the sort that are just following lower instincts in an unconscious sort of way -- somehow secure a mate, give birth, raise the next generation.

On the other hand are the Miltonic Eve-like loners, who want to assert their man-womanness because it was the latest and greatest forbidden fruit of the last century (getting old, no?). Do they have respect for the flabby gamers who somehow wear masculine genitalia? About as much as they have for the homemaker who stays up later, gets up earlier, and works harder than they do.

Nevertheless, the pant suit is more impressive than the gamer's thumb. Why would a busy, clean-cut businesswoman look twice at the mediocre-but-approximately-marriageable oaf?

The point is that the sexes are no longer interested in each other. They have had quite a quarrel that has faded to an icy indifference over the course of two fateful centuries, and it is harder and harder to go back. No, it is impossible. And no one can see the way forward.

Why would Mr. Matt Walsh point out the self-victimization of the gay rights agenda? Because it fits right in with homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is a manifestation of the inward turning of the genders, the upraising of the "we" of males or the "we" of females that will one day be a silent chorus of solitary "Is".

Man looks inward and praises his strength, his flaxen hair, his handsome angularity, his quick and sharp wit that translates into powerful and protective romance. What luscious libido! What godliness! What need has he for the women who have brushed him off for love of the capacities only he will ever retain? They can keep their shoulder pads and pixie cuts. And the girly girls that are left ... well, we'll be best friends, because we've both been hurt and will always be hurt if the world remains unchanged.

The camaraderie of failing men has become a flamboyant and resentful self-love. Of course it has. What else could it have become? How else to protect a wounded dignity?

There are, of course, many more reasons for the phenomena of homosexuality, but I have proffered some cultural causes that I find relevant. I look forward to your comments.