Check Out The Most Talked-About Scene From Noah

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Check Out The Most Talked-About Scene From Noah

Controversial feature's highly-praised "creation" sequence can now be viewed online

Darren Aronofsky's controversial Biblical epic Noah polarized audiences and critics almost two months ago with a unique reinterpretation of the Old Testament story that combined apocryphal scripture and high-fantasy elements of the director's own creation. But at least one aspect met with near-universal praise: The "Creation" sequence. Now, Protozoa Pictures (Aronofsky's production company) has made the sequence available online for anyone who missed the movie (or just wanted to see it again.)

The film stirred controversy from before it was even finished shooting, largely due to the Noah's Ark story being a fixture of the ongoing debates between some religious denominations and scientists over the teaching of Creationism versus Evolution in schools. Along with other more fantastical elements of the film, scenes that would've revealed what version of paleohistory would be shown in Noah were largely absent from trailers; and the scene itself doesn't occur until well into the film when Noah (Russell Crowe), his family and the animals are already inside The Ark.

Running about three and a half minutes, "Creation" unfolds as time-lapse CGI animation sequence that plays out a (mostly) scientifically-accurate version of The Big Bang, the formation of Earth and evolution of life from single-celled organisms to early sea creatures to all variety of Earthly animals as Crowe's Noah recites a version of the Biblical "seven days" creation story - implying that one is metaphor for the other. Adam & Eve, The Serpent and Eden appear only at the end, looking more surreal and alien than almost anything else in the film.

Noah is still playing in some theaters. A DVD/Blu-ray release date has not yet been announced.

Source: Protozoa Pictures

Permalink

If Noah is telling a story of old, why do we see dudes in riot gear among those silhouettes (or dudes in Spanish armor for that matter)? I know it's supposed to show how we'll aways be at war with one another (duh), but it doesn't make any sense in the context of the story he's telling his family. What, can he look into the future?

Anyway, not bad, apart from the silly glowing Adam and Eve and the cartoony looking snake. The Tree of Life sequence still blows it out of the water though.

Casual Shinji:
If Noah is telling a story of old, why do we see dudes in riot gear among those silhouettes (or dudes in Spanish armor for that matter)? I know it's supposed to show how we'll aways be at war with one another (duh), but it doesn't make any sense in the context of the story he's telling his family. What, can he look into the future?

Anyway, not bad, apart from the silly glowing Adam and Eve and the cartoony looking snake. The Tree of Life sequence still blows it out of the water though.

Well I'm pretty sure being given prophetic visions is how he had the foresight to build the ark... so in a manner of speaking, yeah, he can look into the future (duh).

As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

Rellik San:
As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

It just stuck out like a sore thumb. First we get this grand, realistic depiction of the creation of the universe, the Earth, and the evolution of life and mankind... and suddenly we get cartoony, glowy people. Just didn't mesh very well.

Casual Shinji:
If Noah is telling a story of old, why do we see dudes in riot gear among those silhouettes (or dudes in Spanish armor for that matter)? I know it's supposed to show how we'll aways be at war with one another (duh), but it doesn't make any sense in the context of the story he's telling his family. What, can he look into the future?

I think a valid interpretation of this film is that it's set in the future after a human made apocalypse.

Emma Watson said:

I think what Darren's [Aronofsky] going for is a sense that it could be set in any time. It could be set sort of like a thousand years in the future or a thousand years in the past. [...] You shouldn't be able to place it too much.

Casual Shinji:

Rellik San:
As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

It just stuck out like a sore thumb. First we get this grand, realistic depiction of the creation of the universe, the Earth, and the evolution of life and mankind... and suddenly we get cartoony, glowy people. Just didn't mesh very well.

Don't get me wrong, I see you're point I'm just curious how else you would show divinity and damnation in a secular manner. Which is what was attempted here.

Gonna have to concur that this doesn't even touch the sequence in 'Tree of Life.' Say what you will about that film, but that sequence was gorgeous.

Rellik San:
Don't get me wrong, I see you're point I'm just curious how else you would show divinity and damnation in a secular manner. Which is what was attempted here.

I haven't seen this movie, so maybe it makes sense latter on or in hindsight, but it might've been better had Noah told them as two seperate tales; One a realitic depiction of the course of the universe, and the other a more surreal one about Adam and Eve that's more allegorical.

Casual Shinji:

Rellik San:
Don't get me wrong, I see you're point I'm just curious how else you would show divinity and damnation in a secular manner. Which is what was attempted here.

I haven't seen this movie, so maybe it makes sense latter on or in hindsight, but it might've been better had Noah told them as two seperate tales; One a realitic depiction of the course of the universe, and the other a more surreal one about Adam and Eve that's more allegorical.

But then breaking them up would have missed the point of him effectively surmising genesis, which to be honest in the movie, is about the only overt thing from the bible (other than loose setting and basic story) within the film. As I said I agree it's handled in a slightly goofy fashion, but there isn't really much in the way of a guide in making a secular biblical epic.

King Whurdler:
Gonna have to concur that this doesn't even touch the sequence in 'Tree of Life.' Say what you will about that film, but that sequence was gorgeous.

You know I've always said of the Tree of Life it was the most beautiful film to ever send me to sleep. Don't get me wrong, I like slow movies, hell Enemy Mine is one of my favourite sci-fi movies, but Tree of Life... well if Enemy Mine is slow, Tree of Life glacial in it's pacing. I guess the problem here is, a lot of people viewed Tree of Life as a shallow experience (myself included) so when a scene is presented better as part of an intrinsic whole (and a fine bookend between the 2 distinct segments) I guess I feel more inclined to defend it. But that is just me and my opinion. :)

Cool sequence.

I like how it takes the relatively serious approach of the Bible, and makes Adam & Eve look like some sort of precursors(a la "Aliens!" guy). Gives it a nice fantastical quality to it.

Casual Shinji:

Rellik San:
As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

It just stuck out like a sore thumb. First we get this grand, realistic depiction of the creation of the universe, the Earth, and the evolution of life and mankind... and suddenly we get cartoony, glowy people. Just didn't mesh very well.

You mentioned realistic.

Have you seen the movie? Because there's giant rock monsters and Anthony Hopkins kills things with a magic flaming broadsword.

OT:
Awesome sequence. Glad it's up. Definitely one of the highlights.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

Have you seen the movie? Because there's giant rock monsters and Anthony Hopkins kills things with a magic flaming broadsword.

This sounds eerily familiar... Odin were art thou?

Simpsons did it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R795KiMD4zs
The timelapse works pretty well with this track, the garden of Eden not so much. Give it a try :).

I admit, I totally expected him to break out a refreshing pint of Guinness at the end.

My favourite scene of the movie.

People will be angry at both ends of the 'religion' spectrum (the devout religious and the completely atheist) but I think it does a great job at combining evolution with the creation story of the bible. I think it shows how they can work together in a least-offensive way as possible.

Even beautiful CGI and a widely metaphorical application of Genesis as well as overlooking the most obvious flaws in the sequence of creation cannot save what might otherwise be inspiring poetry from being anti-human in its core message. Do I appreciate Theistic Evolution over Young Earth Creationism? Of course. Any day of the week. But I'm still not a fan.

Like Casual Shinji, Adam and Eve come out of nowhere looking rather weird, to me mostly because the first part looked like something out of Cosmos, maybe if it had a sequence in between that merged both themes better it would have looked nicer.

Still looks great and the dudes of the future didnt bother me as he doesnt need to know what the future looks like to know that war will still exist, the riot gear was just a visual representation of the wars going on right now.

One would think that everyone can understand that if God is real and truly omnipotent then a single day as we know it is nothing but the blink of an eye to him. It would sound a bit more believable then to think the entire planet was created in 168 hours. To say God would be constrained by time goes completely against his supposed omnipotence.

It's a very nice scene nonetheless. Perhaps I should give the movie a try.

This movie was /horrible/. Beyond believe. I very very rarely regret paying to see a movie in theatres. But... I wanted to walk out several times, and only morbid curiosity kept me in my seat.

I see why creationists are piiiiiiiissed.

Still, it's a beautiful sequence. I'd love to see it in higher quality.

Casual Shinji:
If Noah is telling a story of old, why do we see dudes in riot gear among those silhouettes (or dudes in Spanish armor for that matter)?

The sequence onscreen doesn't match up with his words to begin with. I'm not sure throwing in revolutionary soldiers (also pictured) is really problematic.

Rellik San:

As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

Gotta agree with Shinji. It looked almost comical in the midst of all this other beautiful, wonderful imagery. It'd be like showing the Xenomorph Queen in the middle of Citizen Kane. Maybe the rest of the movie has other fantastic sequences as people are saying, but within the context of this scene? Uggggh. Or, more appropriately, uggggly.

Genocidicles:

I think a valid interpretation of this film is that it's set in the future after a human made apocalypse.

Emma Watson said:

I think what Darren's [Aronofsky] going for is a sense that it could be set in any time. It could be set sort of like a thousand years in the future or a thousand years in the past. [...] You shouldn't be able to place it too much.

I think that would work better if Noah wasn't specifically talking about the ten generations since Adam.

pearcinator:
My favourite scene of the movie.

People will be angry at both ends of the 'religion' spectrum (the devout religious and the completely atheist)

Really? I've heard mostly praise for the movie from atheists. I mean, not saying that suddenly they believe in the Ark story, but scoffing at the source material doesn't equal anger. I mean, what would you expect in a Biblical movie but a retelling of Bible stories?

Vareoth:
One would think that everyone can understand that if God is real and truly omnipotent then a single day as we know it is nothing but the blink of an eye to him. It would sound a bit more believable then to think the entire planet was created in 168 hours. To say God would be constrained by time goes completely against his supposed omnipotence.

It's a very nice scene nonetheless. Perhaps I should give the movie a try.

How does it follow that God was constrained by time?

Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

It was a very well done scene from a movie that I hear was well done. It's creationism as a metaphor for biology and cosmology. I think it was only controversial at the beginning. Once there was mention of cosmology and biology (part of which was visually represented in this scene), the Atheists had nothing to whine about. And as soon as it was scene to be a fantastical version of a biblical story that was clearly not directly lifted from the old or new testament, the Christian's had nothing to whine about. Sounds like Aronofsky did a great job to me, especially as it was intentionally shot and written in such a way that it's timeless and not from any particular depiction of past or future.

Zachary Amaranth:

Vareoth:
One would think that everyone can understand that if God is real and truly omnipotent then a single day as we know it is nothing but the blink of an eye to him. It would sound a bit more believable then to think the entire planet was created in 168 hours. To say God would be constrained by time goes completely against his supposed omnipotence.

It's a very nice scene nonetheless. Perhaps I should give the movie a try.

How does it follow that God was constrained by time?

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Zachary Amaranth:

Rellik San:

As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

Gotta agree with Shinji. It looked almost comical in the midst of all this other beautiful, wonderful imagery. It'd be like showing the Xenomorph Queen in the middle of Citizen Kane. Maybe the rest of the movie has other fantastic sequences as people are saying, but within the context of this scene? Uggggh. Or, more appropriately, uggggly.

Well, aesthetics are aesthetics and not everyone is going to like them, I can get why people would think it was goofy I'm more trying to defend it from a conceptual point of how in a traditional sense would you have represented them as ageless god children with divinity pouring from them?

Genocidicles:

I think a valid interpretation of this film is that it's set in the future after a human made apocalypse.

Emma Watson said:

I think what Darren's [Aronofsky] going for is a sense that it could be set in any time. It could be set sort of like a thousand years in the future or a thousand years in the past. [...] You shouldn't be able to place it too much.

I think that would work better if Noah wasn't specifically talking about the ten generations since Adam.
[/quote]

Maybe it's a far future version of Bioshock and "the ten generations since Adam" is reference to Rapture, ok that's far fetched but it's a fun thought exercise, with the Cainites being descendants of Andrew Ryans philosophies. :)

Speaking of such things, did any else with the rainbow at the end think: Sonic Rainboom?
If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Also speaking of the controversy around it, I noticed in UK theatres it didn't have the pre-movie warning that this is loosely based on. I'd say that's showing respect for your audience, but generally the UK is kinda ambivalent about religion so I guess it's less of an issue.

Vareoth:

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

Rellik San:

Well, aesthetics are aesthetics and not everyone is going to like them, I can get why people would think it was goofy I'm more trying to defend it from a conceptual point of how in a traditional sense would you have represented them as ageless god children with divinity pouring from them?

Why would I in the first place? Nothing else being shown onscreen actually fits with the creation narration. Why would that one bit, which actually isn't a part of the Genesis accounts need to be done in the first place?

If I don't like being kicked in the groin, you wouldn't ask me what better way there was to kick me in the groin.

Maybe it's a far future version of Bioshock and "the ten generations since Adam" is reference to Rapture, ok that's far fetched but it's a fun thought exercise, with the Cainites being descendants of Andrew Ryans philosophies. :)

Well, I'm pretty sure Cain was the first libertarian. "fuck you, I'ma kill people because personal freedom!"

If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Pinkie Pie died for your sins. I would thank you not to mock my personal beliefs!

Also speaking of the controversy around it, I noticed in UK theatres it didn't have the pre-movie warning that this is loosely based on. I'd say that's showing respect for your audience, but generally the UK is kinda ambivalent about religion so I guess it's less of an issue.

Yes, I would imagine the lack of massive tantrums in other parts of the Western world would remove the need for a disclaimer. And given the clips I've seen from the media, I don't think "tantrums" is even hyperbole. People screaming, literally screaming about the way the movie portrays the Bible, God, or Moses. I mean, I dislike Ray Comfort, but at least he wasn't screaming.

El Comandante:
Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

Well, he did say "mostly." Perhaps he was referring to the fact that they don't show us forming out of wood.

What.

This film contains:

and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

Zachary Amaranth:

Vareoth:

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

You just described exactly my original intended argument. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. But it does make for interesting reading material if one can hold a suspension of disbelief.

In any case, I think I either misunderstood you or used the wrong words because I completely agree with you.

Vareoth:

Zachary Amaranth:

Vareoth:

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

You just described exactly my original intended argument. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. But it does make for interesting reading material if one can hold a suspension of disbelief.

In any case, I think I either misunderstood you or used the wrong words because I completely agree with you.

That was smoething I picked up on years ago, then I found out it actually has a fairly simple answer. I don't know all the details off the top of my head but from the original Hebrew the word that got translated as 'day' more accurately means something like 'an indeterminable period of time'. So the time frame young Earth Creationists apply is not just a literal interpretation of the bible but a literal interpretation of the English translation of ancient Hebrew texts.

Moloch Sacrifice:
What.

This film contains:

[spoilers]

and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

Humanity is a funny thing.

So is the movie worth it? Haven't seen it yet so i'm wondering if it's cinema material or a "DVD rental".

Zulnam:

Moloch Sacrifice:
What.

This film contains:

[spoilers]

and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

Humanity is a funny thing.

So is the movie worth it? Haven't seen it yet so i'm wondering if it's cinema material or a "DVD rental".

Eh, I enjoyed it, I felt it recaptured some of the feeling of the old Hollywood biblical epics, albeit in a much darker packaging.

Zachary Amaranth:

If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Pinkie Pie died for your sins. I would thank you not to mock my personal beliefs!

No offence intended there my friend, just a joke about the films presentation of the traditional rainbow symbolising the end of the turmoil.

Zachary Amaranth:

pearcinator:
My favourite scene of the movie.

People will be angry at both ends of the 'religion' spectrum (the devout religious and the completely atheist)

Really? I've heard mostly praise for the movie from atheists. I mean, not saying that suddenly they believe in the Ark story, but scoffing at the source material doesn't equal anger. I mean, what would you expect in a Biblical movie but a retelling of Bible stories?

Moviebob explains it pretty well.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8908-Waterworks-Darren-Aronofskys-Noah

In fact, when I saw the movie I put a comment on this very scene of the movie and got a response like this;

"Leads me to believe this film is far closer to being "Christian/Christian-sympathetic" propaganda rather than a mere visual retelling of the Genesis narrative."

So this guy thought the movie was 'Christian-sympathetic' and that bothered him for some reason.

In fact, many of the comments on Moviebob's Noah review are sort of opposed to it (because let's face it, most people here on The Escapist are atheist and opposed to anything religious). Maybe it's more of an American thing, religion is far more ingrained over there than it is here in Australia.

El Comandante:
Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

This was my problem with the story as well. As far as I know, there were no birds before dinosaurs, just very large insects, a result of an oxygen-rich atmosphere due to plants having evolved faster than animals. But it was nice to see our lemur-like longtailed predecessor in the sequence.

That was a beautiful story.
Kind of sad we only get to see one single snapshot of it and have to deduce the rest.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here