Sunday, November 17, 2013

What's Wrong With Noah? Aronofsky's Epic Socialist Manifesto, Or, Trailer #1

Let's start out this discussion by reviewing the trailer for Pompeii from about 2 months ago; please note, at 0:29-0:37, the figure has, on their shoulder, an eagle, the symbol of America, and the next figure has their right hand over their heart, the way we do when we pledge our Allegiance to the American flag:
Here is the trailer for Darren Aronofsky's Noah which was just released:
And here is, released at about the same time a day ago, just a slightly different trailer but with some additional imagery:
"It begins," Russell Crowe's Noah says, and we have heard "this" at least two other times: in Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) asks Spock, "Shall we begin?" in the exchange of his crew for the bombs Spock has planted, and in Thor the Dark World, Loki asks Thor, after Thor has come to Loki for help, "When do we start?" We might also add the tagline for Maleficent posters: "Evil has a beginning." With Keanu Reeves' upcoming release 47 Ronin, one of the samurai, after gathering those who are going to fight against the evil that has taken over their land, says, "Now, the time has come," which is similar but I think we need to wait to discuss that one.
What does this mean?
Where have we seen this poster before? World War Z: Brad Pitt's Gerry Lane peering out of a helicopter with his back to the viewer, scanning a "sea" of zombies, is not much different than Noah with his back to us scanning the sea of destructive water (I would put up a side-by-side comparison, however, I don't have access to Photoshop, it was on my laptop, sorry). Noah standing on the rock, holding the spear, looking at the crashing waters, is probably meant to invoke the image to Jewish and Christian viewers of Moses standing on the rock at the shore of the Red Sea, stretching out his staff to SAVE the people from the raging flood, whereas Aronofsky's Noah is going to let everyone die. Regrettably, one of the files on the stolen laptop that is now lost to me forever, is the list of topics and corresponding films: so under my topic of floods and water, I took notes to remind me of moments in films like Skyfall when water plays an important role in the film (towards the end, before M dies, when Bond goes under the icy water and kills the bad guy, then goes into the chapel). So I have to go off memory rather than notes, I do apologize for the sketchiness of this commentary. Another important moment we can recall from water and death is Olympus Has Fallen when the president (Aaron Eckhart) and first lady (Ashley Judd) are en route to a Christmas party, the car crashes and the first lady plunges to her death in the icy water below; likewise, in The Descendants (George Clooney) his wife is put into a coma during a boating race on the water. Why is this important? It's a recurring image that our analysis reveals is being used by both sides--the socialists and the capitalists--to communicate their beliefs about what the other is doing. For capitalists, the deadly "flood waters" came around 2008 when the Lehmann Brothers and Bernie Madoff, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (from whom Senator Obama received tons of money to engineer legislation to cause their collapse, as reported by the Canadian press) flooded the markets with worthless assets and mortgages that never should have happened, and then stimulus money began artificially flooding the market due to Democrat legislation and now food stamps, Obama phones and unemployed have flooded the markets. For capitalists, these are the sings from the heavens that we are being destroyed. Socialists, on the other hand, look at these troubles and devastations as "good things" because they want the end of America and the beginning of the "nanny-state" when politicians decide what people do and don't need. Noah is not much different than World War Z--recall the part in the trailer when Noah says that people will come and they will be desperate, and he has to fight them off to keep them from overtaking the ark, that's pretty much a portrayal of a "zombie apocalypse"--and like next year's film release Pompeii which correlates the end of the tragic city with the demise of the US. In films like Ender's Game, Iron Man 3, X-Men Days Of Future Past, Star Trek Into Darkness, Men In Black III, Man Of Steel, Les Miserables, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters, Thor the Dark World, the world is worth fighting for and ruin is something to be feared, the preservation of society and freedom is worth fighting and dying for; films like World War Z, Noah, Pompeii, The Croods, The Great Gatsby and Gravity say, "Let America die" because socialism and the New World Order can't live unless capitalism and democracy dies.
Redundancy is an important tool in communication (we are going to only site a specific item here, but there is much more to this discussion). When we see something over and over and over again, that becomes redundant and it can brainwash us into accepting whatever it is that is being repeated; on the other hand, it can also make us see a pattern where we didn't see one before, like the "beginning" of evil, a starting point, a specific moment in time which we should be made aware of; without the redundancies listed in the paragraph above,  it's likely we would miss this topic of discussion.
So, what's to be discussed?
Ray Winstone plays the villain of the film, Tubal-cain who is mentioned in the Bible as being the first smith (or "chemist" in some translations), the first to fashion artifices from bronze and iron, but is not connected to Noah in the book of Genesis where the Flood story is recounted, which is fine: there has to be artistic license allowed in the interpretation of stories and the translation from print to film; however, it provides a real glimpse into the real motivations for making the film. Of all the figures of Genesis Aronofsky could have incorporated into the story--or just made up someone, like the Emma Watson character who is Noah's adoptive daughter (no, Noah didn't have an adopted daughter, but that isn't important to Aronofsky)--Tubal-cain is a capitalist, he makes things, he is a skilled worker, he provides a service and items that others cannot so he trades and has obviously become powerful in the community and is a symbol of progress and civilization. We know there is a fallen angel in the story and, from his tweets, Aronofsky has incorporated the story of the giants before Noah. Where else have we seen giants? Jack the Giant Slayer, when the giants were the "giants of society," the 1% who live above the rest of us. In the Bible, it was the giants who descended from the fallen angels mating with the mortal women who taught men skills they would not have learned otherwise, skills like blacksmithing (the angels are giants who have 6 arms in the film). These skill sets led to skilled artisans who formed a class that started capitalism, so if Tubal-cain is a part of this, that's clearly what Aronofsky wants to attack as being "unworthy" to be saved when Obama's flooding of American society happens and only a few "loyal to the fuhrer" will be saved.
There have probably always been "disaster" films, whether on a small scale (like a building engulfed in flames and a small group of people being threatened, or an international threat where the hero must save the woman he loves--symbolic of the "motherland"/ the future--and the world) but the Obama legacy highlighted by the art of our day is doom and gloom: have there ever been so many films racing to describe to audiences the end of the world, the end of days? Obama means the end of the world as we know it, but his supporters see it one way and conservatives like myself see it in a very different way even though it's the same thing; the point being, all of us know it "started" in 2008 when he took the White House and started issuing executive orders. The difference is, socialists want this beginning, this "starting" to their world order, whereas conservatives dread it, which is why socialists so happily announce, "It's started," is because they believe their time has come to destroy the country, the world, and humanity with it.

Two points need to be made: first,  artistic license, and, secondly, the time period.  Artistic license is necessary in all mediums and genres of art: artists have got to be allowed to interpret and stretch things and, we the audience, in willingly suspending our disbelief when we sit down to watch a film, grant that license in exchange for the pleasure, entertainment, escape, education, etc., we hope the film/art will provide. So, in other words, I don't expect a slavish interpretation to the meager Genesis story, however, there is a difference between license and lying, and when someone has taken a biblical subject and intentionally turned that subject against even the most basic precepts of religion, that qualifies as a lie, which is exactly what has happened with Noah. Regarding the second point: Emma Watson did an interview in which she expressed how there wasn't any real time-period attached to the film: although it takes place in ancient times, Watson says you get the feeling it could even happen in the future because of the way the sets are designed, which is something like what we saw with the utterly confusing Cloud Atlas. Watson's character in the film is an adopted daughter and SPOILER ALERT at the end of the film, Noah tries to kill twin daughters who have been born so the world won't be re-populated and there won't be global warming. Women, in other words, don't fare well in the film, and we could say that's indicated by the pants Watson wears in the scene above: pants were worn in ancient times, however, pants were not worn by women until the 20th century, and then, they were still frowned upon, meaning, we will probably see Watson's character exhibiting more masculine--therefore, barren or fruitless--qualities since women are so terrible (being a woman myself, I think I will stay a conservative Catholic).
Another element repeated in both the Noah trailers and Pompeii is that of "desolation," just as we have seen in The Hobbit: the Desolation Of Smaug, The Lone Ranger (the nothingness Tonto walks into at the end, leaving behind civilization), Pompeii, Iron Man 3 (Tony pretty much loses everything), Thor Dark World (Asgard is almost destroyed), Skyfall (Bond "dies" and MI6 is bombed and blown to smithereens), World War Z and the end of the world, and others. What is the difference between Iron Man 3 incorporating desolation and Noah?
Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, the oldest person who has ever lived and Noah's grandfather who dies seven days before the start of the Flood. Why does Noah go to him after he has these dreams? It is, quite simply, another re-writing of history and, specifically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all three religions who adhere to this history. In Noah, Methuselah--according to sources who have read the script--tells Noah that God is going to destroy the world because man destroyed the world. IF this were the only sentence that was not in-line with religious teaching, JUST THIS ONE SENTENCE would be enough for me, personally, to condemn the film: man was created in God's image, not the world, therefore the world was created for man, man was not created for the world. This topsy-turvy "logic" is what Aronofsky would have you to believe, so much so, in fact, that it justifies the extinction of humanity at humanity's own  hand (Noah sacrificing the two girls). There have been charges of paganism against the film, and this one line sufficiently proves it: in reversing the role of the importance in the balance of the earth and humanity, by making the earth more important than humanity, rather than humanity more important than the earth, they have essentially erased God from the equation EVEN AS they maintain that these visions come from God. The reason is: a human being has an immortal soul that will continue throughout eternity, made in God's Own Image; the earth, on the other hand, is not created in God's image, nor is it eternal, it had a moment of beginning and it will someday end; God did, however, make the earth and its resources a gift to man to be good stewards of the gift for ourselves, our neighbors and future generations. There is NOT TEACHING in any branch of Christianity, or any of the other religions that I know of, which encourages irresponsible or damaging abuse of nature and the earth; when that happens, most people agree, that is a violation of society's laws and those people/corporations should be punished. In one scene, I understand one of Noah's sons accidentally kills a lizard, thereby, ending that species because only two of them had been saved, and Noah violently reprimands the son for it, putting an animal above the human, putting the perishable above that which is eternal. We're not done with this topic, please see below for more.  
The end result.
Specifically, it has to be detailed, the end result in the soul. For conservatives, like myself, desolation isn't good in and of itself, but good can come from it in that when we face trials and difficulties in our life and circumstances, we have to become stronger as we are being purged of that which is weak within us (Captain Kirk's "resurrection" in Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect example or, in the trailer for 47 Ronin, one of the warriors asks Keanu Reeves' character where he learned to fight like that, and he responds, "Demons"). For liberals, desolation and ruin is a weapon to be used to destroy the power base that keeps them from being able to take over, as with Malekeith destroying Asgard in Thor the Dark World, because if Odin and Thor are powerful, they can stop him more easily; we can see this same strategy employed by Obama in accumulating a $70 trillion dollar debt, a part-time work force and the ridiculous Obamacare package that is going to keep people from getting medicine and health services they need. So, rather than Iron Man's Tony Stark being "built up" and becoming a stronger man, Noah will show us the desolation of the earth so only a few survive who are all like-minded (totally wiping out freedom of speech and diversity, because if you don't stand with them, you are against them and they will destroy you for that). Noah is a case of self-extinction which has nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity.
There is an important anti-Christian angle from which we need to consider this--and yes, it's relevant because Christians are the primary audience film makers want to target to make their +$130 million expenditure back: the role of prophet. Noah, with all his faults, was still a prophet; likewise, even though he was a prophet, he still had faults. This has two repercussions. First, as we discussed in The Passion Of the Christ, the reason certain things happen in Jesus' Life and Death is to demonstrate that He is the Messiah, the One who could do what none of the prophets could do, which includes Noah. Noah saved animals from the Flood, not because the animals are more important than humans, but because Noah was not righteous enough to save humanity, only Christ is righteous enough to save humanity from the Flood of Sin, which He did upon the Cross for the Bark of Peter (the Church that teaches Christ's Wisdom) which replaces the ark of Noah and into which all who will be saved have entered so they will not be swallowed up by the world and the flood of sin. Likewise, Moses, whom this poster invokes as discussed under this image at the top of the page, was a precursor to Christ because Moses stretched out his arms and a man stood on either side to hold his arms up so the waves would be parted and the children of Israel could pass through the Red Sea on dry land; Christ had the Holy Spirit holding His Hands up to the Cross so that all who want to escape the destruction of their sins can pass over to Him (the "New Feast of the Pass Over"). We know that the "drunkenness of Noah" is going to play into the film's events, because that's one of the aspects of the story Aronofsky likes and admires about Noah, but--again--this is an example of Aronofsky choosing the bad and not the good because he lacks wisdom. The story of Noah's drunkenness is important because it shows us--not that Noah was a sinner--but, again, why Noah was insufficient to be the Messiah we have in Christ Jesus: it's easier to take than to give, and in this case, Noah took the wine and too much of it, but Jesus gives us Himself Transubstantiated Wine that is His Blood through which we receive Salvation and Redemption. When Noah's sons see him naked, it foreshadows Christ's nakedness upon the Cross; the son Ham seeing his father's nakedness is mocking his father, whereas the other two sons respectfully clothing their father foreshadows the disrespectful guards at the foot of the Cross who would draw lots for Jesus' cloak to take it from Him (for more on how different prophets foreshadowed the Labors of Christ, please see The Passion Of Christ & the History Of Salvation). Noah's tagline, "The end of the world,... is just the beginning," is therefore meant to communicate to us that Noah is the founder of the world, not God (another important point is when Christ tells the Apostles, "I make all things new again," that, too, was a reference to the "recreated" world into which Noah and his family settled, but the better world, not just of flora and fauna, but of Salvation and Redemption).
Noah, much like The Conjuring, is a politically motivated film providing a thin veil of religion to trick us into accepting the religion of the state. Don't forget Cloud Atlas, that terrible film which paraded "Pitch" (a satan figure) and some little girl that was supposed to be a messiah figure, to lead Christians away from God and towards the state enshrined as Mother Earth. Please recall, the (somewhat distorted) maxim of Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people," and. therefore, religion must be abolished; but we must remember that opium is the religion of the state (drug use, alcoholism, sex, birth control pills, abortion, "free" healthcare, etc.) and we have to choose which we are going to embrace. We are not without real options, as the History channel's Bible series is being made into a film focusing on the Resurrection of Jesus, and coming out in February (I believe) and this new film Heaven Is For Real, but, it could also be titled, I Am For Real because it reminds us of God-within-us:
UPDATE TO THIS POST, MARCH 1, 2014: the studios have statement, or "disclaimer," telling potential film-goers that the film uses artistic license, and is inspired by the story of Noah, and they think it contains the essence of the Biblical account. Well,... no. Artistic license does exist, and it needs to be permitted by audiences, but there is a difference between "artistic license" and propaganda, propaganda being the destruction of humanity, and trying to convince us it's a good thing. We will always be tempted with false gods, sometimes the temptation will be stronger than at other times, and one of those times is now. Brian Godawa has read the script and written up a full, pro-Christian analysis of the film, Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist Wacko with which I am in total agreement, so if you doubt what I say, please, click on his article and at least glance over it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner