Religish?

"I'm Godless.  And so I've had to make my God, and my God is narrative filmmaking, which is-ultimately what my God becomes."

-Darren Aronofsky









Considering Darren Aronofsky's views on God, Noah is an odd choice.  The story in Genesis is short with sparse detail; the only things discussed in depth are the dimensions of the ark and  Noah and his family.  Noah is not the cliche' re-telling of the kindly old man from Sunday school who lets giraffes eat out his hand.  It doesn't follow scripture to the letter but it's not a slap in the face to Christians either.  The film says a lot of good things about trust, faith, obedience and how walking with God is not met with much fanfare.  Noah's biblical story inspired Aronofsky to explore themes such as environmentalism, humanity and man's depravity; which is why God floods the earth in the first place.  Noah is a challenging film and not just because of how Noah is portrayed; the bigger question Noah presents is how the Bible is used as creative inspiration for believers and non-believers alike.

I'm a Christian and an artist.  I've been inspired by scripture in developing ideas and characters.  I love reading about the relationship between David and Saul, their relationship  is ripe with dramatic tension and pathos.  David and Saul's story could inspire me to retell it through the lens of the gangster or superhero genre. I'm still telling the same story, same meaning, same arc but different interpretation. This potential film will run into the same issues as Noah because it does not follow the letter of the law.  The Bible is a literary work; some amazing film adaptations have stayed faithful to the heart of the story without holding onto every comma and period.  Sometimes the line between interpretation and biblical text isn't always easy to decipher.   

The Devil comes in many forms but many viewers of The Bible miniseries thought he looked like President Obama; so much so his appearance was cut from Son of God.  I'm pretty sure the Jesus on Family Guy isn't biblical.  These are easy examples but some interpretations have been accepted as biblical fact.  Many Christians grew up with the story of three wise men visiting Jesus after he's born, though the Bible never says how many wise men there were.  At some point three wise men became an acceptable part of the story but it doesn't change the heart or intent, though it's not strict to the letter of the law either.  There's a danger in taking interpretation as truth, something Noah never claims.  Satan looking like any politician injects subtext that distracts from the main intent of the story.  Family Guy's interpretation of Jesus is ridiculous on purpose but why is it fine or forgotten about and yet Noah is blasphemous beyond belief?     

Despite Aronofsky's beliefs, he didn't take God out of Noah, his Noah is a respectful, faithful and human interpretation.  Now, if Paul Verhoeven ever gets his interpretation of Jesus off the ground, there's no question about his intent and whether it's biblical.  Later this year, another well known director and atheist Ridley Scott will release Exodus, the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.  Things will be changed for dramatic effect, though basic story outline will, I hope, will stay intact.  If these films make people curious enough to read the Bible, its a good thing; it's available for believers and non-believers alike.  The Bible is an anthology; a collection of narratives, not some thick book of rules.  The Bible is structured this way for a reason and the reason Aronofsky made this movie is because he was inspired by a story from it and the story points to the source of creation and inspiration.