Villagers,I don't endorse politicians.Not my thing.However, Obama is the light & the future.Keep going towards the light. Put America first.— Russell Crowe (@russellcrowe) October 21, 2012
I wrote this article originally about the strange PR campaign of the Noah movie, and its link to a strange film review by a Catholic who has not even seen the film, and strangely calls Genesis a myth. Since my writing this article, Russel Crowe is even attempting to pester Pope Francis to watch his strange variation of Genesis, which he sees as an environmentalist film. Russell has not got a reply from Pope Francis, who in any case does not watch movies generally, and who's staff man his many Twitters. The movie star who does not seem to see the biblical message of Noah to be potent, sees the film as a left wing environmentalist radical film. His twitter profile has his face with words: radical, father, servant, saviour: over his face:
@1hiddenfortress more offensive than obvious bigotry? Francis has proved himself erudite and intelligent. I'm going to block you now.— Russell Crowe (@russellcrowe) February 25, 2014
A Gentleman by the name of Steven often shows up parts of a plot others miss, he therefore often is a useful reviewer for that. In this case he seemed unusually obsessed about getting everything just right, even asking various presentation advice from friends prior publication. It was almost as though he expected his article to be more important than most he's written. He usually says he likes avoiding controversy, but in this case he puts forward a controversial view, where he unnecessarily claims the bible to be contradictory where it really isn't, and uses this to condemn Genesis as a myth, and one based on Pagan myths he says are about solving over-population. The claimed contradictions he uses, are not the sort many would call contradictions really, but read on for more.
I am friends with Steven on Facebook. Back in the day I was his page's first fan, and I chat with his personal account now and again. He has been posting to his friends a lot about the Noah article he was writing lately. Everything from asking his friends for title suggestions, to his amazement that his article was tweeted by the writer, and the star of that film. [Update: LifeSiteNews says that a draft of the film includes a scene where God essentially orders Noah to kill his newborn granddaughters, specifically because they are girls, to eliminate humanity and 'save the animals'.; Update, Russell has now turned to pestering the pope who has a policy of not watching movies, added above.]
I will go on the record saying I disagree with his interpretation of Genesis, and that the statements he quotes lack certain other contrary statements which firmly and famously, exist within the actual dogma of the Catholic faith.
I have studied both Genesis and the various flood myths as well as around the likely sources in oral tradition, along with many ancient myths and legends. My views on the subject may be discovered elsewhere, yet I have done much research on Genesis in particular. I personally believe the Genesis account to be an actual likely-an-eyewitness-based account of a real historic event. I view it more as a historic poem than as an ordinary myth, given its form and function. The Historical poem is a medium often used to relay real historic events, there are many amazing poems both about myths and about real histories and propaganda. Often a reading in English loses much meaning. For instance Genesis refers to the land flooding: a reference likely to the area occupied by the people in the account. Reference to the sons of the gods, likely referred to a specific tribe, though this is likely lost on Hollywood. A proper interpretation of Genesis and its historic poem format, and surrounds does give us a good idea of the history and purpose of the poem.
The dimensions of the arc etcetera are much more sea-worthy than the other accounts, those which involve a boat, of a flood amongst catastrophe level flood tales throughout human non-written tradition based histories, suggesting the poem we call Genesis has older origins, and might be an adaption of an eyewitness account of a flood affecting an entire nation ('the land') where early humanity dwelled. Suggesting, as Steven inevitably does, that the film would be continuing a tradition if it credited the flood to deities culling humanity for overpopulation, is a bit suspect, along with a few other ideas put forward in the critique, which are foreign to me. But I am not going to fact check every statement made.
That Said, it is fascinating to see his 'non-historic' myth view and justification of a film tweeted by the major players in the film. It not only suggests the likely direction of the film, it says something about the target audience of such films. It certainly is a well researched article by a film critic who often determines whether I see a film, but I am not linking to it directly, I will let Russel Crowe do that, which is after all the point of this article: his linking to the critique of Steven.
tradition: http://t.co/5aRVa4XOli— darren aronofsky (@DarrenAronofsky) February 21, 2014