Aronofsky’s "Noah" Will (Probably) Cause Our Next Big Bible-Movie Shitstorm

Darren Aronofsky has tweeted the first set pic of construction for his upcoming film “Noah,” he of Ark-building fame. If completed on schedule, it’s on-track to be the first of a potential wave of Biblical epics – elsewhere, Steven Spielberg is circling an update of “The Ten Commandments.”

I’m kind of psyched about the prospects of this.

From a strictly literary perspective, Bible Stories are among those rare cases were visually/narratively bizzare material also happens to be material that a plurality of the mainstream audience is not only familiar with but takes as… well, gospel, for lack of a better word. It’s the only genre where you can pack the screen with devils, demons, flaming swords and guys splitting oceans with magic staffs and still sell tickets to people who’d never turn out for, say, “Lord of The Rings.” But Aronofsky’s plans for “Noah” look to push that to acceptance to the breaking point…

The version of Noah’s Ark that most present-day religious people (it’s my understanding that despite being part of the “Old” Testament, Noah’s Ark is more “popular” in a retelling sense among Christians than Jews, though Jewish readers are enthusiastically welcome to correct me on that) are familiar with is highly sanitized, coming from (comparitively, given that the events described are – literally – pre-historic) recent translations that specifically worked to tone-down the more “mythological-sounding” elements from Genesis (giants, monsters, dragons, etc) and other pre-Exodus Biblical texts. The meat of the story is always the same – the world has become hopelessly corrupt, God aims to wipe out said corruption with an apocalyptic flood, Noah is warned by God and tasked with building a massive ship that will whether the storm – allowing Noah, his family and a cargo of mated-pairs of every known animal to survive and repopulate the planet. Because strikingly-similar “flood stories” occur in hundreds of other disparate religions, the story is a fixture of pantheist/monomyth theories as well.

In most modern tellings, the “corruption” the invites the flood is just the traditional post-Exodus understanding of sin; but as Noah’s adventures pre-date Exodus by millenia, you’ll be unsurprised to learn that the pre-cleanup versions (there’s never just one with stuff this ancient) were a little more… “complicated:” Mankind’s corruption (“mankind,” incidentally, being a race of long-lived superhuman’s having descended directly from Adam and Eve in some variations) was incited by a sect of Angels called Watchers (yes, “the guys from Dogma”) who migrated to Earth in order to seduce human women. The children of these unions were giants (or sometimes just really, really bad guys) called Nephilim, and it was the havoc they caused (and other sundry violations caused by forbidden knowledge given to man by the meddling Angels) that despoiled the Earth and necessitated the flood. Depending on which version you consult, figures like Enoch, Gog and even Lucifer turn up.

It’s this more mythic, creature-featuring and (with no offense meant to my religious readers) “high fantasy”-flavored version that allegedly informs Aronofsky’s take on the material. While much of it is being kept under wraps for now, it is known that The Watchers are onhand, and that the depiction of them and other Angels is described in-line with their “original” conception; i.e. less “guys with wings” and more “bio-mechanical horrors with multiple eyes, wings, limbs, etc.”

How will religiously-devout moviegoers respond to a Bible Movie that’s less Cecil B. DeMille and more Guillermo Del Toro? We’ll see…

Oh, Baby!

Via ShockTillYouDrop

“Killer Baby” movies are a popular monster/horror subgenre for an obvious reason: It’s the ultimate extreme of both the “deceptively-harmless-looking-killer” conceit and the “evil-perversion-of-goodness” conceit. We’re biologically/evolutionarily hardwired to respond viscerally to babies – that jolting chill up your spine when a baby cries somewhere? That’s your ancient, ancient instinct telling you “YOUNG ONES IN PERIL! PROTECT THE FUTURE OF THE PACK!” – and Killer Baby movies exploit that.

The best one is still Larry Cohen’s seminal “It’s Alive” (the original, Cohen’s own well-meaning remake kinda sucks) but there’ve been plenty since. To my recollection, though, Tara Robinson’s upcoming “After Birth” is either the first or the first in a long time to come from a female filmmaker. In this variation, a homeless woman is impregnated by an evil force and must confront the killer creature she gives birth to. If nothing else, it has TWO of the best ad-copy lines I expect to see this year…

“Every Child Is A Gift From God… EXCEPT ONE!”

“For One Girl… Pro-Life… Is A DEATH SENTENCE!”

THAT, friends, is how you sell me a Killer Baby Movie. Keeping an eye on this one.

You’ll Never Guess What I Talked About On The "Post-Movie Podcast"

My esteemed colleagues Steve Head and John Black graciously invited me back on “The Post-Movie Podcast” (which everybody should be downloading and reviewing on iTunes) over the weekend. Our discussion focused, of course, mostly on “The Amazing Spider-Man;” which I can only assume will provide further aggravation for people who are shocked – shocked! – that persons whose job is largely dependant on viewership and exposure choose to “dwell on” the most popular, noteworthy and heavily-searched movie on the planet at the moment…

http://player.wizzard.tv/player/o/i/x/134188919215/config/k-48276aa9ffcfb432/uuid/null/episode/k-aba251ea685299cf

Hulk Smashes Spider-Man

The Internet would have you believe that I am the only person who thought “The Amazing Spider-Man” was overally pretty terrible. But, then, The Internet would also have you believe that a Rotten Tomatoes percentage means something relevant in film discussion (it doesn’t) and that having negative opinions about the prospects of in-production films and/or advertising materials makes one inelligible to opine on the finished product; so you should take The Internet with a grain of salt.

In any case, I’ve got no problem being in the minority on this one; but I won’t lie – it’s nice to be agreed with by smart, insightful people. People like the mighty Film Crit Hulk, who has penned his highly-negative take on the film over at BadassDigest. You should read it. ALL of it.

"Oz: The Great And Powerful"

The second best news about “Oz: The Great And Powerful” – whose first teaser-poster just debuted – is that Sam Raimi is directing it, and it re-teams him with James Franco (in the lead role) and composer Danny Elfman. The Elfman connection is especially noteworthy, as he and Raimi (previously longtime buddies) supposedly had some kind of falling-out a few years back but apparently have patched things up a bit, which is very cool.

The BEST news is that, despite the “Alice in Wonderland” connection being made on the poster (see below), Tim Burton had nothing  to do with this…

The film is a prequel to “Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” (presumably more in line with the general-pop-memory of the classic movie than the books) with Franco playing the con-artist/magician who winds up in Oz and gets wrapped up in an adventure that ultimately leads to his becoming The Wizard (or, rather, the Man Behind the Curtain.)

Frank L. Baum’s “Oz” books (which get really, reeeeaaaallllllyyyyy bizzare pretty quick after the one everyone is familiar with) are in the public domain (or are they not anymore?) and everyone in Hollywood is suddenly hot to get Oz prequel/spinoff/reboot projects of their own off the ground in a mad dash to beat the innevitable movie version of “Wicked” to the screen. Along with this there’s also a “Return to Oz”-style sequel cooking at Warner Bros., a CGI feature tied to John Boorman, a franchise-starter non-music remake of “Wizard” and several others in various stages of pitch/sale/greenlight. In addition, Anne Hathaway is attached to an Oscar-buzzy Judy Garland biopic that deals heavily with her turn in the original movie.

In Amazing Coincidence, New Tom Cruise Movie Suddenly Has a Trailer

OMG! Major, garaunteed-multiple-cycles news involving a major celebrity’s personal life – the machinations toward which likely began weeks if not months ago – broke right around the same time that the trailer for said celebrity’s big new franchise-starter vehicle goes public?? WHAT ARE THE ODDS!?

“Jack Reacher” – retitled from “One Shot” – is based on a series of books by Lee Childs; spoken of highly by people I know, as-yet unread by me. I am told that Cruise looks/acts almost exactly the opposite of Reacher from the books; but I now really wish I could’ve seen this in theaters not knowing what it was for – I can only imagine how audiences reacted when, after all that (pretty-effective) old-school hard-ass buildup, the big reveal of this champion ass-kicker hero is… Tom Cruise.

RIP Andy Griffith

Andy Griffith – actor, comedian, musician – died today at 86. He’ll be remembered (hopefully) as a much more influential voice in American comedy than he typically got credit for, but most-immediately for his popular sitcom and career revival as “Matlock.”

However – and I’m aware I’ll be the 500th movie-geek to point this out today – he gave probably his best performance as Lonesome Rhodes in Elia Kazan’s “A Face In The Crowd;” a movie made at the dawn of the television age that warned with eerie-accuracy about the danger of “average joe” political demagoguery. Viewed today, it’s like a distress-call from the past trying to warn us about right-wing talk-radio, Fox News, Beck, Palin, the Tea Party etc…
Observe this scene, which depicts Rhodes’ show (dig the faux-rural set;) wherein he invites a Senator he’s in-cahoots with to deliver discussion staged-rant against Social Security. Key detail: Rhodes helping the Senator sell his ideology to “the people” by nudging him toward a smaller, “folksier” word than “obsessed.” Update the clothes and this is a Fox prime-time show from right now:

Griffith’s Rhodes was an alcoholic reprobate (today he’s immediately recognizable as a straight-up sociopath) who turns out to have a natural talent for galvanizing and shaping the political behviors of “average Americans.” His schtick makes him a national star and, soon enough, a sought-after ally for nefarious politicians; as the producers who created him come to realize that they may have unleashed something fundamentally evil into the world. In it’s legendary finale, Lonesome proudly embraces exactly what he knows he is and who his “people” are: