Kathleen Parker March 14, 2014

There’s nothing quite so helpful as a fatwa and threats of a Christian boycott to create buzz in advance of a new movie.

“Noah,” scheduled for its U.S. release on March 28, has become such a target. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain have banned the movie because it depicts a prophet, which, as Danish cartoonists will attest, isn’t the peachiest of ideas in certain circles.

Even here in the land of religious tolerance, the National Religious Broadcasters threatened to boycott the film unless Paramount, the film’s distributor and co-financier with New Regency,issued a disclaimer that the movie isn’t a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. It is good to have fundamentalist literalists explainexactly what the Bible’s authors intended, especially since a literalinterpretation would keep moviegoers away or put them to sleep.

To wit: In the literal tale, no one speaks until after (spoiler alert) adove sent to find land returns with an olive twig in its beak,indicating the flood is over and the world is saved. In the movieversion, people talk, which is awfully helpful in following thenarrative.

Alas, under pressure, Paramount altered its advertising to say the movie was “inspired” by the Bible story and is not the Bible story.

Note the frequent use of the word “movie” in the preceding paragraphs. Thisis because “Noah” is a movie. It is not a sermon or a call to prayer. It cost $130 million to make and is intended to entertain, inspire and — bear with me, I know this iscrazy — make money. It does not presume to encourage religiousconversion, disrespect a prophet or evangelize a snake, though it doesglorify virtue in the highest.

I recently viewed the film and can confidently report the following: If you liked “Braveheart,” “Gladiator,” “Star Wars,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Indiana Jones” or “Titanic,” you will like “Noah.” If you liked two or more of the above, you willlove “Noah.” Your enjoyment increases exponentially with each moviechecked above, though I should warn that “Titanic” made the cut for only one reason, the major difference between it and “Noah” being obvious.“Noah” also includes the essential love story or two, without which nostory floats.

“Noah,” in other words, is a big movie. There’s plenty of action and enoughgore and guts to leave young children at home. It’s a moralityplay/spiritual journey without being preachy, except occasionally by the protagonist. Noah the man can be a tad over the top at times, but thisis an obvious plus when you’re being instructed by the Creator to buildan ark and fill it with snakes, among other creatures.

And, let’s face it, Noah is Russell Crowe, from whom one wouldn’t mindhearing: “Would you like to see my ark?” We’ve come a long way, baby,from Charlton Heston as Moses in Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments.” Add to the cast Anthony Hopkins playing Methuselah, Yoda-esque in hisancient wisdom; Jennifer Connelly, who plays Noah’s wife; and EmmaWatson as his adopted daughter. There are also Noah’s threeheart-stopping sons, whom we witness evolving from innocence toself-knowledge as they question their father’s authority (soundfamiliar?) and try to resist Oedipal urges that surge to the surfacewith the terrifying brutality of a serpent’s strike.

Poor Noah, alienated from a world consumed by evil, aspires to goodness andjustice even as he questions his qualifications to the task. Moviegoersare treated to a short course in original sin, magically presented withzoom lenses, a pulsating apple and, shall we say, reptilian dispatch. (“Anaconda” probably deserves an honorable mention on the list.)

This is all to say, the film is art, neither executed nor to be takenliterally. And who are these experts who know precisely what the Bible’s authors intended? Among other criticisms are the implications thatevolution and creation might be mutually inclusive and that man andbeast are equal in the eyes of the Creator. Noah and his family arevegetarian and demonstrate respect for the Earth’s fragile balance.

Pure heresy. Next thing you know, we’ll all be driving Teslas and eating basil burgers.

To each his own interpretation, but at least one conclusion seemsself-evident: The Bible’s authors were far more literary than we. Theyclearly had a keen appreciation for parable and metaphor as well as aprofound understanding that truth is better revealed than instructed.

If the literalists prevail, we just might need another flood.

Read more from Kathleen Parker’s archive, follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook.