Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Ray Winstone, Douglas Booth, Anthony Hopkins
Darren Aronofsky is one of contemporary filmmaking’s true auteurs. A unique and interesting cinematic voice, when it was announced that he would be following up his surprise hit Black Swan with an adaptation of the story of Noah’s ark, a story which had apparently fascinated him since his childhood, there was little doubt we were going to get a film which was unlike any depiction of this story we had seen before.
Noah, is an audacious and bold piece of filmmaking, and while uneven it is more ambitious than most films which draw on Biblical stories, which tend to play it safe. The film presents the story of Noah not as a Biblical history, but rather as a mythology – a pre-historic great flood mythology is part not only of the Judeo-Christian tradition but many of the world’s religions. As such, the film takes on an aesthetic that is more akin to the fantasy genre than the historical epic. This is particularly evident in the depiction of ‘the Watchers,’ Aronofsky’s take on the Nephilim (fallen angels mentioned briefly in the Genesis text), which are shown as giant, Ray Harryhausen-esque rock creatures.
As is to be expected, the film has been attacked by some conservative Christian circles for its lack of Biblical accuracy (as is also to be expected, many of its most vocal opponents will openly admit they have not seen the film that has so offended them). They do have a point. At times Noah bears little resemblance to the Genesis account. Aronofsky has himself described the film as “the least biblical biblical film ever made.” But it begs the question whether in this situation biblical accuracy matters? Aronofsky’s film is not at all attempting to make a theological statement. It has no evangelistic agenda. It is neither seeking to persuade nor dissuade its viewers of the truthfulness of the story or the authenticity of the Genesis account.
If Noah is evangelistic about anything, it is environmentalism rather than theology. Aronofsky engages with the story of Noah not as a biblical story, but as one of Western society’s foundational narratives. He employs the standard practice of refocusing a well-known story in order to shine a light on a particular relevant issue. Aronofsky’s Noah thus becomes a film about stewardship and dominion. Noah and his family, descendents of Seth, believe humanity is tasked by the Creator – Noah always uses the moniker “the Creator” instead of God, the Lord, etc – to be stewards of creation and they aim to tread lightly on the Earth. “We take only what we need, what we can use,” Noah instructs his children as they pick food from the ground. The rest of humanity, descendents of Cain, whose murder of his brother Abel is depicted by the film as the defining moment of humanity’s corruption, believe the Creator has given them dominion over the Earth and it is theirs to plunder and use. In this film it is as much the way that humanity has treated the creation as it is the way they have treated each other that prompts the Creator to wipe the slate clean and start again.
While not a typical epic, Noah is still an impressive visual experience. The film carefully combines computer generated material with some impressive sets. The ark itself is an imposing structure – a monolithic, wooden box nothing like the traditional boat shape usually represented. All of the film’s animals are computer generated, which isn’t as bad as it sounds. Aronofsky also employs some interesting and arresting aesthetic devices. Noah recounts the creation story to his family, and his words are accompanied with a flickering time-lapse imagery, which is very effective.
Russell Crowe is strong in the title role as a character who is supposed to challenge us. On the one hand, we see him as an honourable figure, one who protects his family in a hostile world and seeks to live a righteous life. He sees a vision from the Creator and he is obedient. Yet as we sit inside the ark with Noah and his family and hear the cries for mercy from those on the outside as the floodwaters rise, we wrestle with Noah’s complicity in this genocide. Then when he comes to doubt the vision he has seen, and question whether it is indeed his family’s responsibility to repopulate the Earth or whether they are simply to shepherd the animals through this period and then themselves die off, he becomes quite a threatening figure to his wife and children, and Crowe is able to convincingly move from powerful guardian to threat. It is a controversial but very interesting characterisation.
Noah has its problems, it is a bit uneven and at times its environmental agenda is overplayed, but you will struggle to find a bolder, more ambitious and thought provoking blockbuster.
Review by Duncan McLean
Director: Jeff Wadlow
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloë Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Jim Carrey, Morris Chestnut
In 2010, amidst a flurry of superhero comic book adaptations, Kick-Ass managed to capture the public’s attention by creating a little controversy. An adaptation of the comic book series by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr, this story of an average high school student who wonders why no one has ever tried to be a superhero before and decides to give it a go not only featured quite graphic violence, but a foul-mouthed vigilante played by a then 11-year-old Chloë Grace Moretz. Three years later Kick-Ass and Hit Girl are back in a film which provides more of the same.
Like a number of superhero sequels before it, Kick-Ass 2 is primarily a film about escalation. After his mob boss father was killed by Kick-Ass at the end of the first film, Chris D’Amico is bent on revenge. Abandoning his superhero persona, the Red Mist, in favour of a new name that isn’t fit for print he decides to become the world’s first super villain, assembling a squad of costume clad henchmen to help him take down Kick-Ass. At the same time, the emergence of Kick-Ass has inspired numerous others of varying degrees of skill and sanity to don costumes and join him as vigilante crime fighters.
It is in its approach to these characters that Kick-Ass 2 is quite interesting. Where other superhero stories ask what prompts someone to become a superhero, the Kick-Ass films ask a slightly different question of their characters. What type of person chooses to put on a costume and fight crime? The film then presents us with two groups. The first are the incredibly naïve but well intentioned, who are ill-equipped for what they are endeavouring to do and are ultimately a danger to themselves. The second group are the psychotic, who have no appreciation for appropriate action, just a black and white concept of justice, and are ultimately a danger to everyone.
After being a scene stealing support character in the original, Chloe Gracë Moretz’s Hit Girl becomes the co-lead character in this sequel and once again she provides the movie’s x-factor. Now 15 years old, Mindy Macready promises her new guardian that she will turn her back on crime fighting. Her subplot, which delivers many of the films laughs, delves into an idea that will be common knowledge to many teenagers, that the social world of high school can be every bit as savage as anything you might come across in a dark alley in the bad part of town.
While Kick-Ass 2 lacks some of the shock value of the original, it is still a very violent film, though it is notable that martial arts and hand-to-hand combat seems to have replaced the gun violence that was so prominent in the original. Kick-Ass 2 was also not without controversy in the lead-up to its release. Jim Carrey, who had joined the cast as vigilante Colonel Stars and Stripes, announced on Twitter in June that he would not be taking part in any promotion for the film as he had experienced a change in heart in light of recent events – most notably the Sandy Hook high school shooting which occurred only a few weeks after he filmed his scenes – and could no longer “support that level of violence.” The course language has also been dialed up. Obviously a 15-year-old has to go further to confront you with language than an 11-year-old does.
Fans of the first film will still find plenty to like about this sequel – the action sequences are well done and there are more than a handful of laughs – but ultimately despite being every bit as violent and profane as the first it is neither as shocking or as clever.
Rating – ★★★
Review by Duncan McLean