I didn't think it was that bad. I haven't talked to any other Catholics who've seen it or heard any other opinions regarding the legitimacy of the portrayal, so I might be off base here, but I think it's a sufficiently respectful interpretation. Part of that is the antiquity of the subject matter. Playing fast and loose with things from the New Testament would be a whole other kettle of fish, but at the same time, I don't have much patience for the kind of bland, ecumenical fare that gets served up on that subject. I have not, for instance, bothered to see "Son of God".
Anyway, most of the objections I've read about for this movie have been from sources I have tentatively identified by their word choices and so forth as Protestant or at best, novus ordo Catholic, the former of which means as little to me as Islam and the latter of which is highly suspect.
So take my opinion on the religiosity of the film for whatever it's worth.
A movie about a biblical tale will always spawn controversy, whether you stay close to the origins of the story or take your liberties. Director Darren Aronofsky's version of Noah's tale ranks somewhere in between. You can tell that he did his homework, but it's also clear that he'll get a lot of opposition about the added fantastic elements and Noah's character development in the final act. In the end every viewer, atheist and believers alike, will have to make up their own mind about the film and the story.
I have heard and read theories about the science of the Deluge that make this film seem grounded and hardcore. The essential detail is that God sent a flood to wipe out humankind for their evil, and that's what the film shows, so it's all good. With the heavy overlap of sola scriptura Christianity and neoconservatism, I imagine that many will be incensed that the most clear examples of humanity's evil portrayed are abuses of nature and the environment, including eating meat. But again, I don't have a problem with that, despite being vehemently against almost any environmental legislation, pro-drilling, pro-hunting, anti-animal rights and colossally indifferent to the fate of the polar ice caps or the Amazon jungles or giant impractical animals like elephants, polar bears and rhinocerosesess.
Noah's time was different, period. There were still descendants of all of the children of Adam and Eve running around. The state of humanity would have been a lot closer to the Garden of Eden, and living more in a general harmony with nature. Maybe eating the animals was a no-go back then. One way or another, it portrays a sense of disorder. The wasted blackened lands tainted by human habitation do as much to convey a sense of Creation perverted than any other method I could think of, especially since most other ways would involve some very awkward conversations between parents and children about why they cannot watch the movie about the toy boat with the animals they have. Especially since just about every other movie these days is about toys.
Both the director's art house fans and the religious purists might have problems with the fantastic elements of the film that culminate in an almost Lord of the Rings-esque battle between rock Transformers and an opposing army. That scene does feel out of place in the film, despite of its flawless effects and great visuals. But the third and final act suddenly shows Aronofsky comfortable in his true element: directing actors in narrow space, telling the story of a person obsessed with their dreams (see: Black Swan, The Wrestler). Here, the film finds its dramatic footing and can rely on its actors for a pretty strong solution and surprisingly touching ending.
Of course the message of preserving nature and having respect for all beings is somewhat simplistic and naive, some might say preachy. But at least it's got its heart at the right place and in this day and age more important than ever.
The one problematic issue for me, theologically speaking, was the "Watchers," and their collective arc. Not to mention, their existence is posited from a passage of dubious interpretation, that seems more likely to be referring to great men, and the intercourse between the good people and the worldly ones, and the dilution of the virtuous culture and tradition. That interpretation of the passage certainly fits better with the rest of the story, otherwise you might interpret the Deluge as God's attempt to purge giant bloodlines from the world. Because if you are going to use "there were giants on the earth in those days" in your movie, why would you skip the very next words "and they went into the daughters of men"? So it's not like Aronofsky could really have been said to try serving both sides with his portrayal of the giant rock monsters who definitely do not go into anyone's daughters. What's far more likely is that he was simply following the Rule of Cool, which is my bet for most of the decisions made on which side of things to come down.
My favorite line from the movie was Jennifer Connelly (I kept thinking of her character's name as "Joan" ) turns to Noah upon the arrival of the ark's passengers and says "The snakes are coming too?"
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
