‘Noah’ Director Darren Aronofsky: ‘There Isn’t Really a Controversy’

Darren Aronofsky
Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

'I'm more concerned about getting non-believers into the theater,' the filmmaker says at exhibit

“There isn’t really a controversy,” “Noah” director Darren Aronofsky said just seven days after Paramount Pictures decided to add a disclaimer to moviegoers that the film is not exactly the same story portrayed in the Bible.

In February, Variety ran a story stating that the film may face some rough seas with religious audiences, according to a survey conducted by Raleigh, N.C.-based organization Faith Driven Consumers. Paramount criticized the story as “misleading.”

“The controversy is all about the unknown and about the fear of people trying to exploit a Bible story,” Aronofsky said Thursday at a Gotham art exhibit promoting the film’s March 28 release. “It will all disappear as soon as people start seeing the film.”

Titled “Fountains of the Deep: Visions of Noah and the Flood,” the West Broadway exhibit curated by Aronofsky featured the interpretations of the biblical story of Noah’s Ark by 50 contemporary artists and comic book legends.

“When I was in post-production (on “Noah”) and staring at my editor’s back for hours upon hours, I started daydreaming about approaching other artists to see what they would come up when thinking of the original story of Noah in the book of Genesis,” Aronofsky explained. “So I approached them and said, ‘don’t think about the movie. Don’t go on the Internet. Don’t look at stolen paparazzi shots of Russell (Crowe). Just go back to the original text and paint or create what you see and this exhibit is the result.”

Paintings and photographs of naked men and women as well as animals flying through Manhattan skyline were among the featured artworks.

“The film was made for believers and non-believers,” the helmer explained before guests arrived. “I’m more concerned about getting non-believers into the theater or people who are less religious. A lot of people are thinking, ‘Oh. I don’t want to go see a Bible movie,’ but we completely shook up all expectations and people will see that as soon as they sit down and watch the movie. That is kind of what this art show is all about.”

As for signing on to do a movie without final cut approval again?

“I come from a place where I have very limited resources and I keep making what I have better and better and better,” he said. “I think Paramount was about just trying everything that was possible. I’m very meticulous in my planning stage so I felt that it wasn’t going to fit together in different ways. The puzzle didn’t work that way, but you do learn things from the process (of not having final cut). It’s just a little bit painful. I’d rather just keep working on something and polishing it more and more.”

Studio re-cuts followed by test screenings of the $125 million pic made the 45-year-old director reflect on his next professional step.

“I love big movies and small movies and television,” he said. “I love storytelling, but I’m not going to make another (nine-figure budget film) tomorrow. I need a break.”

In terms of persuading Paramount to give an auteur all that money to make a film based on a story from the Bible, Aronofsky said it was a boat, not Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” which took in over $611 million at the box office that convinced the studio to back the film.

“I said, it’s at least the second most famous boat if not the most famous boat after the Titanic,” helmer laughed. “That was my pitch.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 178

Leave a Reply

178 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. You guys should have used the Gilgamesh version of the flood. Sumerians aren’t so uptight about their stories.

    • CJ Phelps says:

      And someone else’s version of the facts doesn’t make them right. It doesn’t make it prior to the Hebrew story either. That’s a presumption that is often made but there is no proof that it’s actually true. People measure the age of the story of Noah by the date that Moses wrote it down. But just as Moses wasn’t there to observe Adam and Eve he wrote the story of the flood after it occurred just like he did with the Garden Of Eden. God inspired the writing. And there is zero proof that the other versions of the flood story pre-date Noah’s story.

    • Matthew Paul says:

      damn I was gonna say that

  2. Jason lorah says:

    I am extremely super excited to see this film! I’ve been saying for years that they need to really make this into a movie. Now I have been reading mixed reviews on this… some saying he should keep it accurate to the Biblical account some saying that it never even happened. I know the biblical account, I have read it before, and from what I saw in the preview looks like he kept the key points. Now you can imagine what the people around his family acted or what they were faced with… they were obviously not nice and friendly or this whole event would not have even taken place right. And the event itself was not a little drizzle of rain but extremely violent and fast acting… the whole earth broke up and got a new face lift. And they did not need two of every species of animals on earth just two of every parent kind of animal and these animals were supposed to reproduce after the flood so they are not old but young small animals and I’m guessing that the ocean became their toilet lol and God had them in check so there will be no fighting on board and God sealed up the Ark. I do believe in the Biblical account And I know that there is a lot of things that surrounded the key points that we do not know which makes for a good movie. The Bible is truth… it has 66 books by 44 authors written over 1,500 years in multiple parts of the world… it has been completed for the past 2000 years and is the most selling book of all time… and is the most tested object of all… if there was something wrong with it you would think it be in the headline news being flaunted for a very very long time!!! Anyways Back to the movie I am excited to go see this and see what his creation came to be around the key points to the Biblical flood. Thank you to the director and the cast and everybody that was involved to make this movie and thank you to Paramount Pictures for backing up the price and the company the does the FX. I know the movies going to be awesome!!!!!!!!!! :-)

    • Jim Crockett says:

      Thanks for making a point about the animals being small. Artists want their paintings to be dramatic so they always picture things like a pair of full-grown Bengal tigers going on the ark. What would really have been there would have been a pair of tiny kittens, one male, one female. They take up less space, need less food, and won’t try to eat the other animals. Also, only species were required, not breeds. No need for poodles, afghans, retrievers. beagles, etc.; a pair of wolf puppies would suffice.

    • CE says:

      Is that you, Darren?

  3. Danny Harper says:

    easy there…he made his cut, the distributor made theirs. The money always wins and now he has a movie this is not quite his. not cowardly, nor has aronofsky ever been cowardly in a creative sense

    • CJ Phelps says:

      That’s just it. The money might have made the calls but there won’t be any coming back in. The Last Temptation Of Christ is your axiom here. It failed miserably at making money because it was not true to the Bible. They talk about Mel Gibson’s movie but they forget that he was so obsessed with sticking with the real story that he did it in the original language, which no one now speaks. That’s realism. This Noah movie is far removed from that.

  4. Neil Huff says:

    I lived in Adana Turkey in the early 1960s. The Turks said that the mountain (Mt Ararat) was located in Russia. But anyone talking about it thought it was a joke. But back then educated Turks were still under the influence of Kemal Ataturk.. a most secular Muslim. It is a bit different today. Religious fundamentalism has reared its ugly head again there, as well as here. Films like this one simply feed the Stupidities among us, who don’t know the difference between fact and fiction.

  5. Danny Harper says:

    oh good god….I have seen 3 of those, and I would rather be sent to eternal damnation than watch them a second time. wow, those were bad movies. If you like the message, that is fine, but these are not good movies!!

  6. Neil Huff says:

    Like the late Carl Sagan: “I want to know and NOT just believe.” I base my belief system on whatever science tells me is the best current thinking on any subject having to do with my life here at this time on this tiny mote of matter swimming in the vastness of space. If there is absolutely no empirical evidence for something such as the existence of the soul (an old Egyptian idea) why base my behavior on some ridiculous fear of an accounting that was first conjured up by pagan Egyptian priests of the old kingdom? (cir 3000 BCE). I am quite comfortable living a moral life based simply on the Golden Rule…a concept that predates Christianity by many centuries.

    • John says:

      Science will debunk religion. We can grow babies in test tubes, Virgins today can get pregnant, we have medical procedures that can bring people back to life. We are doing what back then were considered God like events. We can clone species and we can collect DNA and manipulate it.
      What science is doing is proving that we as humans are God like ourselves. Does anybody in science believe Mary the virgin actually just got pregnant? If she did not have sex, we know their are other ways to get pregnant. Might have been a miracle back then. But we can do it every day now. Religion has proven useful as a tool to keep humans on a path of righteousness but it is any more then that?

  7. Allen Vaught says:

    That’s the beauty of bible stories, they are open to artistic interpretation.

  8. Danny Harper says:

    no, there is no proof. none at all.

  9. Allen Vaught says:

    no matter any evidence for a boat in turkey, there is just no physical way for such a boat to contain so many beings. Noah’s family would have to have been shoveling shit 24/7, feeding them, exercising them, watering them, breaking up their fights. It simply is not possible….unless you believe in fairy tales.

    • John says:

      Yes, I agree that the ideal of Noah building a ark is noble and probably is just trying to serve a purpose in the Bible. It by no means could have taken place even today in actuality. Unless you substitute DNA of every animal for the actual animal. Obviously then you have to assume Noah had technology not possible at that time. Mythology is all you have left to properly address what Noah did. The world is full of fictional stories meant to uplift people and man kind. How come the Bible cannot have fictional tales of inspiring events? When you think about it, people back then had nothing but the words of books to inspire and entertain. Folk lore, story telling had to be right up there with the basics of life back then.

      • Danny Harper says:

        made sense back then for sure…when we were still trying to figure out “why the sun rose every day” or how what lightning actually is…now its just redundant…at best

  10. Wild Bill says:

    Showing Noah as a drunk and questioning God’s Will is ok in Hollywood, even if it’s totally wrong. But they would never portray the prophet Muhammad as say….a pedophile for marrying 11 year old girls, even though that’s totally true.

    • SorryInAdvance says:

      The bible shows Noah getting drunk in Genesis 9, and never tells you what Noah was thinking, only that he did everything he was commanded. Plus Noah was human, so there’s really no issue here with portraying him as flawed and conflicted. Isn’t it fair to assume he might have questioned the destruction of mankind… even a little bit?

      • Dancette says:

        Thanks – yet another thing I love about the Bible. It doesn’t flinch. When people sin, it does not hold back. As great as Noah was, he got drunk and the Bible does not sugarcoat it. King David may have made the biggest sin of all and the Bible shoots straight from the hip.

    • Allen Vaught says:

      Both stories are old myths of long gone cultures. Not a real issue.

  11. SorryInAdvance says:

    You are correct in that Jesus did come not to abolish but fulfill it, but He fulfilled it precisely because the law was unattainable by fallen humanity. The ‘second half’ of the bible is about grace and reconciliation with God, not about following “to the letter” (whatever that means) a list of commandments. The bible as a whole is a story of God’s unrelenting love of us in spite of ourselves. The commandments are no longer commandments to appease or earn favor from God (that has been fulfilled in Jesus), but responses to unmerited and audacious forgiveness. In my unsolicited opinion, christians spend too much time establishing, enforcing, and interpreting rules, and not enough time ‘paying forward’ the grace they have been given.

  12. Scott says:

    I think most people could be considered non-believers if they want us to believe that a man built a boat and stocked it with 2 of every creature in the world.

  13. Big Ron says:

    Does anyone really believe this story? I think not.

    • SorryInAdvance says:

      Everyone should “believe” in some sort of flood, because massive flooding definitely happened to all coastal civilizations when sea levels rose ~400ft to near their current levels sometime around 12,000-10,000BC, while humans were present. The constant stream of newly discovered ancient underwater cities around India, Japan, Mediterranian, etc. pretty well confirms that what was the ancient coast is now (still) underwater. The details of the bible story of course, are legitimately debatable, but a movie about an ancient widespread flood is totally merited and should be considered ‘based on a true story’ with or without the bible parts.

      I hope the discovery channel, etc. take the movie as an opportunity to talk about this less controversial aspect of our ancient past, because I find it fascinating.

    • rex t. invincible says:

      Yes, BR, astute, intelligent, observant people believe ‘this story’.
      Take a flight over the western us to see what post-flood looks like.

  14. Chesterar says:

    I’m more concerned about getting non-believers into the theater,’
    Not Christianity believers, but global warming religion believers.

  15. khadijah says:

    “It means embracing and following all the various commandments of the biblical god as written by god in the old testament.”

    Uh, no. Even we Muslims understand that Christians understand Jesus to have replaced the Law of Moses with belief in deity. This is clearly laid out in Matthew 5:17. One cannot “fulfill” something and then leave it in place.

    Christian (and Islamic, for that matter) law should be viewed as subsets of the Law of Moses, with a specific subset laid out for Christians in the New Testament, and a specfic subset laid out for Muslims in the Quran.

    “That means following to the letter all the rules for living and the laws governing conduct specified in the books of the old testament.”

    Just the opposite. This debate was settled for Christians in 49AD, when Christian leaders met to settle the issue if Christianity was to be a subset of Judaism, or a separate sect. Arguing FOR remaining as a Jewish sect was James, the brother of Jesus and the first bishop of Jerusalem; arguing AGAINST was Paul and Peter, who had a dream which is recounted in the Book of Acts, where he saw a vision of Jesus telling him to “take and eat” of food which had been previously sacrificed to idols.

    So, what YOU say Christians are supposed to believe was actually debated and settled within two decades of the death of Jesus — and the result was not what you say it is.

    • Neil Huff says:

      What the early church fathers said and did was purely political. There were literally hundreds of texts and stories and Christian sects vying for recruits and power. Unless your god was involved in all the squabbling, assassinations and skullduggery that characterized the formation of the church, what we have today is merely the versions whose adherents were more powerful and murderous than their competitors. This editing and rewriting was still going on at the time King James of England financed the version that is most popular today. It was a rewrite by committee.

      • Jim Crockett says:

        Since you claim to have a religious education, I can only assume that you are consciously lying in order to discredit the Bible. Any seminary student knows full well that thousands of ancient manuscripts have been subjected to intense textual criticism and that they show the current translations to be extremely accurate representation of the original autographs. It is your privilege to be an atheist, but stop distorting history to try to win converts by deception.

    • Ben says:

      Outstanding answer. Thanks.

  16. Ralloh says:

    He should not be concerned. I’m a non-believer but enjoy Bible stories. I may not attribute them to a God, but, most have good messages and/or are just fascinating stories.

  17. dino says:

    Aranofsky is a genius.. Every frame he creates is perfection… He is the next Kubrick.. he could make a movie about dog farts and i guarantee it would be beautiful… Its a Movie.. Its Art.. its 2014.. Stop bitching and see the movie, or Dont… I will be there opening night cuz Aranofsky is the best director around… period.

    • Danny Harper says:

      Thank you for basing you opinion on his ability as a director, and not on your own political/religious agenda, like most here. Art is interpretive, and Aronofsky is one of the greatest interpreters we have in film today. Unfortunately, this article was linked on drudge report, so most of the comments will be venomous.

  18. Neil Huff says:

    Having been educated by the Jesuits and know both old and new tomes, I am comforted by the fact your biblical god doesn’t exist.

    • rex t. invincible says:

      @Neil Huff….how ‘jesuitical’! A comment that can be taken at least 2 ways. Clarification welcome….

  19. Yup, for many it is a nightmare that God is in charge… For me it is a comfort.

  20. anon says:

    You don’t get any more non-religious than me and I’d rather stick rusty forks in my eyes than sit through yet another Hollywood propaganda piece. If Hollywood wants to push global warming let Al Gore make another “inconvenient truth” movie. Then we can decide if we want to watch it or not. I’d be really irritated if I went to a movie I thought was going to be a sweeping epic about a myth that has roots in many cultures (not just the bible) only to have to sit through some sort of nonsense about a bronze age hippie who is worried about the environment and a mythical god who decides to reduce population and punish man for not being eco-friendly enough. I’m tired of paying out of my hard-earned paychecks for Hollywood to hijack my afternoon off to spew its politics at me. If you want to make a documentary make a documentary. I want to be entertained not preached to.

    • Ralloh says:

      I hope you are wrong. If this turns out to be another, “Man is bad and destroying the planet” movie, I will be ticked off. They did that with the remake of that classic sci-fi movie, “The Day The Earth Stood Still”. I about puked when I watched that.

    • NHBill says:

      “I want to be entertained not preached to.”

      Well there goes most of the greatest films in history from Citizen Caine to Lawrence of Arabia to Schindler’s List.

      Sometimes watching a film with a point of view is a good way to challenge your own ideas.

      But hey not everyone can take that challenge.

      • anon says:

        ’m surprised Noah didn’t stop off and buy his “affordable health care” policy before he got on the boat. Might as well fit all those political agendas in.

      • anon says:

        None of the movies you listed had some hidden political agenda in them. You knew what you were getting from the start. The holocaust actually happened and Citizen Caine and Lawrence of Arabia were based on real people. And I’ve seen them all. You’d have to be an absolute ignorant idiot with no historical knowledge to believe bronze age man was worried about global warming or that overpopulation was an issue in a society where there were only 14 million people. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest of the flood stories and in no way does global warming come up as a topic. And the non-religious laugh at the religious for thinking dinosaurs walked the earth the same time as man. They can’t any longer because this is just as dumb. He just took a random topic and injected his political beliefs into it.

  21. ike407 says:

    Why are Christians expecting an accurate biblical account from nonchristians? I am a Christian, and I may or may not go see this movie(or wait for the DVD), but I will not make the decision on whether is accurate or not because I know the biblical account already. If people tell me is entertaining and/or the fx make it worth it then I will watch it. Why so much drama about every little thing in life. want accuracy? READ YOUR BIBLE, CHRISTIAN!

    • NHBill says:

      What’s an “an accurate biblical account?”
      There is a reason there are so many Christian denominations.
      You guys have a hard time deciding on what’s “accurate.”

      • gigi1956 says:

        The denomications have to do more with preference for practices and observance. All the denominations follow the same bible. Also, some may place more importance on difference things: some on social justice, some on evangelism, some on doctrine, but all make up the church. We are all one family. But sometimes we resemble squabbline relatives.

  22. Bons says:

    Just from what I have heard, I am avoiding this movie like the plague!

  23. AbbaDBabba says:

    Don’t worry about nonbelievers seeing your film. If it’s mythology we prefer it to be Greek or Roman–much more intelligent cultures than the barbarians who wrote the Noah tale.

  24. Brandon says:

    Here’s the funny part. My fellow Christians will attend “Rated-R” movies all day long for entertainment, but make a movie about the Bible with inaccuracies in the name of entertainment, and they rise up in protest? Come on Christians, let’s be consistent! We cannot have our cake and eat it. Either we stand for morality as expressed by the Bible or we don’t.

    • Christians who love God will understand, those who deny God will not! Love God and do as you please.

    • Bons says:

      I totally agree Brandon. It is called hypocrisy. We as Christians need to stand as firm for our morals as any other religion if we want to be taken seriously by those who are not believers.

  25. C. Adkins says:

    -he means non-believers in climate change.

  26. Zeke says:

    Pretty well put.

  27. Defiant says:

    LOL! Waste of time and money.

  28. Kevin says:

    Hollywood forgets Americans tiring easily at being lectured at.

  29. Neil Huff says:

    I’m not sure why anything Hollywood believes, does or doesn’t do effects anyone living in the real world.
    It’s all a gamble like the stock market. Silly fairytales decorated with pretty faces. Some make money, others tank. Noah deserves to fail as it takes advantage of people with low IQs.

  30. Neil Huff says:

    I’m certainly a non-believer. That’s in spite of a Jesuit education. I know mythical nonsense from historical fact. I also think this is cynical theater designed to pull money from boobs.

  31. I suppose he thinks that the people who went to see “2012” were all believers in the Mayan religion? Apparently he’s not familiar with the concept of suspension of disbelief.

    • Tara McConnell says:

      No, but people don’t know much about the Mayan religion, which makes it inherently interesting. I’m well able to suspend disbelief – I’m into fantasy and science fiction – but I have no interest in watching yet another preachy Bible movie.

  32. Albert says:

    So we should believe in the BABYLONIAN religion?? Because Noah is plagiarized from the Story of Gilgamesh. As a matter of FACT the BIBLE is just a collection of polarization and FICTION. The “exodus” NEVER HAPPENED. 10 Commandments ….. EGYPTIAN Book of the Dead …… walls of Jericho ….NEVER HAPPENED

    • Danny Harper says:

      atheists have been oppressed for their “beliefs” for the past 2000+ years, because religions of all colors persecuted and killed them for not “believing”…so when atheists finally have a safe podium all these years later, you better expect that they will speak up…and loudly. Christians are the ones who are whining about being oppressed now…funny how things change when your belief system is finally challenged.

  33. Norps says:

    I won’t see it. He is right to worry that non-believers won’t trifle with nonsense, unless of course, he calls it what it is, a work of pure fiction. It pleases me greatly that he managed to anger the Christian Taliban. Now they won’t go see it either, the movie will flop, and all film-makers and production companies will stop polluting the Big Screens with this filth in the future.

    • gary1944 says:

      I won’t see it ether. The last one they made had Ninjas in it, standing at Lot’s gate. I don’t remember reading about Ninjas in Gen 19. I am surprised that they didn’t make Yeshua gay to to increase the turn out. They are attempting to be all inclusive. All they are doing is corrupting the scriptures. It is an an agenda.

  34. ognywogny says:

    Unfortunately, you have apparently not read your book in that you placed Noah in Exodus and not in GENESIS! (Chapters 6-8)

  35. Enzo says:

    Non-believers like myself have no need to bother with this nonsense in the first place. Why would I want to watch this movie? Ever?

    • Kay says:

      Umm, because it might be good. Are you do closer-minded that you see no value in ANY of the Bible and its parables? Most major religions have some teachings of value.

    • As a believer I don’t trust Hollywood anyway so this would have to look entertaining. I think both believers and non-believers alike agree that this lacks in the area of interest. I’m glad you said it first because frankly, that is what is keeping audiences home. Religious movie? Eh, may check it out as support, probably not though. Non-religious movie? Better look interesting. This does not.

  36. Kevin says:

    Noah, like Pompeii, why in the world would I pay $15.00 a ticket and $10.00 for a coke to see a movie I already know what happened. Both are this years waste of money award winners

  37. Vichara says:

    Always this same paradigm with Christianity: ‘believers and non-believers’. What about ‘realization in one’s direct experience’ versus ignorance or veiling of the truth of what we are, of what is ‘higher’?

  38. Larry says:

    well that makes sense, as his target audience is non believers right….duh its apparent which $ide he’s on, I think I’ll save my money until its on free tv.

  39. Bill Williams says:

    Looks like he’ll be lucky to get the popcorn sweeping crew in there.

  40. Paul V. Sheridan says:

    Anyone that has studied these subjects KNOWS that the jewish version of this story is a matter of plagiarism’ thousands of years after the fact. The source of this epic predates the existence of “Hebrew” people, let-alone “jews.” So, this begs the questions: What does this Ukrainian jew want us to “believe”? `That the character Noah was jewish? We do not.

    • Jim Crockett says:

      There is no issue of plagiarism. Since all people of all cultures are descended from survivors of the deluge, all early cultures would have an oral or written account of the event, with the same essential story along with minor variations. Some were written down before others. The fact that the deluge is recorded by many disparate cultures in their earliest traditions constitutes strong evidence that it was a real event.

    • Richard says:

      give me a break Paul your very post shows you know little of what you speak. lets see some references from you that’ll expose you.

  41. Dave-0 says:

    Noah was a faithful and humble servant. He’s portrayed as a cross between “Master and Commander” and Gladiator. I was offended.

  42. MrsFudd says:

    Faith-based audiences are movie buffs. They spend a LOT of money at the theaters. And not just on “Christian” films. You look at the biggest box office takes of the year, and the vast majority of highest grossing movies are Disney films, animated films, and those that are NOT rated R. “Son of God” was #2 at the box office last week, but not by much. “The Passion of the Christ” made a billion world wide. Aronofsky and Paramount are very foolish and not savvy about the faith based community at all. I won’t see it until I get the lowdown from friends.

  43. Yodo says:

    PS ‘It was a boat, that was my pitch’? Whatever I said about the incompetency of the so called executive that slated this project…. DOUBLE IT!!

  44. Dee says:

    So it’s from the original bible story? Having read the Noah story, I will be expecting to see the sons of God impregnating the women of men and making God angry. Giants roaming the earth. Then God getting mad about it all and so causing the flood. Followed by Noah slaughtering all the clean animals and burning them for God after the waters dry up and God being so happy to smell all the burning animal that he then makes a rainbow and promises not to do it again.
    Oh, and will Noah be displayed as the drunkard of the bible, who disowns and curses his son for finding him drunk in the tent with his bollards on display? Nice family.

    • EJ says:

      If you expect the Bible to be all rainbows and hugs you grossly misunderstand its purpose.

      • Kevin says:

        Rick – you are missing Dee’s point.

        The romanticized “version of Noah” in people’s heads is typically not accurate to what the bible actually says about the story and the man. Not to surprising really, as we teach kids the scrubbed down version, and that’s what sticks with most people in their adult life.

        Also, we (people in general) tend to idolize our heroes, removing from our thoughts the ‘bad’ or ‘naughty’ aspects of their life and cast them to be what we want them to be, not necessarily who they are.

        I for one am excited about this movie – it looks pretty amazing.

  45. Mjkbk says:

    Russell “Crow”? Who he? Maybe he’s related to that fellow “Russel” Crowe I’m always reading about in the news media.

    But “Darren Aronofsky” doesn’t give this writer any spelling trouble, eh? ;-)

  46. Mark says:

    I CAN’T WAIT!!!!!!!! SOOO EPIC!!!!!! SOOOO AWESOME!!!!!!!! Just saw behind the scenes stuff. Really cool sh*t. Most anticipated film of the year. Well, maybe after Interstellar.

More Scene News from Variety

Loading