Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Noah (2014)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I saw that news story back on Tuesday (I've been following the news feeds very closely), but it wasn't clear to me whether Baehr had actually seen the film or was simply passing along what one of his employees/interns had told him ("A reviewer for..." didn't necessarily refer to Baehr himself).

 

Yeah, it sounds like it was someone else from MovieGuide who actually saw the movie (maybe Overstreet's buddy Tom Snyder?). But Ted is obviously comfortable alleviating everyone's concerns about environmentalism and biblical accuracy.  I'm kind of shocked.

 

Incidentally, I got the link to this story from a former colleague of mine who is now the Media and Communications guy at Grace Hill Media. Whenever a "Christian movie," or at least one aimed at a Christian audience, starts getting bad press (in evangelical circles), he'll put stories like the one above on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Crowe actually tweeted that *after* he retweeted Aronofsky's tweet. So he sort of tweeted it twice. And did you see what Crowe (and, replying to him, Aronofsky) tweeted next?

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Crowe actually tweeted that *after* he retweeted Aronofsky's tweet. So he sort of tweeted it twice. And did you see what Crowe (and, replying to him, Aronofsky) tweeted next?

I was just seeing that now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now let's see Movieguide retweet your post. smile.png

 

I dare them.

 

Seriously, though... that's very cool. I may not like all of Aronofsky's films, but I found him to be extremely thoughtful and passionate about the projects he pursues.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell Crowe's tweets to the Pope have been picked up by numerous media outlets, some of which have cited an earlier incident in which a Vatican rep rejected the idea of screening Philomena for the Pope because the Pope supposedly does not watch movies (but wait, didn't the Pope *meet* the makers of Philomena recently?).

 

The New Zealand Herald adds this detail:

 

Crowe has also told Christians who are unhappy about the way the film portrays the biblical story to chill out.

 

"Everybody chill out about the 'Noah' movie," Crowe tweeted late last week.

 

Well, it's certainly true that Crowe tweeted those words... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but wait, didn't the Pope *meet* the makers of Philomena recently?).

 

It depends on what the meaning of the word "meet" is, apparently.

 

Earlier this year, Harvey Weinstein, distributor of “Philomena,” went to Switzerland seeking to manipulate the pope: he lobbied Vatican officials there in an attempt to secure a private screening for Pope Francis. He failed. “The Holy Father does not see films and will not be seeing this one,” said Father Federico Lombardi of the Holy See Press Office…

On CNN yesterday, Coogan said, “the Vatican…extended an invitation to Philomena to visit the Vatican.” In fact, Philomena Lee was denied a private meeting with the pope. But Francis did shake her hand last week, as he did with many others who were part of the general audience; it is open to the public. Philomena and Coogan were separated from the pope by a wall. I almost forgot to mention that the pope said “Thanks” to her.

Father Lombardi has been bombarded with attempts to have the pope see this twisted propaganda film. He’s had it with them. “It is also important to avoid using the pope as part of a marketing strategy.”

The New Zealand Herald adds this detail:

 

Crowe has also told Christians who are unhappy about the way the film portrays the biblical story to chill out.

 

"Everybody chill out about the 'Noah' movie," Crowe tweeted late last week.

 

Well, it's certainly true that Crowe tweeted those words... smile.png

 

Ha! So I kind of made the New Zealand Herald, in an anonymous sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post from yesterday: "How do we define "wickedness" in biblical films?" Might have a tangent or two, but hey.

 

morgan1098 wrote:
: . . . Ten Reasons Why People of Faith Can Embrace the 'Noah' Movie.

 

Beware, there may be a spoiler or two in that article. Also, it seems this column was originally a pamphlet distributed last Sunday at a National Religious Broadcasters event discussing the film. Here's my post on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paramount are so concerned about offending people that all advertising will come with a disclaimer:

 

 

 "The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow, have I really not updated this thread since Thursday morning? Yeah, there's been a lot of news since then; I've been too busy blogging to post links here. In reverse chronological order:

 

A new TV spot, a new magazine article, and one man’s list of five positive things about the film.

 

My post on the disclaimer, and how it is taken almost word-for-word from the disclaimer in The Prince of Egypt.

 

New pictures, music and dialogue at the movie's website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest blog post looks at the ban against the film issued by some Muslim scholars in Egypt (where, for some reason, the film will apparently open before it comes to almost any other country, according to the IMDb), as well as other recent odds-and-ends ("See the movie. Experience the fragrance." -- and no I'm not making that up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post on the disclaimer, and how it is taken almost word-for-word from the disclaimer in The Prince of Egypt.

 

The Wrap, for its part, reports that the disclaimer has been added to the film as well, though neither of the trade papers linked above support that claim.

 

The Wrap is apparently incorrect. The disclaimer has not been added to the film, and apparently won't be. This is strictly a thing in the publicity materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wrap is apparently incorrect. The disclaimer has not been added to the film, and apparently won't be. This is strictly a thing in the publicity materials.

Does this mean you've seen it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My blog post on the new featurette below, and the "virtual tour" of the Ark at the movie's website.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebaiadxQZEE

 

SDG wrote:
: The Wrap is apparently incorrect. The disclaimer has not been added to the film, and apparently won't be. This is strictly a thing in the publicity materials.

 

Thanks, I was wondering about that, since I'd heard that the picture was locked *before* the disclaimer announcement was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Wrap is apparently incorrect. The disclaimer has not been added to the film, and apparently won't be. This is strictly a thing in the publicity materials.

Does this mean you've seen it?

 

 

It may mean that. It definitely means that someone at Grace Hill Media confirmed to me that the disclaimer isn't going in the film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently read this article because of a post on Facebook - How Should Christians Respond to the Movie "Noah"?  This article may be posted somewhere else in the thread but I didn't see it.
 
With a name like Darren Aronofsky attached as director I am not certain how one could think this would amount to something like a low-budget television miniseries, so I took what read at face value with a little voice in the back of my head questioning how this writer watches film.
 
The question I have is, do you find yourself in one of these two camps? (I know this is a larger question addressing Christian film watching, Christian critics and/or Chrisitians position of thinking critically about art BUT specifically related to Naoh, do you find yourself positioned to view it through Biblical accuracy or artistic license?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thom wrote:
: . . . do you find yourself positioned to view it through Biblical accuracy or artistic license?

 

I definitely don't care for the term "Biblical accuracy". It's just a way of saying movies shouldn't be creative. Or, alternatively, it's a way of praising movies even when they're *not* accurate but you can't think of anything else positive to say about them (e.g. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was supposedly "biblically accurate" even though it got the Pilate-Caiaphas dynamic wrong, and even though it placed Satan instead of an angel in Gethsemane, simply because a lot of Christians liked the movie anyway and "biblically accurate" was their go-to way of complimenting it; or The Bible / Son of God was "biblically accurate" even though it modernized all the dialogue and lost a sense of transcendent holiness in certain key scenes, simply because a lot of Christians liked the mini-series / movie anyway; etc.).

 

Heck, even *the Bible* isn't "Biblically accurate", as any comparison of I Chronicles 3 and Matthew 1 will demonstrate.

 

But I'm not comfortable with the term "artistic license" either, because it makes the creative decisions sound kind of gratuitous; think of that Monty Python sketch where Leonardo Da Vinci tells the Pope he's added extra disciples and other characters to his painting of the Last Supper for "artistic license".

 

One term that has come up in conversations about Noah is "midrash", and I think I like that better, because it suggests a particularly Jewish way of interpreting scripture, of picking at curious details and embellishing them to try to figure out what the deeper meaning of those details might be. I don't know that I would say the entire movie is "midrash", or that the filmmakers are devout believers in the way that the authors of most midrashic texts presumably were, but I like this term because it points to the Jewish roots of the film as well as the seriousness with which the extra elements are being taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm not comfortable with the term "artistic license" either, because it makes the creative decisions sound kind of gratuitous; think of that Monty Python sketch where Leonardo Da Vinci tells the Pope he's added extra disciples and other characters to his painting of the Last Supper for "artistic license".

 

This one?

 

 

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm not comfortable with the term "artistic license" either, because it makes the creative decisions sound kind of gratuitous; think of that Monty Python sketch where Leonardo Da Vinci tells the Pope he's added extra disciples and other characters to his painting of the Last Supper for "artistic license".

Is it the kangaroo you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noah is being banned from several MIddle Eastern countries.

 

 

On Thursday, censorship boards in Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates informed Paramount they will not allow the release of the film. Similar rulings are expected in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait, according to Paramount insiders.

 

In Egypt, the leading Sunni Muslim institute Al-Azhar issued a statement on Thursday condemning the Paramount movie, saying it should be banned in that country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post on the art-show opening last night and the soundtrack album coming out later this month. Apparently the art show includes four clips from the film, at least two of which feature the Nephilim (who are *still* conspicuously absent from all the trailers, TV spots and featurettes released about this film!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...