Become a Member
David Aaronovitch

By

David Aaronovitch,

David Aaronovitch

Opinion

Sexist ark larks in Russell Crowe's Noah

April 10, 2014 17:10
2 min read

I like a nice inundation, so on Sunday afternoon I went with my youngest daughter, Eve, to see Noah.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, it’s about how a supreme deity — fed up with humanity’s wicked ways — sends a flood to drown everything on earth.

But He (the Creator is a “He” in this tale, which, as you will see, is significant) decides to let a couple of representatives of all the land-based species survive.

He instructs this man, Noah, to build a large boat big enough to take all the animals and his own family, and suggests that this alone will survive the coming flood. An odd decision, you may think, since all it might mean is that humanity will start up all over again and just go back to the wickedness that they had found so enjoyable before. Either that or the fish of the sea and the cephalopods of the deep, who have survived unscathed and in their millions, will hold dominion over all.

Many readers may want to see this film because it has Russell Crowe, Ray Winstone and Emma Watson in it, and so I won’t spoil the ending for you. And in any case whether or not the boat (which they insist always on calling an Ark) manages to maintain its cargo and bring it to safety, is beside the point.
And that point is the absurd and archaic sexism underpinning the whole exercise. We first encounter Young Noah roaming a barren landscape with his father, who is wise and strong. They are set upon by ruffians, the father is killed and Noah flees.

Editor’s picks