Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” should initially be recognized as an artist translation, or a pseudo-interpretive dance focused on adapting a classic story for a post-modern audience. The strength of the picture lies at Russell Crowe’s conundrum of destiny and purpose. Biblical stories commonly center around the average or common man called to serve God for a greater purpose beyond their vision – yet often, the encounters spur questions of doubt (Abraham, Moses, as well as New Testament figures Joseph and Peter). Yet “Noah” boldly draws us into the frustration and anxiety of following God’s will – even so accurately as to suggest that God can display miracles and leave you in awe of his wonders, and yet the human heart still caves to uncertainty and confusion. This is the reason for the unsettling reactions by Jewish and Christian communities - not so much the questionable interpretive inaccuracies; the golem monsters, Satan’s snake skin, Noah’s relapse… all of which are based around story elements in the Bible and core ideas in both religions. Crowe follows suit with Mickey Rourke (“The Wrestler”) and Natalie Portman (“Black Swan”) – obsessive to the extent of becoming blind by his own perverted determination to rid the world of imperfections and ultimately become a harm to himself and those around him. However Crowe is allowed triumph in the finale; in serving The Creator as master and not himself, he finds love and solace with his life’s work. “Noah” (as an appropriately Christian based film), is the rebuttal to Aronofsky’s companion piece - that Crowe does not succumb to a martyr seeking self-glory through humility.
Posted on: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:55:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015