Thursday, April 03, 2014

Noah

Posted by Reverend Ref + at 2:27 PM

Noah, the movie, is getting some big press lately; not the least of which is the expected gnashing of teeth from the right wing christianistas about how it's not true or faithful to the story as told in the Bible.

I was reading an article about it on Religion Dispatches and came across this:

Glenn Beck, for instance, notes that “the biggest problem for me was Noah himself… I always thought of Noah as more of a nice, gentle guy, prophet of God.”

"A nice, gentle guy, prophet of God"??  Really?  This quote from Glenn Beck, probably more than anything else he's said, should be proof that Glenn hasn't actually read the Bible.  A nice, gentle prophet of God?  I'm not sure there is such a thing.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that if the right wing christinistas are screaming about how awful and unfaithful something a movie is, then it's probably worthwhile seeing.

Labels:

4 comments:

Patience | 11:08 AM, April 04, 2014  

If the right-wing Christianists are upset... It's usually worth seeing. There are absolutely problems with this movie, though: the big one, of course, is that in a book written by people of color, a story that is an ancient myth of people of color, the directors still chose white actors to portray the leads (and everyone? I haven't seen it yet). I've seen a couple good responses to the critiques that might interest you: http://jjrodriguezv.tumblr.com/post/81336219784/re-reading-a-response-to-noah

Reverend Ref + | 8:38 PM, April 04, 2014  

I read a good review of that very thing (the whiteness of Noah) over on Religion Dispatches. There was one comment that I thought worthwhile that went something like this:

The director wanted Russell Crowe as the lead. Is it worse to have an all white cast, or is it worse to have a white lead with people of color being basically subservient to him and thereby continuing the image that whites are superior - especially in the context of "the curse of Ham" being used as a reason for slavery.

Not saying I agree, but putting Crowe as the lead may have caused the problems. What would have changed if, say, Denzel Washington had been the lead?

Patience | 2:57 AM, April 05, 2014  

Yes, exactly. There are plenty of talented actors and actresses of color - yet somehow, the "default" remains a white actor, or a white actress. It's unconscionable, but seems even moreso when writing about the Bible, somehow.

Ever since reading "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man," I can't shake the feeling that White American Christianity hasn't managed to get our heads out of our collective arses in a few centuries, at least... and movies like this just prove it. I'm convinced that American Christianist culture - which is the mainstream - is just repackaged Roman culture, with crosses in place of the emperor's portrait.

Lady Anne | 9:12 PM, April 05, 2014  

Convincing people to build something the size of the ark, and collect all those animals would take more than just a "nice, gentle" person. Even if they were all family, they still must have thought he was nuts.

Post a Comment

First time comments will be moderated.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)