7 of 10
Personal
Bias Alert: Likes Aronofsky films, not
religious
“Noah”
takes director and co-writer Darren Aronofsky into unfamiliar territory. With a budget estimated at $125 million, he
had nearly $100 million more to work with than he had in any of his other films. It also marks only the second time that one
of his films have received a PG-13 rating. It’s impressive that he saved that relatively
restrained content for a story about the end of the world. Although this shouldn’t surprise us, since
Noah’s story involves much more violence than sex, something the MPAA is
notoriously less stringent about. Or
maybe they are just more lenient if your source material is the Bible.
Most
people know the basic story of Noah (Russell Crowe): the world is wicked so God decides to clean
the slate by sending a massive flood to cover the entire Earth. Noah and his family are picked to build an
ark that will allow them and two of every animal to survive the flood and
repopulate the Earth. Noah’s story is
part of the Abrahamic religions, which includes 54% of the world’s
population. Many others, including
myself, know it because they live in a culture dominated by an Abrahamic
religion. Even the most basic form of
the story gives away that Noah’s family repopulates the Earth, so Aronofsky’s
great dilemma in “Noah” is figuring out how to create an interesting two-hour
plus epic where everyone knows the ending.
The
main way Aronofsky tries to accomplish this is by fleshing out the story through
unfamiliar subplots. The curse of Ham, one
of Noah’s sons played by Logan Lerman, is a far less familiar part of Noah’s
story, and Aronofsky adds to it to make Ham a covetous young man who questions
his father’s judgments. The other
subplot involves Illa (Emma Watson), the wife of Noah’s son Shem (Douglas
Booth). Illa is the only female in Noah’s
clan young enough to bear children, but a childhood injury has rendered her
incapable of doing so. This is an
obvious problem if they are supposed to repopulate the Earth.
Ham’s
story could have been interesting, but it never quite works. Lerman is a capable actor, but he isn’t given
enough material to really flesh out the character. Ham come across as a whining teenager who
just wants to get laid, which never feels like enough motivation to actually
overthrow his father. Illa’s story is
the most effective part of the movie, taking an interesting turn that carries
the later parts of the film. It leads to
the most emotionally affecting scene in the movie, and Watson’s performance is
a highlight of the film.
Unfortunately,
Illa’s subplot doesn’t take off until late in the film, so the viewer must slog
through over an hour of an emotionally inert movie. It’s hard to get behind the characters
because they are so one-dimensional.
Noah is unwaveringly devout, Naameh, Noah’s wife played by Jennifer
Connelly, only wants her children to be happy, and Tubal-cain, a doomed king
played by Ray Winstone, is hell-bent on his own survival.
Even
in its uninteresting portions, the massive budget allows Aronofsky to put some
really impressive visuals on the screen.
There are some CGI fallen angels that help Noah build the ark, and the
naturalistic sets and costumes manage to root the fantastical story in
reality. Not all of it is good,
though. Aronofsky choose to render all
of the animals using CGI, and they never quite looked real.
Have
no doubt that this is a biblical epic.
It’s a big budget, faith-affirming movie with a dark tone that may repel
some of the devout viewers. As a
non-religious person, the blind faith the characters show is a bit
uninteresting, but there is enough grand visuals and subplots to carry you
through. The world does end, after all,
and that’s an interestingly horrifying concept for anyone.
Other Notes:
Ø I’m
sure this movie will break even, but I’m not sure that large of a budget was
really necessary.
Ø Due
to the setting, there’s a latent sexism that I can’t blame the writers for, but
it’s still annoying.
Ø Apparently,
God thinks it’s fine to drug animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment