After going to see “Noah” on Friday a few friends asked me to write a review. Here goes. My opinion: I thoroughly enjoyed Noah as a movie, an adaptation of a biblical story, and for drawing attention to a largely forgotten but important tradition—the Watchers!
I. As a Movie
I thought Noah, directed by Darren Aronofsky, was an entertaining and, in some ways,
profound movie. The acting and writing was well done and I was particularly impressed
with Russell Crowe’s portrayal of Noah as a conflicted man. Too often
Christians tend to think of biblical characters, especially the good ones, as
righteous robots. They have no inner-conflict, no choice, and, as a result, no
humanity. Crowe showed us a Noah at the brink of insanity because of his
calling. In addition to Crowe’s Noah, the movie explored profound existential
questions about justice and humanity’s relationship with the rest of the world.
I was intellectually challenged and engrossed in the movie that somehow managed
to avoid being predictable.
At the same time, there were parts of the movie that I didn’t
enjoy. I thought it was a bit long, dragging out scenes without much effect.
There were occasional montages of nature footage which I thought were over the
top. (Confession: I hated Aronofsky’s “The Fountain”). I thought the
environmental justice message was inconsistent with Noah’s unflinching and
merciless killing. Still, I was challenged to see a well-known story in a new
way and think about its implications for the contemporary world.
II. As an Adaptation
As an adaptation of a biblical story I thought Noah was
fantastic. Sure, there were parts of the story that were not exactly as
portrayed in the text of Genesis 6–9, but Aronofsky managed to stay remarkably
close to the text and write a fascinating story addressing contemporary issues.
Good preaching does much the same thing, fills in narrative gaps to re-tell an
old story in a new way. Agree with it or not, I think the movie is an
interesting adaptation that deserves attention.
III. Watchers
What about the “Watchers”?
Did this Hollywood director simply add angels-turned-rock-people
to make Christians angry and blow some of his budget? The short answer is no.
The flood narrative in Genesis begins with an odd account of
the “Sons of God” taking “daughters of men” as their wives and producing giant offspring
(Genesis 6:1–4). Most contemporary preachers avoid this weird story so many people
have never heard it. But, this story was the most important resource in the
Hebrew Bible for Jews and Christians from about 300 BCE to 200 CE to talk about
the origin of evil.
To summarize a fascinating and complicated narrative, the
story of Genesis 6:1–4 was interpreted in the Book of Watchers to tell the
story of fallen angels called “Watchers.” In this story, angels see human women
and want to have sex with them and produce offspring. These 200 angels make a
pact, leave heaven and find earth girls are easy. The result of their
transgression is the introduction of magic, sorcery, metallurgy and cosmetics,
all technologies that led to the deterioration and destruction of humanity. In
addition to these destructive arts, the Watchers have giant offspring that devour
humanity and perpetuate more and more violence on the earth. Eventually, these
creatures become demons.
This story gets reworked in different ways in Jewish and
Christian literature, but the basic outline of the Book of Watchers
story is fairly consistent. In fact, the Watchers story is explicitly mentioned
in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. It also appears in post-New Testament Christian
writings as an important resource for explaining the origin of evil. Justin Martyr
is a particularly clear example:
God, when He had made the whole world, [. . .] committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. (Apology 2:5, cited from ANF 1.190).
Aronofsky draws from an ancient interpretive tradition that
developed around the story of Genesis 6:1–4 to tell his story about angels
getting redeemed. The movie version of the story is substantially different
from the ancient one because in the ancient retelling the Watchers are far more
problematic and mate with human women. SPOILER ALERT: The rock-people Watchers
of Aronofsky’s movie are basically good angels trying to help humanity and end
up returning to heaven. Also, they are not getting physical with the ladies.
Interestingly enough, then, the most substantial deviation that Aronofsky makes
from the tradition is in regard to the Watchers, but not because they appear in
the story but because of what they do in his version. Had we gotten a more “accurate”
version this movie probably would not have been PG-13.
In full disclosure, I was disappointed with the portrayal of
the Watchers, who do not get redeemed in any traditional retelling of the story
and are held as significantly responsible for the evil that plagues humanity.
Also, the rock-people Watchers seemed goofy to me, just sayin.