Incidentally, Pinker's thesis is that humans are, contrary to the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" philosophy of the media, actually becoming more peaceful, not more violent. He humorously opens his work by reminding us of the Cain killing Abel story: "With a world population of exactly four, that works out to a homicide rate of 25 percent, which is about a thousand times higher than the equivalent rates in Western countries today."
Director Darren Aronofksy embraces this violence. His "Noah" is heavy on it. At one point, the title character, played by Russell Crowe, throws a spear at an adversary. I can't wait for the action figure; it will make Paramount Pictures a fortune. Is this really a Darren Aronofky film? It is, and "Noah" is the great disappointment of the year. It feels like an amateurish undertaking filled with fairy tale dialogue. There are scenes with the Watchers (?), sort of fallen angels who are punished by being rocks. They are conflicted about helping Noah build the ark. Some of them are voiced perfectly (like by Frank Langella); others, not so much (like by Nick Nolte). (You could complain about how these rock things are not in the Bible, but as Aronofsky points out, neither is an E.T. finger-to-finger touch between God and Adam.) There are some positives--the scenery (filmed in Iceland) is otherworldly, and Aronofsky and his team have colored the world with blue, orange and green. It's completely surreal. ILM's imagery of the Watchers and the ark sometimes look realistic and innovative, and sometimes it does not. It has a certain quality reminiscent of Ray Harryhausen's work, but it fits. There is a massive battle in rain just as the maelstrom begins. It's exciting, but it doesn't fit.
Typically, movie reviews are required to include a paragraph or several explaining the plot. Is it necessary here? Probably not. You likely know the plot. The fourth story in the Bible, God has become angry with humans and has decided to kill them. But a very select few (Noah and his family) will be saved by building an ark and putting two of every animal on it. Martin Scorsese has talked about how the movies that have stayed with him the longest were the ones that didn't focus on plot so much as character, mood, and style. But with "Noah," despite our familiarity with the story, the plot is more interesting than everything (and everyone) else.
Crowe is reunited with his co-star from "A Beautiful Mind," Jennifer Connelly. She's not particularly good here, but most of it's not her fault--she's given such poor dialogue and not much else to do other than try and decide if she wants to speak in an American or British accent. The same goes for Emma Watson, who can't seem to not raise an eyebrow in each of her scenes. Her co-star from "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," though, Logan Lerman, does a fine job. He plays Ham, Noah's middle son (the one who is eventually cursed by Noah), jealous and sexually frustrated. The reason for the curse has divided scholars for generations, and yet one is indirectly provided here (and actually, there's not much of a cursing so much as an inability to "fix something that is broken"). Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, Noah's grandfather. The saying "as old as Methuselah" comes from the idea that this Biblical character apparently lived the longest, dying at a ripe old age of 969 (which is surely possible). It's easy to see why this saying is accurate. In virtually every scene he's in, Methuselah just wants someone to bring him berries. He finally gets them, and how happy he becomes. Hopkins has never, to my knowledge, given us a bad performance, but he has made a handful of bad films, and this is one of them. Finally, Ray Winstone is an effective villain. He plays Tubal-cain, a descendant of Cain. Winstone does the expected hissing and such, but he reveals that this is a somewhat interesting character, for his (and Noah's) confusion and frustration have plagued humans for eternity. In essence, these two men must be saying to themselves, "I pray, and yet I hear nothing."
As for Crowe, he has always had an impressive presence on screen in a wide variety of films: "L.A. Confidential," "The Insider," "Gladiator," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the Universe," "American Gangster," "Man of Steel." His presence is here as well in his characterization of Noah. Aronofsky has said that his depiction of Noah embraces a balance between justice and mercy. Noah, however, through much of this film, leans toward the former, succeeding in getting everyone to hate him. His son pleads with him as their fellow human beings drown. "They are just people," he says. Noah's reply is terse: "There is no room for them." When it is revealed that on board the ark, Ila (Watson) has miraculously become pregnant (she is barren), he is sure that this will infuriate the Creator and he promises to destroy the child if it is a girl. The accident of birth.
My expectations of this film were so high not because it's a Russell Crowe movie or because it's a movie about the ark or anything else other than the fact that it's directed by Darren Aronofsky. Think of his previous films--"Requiem for a Dream," "The Fountain," "The Wrestler," "Black Swan." I opened by asking if "Noah" really is an Aronofsky film. I'm still not sure. His theme of obsession, so prevalent in other movies--drugs in "Requiem for a Dream," lost love in "The Fountain," a comeback in "The Wrestler," and perfection in "Black Swan"--is somewhat noticeable here in that Noah is obsessed with obeying the Creator and not with helping his fellow humans. But everything else is so distracting that one couldn't possibly contemplate much on this theme. This is indeed an Aronofsky film, but unfortunately it's a bad one. Still, he's arguably the most exciting director around; certainly the most exciting younger director. I'm confident his next film will be better.
Posts
