Emily Dickinson said: “Tell all the truth but tell it slant.” As evangelicals we have too often been harsh, blunt, combative and intimidating in telling the story of the Gospel. Our insistence on bold proclamation has isolated our audience and made our creative efforts wooden, amateurish and unimaginative. We’ve not appreciated the wisdom of Eugene Peterson’s words in “What Are Writers Good For?”.
“Our task is to counter the reduction of language to godtalk – language that is severed from a God-created and God-saved world, language that is depersonalized and functionalized. The dreaded godtalk.”
Clearly, I am a fan of creative license and imagination, and I applaud an author’s ability to embroider a character or develop aspects of a story that make me say, “I never thought about it that way before.” I am in favor of Biblical themes deftly presented in non-Biblical language.
But I have concerns about the film “Noah.” No, I have not seen it or read the script, but this week I made it a project to read a number of positive and negative reviews, several articles about – and interviews with – screenwriter and director Darren Aronofsky, and some of the background on his longstanding desire to make the film.
There are a number of things about the movie that are far more than mere inaccuracies or examples of creative license. I would not want to go so far as to say Aronofsky has “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” but he has certainly distorted the depiction of God’s wrath, love and redemption in the Biblical account.
From what I have read, “Noah” is not telling the truth “slant” as much as it is twisting truth to conform to Aranofsky’s world view that an environmental apocalypse is the biggest theme of the day and that Noah was the first environmentalist. Noah is not so much a righteous man saving the remnant as a man bent on delivering the world from the scourge of human evil.
I agree with religion writer Jonathan Merritt that we do ourselves a disservice to insist that a religious film must serve as an evangelistic tract or be a word-for-word recounting of the text to be considered legitimate. However, to use interpretation, or even fiction, effectively a writer or director has to stay within the basic framework of the original work. It must be, however tenuously, connected to reality.
Flannery O’Connor said it right when she said that fiction is not an escape from reality or truth but “a plunge into reality and it’s very shocking to the system.” A story that has lost its connection to some bedrock reality has become fantasy instead of fiction.
Merritt also writes, “If approached as an artistic work, ‘Noah’ will ignite audience’s imagination and raise profound questions about sin, grace, mercy and faith.” I think such a film might well do that with an audience having a context and mature understanding of those terms but given the latest statistics from Gallup on Bible literacy, I don’t think that is likely to be the case.
The latest polls indicate that 57 percent of the American public only read their Bibles four times a year or less, and only a quarter say they read their Bibles on a regular basis. For younger Americans (18-28) the averages are even less. A majority (57 percent) read their Bible less than three times a year.
What will the average viewer with so little knowledge make of a Biblical story that is not merely embellished but combined with elements that are mystical and false? It is one thing to use a gift to capture the imagination in such a way to nudge people toward truth that is not couched in godtalk. However, there is nothing I have read that makes me think the intent of “Noah” is to do that. It seems to be leading them toward a conclusion but not a truth.
In other words, they are about as prepared for a story based on a Biblical account as people going to see a film about First Amendment rights (“The People Vs. Larry Flynt”) when only 28 percent of Americans have read even part of the Constitution. No doubt they will be informed, inspired and challenged to consider the importance of freedom of speech, but what will they learn of the actual Bill of Rights? No doubt they will wrestle and struggle with all the complexities but to what end if they have no basic knowledge of the text itself?
From all of that, I have come to the conclusion that boycotting the film does not make sense, but I would suggest you at least read the Biblical account carefully before you go.
And if you want to see a film where Russell Crowe wrestles with deep religious and moral issues, I recommend watching “Les Miserables” for his role as Inspector Javert. Take the time to see “Cinderella Man“ for a brilliant performance as a former fighter battling almost insurmountable odds in a comeback. Also, I recommend “A Beautiful Mind“ for Crowe’s portrayal of a man’s agonizing descent into schizophrenic madness and eventual return. Any of these will be in some ways more “biblical” and true than “Noah.”
As Aronofsky told Tad Friend in his long piece in the March 17 issue of The New Yorker: “It is the least Biblical Biblical film ever made.” Take his word for it.