When the credits began floating up the screen at the end of Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah,” my sister Diane said, “Boy, I’m glad that’s over.”  It was not an easy film to watch.  Having been charmed by the sunny Sunday school pictures of Noah and the happy ark, we are disturbed by his bringing to life the darker images that lurk at the margins of those pages of scripture. Noah did get shamelessly drunk, and it could very well have been because he blamed himself for his inability to carry out what he assumed to be God’s grand plan to “wipe mankind from the face of the earth” (Genisis 6:7). 

               And that’s one thing I liked about the film, that God speaks to Noah the way he speaks to me, ambiguously, through suggestions of the spirit rather than directly, unequivocally.  And I liked the giants.  They are mentioned in the scripture, and how else would Noah have been able to build an ark large enough to house 2 of every kind and seven of every kind, both clean and unclean?

               I did object to the environmentalists themes. I know the environment is important to Aronosfsky, but to insert that theme where it doesn’t belong is rude and disrupting. To suggest, as illustrated by the tortured tree trunks and the barren land, that the few people who populated the earth at that time could have caused such devastation of the planet was blatantly absurd.  I also objected to the suggestion that man’s eating of flesh demonstrated the height of his depravity.  On that issue, however, I returned to the text and discovered that after the flood God blessed Adam telling him that everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything” (Genisis 9:3) which suggests that pre flood flesh was forbidden?   

               According to the scripture, all three sons brought their wives onto the ark.  Perhaps Noah’s refusing to rescue Ham’s chosen was simply to add conflict.  It probably didn’t seem sufficient that Ham should be cursed simply for seeing his father’s naked body, but I reckon it is important for a son to come to terms with the sins of the father.

               It was a disturbing film, but maybe we need to be disturbed, dislodged from our complacency, forced to reckon with the tumult of the day.

               The “Reverse the Roles” cartoon in the April 11 edition of The Yuma Sun perpetuates a pernicious myth.  In the first place, it is a misleading, false factoid; and it’s embarrassing when our President and leaders in congress perpetuate it.  The 23-cent gender pay gap only reflects the difference in earnings among all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to less than five cents. That’s a pretty narrow difference when you consider that women take more sick days in deference to family and children.

               The myth the cartoon perpetuates is especially pernicious because it attempts to make victims of women.  We are not victims.  We make choices, and for the most part, we celebrate those choices.  “I am woman, Proud and free, More to me, Than what you see.  I stand alone, A world apart, Just holding fast, To wayward heart. I am healer, Poet too, I see colour, Rainbow hue. I am fire, Burning gold, Cold as ice, If truth be told.  I am spirit, Pure and bright, Rising up, To meet the light, I enter there, The realms of love, It’s all around, Below, above. My kindred souls, Enfold me there, Full of joy, Bright and free, For I am woman, I am me.”  (Linda Harnett)