Noah: a surprising commentary on animal rights
If one wants to see the atrocities humans are capable of, this film vividly captures all sorts of human unkindness and depravity, especially toward animals. I missed the animal rights message the first time I saw it. Noah (2014) is a great example to me on how a film’s viewing experience can change based on one’s lens. When I first saw this film in theaters in 2014, I understood it as just another biblical epic with some creative liberties taken. I started getting involved in veganism and animal rights in 2015 and had not seen the film since. I watched it recently and cannot believe how the film’s underlying animal rights theme slipped by me upon first viewing. It is remarkable how a film can totally change in quality because of the themes I was oblivious to before. This has happened before to me, particularly after watching The Texas Chain Saw Massacre(1974). The first time I saw that film, around 2013, it just seemed like a grimy and gory slasher with no real substance. I watched it again in 2021 and could not believe how packed the film was in criticizing carnism and the terrible things humans do to animals. Noah (2014) was a similar experience for me, as I have grown to really love the film after seeing it through the lens of animal rights. Director Darren Aronofsky did a great job of really making that theme land.
I have not yet had the opportunity to see Darren Aronofsky’s latest Oscar-nominated film, The Whale (2022). I am incredibly excited to just because of the director’s previous work, which includes sensational dramas, Requiem for a Dream (2000) and The Wrestler (2008). The director’s works also include bizarre thrillers, Black Swan (2010) and Mother! (2017). Noah (2014) is somewhat of a clash between Aronofsky’s flair for the dramatic and the bizarre. Noah (2014) makes a somewhat accurate and respectful summary of the Bible’s opening events before finally picking up with Noah as a child.
It does not take long for the vegan/animal rights messages to come forth. As an adult, Noah (Russell Crowe) tries to rescue a struggling animal who was hunted by ruthless men. The callous men imply it has been a long time since they ate meat. Noah and his family are implied to be vegetarians, perhaps vegans, as one of his children asks why the men hunt and eat animals. Noah says the men think eating meat will make them stronger. Countering that claim, Noah tells his children that strength comes from God. In another vegan moment, Noah’s son, Shem, tells his great-grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) his favorite thing in the world is berries. Methuselah says he is craving berries since Shem mentioned them. Humorously, Methuselah makes berry-picking and eating his last activity before he drowns in the flood. Noah states God chose his family to save the innocent and that man will be punished. It is clarified that the innocent are the animals because they live as they did in the Garden of Eden nonviolently. Not so much for the humans.
Virtually every other human, besides Noah and his family, are depicted as violent and bloodthirsty. The depiction of humans is fairly accurate to the biblical text as Genesis 6:5 proclaims that man had become evil and wicked. Following the theme, Noah says the ark was built to protect the innocent, the animals, from the flood that will blot out the wicked around the world. Similarly, Methuselah says God is destroying the world because man has corrupted it. Noah places the blame on destroying the world squarely on the shoulders of humans. As if saying it was not enough, we get to see just how wicked humanity had become, especially toward animals. While walking through his village before the flood, Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) witnesses his fellow villagers chopping the corpses of dead animals. Later the villagers gruesomely tear apart a live sheep. The girlfriend of Ham, Noah’s son, gets her foot caught in a bear trap, a ghastly depiction of the implied worldwide wickedness of man toward animals. On the contrary, the Bible says Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9). The film aligns with this statement, as Noah tells one of his family members that they need to be gentle and protective with the animals because if something bad were to happen, that species would be lost forever. Similarly, Noah says he and his family have a duty to look after the animals. The animal rights theme is especially obvious with the film’s villain. How a villain thinks and acts is usually a film’s way of indicting and criticizing specific attitudes and behaviors.
The villainous Tubal-cain manages to get aboard Noah’s ark and eats one of the creatures. Ham pleads with him not to because it’s the last of that animal’s species. Tubal-cain communicates his indifference. Ham says the miracles and the rain are for the animals. Tubal-cain responds that Noah has belittled Ham by having him serve the animals. Most significantly, Tubal-cain states about the animals, “They serve us.” It’s an obvious animal rights message in that Noah implies that humans are here to serve animals, which reflects what Jesus taught in Mark 9:35, while the villainous Tubal-cain believes animals are to serve humans, which he believes shows the greatness of men. Tubal-cain interprets that after God made animals, he needed something “greater,” someone to take dominion and subdue it, and made humans in his image. Indeed, Tubal-cain’s grievous interpretation is how many Christians would interpret what dominion means. Tubal-cain obviously missed the context of dominion (Genesis 1:26–28) as the following sentences say to eat only plants (1:29–31). Noah has interpreted correctly though. Later, while on the ark, Tubal-cain slaughters an animal seemingly as part of a plot to assassinate Noah. Before Tubal-cain tries to kill Noah, he declares that all the women and animals are his now. Tubal-cain is actually mentioned in the Bible, specifically Genesis 4:22. This verse implies he was a blacksmith. That is as far as the Bible goes, and his expansion in this film is a massive creative liberty.
The film was heavily criticized for taking liberties. However, I found that the film is fairly accurate to the text at times, including when the dove had a branch in her mouth (8:11) and the film ends with a rainbow in the sky, a sign of God’s covenant (9:13–16). Another extreme liberty taken in the film was Noah essentially advocating for the extinction of humans, as he tells his youngest son that after the flood, he will be the last man. This bizarre subplot sets up Noah in opposition to his grandchildren’s well-being. Although Noah is quite the animal rights activist, where he falls short is wanting to kill his own newborn grandchildren. That might give audiences reason to dislike activists. Noah willing to save animals but kill babies may connect with the pro-life crowd, who often criticize activists for being kind to animals but unsympathetic toward the unborn. Regardless, Noah does come to his compassionate senses in the end. Not all of the film’s liberties are bad though.
I have seen just about every biblical film ever made. Most of them are somewhat mundane depictions of the events with little creativity or imagination. The ones that stand out however, like The Passion of the Christ (2004), are memorable precisely for their unconventional and imaginative elements. Unfortunately, with imagination also typically comes creative liberties. Noah (2014) fits that description perfectly as the creativity of certain elements also comes at the cost of biblical accuracy. The most imaginative portion of the film involves giant craggily creatures made of rock and stone known as “The Watchers.” They are explained to be spiritual beings punished by God and turned into rock people. These creatures seem to be based on the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. The Watchers help Noah and his family build the ark. The Watchers are impressively brought to life with a great deal of special effects.
Even though the film is less than ten years old, I felt the special effects were somewhat unpolished at times but dazzling during battle sequences. If nothing else, the special effects are of inconsistent quality, although the scenes where the animals fill the ark is quite enchanting and magnificent. The film has another enchanting sequence that leads us through the formation of the universe and earth as it coincides with Genesis 1 and the creation of the Garden of Eden. Where it starts to get controversial is the depiction of sea life evolving into land creatures. Aronofsky is mashing two different worldviews together in this film, specifically what the Bible and science have to say about the origins of life. The film depicts the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as if they are synchronized with the theory of evolution. I give credit to organizations like BioLogos that try to harmonize the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2 with the scientific interpretation of the diversification of life (evolution). I have studied both worldviews extensively, and I am not convinced that they are harmonizable. Both make sense in the way they depict the origins of the universe, but they are both so radically different from each other that I do not think they can both be true. The most important detail being that the Bible calls death “an enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). For evolution to operate, it requires death of billions of creatures over millions of years. Trying to harmonize those two with that crucial detail difference leads to contrivances and text-stretching that never quite seems to do either worldview justice. In my honest opinion, I have found it is best to just keep biblical origins and scientific origins as separate and distinct perspectives and accounts. Regardless, this attempted harmony of distinct viewpoints is a minor squabble I had with the film.
Despite this, I am glad I watched Noah (2014) again. I liked it the first time I saw it, but noticing the animal-rights theme definitely amplified how much I enjoyed it the second time around. Unfortunately, the film depicts humans displaying despicable behavior toward animals, which may be hard for some activists to see, although the movie’s cruelty is no worse than what activists see in routine factory farm footage. Toward the end of the film, Noah’s son Ham states after the flood, “Maybe we’ll (humans) learn to be kind.” Unfortunately, we are still waiting on that, Ham.
If you’d like to write a guest post for Slaughter-Free America, e-mail JonHoch87@gmail.com.