I read a very good article on Darren Aronofsky’s new film 'Noah' that is in cinemas at the moment. From what I've read the film is weird - very weird; with walking 'fallen angels' covered in molten rock that help Noah build the Ark etc. In the article (which has gone viral and is stirring up much controversy), the author has an opinion that the film is not based on the Bible at all, rather a Gnostic version based on Kabbalah. In this tradition, basically The Creator is bad, and the snake (Sophia, or Wisdom) is good.
LINK TO ARTICLE
Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience.Worth reading the whole thing. Having heard and read about it, I think the movie is something that probably should be approached with caution.
This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden.
In other words, in case you’re losing the plot here: The serpent was right all along. This “god,” “The Creator,” whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself.
The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is “Sophia,” “Mother,” or “Wisdom.” The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of “The Creator” are false.
So is the serpent a major character in the film?
Let’s go back to the movie. The action opens when Lamech is about to bless his son, Noah. Lamech, rather strangely for a patriarch of a family that follows God, takes out a sacred relic, the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden. He wraps it around his arm, stretches out his hand to touch his son—except, just then, a band of marauders interrupts them and the ceremony isn’t completed. Lamech gets killed, and the “villain” of the film, Tubal-Cain, steals the snakeskin. Noah, in other words, doesn’t get whatever benefit the serpent’s skin was to bestow.
LINK TO ARTICLE
Thanks for this, Fletch. Finally something that makes sense of Noah. I've read a review where the woman writing it can't get over the "rock people" in the movie, and then there's the Onion review which considers Noah a kind of "New Testament Christ", but doesn't understand why there are animals going into the ark. This Gnostic thing is better than the "what the" reaction from everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI saw it last night. I think the reviewer is being two simplistic. The movie feels like two halfs. The first feels like a composite myth, akin to how Tolkiens Simirilion feels. It assumes a biblical knowledge and refers to it but adds to the story.
ReplyDeleteThe second half is a nutzo noah and felt like 'we need to create mental issues to explore' and was boring long and weird.
I think the first tries to really treat the story as a myth, likr beowolf. But the second half really sucks the life out of it
Perhaps we are all approaching it with a 'hermeneutic of suspicion'......? Haha....I will see it. So till then can't comment. But I rather like special effects so will overlook dodgy theology for a sight of the rain and the ark.
ReplyDelete