By Dan Cohen, Santa Monica Reporter
Director Darren Aronofsky had a number of options in realizing the Noah story; as a straight biblical tale, as a Disney-ish fantasy for children, as an adventure like “Gladiator,” as an apocalyptic nightmare, as a warning about the imperiled environment, or as a simple folk tale. As it turns out he chose all of them, and more. The result is a mind numbing hodgepodge that draws on everything from “Braveheart” to the “Transformers.” Yes, that’s right; elements in “Noah” feel like they were cribbed from Michael Bay’s uber-successful sci-fi franchise.
The movie begins as Noah witnesses the murder of his father by the local warlord/bully, who is a direct descendant of Cain. From there he experiences a variety of mysterious and eye -opening phenomena, from spontaneous regeneration of plant life to lectures by his grandfather, Methuselah, on the coming doom, to the discovery of a grievously wounded child, also the work Cain’s storm troopers.
As more evil-doers threaten, Noah and his family are taken under the wing of massive rock humanoids–fallen angels as they’re described in the story—that look like primitive antecedents of the above mentioned “Transformers.” Things become even more Hollywood familiar as the huge creatures perform most of the construction work on the ark, then battle Cain’s multitudes when the rain begins and they attempt to storm the craft. The apocalypse is detained for a moment of young love between Noah’s son, the handsome English actor Douglas Booth, and the grown up foundling, the fetching Emma Watson. Unfortunately, the wound that has left Watson barren makes the two lovers unlikely to repopulate the impending doom. Not to worry, however; Methuselah works a bit of magic to solve the problem before the deluge can dampen their ardor.
The script, credited to Aronovsky and his longtime producer, Ari Handel, is unpredictable, but not in a good way. Did you know, for instance, that Noah’s principle nemesis and the killer of his father, managed to hitch a ride on the ark? He had to, so there could be a fight to the death in the last ten minutes.
This movie’s tone changes faster than the weather in Kansas. The flood, which plays out like a watery analog of the New Years’ eve fireworks in Dubai, is truly spectacular, and there are moments of inspired effects, but what comes before and after defies comprehension.
When “Noah” was first announced, I was hoping that Aronovsky and his collaborators would bring an interesting vision to the project, even if it aligned more closely to his well-publicized atheism than the scriptures. But what he delivered is more likely to bring back the angry spirit of Christopher Hitchens than a renewed interest in the more arcane verses of the Old Testament.
Back in 1964 the Italian socialist Pier Paolo Passolini directed a controversial, highly politicized version of “The Gospel According to St. Matthew.” In the1990s Martin Scorsese drew criticism for his worldly adaptation of the novel, “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Then came Mel Gibson’s brutal but compelling vision in “The Passion of Christ.” While all drew their share of brickbats, each one of them was driven by distinct visions and executed with a level of integrity. Not so here. Aronovsky’s modus operandi seems to have been to plunder the studio for every last dime, until he rang up a bill close to 125 million.
Yes, I read the protracted interviews in the Times and other outlets detailing the filmmakers’ long held dream of bringing old folk tales to a modern audience; in the aftermath of the actual product all that seems more like a publicists’ smokescreen. Other anecdotes have suggested that the production was out of control from the beginning and that studio execs were at a loss as to what to do with the director’s early cuts. Well, they gave him the car keys.
The performances, by Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, and others, are grounded in reality, but sadly wasted. I rarely expend so much energy berating a movie, but so many critics rolled over for “Noah,” that it cries out for some form of redress. Creator Daronofsky’s intentions, other than to confound as large an audience as possible, are at best, unclear, and at worst, cynical.
Bad Words
Andrew Dodge’s first produced screenplay, a real winner, has been ably directed by Jason Bateman, who plays the lead with great comic bravado. The story, which follows an angry 40-something who unaccountably enters a children’s spelling bee, shows a side of him that’s been simmering in the background for decades.
After playing second banana on TV and in movies for two decades, Bateman’s darker side finally gets free reign in this smart, pointed comedy. With a constantly furrowed brow, an unflattering haircut, a foul mouth, and a transgressive disposition, he’s hilarious and repulsive in equal measures.
The spelling bee’s administrators think that Guy Trilby is playing some kind of joke when he shows up as a contestant in their first nationally televised competition. The show is broadcast on PBS, no less, which adds even more embarrassment to the organizers. But Trilby quickly points to a loophole in the rules that allow him to take a place alongside a hundred pre-adolescents. And he’s not afraid to vent his ire on anyone who stands in his way.
One of the early objects of Trilby’s bile is a fellow contestant, a disarming ten year old, played by Rohan Chan, a native New Yorker with a Southeast Asian background. Some will be made uncomfortable by the insults Trilby showers on the kid in their early scenes, but while it may look like a studio production, this this R-rated movie plays more like a low budget indy, from the very opening. No one, including the children, are spared from Trilby’s gleeful profanities. Take that as a warning.
The script is lean and well- crafted on a couple of levels, with supporting characters that are perfectly synchronized to its grander scheme. By this I mean that they’re more than a mouthpiece for the writer’s keen sense of humor. Kathryn Hahn, Allison Janney, and Phillip Baker Hall fit their parts like fingers in a glove. Hahn, who has developed a career in television, is fearless as a dowdy reporter with a weakness for certain sexual proclivities that Trilby is more than eager to exploit.
As a director, Bateman maintains a tone and visual consistency that keeps the satire grounded, which is why his brazen insults hit their marks in the best scenes. The final act, which ties the action up with a couple of nice plot turns, justifies both the means and the meanness. This is a small, adult movie that for the most part, respects the intelligence of a smart audience that is willing to indulge its darker side.
Interesting. Dan came to the same conclusions as Glenn Beck did 3 weeks ago after seeing the movie before it was released at the studio. Looks like the movie is a very expensive cult flick.