Courtesy of a multi-million dollar ad campaign, the
new Hollywood “blockbuster,” “Noah”, will debut this weekend to what Paramount
hopes will be huge throngs. “Inspired
by” (according to the ads) the Biblical account of the flood, the film will ostensibly
thrill us with one hundred thirty million dollars of CG effects and Russell
Crowe portraying Noah. It will also
never use the word “God” (a conscious decision of the director, Darren
Aronofsky); portray Noah as a fratricidal maniac who seeks to kill his own
family while on the ark, and center its message on the fact mankind is being
punished for the sin of destroying the environment. But, hey, it’s still a Biblical epic,
right? After all, they titled it “Noah,”
didn’t they? Allow me to quote a
headline from the “Daily Beast,” a very progressive
website. “Noah is a Global Warming Epic
About the Battle Between Religion and Science, Says Cinematographer.” Does that
sound like he was out to make a Biblical epic to you? How often are we going to have to be exposed
to travesties like this before we finally come to realize that Hollywood has no
respect for the Bible. Its only interest in the word of God is using it to profit
off people’s faith, even as they trash it to advance their own agenda.
Hollywood truly has a love/hate relationship with
the Bible. They love what it can produce
at the box office (nearly a world-wide billion dollar take for “The Passion of
the Christ”). They love that a story
“based” upon the Bible promises a built-in cadre of consumers in Christians who
wish to see the Biblical account portrayed on film. The problem is, they also seem to pretty much
hate the Bible and everything it stands for. Or, if that is hyperbole, at best they seem to
have a commonality of disrespect and irreverence for the Biblical text.
“Son of God” is presently showing in theatres, and
has had a fairly decent box office.
While, overall, it is fairly faithful to the Scripture as it portrays the
ministry of Jesus, it still could not leave well enough alone. Mary Magadalene portrayed as a kind of
thirteenth apostle? Jesus basically begging Judas to betray Him? And I realize
I’m nitpicking, but Jesus called to Lazarus from without the tomb not
within. Why not just portray the story
as the Bible presents it? Is that really
asking too much?
“Son of God” is part of a larger “The Bible” project
which was aired on cable TV to respectable audience numbers. I really don’t have a problem with movies
based on the Bible adding plausible back stories. In fact, I think that adds interest and depth
to the story without changing the basic narrative. But, if you’re familiar with “The Bible” and
its portrayal of OT characters, some of their portrayals were ridiculous. Probably the most egregious (of many)
examples to me was the story of Samson. In
their rendition of the story, he is portrayed as a large, muscular black
man. Plead poetic license, political
correctness, or whatever, that is laughably, ridiculously inaccurate. There is no reason or justification for
changing Samson’s race. He was a Jew. Period.
www.rottentomatoes.com is a website which contains, among other things, a
compendium of reviews of upcoming movies written by a variety of critics. Check out the site and note the reviews of
“Noah” vs. “God’s not Dead.” The
reviewers are giving “Noah” a seventy six percent approval rating while
granting “God’s not Dead” and abysmal twenty five percent. And, therein, lies a perfect example of the
love/hate relationship Hollywood has with the Bible. (And, by the way, I am linking the sycophants
who review the movies with those who make them.
They clearly possess the same value system).
“God’s not Dead” was not produced by a Hollywood
studio. It has been released on what
would be considered a very limited basis.
It is unabashedly pro faith in God.
It argues that belief in God is not anti-intellectual or without good
reason. The arguments presented for the
existence of God are logical and plausible. The major characters who are
Christian are portrayed in a sympathetic fashion. Yet, read the few critics who deigned to
review the movie. “Disaster,” “angry,”
and “ham-fisted” are just a few of the terms used to describe the film. Why?
Because it doesn’t fit the anti-faith, anti-God template which most
films do. Yet, if you look at the
website, eighty six percent of the people who viewed “God’s not Dead” recommended
it. To the surprise of everyone but its
audience, it finished third at the box office last weekend. This pro-Bible, pro-God movie, because it
doesn’t bash Christianity and faith is trashed and ripped by Hollywood.
Along comes “Noah.”
Once again, quoting the critics from rottentomatoes, “Noah” is “creative,”
“thought provoking,” and “epic.” The
fact that it has no respect for the Biblical narrative and little connection
with the actual story as presented in Scripture is basically viewed as a badge
of honor. It is “gritty” and “awe
inspiring.” The idea that it also might be blasphemous is not even on the radar
screen.
Once again, using the power of Biblical story and
the faith in God of many to generate interest, Hollywood unashamedly takes the
mantle of faith and then proceeds to absolutely, unequivocally, shred it.
Cynically, I admit, I have long since ceased to
expect anything from Hollywood except disappointment when it comes to its
handling of the Bible. Perhaps the best
analogy I can draw is: What kind of film
would Dan Rouse produce if he were to seek to portray the life story of a
famous atheist such as Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher? As a believer, it would be difficult (yeah,
impossible) for my religious and philosophical differences not to color my
portrayal of these individuals. I can
guarantee the portraits would not be sympathetic. So why should we expect atheists (the producer
and director of “Noah” are both atheists), to produce a film based on the Bible
that would be anything other than exactly what they’ve produced – a blasphemous
travesty. They have managed to take an
amazing, thought provoking, frightening account of both the wrath and mercy of
God shown against the backdrop of rebellious mankind and turn it into a
violent, twisted advertisement for environmentalism.
It is the quintessential example of Hollywood’s
love/hate relationship with the Bible.
Dan Rouse
No comments:
Post a Comment