While I hesitated, I recalled the voice of my mother, who used to say that God could use anything to bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus, even hack portrayals of Bible stories. Because she was my mother, this would usually silence my objections, even though she herself would bristle at the world's inaccurate attempts at biblical story telling. However, since she is no longer here on earth, and now that I am no longer lost in a heretical form of Christianity, I will no longer be so easily silenced.
If my mom were still here, and if she used this gentle rebuke on my protests once more, then I would have to respectfully answer back, "But that doesn't mean its okay to give Him lies and other garbage to work with on purpose!"
Instead of the truth, they use what they like to call, "creative licence," which enables them to rake in the dough by not offending the sinners, while entertaining the greater population of the black sheep, and the wayward sheep who rarely if ever, crack open the book they claim to live by. There is a fine line between lying and story telling, so let's not blur that line on purpose, shall we. For me, movies like Ben Hur, and The Robe, which were fabricated and centered around actual biblical events, are more tolerable then Hollyweird's hack portrayals of the actual events of the creation, flood, and crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus. I ask you, what good is the contradiction of a fallacious biography?
Now concerning God's role in this film, it seems to be rather lack luster. I realize that George Burns is dead, but was James Earl Jones not available, or too expensive to cast as God's voice at the very least? Was Morgan Freeman busy on another project? Couldn't they find Val Kilmer? Or how about finding a new and upcoming actor with an authoritative and booming voice to make his cinematic debut as the Almighty? Going by the trailer, there is apparently a lack of fellowship between the Almighty and Noah in this epic, which the Bible soundly contradicts.
How about Noah looking like a fourtysomething man instead of being 500 years old? Or the ridiculousness of his three sons not all having wives? Is it not conceivable for each of these men to have had wives? Was there no money in the budget to cast two more women, or was it too much work to write additional lines? As unsavory as heterosexual procreation is for most of the movers and shakers in Hollyweird, the Bible makes it clear that the entire earth was repopulated by three heterosexual couples. And then of course, there is the lesser absurdity of the cast (both men and women) wearing tailored clothing such as pants, and shirts with collars. Even so, those who are anal about period details such as these, they will feel my pain, and share my annoyance.
Need I go on about the obvious errors regarding the need for Nephilim to protect the ark from Tubal Cain and his marauding hoards, and his being on the ark as a stowaway in the film? All of this is just so ridiculous, and if it wasn't so blasphemous, it might even be amusing. The review of this movie that I read (and will share later) reminds me of that made for T.V. tragedy that portrayed Noah as being a borderline schizo, and put Lot (Abraham's nephew) as Noah's nemesis, who lead a fugitive fleet of haggard vessels piled high with castaways, who found the strength to attack the ark like a bunch of pirates. I ask you, "Why stop there?" Why not have Jesus taking a stroll on the nearby waves past the ark, only to have him pull Peter out of the sea? So incredibly stupid right? See what happens when Scriptural illiterates make Bible films?
While the names, setting and basic premise of this film mostly follows the biblical account of the world wide flood, all other factual accounts have been changed to fit the warped minds of its makers.
But I'm sure this warning will not be there. Now I must admit dear reader, in all fairness, these special effect wizards are very good at what they do. And being human, that means that I'm not entirely immune to their glittery eye catching lures. And so, at first (like I said earlier) I was truly impressed by the trailer, so much so, that I actually entertained the thought of shelling out hard earned cash to go and see it. That is until the inward witness of the Holy Spirit caused me to snap out of the mesmerizing effects of the carefully selected visuals contained in the fast moving movie trailer. And thank God for those afore mentioned review sites, and even for my husband, who knows me so well. Because he said (perhaps due to my hesitant response) that we shouldn't go see it after all, since it would only get me upset, which is very true, especially after reading the review.
- Who is this movie marketed to, and for what purpose?
- Should I expect Scriptural accuracy from the spiritually dead?
- Should I consider the sources of the film's story line?
- Who wrote the screen play? Does he/she respect the Bible as being the word of God, or do they espouse a hatred for God, and instead, favor New Age mysticism?
- Who directed the film? Are they any better than the screen writer?
- Does the story line follow the biblical account to the letter, or does it stray? If it strays, by how much, and in what way?
- Are the makers upfront and honest about the film's lack of biblical accuracy, or are they adamant regarding the films truthfulness and biblical accuracy (which is in fact lacking)?
- In the film, is God glorified as being righteous and just, while being merciful and gracious? Or is He mocked as being clueless, aloof, unfair, and down right "mean?"
- In the film, are God's people acknowledged as being flawed, yet take a stand for righteousness, or are they made to be nearly secular, irrational, spiritually spooky, "good" wizards, and even nutty?
- Does God need, or desire to have unsaved human beings (Hollyweirdos) to be in his P.R. department?
- Should God and his people be flattered by the world's attention, even if it is based on misguided and misleading information?
- What do I stand to gain, or lose from watching it?
- demanding a boycott of this film and a written apology from its makers,
- fully embracing it as a means of witnessing for Christ, despite its glaring inaccuracies.
I agree that demanding a boycott of the film is a proven form of "negative" advertising, and is useless. Besides, it goes without saying that a true spiritual Christian will follow what their Lord says, which is that we are in the world, but we are not to be of it. And demanding an apology is just ridiculous, in light of the fact that this is supposed to be a country that values the freedom of religion and the press. As for using it as a witnessing tool, this is also madness. That's like a man who says he goes to nudie bars just to witness for Jesus right? I don't know about you, but in my own previous experiences concerning this kind of "outreach," I'm usually met with the annoyed retort: "It's just a movie.", rather than the desired, "Wow, thanks for correcting those errors and telling me the truth." So really, there is no good, or valid reason for a Christian to see this movie, is there?