Alright. No question in my mind these days, Noah is not a gnostic film. Sure, it may contain gnostic elements, as it contains elements of traditional Judaism, Christianity, Kabbala, and probably a bit of Eastern theology thrown somewhere in there. Contrary to what most Conservative evangelicals like to believe, every piece of literature (including the Gospels themselves) is a giant vaht of philosophical goos poured together and stirred violently into a mythical yet powerful encapsulation of the human condition. There is no such thing as a "pure" story. That being said, there's not question in my mind that The Last Temptation of Christ contains heavy gnostic tendencies. Also, my research on Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy has revealed a myriad of Christian elements included consciously or subconsciously (it doesn't matter) by the author, resonating deeply in his and America's collective religious subconscious and reacting in the collective heirophany. And while these things interest me, to be honest I don't see papers on them individually being very interesting. But what does seem to me to be an interesting paper is the massive evangelical responses, both pro and against, both of movement and revulsion, in regards to each of these three films regardless of the filmmakers' intent.
On the production/release of all three films, America's christian community has been divided into two camps.
1) The "conservative/fundamentalist" camp which denounced each film as heretical, blasphemous, and purposefully derisive of the "true" Christian faith, regardless of real herasy or the real intent of the filmmaker.
2) The "liberal/progressive" camp which affirmed each film as exploratory, subliminally or subjectively moving, and, essentially, at some level good.
With The Last Temptation of Christ, the Moral Majority actually stopped the initial production of the film. Only years later and on a fifth of the budget did the film get made. For Noah, the conservative group saw the film as a purposefully subversive and malicious attempt by Aronofsky to preach a gnostic, mystical, humanistic gospel, propogate his own beliefs of God in the image of man, and get the last laugh at ignorant, uninformed spiritual leaders of Christianity. The liberal evangelicals, however, saw the film as a deeply touching encapsulation of man's struggle between justice and mercy, despite that some of them agreed the film itself was sadly sub-par and contained elements of "heretical" philosophies. But interestingly enough, the roles flip in regards to The Dark Knight, the conservative evangelicals seeing the film as a wonderful encapsulation of the Christ story, some even calling Nolan a smart, secretive Hollywood evangelist, despite his personal reluctance to talk about his spirituality and the evidence of his atheism, while the liberals saw the film as a flop of a film containing little true resonance. With each, it seems, the congruence of the plot elements to the Jesus Gospel myth determines the reaction of the conservative crew, while the film's quality of exploration of more general and abstract religious themes determines that of the liberals. Why is this? Is it because the Conservatives are so attached to the language of their faith? To the concretization of the themes, motifs, and morals they encapsulate? Is it because liberals have lost faith in the objectivity of these expressions while maintain a deep love for them as abstracts, regardless of their expression? If the abstract isn't what's important, but rather the concretization, the congruence of a film to the story elements of the Christ story is the important aspect, not how well it captures the same universals. However, if the universals are more essential, then it makes sense why a film like Noah, a film which contains many non-historical elements of the Noah story and no elements of the Christ story, can still be so moving to the liberal evangelical audience in regards to its explorations of mercy vs justice and the attributes of God. Just some thoughts.
On the production/release of all three films, America's christian community has been divided into two camps.
1) The "conservative/fundamentalist" camp which denounced each film as heretical, blasphemous, and purposefully derisive of the "true" Christian faith, regardless of real herasy or the real intent of the filmmaker.
2) The "liberal/progressive" camp which affirmed each film as exploratory, subliminally or subjectively moving, and, essentially, at some level good.
With The Last Temptation of Christ, the Moral Majority actually stopped the initial production of the film. Only years later and on a fifth of the budget did the film get made. For Noah, the conservative group saw the film as a purposefully subversive and malicious attempt by Aronofsky to preach a gnostic, mystical, humanistic gospel, propogate his own beliefs of God in the image of man, and get the last laugh at ignorant, uninformed spiritual leaders of Christianity. The liberal evangelicals, however, saw the film as a deeply touching encapsulation of man's struggle between justice and mercy, despite that some of them agreed the film itself was sadly sub-par and contained elements of "heretical" philosophies. But interestingly enough, the roles flip in regards to The Dark Knight, the conservative evangelicals seeing the film as a wonderful encapsulation of the Christ story, some even calling Nolan a smart, secretive Hollywood evangelist, despite his personal reluctance to talk about his spirituality and the evidence of his atheism, while the liberals saw the film as a flop of a film containing little true resonance. With each, it seems, the congruence of the plot elements to the Jesus Gospel myth determines the reaction of the conservative crew, while the film's quality of exploration of more general and abstract religious themes determines that of the liberals. Why is this? Is it because the Conservatives are so attached to the language of their faith? To the concretization of the themes, motifs, and morals they encapsulate? Is it because liberals have lost faith in the objectivity of these expressions while maintain a deep love for them as abstracts, regardless of their expression? If the abstract isn't what's important, but rather the concretization, the congruence of a film to the story elements of the Christ story is the important aspect, not how well it captures the same universals. However, if the universals are more essential, then it makes sense why a film like Noah, a film which contains many non-historical elements of the Noah story and no elements of the Christ story, can still be so moving to the liberal evangelical audience in regards to its explorations of mercy vs justice and the attributes of God. Just some thoughts.