Noah: The Movie

Religion in TV, Movies, Books, etc.

Moderator: Moderators

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Noah: The Movie

Post #1

Post by shnarkle »

The recent rendering in film of the story of Noah evidently uses a number of sources from antiquity in developing one of its themes, namely the problem of Ham and his predicament which results in him seeing "the nakedness of his father". The movie develops this theme quite well until it completely drops the ball by showing Noah passed out drunk.

Perhaps the makers of this film didn't think the religious communities watching their film would be able to handle what really happened. Perhaps they just missed it completely as well. I don't know. It certainly isn't beyond the limits of the censors so I don't know which it might be.

For those who may be unaware of the context:

"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

Usually the question is, "Why did Noah curse Canaan?" The answer is that Canaan was the product of Ham's illicit relationship with his mother. The reason for this is that "the nakedness of their father" is their mother. According to Leviticus 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." To uncover means essentially to engage in sexual relations.

So my question is why would the makers of this film develop this theme of Ham's dilemma in finding a wife, and rearing a family and then just seem to drop not only the logical conclusion, but the conclusion which the texts seem to indicate?

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8922
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

Are we talking about the Russell Crowe movie here?

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #3

Post by shnarkle »


User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8922
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post #4

Post by OnceConvinced »

Not sure why you are taking a story that is clear fantasy and trying to turn it into a religious debates. Not only did you have a stowaway aboard the ark, there were Golems in that movie! :lol: So I don't see a problem in it leaving out a small detail like Russell Crowe doing a nude scene. In fact I'm glad he didn't do one.
Perhaps the makers of this film didn't think the religious communities watching their film would be able to handle what really happened.
Maybe you are right. I guess Christians would find golems more realistic and closer to the original storyh, after all they believe in all sorts of other crazy beasties.
Usually the question is, "Why did Noah curse Canaan?"
Because he's a malevolent God who likes to curse people including descendents?

The answer is that Canaan was the product of Ham's illicit relationship with his mother. The reason for this is that "the nakedness of their father" is their mother. According to Leviticus 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." To uncover means essentially to engage in sexual relations.
Damn, so we missed out on another Jennifer Connelly nude scene? :(
So my question is why would the makers of this film develop this theme of Ham's dilemma in finding a wife, and rearing a family and then just seem to drop not only the logical conclusion, but the conclusion which the texts seem to indicate?
Probably because they were embarrassed about the incest. Noah and his family were supposed to be righteous, but there is Noah getting drunk and his wife getting it on with his son? I'm not surprised Christians would be embarrassed by that. Noah and his family were clearly no more righteous than the millions of people and babies God drowned.

Seriously though, I figure they at least wanted to keep a PG-13 rating on it.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #5

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to OnceConvinced]


Not sure why you are taking a story that is clear fantasy and trying to turn it into a religious debates.

shnarkle: Well let me see if I can clear this up for you. This clearly fantastical story of Noah is debated by all three of the Abrahamic religions, so I'm not turning it into anything. I'm just adding in the interpretation presented by film makers within the entertainment industry. You did notice that this is under "Religion and entertainment" didn't you?
------------------------------------------
Not only did you have a stowaway aboard the ark, there were Golems in that movie! Laughing So I don't see a problem in it leaving out a small detail like Russell Crowe doing a nude scene. In fact I'm glad he didn't do one.

shnarkle: The Russell Crowe (Noah) isn't the focus of the question. The focus of the question is Noah's wife.
------------------------------------------

Quote:
Perhaps the makers of this film didn't think the religious communities watching their film would be able to handle what really happened.


Maybe you are right. I guess Christians would find golems more realistic and closer to the original storyh, after all they believe in all sorts of other crazy beasties.

shnarkle: True, but not much of a point.
------------------------------

Quote:
Usually the question is, "Why did Noah curse Canaan?"


Because he's a malevolent God who likes to curse people including descendents?

shnarkle: Uh, no. Noah was who God told to build the ark. God is the one who likes to curse people. So it would appear that no only have you not read the book, you missed the movie as well. This would explain your responses so far.
-----------------------------------


Quote:
The answer is that Canaan was the product of Ham's illicit relationship with his mother. The reason for this is that "the nakedness of their father" is their mother. According to Leviticus 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." To uncover means essentially to engage in sexual relations.


Damn, so we missed out on another Jennifer Connelly nude scene? Sad

Quote:

So my question is why would the makers of this film develop this theme of Ham's dilemma in finding a wife, and rearing a family and then just seem to drop not only the logical conclusion, but the conclusion which the texts seem to indicate?


Probably because they were embarrassed about the incest. Noah and his family were supposed to be righteous, but there is Noah getting drunk and his wife getting it on with his son? I'm not surprised Christians would be embarrassed by that. Noah and his family were clearly no more righteous than the millions of people and babies God drowned.

shnarkle: Perhaps, but again that's besides the point. If I remember correctly I think this was released by Lion's Gate so I don't know that they have any religious affiliations with Christianity. It seems like it was aimed at mainstream movie goers to begin with so I don't see why they'd have a problem taking this theme to its ultimate conclusion. Hollywood is notorious for pushing societal boundaries, this one isn't much of a push either.
------------------------------------

Seriously though, I figure they at least wanted to keep a PG-13 rating on it.

shnarkle: The book version seemed to have no trouble keeping it PG -13. There's no reason these film makers couldn't just have Noah's wife walking out of her hut with a bulging belly, and Noah getting bent out of shape and cursing. That's easy to see on prime time pretty much every day on tv.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Noah: The Movie

Post #6

Post by bluethread »

shnarkle wrote:
"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

Usually the question is, "Why did Noah curse Canaan?" The answer is that Canaan was the product of Ham's illicit relationship with his mother. The reason for this is that "the nakedness of their father" is their mother. According to Leviticus 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." To uncover means essentially to engage in sexual relations.
The problem with this view is that when Noach awoke he cursed Canaan. How could he have known his grandson's name or even if this event was going to result in a child. The reason I think that Noach cursed Canaan and not Ham is that when one is cursed it reflects poorly on the parent, which in this case would be himself.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8922
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post #7

Post by OnceConvinced »

shnarkle wrote: Well let me see if I can clear this up for you. This clearly fantastical story of Noah is debated by all three of the Abrahamic religions, so I'm not turning it into anything.
There is much fictional literature which is discussed around the world. Skakespeare's works for instance are discussed all over the place. I had to study Shakespeare at highschool. Even my son had to study Shakespeare at high school. We never had to study the bible though.
shnarkle wrote: I'm just adding in the interpretation presented by film makers within the entertainment industry. You did notice that this is under "Religion and entertainment" didn't you?
Yes, I did, but you seem to be full on with the bible verses as well. I'm taking you place the bible in there under "entertainment" too? :)
shnarkle wrote: Quote:
Usually the question is, "Why did Noah curse Canaan?"

Because he's a malevolent God who likes to curse people including descendents?

shnarkle: Uh, no. Noah was who God told to build the ark. God is the one who likes to curse people. So it would appear that no only have you not read the book, you missed the movie as well. This would explain your responses so far.
My bad, I read "Noah" as "God". DOH! Although any curse made by Noah would just be words and meaningless, unless of course God actually endorsed that curse. Can a human being envoke their own supernatural powers by uttering curses?

BTW I have read the story numerous times and I did see the movie, including a previous movie some years earlier where they tried to make out parts of Abraham's story was actually Noah, not Abraham and where Lot became a pirate and tried to hijack the ark.
shnarkle: Perhaps, but again that's besides the point. If I remember correctly I think this was released by Lion's Gate so I don't know that they have any religious affiliations with Christianity. It seems like it was aimed at mainstream movie goers to begin with so I don't see why they'd have a problem taking this theme to its ultimate conclusion. Hollywood is notorious for pushing societal boundaries, this one isn't much of a push either.
I think it's a very valid point I made. Lion's Gate or not, they're gonna want their movie seen by as many people as possible, so if the difference between PG-13 and R16 is leaving out an incest scene, I think they would do it. Especially if including it meant riling up the Christians. What would they be gaining? It could conceivably cost them millions at the box office.


Seriously though, I figure they at least wanted to keep a PG-13 rating on it.

shnarkle: The book version seemed to have no trouble keeping it PG -13. There's no reason these film makers couldn't just have Noah's wife walking out of her hut with a bulging belly, and Noah getting bent out of shape and cursing. That's easy to see on prime time pretty much every day on tv.
Seriously? There's nothing PG-13 about the bible! You just have to look that that new Bible TV series and all the gruesome violence to know it's definitely not suitable for kids.

Kid's versions of the Noah's Ark story don't include the incest bit anyway.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Noah: The Movie

Post #8

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to bluethread]

The problem with this view is that when Noach awoke he cursed Canaan. How could he have known his grandson's name or even if this event was going to result in a child. The reason I think that Noach cursed Canaan and not Ham is that when one is cursed it reflects poorly on the parent, which in this case would be himself.

shnarkle: An interesting interpretation. However, another idea promoted by historians is that these stories are a sort of short hand account of historical events. So Noah discovers what has happened. He may have cursed Canaan before he knew his name, or waited till he knew his name, waited till Canaan was born, etc. Another way of looking at it is similar in that Noah may stand for a community and Ham for a descendant community that isn't as productive or they're depraved etc., or perhaps as the curse suggests they were enslaved by one of the other tribes etc. One of the more well known examples from the bible is the story of Abraham. Historians claim that this refers to Abraham or an Abrahamic community who discontinued sacrificing their first born sons and began sacrificing their livestock.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #9

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 7 by OnceConvinced]

Yes, I did, but you seem to be full on with the bible verses as well.

shnarkle: Yes, full on, but not just the biblical accounts. The film makers seem to have taken some of their material from other sources from antiquity as well, e.g. the books of Enoch, etc.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm taking you place the bible in there under "entertainment" too? Smile

shnarkle: For entertainment purposes only. However, this topic is dealing with the entertainment industry and their entertaining portrayal of these events.
--------------------------------

Quote:

shnarkle: Perhaps, but again that's besides the point. If I remember correctly I think this was released by Lion's Gate so I don't know that they have any religious affiliations with Christianity. It seems like it was aimed at mainstream movie goers to begin with so I don't see why they'd have a problem taking this theme to its ultimate conclusion. Hollywood is notorious for pushing societal boundaries, this one isn't much of a push either.


I think it's a very valid point I made. Lion's Gate or not, they're gonna want their movie seen by as many people as possible, so if the difference between PG-13 and R16 is leaving out an incest scene, I think they would do it. Especially if including it meant riling up the Christians. What would they be gaining? It could conceivably cost them millions at the box office.

shnarkle: Christians could care less. Jews might have a problem with it though, especially the orthodox. However, probably the most likely to be offended would be scholars, but then they aren't really big movie goers. Regardless, I doubt they'd lose millions. More than likely they'd gain millions from the R rated crowd. Either way a few million is small change.
-----------------------------


Quote:


Seriously though, I figure they at least wanted to keep a PG-13 rating on it.

shnarkle: The book version seemed to have no trouble keeping it PG -13. There's no reason these film makers couldn't just have Noah's wife walking out of her hut with a bulging belly, and Noah getting bent out of shape and cursing. That's easy to see on prime time pretty much every day on tv.


Seriously? There's nothing PG-13 about the bible! You just have to look that that new Bible TV series and all the gruesome violence to know it's definitely not suitable for kids.

shnarkle: It's no worse than what Disney has on Saturday morning for the little tykes.

Kid's versions of the Noah's Ark story don't include the incest bit anyway.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #10

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 7 by OnceConvinced]

Yes, I did, but you seem to be full on with the bible verses as well.

shnarkle: Yes, full on, but not just the biblical accounts. The film makers seem to have taken some of their material from other sources from antiquity as well, e.g. the books of Enoch, etc.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm taking you place the bible in there under "entertainment" too? Smile

shnarkle: For entertainment purposes only. However, this topic is dealing with the entertainment industry and their entertaining portrayal of these events.
--------------------------------

Quote:

shnarkle: Perhaps, but again that's besides the point. If I remember correctly I think this was released by Lion's Gate so I don't know that they have any religious affiliations with Christianity. It seems like it was aimed at mainstream movie goers to begin with so I don't see why they'd have a problem taking this theme to its ultimate conclusion. Hollywood is notorious for pushing societal boundaries, this one isn't much of a push either.


I think it's a very valid point I made. Lion's Gate or not, they're gonna want their movie seen by as many people as possible, so if the difference between PG-13 and R16 is leaving out an incest scene, I think they would do it. Especially if including it meant riling up the Christians. What would they be gaining? It could conceivably cost them millions at the box office.

shnarkle: Christians could care less. Jews might have a problem with it though, especially the orthodox. However, probably the most likely to be offended would be scholars, but then they aren't really big movie goers. Regardless, I doubt they'd lose millions. More than likely they'd gain millions from the R rated crowd. Either way a few million is small change.
-----------------------------


Quote:


Seriously though, I figure they at least wanted to keep a PG-13 rating on it.

shnarkle: The book version seemed to have no trouble keeping it PG -13. There's no reason these film makers couldn't just have Noah's wife walking out of her hut with a bulging belly, and Noah getting bent out of shape and cursing. That's easy to see on prime time pretty much every day on tv.


Seriously? There's nothing PG-13 about the bible! You just have to look that that new Bible TV series and all the gruesome violence to know it's definitely not suitable for kids.

shnarkle: It's no worse than what Disney has on Saturday morning for the little tykes. 12 year old kids spend something like dozens of hours a week playing those interactive search and destroy games. The bible isn't even interactive.
---------------------------------

Kid's versions of the Noah's Ark story don't include the incest bit anyway.

Post Reply