Noah trailer: oh my god

This is going to be, er, very, um, interesting. We’re going to be asked to cheer on a man who is willing to let everyone he knows (except his family) die horribly, when he could have saved them — show them how to build another ark! or ten! — because the supposedly good and decent Man in the Sky told him to. Because the Man in the Sky is upset at the violence of the world!

This Noah doesn’t seem like a very nice guy. Neither does the Man in the Sky.

But hey! This mother and child will survive:

noahswife

But no other moms and babies.

Awwww.

share and enjoy
             
subscribe
notify of
35 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Mate Sršen
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 11:23am

Russell Crowe mentioned in an interview that part of the reason Aronofsky had him play Noah is that ‘Noah is not a nice man… He gets the job done. God chose him because he won’t be nice about it, he’ll just do it.’ Or something to that effect. So that’s interesting.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Mate Sršen
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 12:29pm

Yes. But how will audiences react to that. It’s not the typical disaster action movie, yet the trailer is clearly selling it as one.

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  Mate Sršen
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 9:53am

I wonder why Aronofsky takes that view of it.

RogerBW
RogerBW
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 11:35am

Yeah. Doing a thing that other people regard as horrible, because God told you to, is not regarded as a good act in this culture. Perhaps we’ve had too many real-life examples.

But I suspect that this is actually disaster porn for the Real, True Christians who won’t go and see a film unless their church approves of it.

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  RogerBW
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:05am

MJ’s site is the first place I read the term “porn” re-associated with things other than the conventional understanding. Am I correct in assuming it refers to exploitation?

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:20am

The term “X porn” to mean something that paints X as fodder for pure enjoyment, rather than thought, revulsion, or anything else, has been in use for at least fifteen years to my knowledge. Yes, more or less “exploitation”, but being specific about what’s being exploited.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=disaster%20porn

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:08pm

I take it as something that is for enjoyment (as Roger says) but is also photographed or filmed to be prettier and much, much less realistic than it should be. Everything is airbrushed, or made to look easy. Like, I used to subscribe to Wooden Boat magazine. I called it Carpenter Porn. The workshops always had sunlight coming in from the perfect angle, lighting a partly-constructed hull with a golden light and all the sawdust looked like it had fallen in the perfect way to highlight the angles of the cradle. The wood never had any checks, the grain looked perfect.

It is a fantasy of how such an object would be. Oh yeah, and it objectifies whatever the subject is. I know that seems weird in respect to something (like a boat) that is already an object, but it puts it on a higher pedestal.

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:17pm

Huh, that’s interesting.
So, according to you both, on the one hand it refers to selling a particluar something for mindless enjoyment, and on the other it refers to competely romanticizing a subject. Both are similar in the creation for something that is full in-the-clouds distraction rather than having the feet still on earth.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 3:32pm

Right. But, trying to define it in this context still leads to the same issues that people have when defining sexual porn. It leads to the “I know it when I see it” problem.

When the word ‘porn’ was used in this non-sexual context in a conversation at a friend’s place, my son asked what they meant (in that context). It led to an interesting discussion between three of use trying to explain. Also part of the explanation was that it was something ultimately unsatisfying as it wasn’t real and didn’t necessarily trigger thinking in a way that would feel like a real experience. (That was from someone who used ‘food porn’ as her example.)

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 5:41pm

What did she classify as food porn? I’m thinking either “empty calories,’ silmple overindulging, or little expensive canapès that take forever to make, or some kind on Martha Stewartizing of every eating experience. As another aside, porn in some people does actually trigger new brain chemistries; something real indeed occurs to the brain, but without the human contact.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 7:10pm

95% of cooking shows, ‘celebrity’ cook books, ice cream ads on tv, etc., etc.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 8:48pm

it’s more like the *fantasy* of baking, cooking making and presenting food as seen in — the most obvious example — Martha Stewart Living, or Gourmet magazine or Bon Appetite… without any of the sweat, strain or cuts and burns that would accompany it.

Bluejay
Bluejay
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 1:08pm

No onscreen name credit for Logan Lerman?

Will Anthony Hopkins act with as much passion and conviction here as he did in Thor 2?

They should be lining up two by two. TWO BY TWO, dammit!

Wait, so Noah has a flaming sword? That’s just completely unrealistic. It makes the whole thing look like some unbelievable fairy tale.

Emma Watson is in this, therefore I am favorably disposed to seeing it.

JohnAnon
JohnAnon
reply to  Bluejay
Sun, Nov 17, 2013 6:12am

There was a flaming sword in Genesis.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  JohnAnon
Sun, Nov 17, 2013 1:04pm

Yes, but Noah wasn’t holding it. An angel was, at the Garden of Eden.

Also, you just proved Bluejay’s point.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 8:48pm

the angel used a flaming sword in chasing adam and eve out of the garden.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  JohnAnon
Sun, Nov 17, 2013 10:16pm

In Good Omens, the angel gave it to Eve.

MisterAntrobus
MisterAntrobus
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 4:50pm

Aronofsky and the Book of Genesis. I’m there. He’s been interested in ideas from Genesis for some time – he wanted to incorporate a fourth story thread about Adam and Eve in The Fountain, but budget and time prohibited it. I’m glad to see him getting back to it.

Beowulf
Beowulf
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 6:51pm

Did they shoot the unicorns footage yet?

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Beowulf
Fri, Nov 22, 2013 7:11pm

I just found out what those unicorns actually were:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/22/where-do-unicorns-come-from/

But hey, I’m all for footage of “mythical” unicorns. With wings and flaming horns, please!

Gee
Gee
Sun, Nov 17, 2013 6:56pm

All these ancient Middle Eastern people look suspiciously like a lot of pretty yet tastefully dishevelled British actors…

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Gee
Wed, Nov 20, 2013 4:15am

pretty yet tastefully dishevelled British actors…

Pretty yet tastefully dishevelled Australian and American and British actors, to be exact.

fee
fee
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Nov 21, 2013 12:15pm

Jennifer Connelly’s mother is Jewish and Logan Lerman is 100% Jewish. Surely they can play Old Testament characters?

And they are both American.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  fee
Thu, Nov 21, 2013 12:45pm

And they are both American.

Yep. That’s why I included “American” in my list.

Surely they can play Old Testament characters?

Sure. I never said they couldn’t. Far as I’m concerned, anyone can play these characters — these are mythical stories, after all.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
Sun, Nov 17, 2013 10:22pm

Geysirs, eh?

Makes me think of http://xkcd.com/1190/ which, to see the whole thing, you’ve got to check out here: http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/

Cornishfro
Cornishfro
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:38am

I’m hoping for a post-credit sequence like Marvel does. Think about it:
Noah is seen finishing an alter (or something) he is building, and the Angel of Death starts talking to him from the shadows. Noah asks the angel if he’s going on vacation, now that the world is pretty much dead. The Angel of Death steps out of the shadows, wearing an eyepatch, and says, “Only for a while. We’re planning something big…”
-Cut to a sign that reads “Future Site of Sodom and Gommorah”

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Cornishfro
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 3:52pm

I want to see a scene where Noah is fighting off his enemies with the flaming sword and accidentally sets the ark on fire.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 4:49pm

Played by Seth Rogan

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:13am

“We’re going to be asked to cheer on a man who is willing to let everyone
he knows (except his family) die horribly, when he could have saved
them — show them how to build another ark! or ten! — because the
supposedly good and decent Man in the Sky told him to. Because the Man
in the Sky is upset at the violence of the world!”
The emphasis on shiny-looking effects make me unoptimistic about this being an in-depth treatment of the issue, the same one we dealt with when the US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Moms and babies died, then too, horrifically. Yet what can be done when the enemy is convincingly hell-bent on exterminating and destroying you, or when their millions-strong followers appear to be just as determined to follow that path if commanded?

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:10pm

That’s right, go on and keep painting The Enemy with that brush. Of course “they” are monolithic and all Evil. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a story.

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:15pm

Heaven forbid a filmmaker tell a story about which people are expected to think!

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:35pm

What about my post makes you think I was broad-brushing anyone as “all evil?” I think I was pointing out a legitimate question.

When there is a hope for peace, seek it, when there is a way to decrease bloodshed, seek it. What about when peaceful options seem to have been exhausted?

By many accounts the Japanese emperor had millions of civilians ready to defend their homeland and die–using nothing but sharpened sticks if need be–before it would have been captured by the Allies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Rebecca Dalmas
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 3:35pm

They were ready to surrender after Hiroshima. The bombing at Nagasaki was to humiliate and show US power to the world.

There is also quite a bit of evidence that they were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but we had built the bombs and we wanted to use them to scare the rest of the world.

Rebecca Dalmas
Rebecca Dalmas
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 18, 2013 8:02pm

There is also evidence to the contrary.
There is evidence that the Japanese, both the military and civilians were extremely invested against surrender, that if commanded to fight indeed the civilians would fight to the very death, and therefore a decisive display of power destroyed Hirohito’s resolve. Nothing about the character of Japanese culture to fight with honor without surrender suggest a hint of demonization of them, it simply suggests the reality of a brutal ground war.
How does this tie back to Noah and the Ark? If the film assumes that God caused the Flood in the first place, then it should also, if consistent, assume that the people were wretchedly beyond mortal help. Is it possible that a people could ever be depraved enough to create their own personal Hell on earth? I don’t think we could rationally rule that out.
All that said, I have not enough words to express my gratitude that so many of such dillemmas are avoided as a result of modern human progress. I had a philosophy professor who presented the hypothetical much like the one of the train racing down a track without brakes, having to decide whether to barrel off a cliff, killing all on board, or signal to switch the tracks where they would kill 5 people sleeping on the rails. My reaction? screw the hypothetical. I refuse to see the world in binary, and have to hope for a resolution between consequentialist and deontological ethics, that with some faith a way will be found. I do believe that our advances in technology, culture, and democracy give us more options; it’s the beauty of entropy:) Yet I live in a world of luxury in comparison to ancient times, we have more options.

John
John
Thu, Feb 20, 2014 3:46am

It is written, Gen 6:9 Noah was a good man, an upright man among his contemporaries and he walked with God. Heb 11:7 It was through his faith that Noah, when he had been warned by God of something that had never been seen before, took care to build an ark to save his family, His faith was a judgement on the world, and he was able to claim the uprightness which comes from faith. Isaiah 5:21 Woe to those who call what is bad, good, and what is good, bad, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Rev 19:2 He judges fairly, he punishes justly, and he has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her prostitution; he has avenged the blood of his servants which she shed.’