“Noah” Film Inspires Flood of Religious Freak-Outs

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The new Darren Aronofsky movie Noah is pissing off quite a lot of people. The outrage over the film—which retells that famous biblical tale of Noah, his ark, and God’s wrathful flood—is international and diverse in its stupidity. And it goes without saying that the majority of the people saying mean things about the film haven’t yet seen it (Noah hits theaters on Friday, and stars Russell Crowe and Emma Watson). “It’s always kind of silly that somebody puts their voice and opinion to something when they haven’t seen it, based on an assumption,” Crowe said in an interview with Access Hollywood. (Crowe has been trying to get Pope Francis to endorse Noah. That won’t be happening.)

Aronofsky has dubbed his $160 million epic the “least biblical biblical film ever made.” (Word on the street is that it promotes some pretty “aggressive environmentalism.”) Here are some lowlights in the ongoing permutations of Noah hate:

1. Noah is actually banned in some countries because it depicts Noah. Censorship bodies in United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Indonesia have banned national releases of the film. This prerelease backlash stems primarily from a conservative Islamic prohibition on representing holy figures in art and entertainment. (Al-Azhar, a top Sunni Muslim institute in Egypt, also objected to the film and released a statement declaring that it would hurt the feelings of believers.) Also, there’s a sense among certain government officials that Aronofsky’s film doesn’t play it straight: “There are scenes that contradict Islam and the Bible, so we decided not to show it,” Juma al-Leem, director of media content at UAE’s National Media Center, said.

“If there is a fear that the film will cause unrest and protest from some groups then the government should create a situation conducive to people growing up instead of always limiting them to a narrow-minded condition,” Joko Anwar, an award-winning Indonesian filmmaker, told the Jakarta Globe.

Noah

Paramount

2. Glenn Beck hates Noah because why wouldn’t he? Beck (of course) lashed out at the movie: “If you’re looking for a biblical movie, this definitely is not it,” the right-wing commentator declared, having screened the film with Paramount executives. “I don’t think it’s an environmental thing as much as it’s just so pro-animal and anti-human, and I mean strongly anti-human.”

In one of Noah‘s less favorable reviews, Beck opined that there is “no redeeming value” to it.

Here is the rest of the segment, in which Beck does his best Russell Crowe:

3. Christians on Fox News are upset that the word “god” isn’t uttered in the film. “That’s like writing an American history book without mentioning George Washington,” says Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt. However, the word “creator” (which means, you know, god) is used many times in the picture, thus invalidating the Fox segment’s point, and yet they carry on:

4. A religious group tried to smear Noah with a dubious survey. Faith Driven Consumer (a Christian group that also started a petition to support Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson following his homosexuality and Jim Crow-related comments), posted a survey that found 98 percent of more than 5,000 religious respondents were unhappy with Noah and other biblical Hollywood films. The message was that Christians wouldn’t buy tickets to see this movie because of secular Hollywood. The survey was picked up by Variety and got a lot of play, which prompted Paramount to release their internal research and dispute the soundness of the polling.

So, Faith Driven Consumer didn’t enjoy the film—but at least the Pope doesn’t seem to have a problem with it or its star

Emma Watson

Paramount

Well, if Noah could survive Hurricane Sandy, then perhaps it will survive these spurts of bad publicity. If you care to see it this weekend, click here for tickets and local showtimes.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate