Aronofsky's "Noah"

After seeing "Noah" yesterday, here are some random observations, with a few spoilers. This film and its themes have interested me enough that I plan to further explore the idea of the flood story as one of the foundational myths of our culture, and how the film may reflect a change (or not) in our relationship to that myth.

First, most cultures have creation myths. Many also have flood stories. The Judeo-Christian culture and faith is no exception. Darren Aronofsky's "Noah" is a worthwhile telling of the period spanning the creation to the flood. Although it is based on the Judaic Genesis story, it does not follow it exactly; it is an example of a midrashic text used to explicate a biblical story. The film's notable exceptions to Genesis include the back-story, and participation in the rise of evil in the world, of the "Watchers," inspired by the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6. In this telling, the Watchers are fallen angels, cast out by God when they helped(?) men after the Fall. They end up assisting Noah and his family, and are thereby redeemed in the end. The screenwriters justify the Middle Earth'ian nature of this back-story and realization of the Watchers based on the fantastic nature of the pre-flood world as alluded to in Genesis (men live hundreds of years, no rainbows, etc.), which they believe gives them plenty of license.

Another notable difference is the omission of Noah's sons' wives from the occupants of the ark; the sons here are young and single. This storytelling device (as legitimate as devices used in the Genesis account) is used to develop the major conflict of the Aronofsky story, not that between Noah and the evil world, or between Noah and his family, but between Noah and the Creator (not called "God" in the film), or, some might say, between Noah and himself. While the Genesis account gives us the subserviently obedient Noah, no questions asked, thank you very much, the film has Noah wrestling with the Creator and his perceived duty. This is not the petulance of Bill Cosby's Noah, portrayed in his 1963 stand-up comedy sketch, but rather a gut wrenching emotional confrontation. Can anyone imagine buying into a Genesis-based direction from God in such an unquestioning way? That would be the way of the obsessed, the lunatic. Rather, Aronofsky shows us a Noah much more realistically accepting his duty, but then questioning it, wrestling with it, when obstacles are presented by the evil of the world, by his family, and by his own human nature, emotions, and mistakes, and Noah makes a big mistake in the film. Noah was most definitely human! It is this conflict, this transition that Noah undergoes, that makes the conclusion of the film, and of this telling of the Flood story, so satisfying.

Can you tell I really liked the story? OK, yes, but I have some lesser comments, and even a couple of nitpicky complaints.

Aronofsky depicts the pre-flood world very bleakly. It  is dry, it is gray, it is not green, it is not pleasant - definitely post-Garden of Eden, which is the point and feel he is trying to convey. This strange world is generally well supported by the makeup and costumes. These are not civilized people who are leaving a comfortable home to do God's bidding. Russell Crowe (as Noah) is heavily bearded and usually dirty. Jennifer Connelly (as Noah's wife) is even more pale and gaunt than her usual self. But when they, especially Connelly, open their mouths, there are those pearly whites gleaming forth. I caught myself looking to see if one of them had accidentally left their wristwatch on during filming.

I very much appreciate the music of Clint Mansell and the Kronos Quartet. But I have to admit that there were a few times when, if I shut my eyes and imagined the visuals weren't so grungy or violent, that I might have been watching Aronofsky's "The Fountain" or even "Requiem for a Dream." A little too much film cross-talk for me. On a separate note, I enjoyed seeing that the lullaby, which plays a narrative role in the film, was written by Patti Smith (who sings it while the credits notably do not roll!) with additional credit (or perhaps it's just performance credit) given to Russell Crowe. OK, so Crowe's performance of that song is not "Les Misérables" quality, but it very much fits within the film and Crowe has already demonstrated he can at least carry a tune.

Near the end of the film, Aranofsky gets just a bit too literal and in my face conveying the notion that this problem Noah faces is one that we face today as well. That WE are the ones who by choice are destroying our world, the Creator's creation. This is not as blatant as, say, a concluding Pieta-like scene in Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," where Monica Bellucci's Mary Magdalene silently calls out our guilt by lengthily staring directly at the camera, but I still thought the point was a bit crudely and too explicitly made here.

Conclusion: On a scale of five, "Noah" gets a solid four stars. Perhaps more later on myth and its value.

Activism vs Objectivity

A Facebook friend posted a link to the nearby motivational, environmental/global warming alarmist image of James Hansen, renowned NASA climatologist and our one-time common colleague and boss when we were at Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City in the 1970's and 80's. I expressed some displeasure at the graphic's message, noting a Facebook "like" limited to Hansen's hat.

From Rainforest Action Network Facebook photos:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152258142720960&set=a.298687785959.177800.8002590959&type=1

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for Hansen as a scientist, and for the scientific work he has done. We have been co-authors on scientific publications, and he is responsible for my getting to do any real science whatsoever, among other things employing his so-called Adding-Doubling Method to build computer models of multiple scattering by gas and aerosols to interpret remote sensing measurements of Venus to infer cloud particle properties and distributions. Also, I am not an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denier, but believe that the scientific results/predictions and any follow-on public/private policy issues are separate questions, decided under their own processes and rules. To put it simply, I do not believe that if AGW is "proven" to occur that the only conclusion available is to do what we can right now to stop it. Proper policy requires cost-benefit analyses and comparisons to other problems competing for limited resources. Bjørn Lomborg (see some links on the right sidebar) has written extensively on this issue from a quasi-political and economic science perspective, and is closest to my thinking.

The process of science requires a high degree of objectivity. This objectivity is often not easy to maintain, but relinquishing some - either consciously or, as sometimes happens, unconsciously - can damage the process and results. Changes in our understanding of how the world works has a huge impact on private (personal and corporate) and public decisions and policy. It is only natural for corporations and governments to consult with scientists about their findings and to seek advice on courses of future action. Hansen was so consulted, at least by the U.S. Government as documented in various press accounts and in his book. But the world of bureaucracy and politics operate by rules different from those of science, and generally the outcomes of Hansen's consultations did not make a connection or result in policy changes that he thought advisable. For the scientist, IMO, that should be the limit of his/her "advocacy" in the public arena.

But Hansen, possibly frustrated by his government policy engagement (or lack thereof), turned to activism, to broaden the scope and audience of his appeals for both the "danger" predicted by the science as well as for particular ideas for policy solutions that he embraced to address those dangers. Dealing with the relatively non-scientific reasoning ability of the media and environmental advocacy communities can be even more daunting than dealing with government agencies. This can result in becoming vested in a particular scientific result even more than is common for a scientist and his scientific work; you want to maintain your credibility with your new audience that is giving you great personal, positive feedback. This can lead to a loss of objectivity that can be dangerous to the science.

Is it possible for Hansen, or anyone, to maintain objectivity in the face of the pressures brought on by an activist role? Yes, it may be possible. But is it likely? I'm not so sure. So not only might the science itself suffer, but even if objectivity can be maintained, you run the risk of losing some credibility among scientists and non-scientists because of those known added pressures on your objectivity.

Has Hansen had better success with his activism - his speeches and arrest record - than he had with his direct government policy consulting? Questionable. But either way, I believe that taking on that activist role is too potentially damaging to the value he has for doing science and reporting results. It is, of course, Hansen's decision to make. My preference would be for him to prioritize his credibility and effectiveness to do what he does best, doing scientific research and interpretation, and let others be the poster children for wearing the great hat while getting handcuffed.