On watching Noah

One of the principles of hermeneutics (the study of how to interpret meaning) is that the context imparts meaning – sometimes just as much as the of what you are experiencing through your senses.  Actually, we all do that – no one listens to a song and criticizes the lyrics for grammar or the artist for saying impossible or otherwise stupid things.  Likewise we expect our newspapers to have literal and factual accounts.  The standard we hold the media to depends on the media itself. 

So when I went to see the new Noah movie, I did not expect to watch an entirely Biblical account.  The Biblical account is only 4 chapters long – it’d be virtually impossible to make a literal 2hr movie from that anyway!  So I expected Aronofsky to take license with the story in order to add length and other visual interest points.  I also knew that Hollywood is not an orthodox seminary, so I could expect to see license also taken with theology.  On those two counts I was not disappointed – much license was taken in almost every respect.  But was I upset?  No.  Actually I rather enjoyed the movie.

Kathy Klassen got it right when she pointed out that many Christians see a movie ‘based on the Bible’ like Noah and have one of three reactions:

1. The literalists who throw out the movie at the slightest bit of license taken. 


2. The nominalist that doesn't really care and just enjoys the story presented. 


3. The evangelist who looks for the redeeming qualities of the film and then uses that to generate "god-discussions" with seekers.

As I read my friend’s reviews of Noah on FB and blogs, I find that many are joining the first camp.  I must say that in years gone by I would’ve joined them immediately.  But is it right to expect Hollywood – and I could go further and ask if it’s right to expect any film director ever – to correctly translate the Scriptural record to film?  I believe the answer is no.  If God knew that film would be the best media for His revelation, He would’ve made film possible when He inspired the men who physically penned the Bible.  Film is an alternative way of telling a story, and in our culture a more socially acceptable way.  But Man cannot improve on what God has said or written.   What we can do – and have been doing since the fall of Adam and Eve – is distort, misunderstand and add to it - and that is exactly what Aronofsky’s movie does.   He might well argue that the point of his movie is to tell Aronofsky’s interpretation of the Scriptural record.  That it also does. 

So you might ask, what would I want from such a movie?  Well, other than being entertained in exchange for cash (which it also does) – it creates a good deal of discussion.  If I can use that discussion to explore the hermeneutic of another (by asking them what they think of the movie and it’s meaning) then I think the movie has more than mere entertainment value.  If I shut down that discussion by pronouncing my own judgment on it, then I think I only display my own values, and the movie’s usefulness is gone.  You might not even think that to be a bad thing.  But the age of Hollywood and in a culture where celebrities are worshipped, I don’t think it takes a scholar to realize that we need to use every means possible to discuss God and His Word.