posted
My LDS friends warned me away from this one, but after reading Mr. Card's review, I think I'll give the film a try. So thanks for the review!
One thing I'm going to have to disagree with was,
quote:How many screenwriters would have dared to depict such a patriarchal character as Noah in Noah without giving us little feminist sermons; instead, the female characters are fully creatures of their time and culture, which, however it might annoy diehard feminists, is historically accurate.
I definitely agree that it's annoying as all get out to have a period peace interjected with modern commentary. What I take issue with is that we know next to nothing about cultural norms in Noah's time. I think patriarchy is likely, but it's certainly not explicitly or implicitly stated what gender roles existed and how Noah's family functioned in terms of power dynamics.
Further, all we've got to go on are accounts of the flood given centuries after the fact, and again, they don't really comment on this issue.
If the equality of the genders is an eternal tenet of LDS doctrine, then we could just as easily posit that Noah believed in it was well. But again, no evidence.
To avoid belaboring the point, I don't think we can say anything about the accuracy of just about anything in the account of Noah and the flood, other than there was some guy named Noah, he built a boat, and somehow that boat saved them from a flood while others perished.
One thing I've learned in my studies of history, is that truly there is nothing new under the sun*, and radical ideas we wrestle with now, are almost without exception concepts other people in other places at other times have wrestled with or often firmly addressed in a way that would surprise us.
*Mostly, I can think of some things unique to our time such as global interconnectedness, nuclear weapons, etc.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, part 3 of Mr. Card's review was an absolutely excellent analysis. Based on what I've read I think he makes a very well reasoned case for why the film is actually very Biblical, even if the director thinks it's abiblical.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as a Calvinist (!) creationist (!) Baptist, I disagree with the interpretation OSC gave of the Fall and of Noah's choice with the twins, but on the whole, I agree with him, and thought it was an excellent film.
I was a bit confused after seeing the film about the comments on patriarchy. I definitely saw it in the evils of Tubal Cain's society, but not so much in Noah's family.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interpretation is going to vary, and some of what Card mentions actually contradicts or goes beyond Mormon theology. What makes the writer/director's work biblical isn't that it agrees with my understanding of what the Bible means, but that one can point to somewhere in the Bible and say, "They could have gotten that scene/interpretation/whatever from there." Even if that interpretation isn't how I would read the passage myself. I haven't seen the movie, but from Card's column it sounds like you can generally do that with this movie.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree that time and time again you can point to the Bible and find thoughtful connections between the text and the film. Not quite sure I'd agree with that definition of "Biblical," though, but I am coming from a much more fundamentalist-derived background.
I do think some of the conflict on the ark itself was forced and overly protracted, but in general I was moved and encouraged.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
