I told my wife on my way out of this movie that it seems like all of the romantic comedies and children's movies that I have liked best in the recent past seem to be British films. This movie stays faithful to that trend. I love this movie for the same reason that I find almost every Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks movie aimed at children lacking. All of those movies often find it necessary to supplement their story by using hip, timely inside jokes that adults can appreciate. This movie tells a simple story very well. We recently showed our children a movie that was and is a family film, but the themes and the action of the movie deeply upset them. This movie was a welcome change of tone for them. It is fanciful, gentle, funny, beautifully shot, well acted and adorable.
In the rain forests of Dark Peru, a British explorer comes upon a family of talking bears. He becomes friends with them, and tells them that if they are ever in London, they can expect a warm welcome. Many years later, after the Uncle Bear has been tragically killed in an earthquake, the Aunt bear sends her nephew bear to London, as she has decided to take up residence in a retirement home for old bears. She remembers the kind offer of the explorer, and decides to send her nephew to London. The as yet unnamed bear makes it to London on a cargo ship and finds his way to Paddington station. There, the Mr. Brown (Hugh Bonneville) and family discover the poor bear, and while Mr. Brown is initially reluctant, they take the bear in and see what they can do to find out who the explorer was who invited him to London. The Brown family name the bear Paddington after the station where they found him, and the name suits him wonderfully. Unbeknownst to the Brown family, a local taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) has spotted the unusual bear, and wants very much to incorporate the little bear into her display at the Natural History Museum.
Three things stuck out to me about this movie. First, the power of keeping the story simple is hard to overstate. Paddington is a talking bear, but that is simply accepted without reservation by everyone in the story. This movie (or the stories they are based upon for that matter) could have dissolved into some sort of Mr. Ed territory, but it doesn't. It accepts the characters as they are in the story. Second, I was struck by the movie's profound sense of color. The colors in the film are all very bright. They seem to be a living children's book. Also, anyone who has been to the sections of London wherein this film is set can attest to the vivid colors of many of the houses and buildings in this section of the city. And third, the performances by all the actors allowed this movie to rise above being a simple fairy tale to being genuinely funny and touching. This movie reminded me in style and color of "Hugo". Though the movies are very different, the driving force of initial tragedy followed by heartfelt hope and belonging worked very well. It is remarkable how much tragedy informs so many classic stories, and this story is no exception. This movie should be a classic, because it will be able to be watched by families for years to come. It isn't often that we can say that.
This movie was made for someone like me. An indie type director takes on an Old Testament story, complete with special effects and theological undertones. I'm in. Truth be told, I have not seen any of Darren Aronofsky's movies since his remarkable debut work, "Pi." Since then, his work as certainly piqued my interest, but I have never ended up actually seeing any of his films. When "Noah" came out last year, I really did want to see it, and like so many other things in life, I never got around to it. However, I did enough reading about the movie that sounded fascinating, so I knew my time would come.
My time came on my flight from LA to Minneapolis last week. This movie is a tough one to write about for me, because I had several reactions to it at once. There are several narratives and nuances that are pulled from outside the Biblical narrative that try to give more texture to the narrative. And while many of the additions and subtractions were disappointing, the core of the movie gets so much right that it is tough to look away. By the way, when I say "gets so much right", I mean that I feel that in the movie, I see a genuine faithfulness to major parts of the Biblical Narrative, in spite of the extra biblical content. One example of extra-Biblical content was the characters of the watchers. From what I was able to understand, the watchers were fallen angels who end up being rock-beings. They are on earth to help protect it from fallen humans. As Noah begins his project of ark building, the watchers come to his aid and help protect him from fallen humanity. There is also some conjecture in the film regarding meat eating and animal killing which is not consistent with the Biblical narrative of Genesis. As the evil in the earth (characterized by violence) reaches its boiling point, the killing of animals for food and other purposes is seen as an act of wickedness. This is not consistent with the Biblical narrative unless one sees the killing of animals in the film as excessive. God Himself killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall, and God is pleased with Abel's animal sacrifice. So the movie goes a astray here, it still is able to to maintain an important piece of faithfulness to the Biblical narrative.
The movie does not depict God as immature and capricious in his dealing with the sins of humanity. As the church and the post-Enlightenment Western World have struggled to be honest with humanity's brokenness, it is quite surprising to see how openly Aronofsky depicts how desperately corrupt humans are. One other extra biblical riff is depicting Noah as believing God has appointed him to reduce the animals but then to kill himself and his children so humanity itself is destroyed. This is not faithful to the narrative, but it does create a character in Noah who is wrestling with the task that God (or, "the Creator" as he is called in the movie) has given him. Noah looks around him and sees the wickedness not only of those around him, but also the wickedness in his own heart. This conviction leads him to the belief (not mentioned in the book of Genesis) that his mission is to help the Creator destroy humanity. The one common theme here is that humans are corrupt. As an Old Testament student, I was also fascinated by the character of Tubal Cain in the film. Tubal Cain is a descendant of Cain who is mentioned in Genesis 4 as the first person to work with metal after Cain's murder of his brother Abel. Noah is instead a descendant of Cain's brother Seth. Tubal Cain is appropriately shown as a child of fallen humanity. But what made him even more interesting is that he doesn't deny the existence of the Creator, but he instead asserts that the Creator has abandoned humanity. Noah counters with his own interpretation of the Creator, and in this way, the conflicts of the early chapters of Genesis are captured very well. The entire arc of the story of Genesis 1-11 is how God preserves for Himself one line (the line of Seth) and extinguishes another (the line of Cain). This movie does a fantastic job of depicting that part of the narrative, while it doesn't quite hit the mark on some other fronts.
While the movie's faithfulness to the text can be lacking, the amount of faithfulness to the text's spirit is actually quite good. In my readings on this movie, I have come to understand how Aronofsky drew some of the nuances of his tale from other ancient Jewish traditions. As he may not be making this from the same point of view as I would make it as a Christian, I think it is only appropriate to be patient with how he chooses to tell the story. But still, it would be nice to see a filmmaker stay closer to the text itself and allow the extra biblical material flow directly from the narrative. All the same, the performances of all the actors and actresses were great, the visuals were stunning, and the overall theme of judgment and redemption were very effective.
