I have spent 2 blogs evaluating how accurately Aronofsky portrays the historical context and biblical message of Noah's flood. I've been tough on him. His film locations don't reflect the geography of Mesopotamia. His environmental warning about climate change doesn't put the biblical critique of human violence front and center with a statement about God's faithfulness. That being said, he chose the perfect subtitle: "the end of the world... is just the beginning."
Darren Aronofsky's graphic comic book Noe turns a biblical man of faith into a heroic warrior in an evil world. He fights superhuman beasts, struggles to understand nighttime visions and seeks to do the right thing in a corrupt world. He is a healer, a desperate father and a defender of innocent animals.
Why does it matter? Aronofsky has said his new movie Noah is partially based on the comic book. It's not meant to be a plain rendering of the Bible story--which is probably a good decision for a moviemaker since Genesis 6-9 has no dialogue between human characters!
Is the movie biblical?
The movie will be critiqued for its faithfulness to the biblical story despite Aronofsky's clear disclaimer that the film is only inspired by the biblical flood. Since Aronofsky has to fill a couple hours with dialogue and wild guesses about Noah's personality and means of hearing from God, every biblical accuracy expert will have plenty to poke at.
But what elements must be in the movie to make it "biblical"?
BUY the BOOK
Paul Penley's training as a Bible scholar, life as a human being, and work as a philanthropic advisor overflows into this blog
Top 5 Blogs