On a Question of Semantics with Noah

The Treachery of Images by Rene Magritte is a semantic piece of art. The painting of the pipe with the words Ceci n’est pas une pipe (This is not a pipe) may not be subtle message, but it perfectly sums up the question of semantics; do not mistake what you think with what you see.

Early reviews of Darren Aronofsky’s Noah focused on a key issue of the Noah story, which is the question of God. There is no God in Noah. No Morgan Freeman style sage. However, this is simply a question of semantics and semiotics.

There were two ways Aronofsky could have approached this story. Firstly he could have removed the religion and told the story of a family man, a conservationist, who sees the damage that man is doing to the world and prepares for the worst (a tsunami style disaster). The second is creating a piece of biblical propaganda and hiding behind language and images to hopefully avoid upsetting anyone. Aronofsky chose the second and the disguise is weak.

Noah is careful not to mention the word God, but the meaning of the words they do use leaves little to the imagination. Characters regularly refer to Him or the creator, often while looking up at the sky. The capitalised third person pronoun is a common synonym for God (“All glory to Him forever”) and the creator is even less subtle than that, especially when a drop of rain instantly produces a beautiful flower, replacing one that was just picked; life for death. God is not absent; He is just referred to by familiar sobriquets. 

Going beyond the semantics and looking at the meaning of images reveals a similar weak masquerade. Russell Crowe’s Noah, on bended knees looks up at the sky. The connotation is that of prayer. Aronofsky’s CGI sky (before the rain) glistens with stars, pulsates with rainbows, both substitutes for the booming voice from the heavens. Morgan Freeman may not play God, but He is played by CGI, perhaps appropriate for a mythical, ambiguous figure.

None of this is necessarily critical if Noah had openly claimed to be a retelling of the biblical story, but it does not. The biblical references are noticeably absent from the promotional material and the decision is understandable, but one that art should not be afraid to make. Many art forms have been susceptible to the obnoxious claims of religion and Noah is careful to try and find a non-threatening middle ground. Aronofsky neither refers to God (which could to some be seen as an insult in itself), but still stays honest to the story. Although the final result is one far more positive about religion that negative.

Yet this is s shame, as it does not come from a director known for playing it safe. All of Aronofsky’s past features have been challenging character pieces that use all the tools that cinema has to offer to shock audiences, with Black Swan (2010) providing the peak of his filmmaking.

Noah is a safe film and it feels like a safe film that lacks the visual daring of earlier pieces such as Black Swan and The Fountain (2006), the close character study of The Wrestler (2008) or the screaming divisiveness of Requiem for a Dream (2000). If Aronofsky wanted God in Noah, then why not be upfront about it, rather than create a concealed character simply because of the controversy it may bring? Surely any controversy that was coming Noah’s way will be unrelenting anyway as the reference is clear, to even the least analytical viewer.

There are impressive features to Noah. Russell Crowe’s performance is powerful and carries many of the weaker performances. The CGI is used to aid the story, rather than take it over and there are some flourishes in style, expected from the director. But it’s a forgettable, unchallenging piece that lacks a clear message because it doesn’t know itself what it wants to say.