Andrew Kotwicki takes a second look at Aronofsky's latest, Noah.
 |
| "Who wants a yummy apple?" |
Having seen what is coming to be known as writer-director
Darren Aronofsky's most divisive personal project since his 2006 metaphysical
fantasy epic “The Fountain” (also co-written by frequent collaborator Ari Handel),
I found myself less hung up on its shortcomings (which are still there) than I
was in awe of its spectacle and rich ideas missing from most multimillion
dollar Hollywood blockbusters flooding the multiplexes. That Aronofsky was granted a second crack at
an expensive, quasi-religious art film after the financial failure of 'The
Fountain' is nothing short of miraculous, whether the final product lands
smoothly or not.
No secret to anyone who has read the Bible or
heard the tale through children's books (and a comical take with Donald Duck in
'Fantasia 2000'), “Noah” is the story of a man who receives a mission from God
(though his name goes unmentioned here) to build an ark that will house all of
the world's animals safely before a massive flood will wash the Earth clean of
mankind. It's a familiar story with
several oversimplified low budget renditions that have come and gone through
the marketplace, including Aronofsky's own admission production for his film
was delayed by a version produced by none other than Hallmark
Entertainment.
 |
| "Who let these m@#$%&! f'in snakes on this m@#$%! f'in boat?" |
What
separates and gives controversy to Aronofsky's take on the mythical figure is
what caused incredible upset in the Christian community and world entire with
Martin Scorsese's 1987 take on Jesus, “The Last Temptation of Christ”: an
attempt to purvey the mind of the man as he takes on a seemingly insurmountable
task. By painting internal conflict
within a man others would prefer depicted germ free, we see the prospect of
Noah (and likewise with Scorsese's Christ) teetering on madness as he struggles
with God's mission of death as redemptive salvation. Also germane to Aronofsky's work,
particularly “Pi” and “The Fountain”, is his seemingly infinite fusion of ideas
about religion, faith, science, ecology and the fragility of the moral human
mind at grips with it all into a unique, eclectic mix. We don't just get a purely Christian take on
Noah, but a pastiche of many as one.
This is
solid fodder for Aronofsky to explore his tropes of obsessed figures driven to
either emotional and psychological heights that either propel his heroes
(depending on your point of view) into transcendence or plummet them into
oblivion. There's also, fantastical as
the sight of rock giants housing fallen angels and flowers sprouting instantly
from raindrops are (no doubt an ode to the Tree of Life finale concluding “The
Fountain”), an underpinning of fantasy reflecting the mental state of his
protagonist. As strange and unrealistic
as the world of “Noah” may seem, it's an apocalyptic nightmare Noah experiences
that gives rise to his new purpose in life.
 |
| "Okay, kid. Call me Odin one more time and I'll make sure you don't get on that boat!" |
The real
error in judgment here (and I stand by this after seeing it again in IMAX) is
the inclusion of one character: Cain. In
an attempt to contrast Noah's purity with mankind's contamination, we're
provided a sword-and-sandals villain who hurls an army of minions at Noah's ark
and the giants helping to build it.
Whether or not you can trace Cain to the Biblical texts, seeing him
stowaway on board the ark to provide a final climactic showdown with Noah can't
help but diffuse the power of another, more important story arc: should Noah
kill his family as well as himself to truly fulfill God's mission? The sight of Noah from within the ark hearing
millions of disembodied human voices screaming for their lives as they cling to
a coral reef before being washed to their deaths was more than enough to signal
to an audience the weight of such survivor's guilt lending itself to
psychological deterioration. It was a
strong, very Aronofskian story thread that, frankly, is interrupted by Cain in
such a way that hinders the story more than it was probably intended to. A real shame and a testament to how one
element of a story line can make or break a film.
That said, I'm willing to forgive Cain's
trespasses into an otherwise beautiful tale full of heavenly sights and sounds,
with far more at stake than simply generating millions of dollars at the box
office. Here is a filmmaker that invites
believers and non-believers alike to rethink one of the Bible's most iconic
chapters in a way that enriches the story and illustrates how deeply it can
resonate within our own lives. It takes
an ancient, archaic fairy tale and gives it a modern thrust without insulting
the text or average moviegoer's intelligence.
It goes without saying that Aronofsky's mind and passion on an IMAX
screen is a rare and wonderful thing.
-Andrew Kotwicki