Quantcast
Opinion

Kathleen Parker: 'Noah' the film is art, not be taken literally

Comments

Return To Article
  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Are we embracing the values of the Middle East? Or vice versa... For those eager to claim offense to interpretations of their beliefs, embrace your bedfellows in Tehran and Qatar. There should be no middle ground with regard to freedom of expression, whether it be a sincere Hollywood interpretation of a Biblical story or a provocative cartoon in a newspaper.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    Wait for the musical to boycott.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    March 18, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    I like how the author says that the film should not be taken literally. As if the biblical story of Noah should?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 18, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Duh. Hard to take the original story literally.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    March 18, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    Can't wait to see this. Here are my expectations, to see an awesome movie. Period.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    March 18, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    The story in Genesis should also probably not be taken literally. A fascinating article a few years ago by a BYU professor of zoology (Clayton White) and another BYU administrator (Mark Thomas) discussed ten pieces of evidence from science, any one of which pretty well shoots the worldwide flood story out of the water, so to speak. For example, "The ark contained insufficient space to house every bird species, let alone mammals, reptiles, insects, plants, and other life forms." The article is not out to poke holes in anyone's faith, but it does make you reconsider certain assumptions.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 18, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    The source material is, what, 2 pages long? Kind of hard to make a movie without exercising a little poetic license.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    "Literalists"... hmmm... I like that label.

    I've heard if you can buy Hollywood's story that global warming and humans caused the flood... you will like the movie.

    I already know how it turns out... I think I'll skip the Hollywood version.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    March 18, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @Ford DeTreese - The biblical story of Noah's flood is highly poetic. "Every living thing of all flesh" is just as non-literal as Jaredites taking "all manner of food" with them on the boat.

    We are assuming that the whole earth was replenished from the animals on the ark. It is much more likely that the ark contained a selection of the animals that Noah chose to preserve. I can easily believe that after the flood, the Lord repopulated non-human life on the earth. I would not be surprised if additional species are being introduced even today.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    I always laugh when I listen to the commercial for the movie on the radio. Especially when you hear someone in the middle of the cacophony yelling "Take the Aaaaaaaak"...

    Why do bible characters always have a British accent in the movies? Even Jesus?

    I especially like the disclaimer at the end of the commercial, "We believe this movie is true to the spirit of the biblical account... blah blah blah... meaning it's just another Hollywood action movie based loosely on a bible story.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    I have my own thoughts on how this all happened (based on science as well as the Bible record). And I don't think the Bible record is totally literal or scientific. It was the viewpoint of the people who wrote it. But I can deal with trying to wrap my head around how this would have appeared to the people who wrote it (not being able to see the whole world at the same time, and not necessarily understanding weather, science, and the universe to the same extent we do today).

    But the important thing is the message (not the mechanics).

    If the movie is true to the message (and doesn't try to turn it into Global Warming meets religion)... I think it could be beneficial to watch it. But as entertainment... not my cup of tea.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 18, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Thank you Ford DeTreese, I remember that article, and had friends who want so badly to believe, that they are willing to suspend everything they've learned in order to make this story "Literal" because they like the idea of a vengeful God who would destroy the wicked and innocent alike.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    To gmlewis: "I would not be surprised if additional species are being introduced even today."

    Yes, that is exactly what evolution is doing.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 18, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    re: Esquire

    "Duh. Hard to take the original story literally."

    Agreed. Unlike 300 which was loosely based on actual historical events. Noah is based on a work of fiction.... like the DaVinci Code.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    March 19, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser - I chose the word "introduced" to differentiate it from a process of random selection. Natural selection surely occurs, leading to variations within species.

    The Lord introduced groups of species all through the long history of the earth, according to His plan. He planted the plants and he nurtured the animals. It wasn't random.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Should ANYTHING coming out of Hollywood.. be taken literally?

    I don't think so.

    ===

    Should everything in the Bible be taken literally? Not necessarily. The overall message is the important part, not the nitty-gritty details of the literal interpretation of each word.

    I think there is intentionally a lot of indirection in the the way Jesus taught (in parables). The concept/message is what's important... not the words or the examples he chose to use.

    Also keep in mind that events were recorded with the understanding people had of things at the time. It was a long time ago, they didn't understand science the way we do now, but they surely understood God and his dealings with them.

    Does it matter if things did or didn't happened exactly as they were depicted in the Hollywood version? Or if the people didn't have the words or understanding to explain everything that happened to them in literal terms? I don't think so.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 19, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Art is whatever an artist creates. An artist is anyone who calls himself an artist.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 19, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    @2bits

    Where were you when they were cashing in on "Passage to Zarahemla", or "The Nephite who wore Tennis Shoes"?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 20, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    gmlewis
    Houston, TX
    @Roland Kayser - I chose the word "introduced" to differentiate it from a process of random selection. Natural selection surely occurs, leading to variations within species.

    The Lord introduced groups of species all through the long history of the earth, according to His plan. He planted the plants and he nurtured the animals. It wasn't random.

    7:16 a.m. March 19, 2014

    =========

    2 questions.

    1. How many dogs did Noah put on the Ark?
    How many "species" of dogs do we have today.

    A: Evolution.

    2. Does God micro-manage the course of a river or stream?
    No,
    He uses natural laws, many of which are random.

    As an engineer myself by profession,
    I set things up all the time -
    and based on my skills and knowledge,
    can reliabily predeict the out come including randomness by using statistical analysis.

    God is the ultimate Engineer, I admire and revere that level of fine tuned ability.