Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

Noah's Ark

Copyright 28 May 1929 by Warner Brothers Pictures. Talking sequences and music score by Vitaphone. Hollywood premiere: 1 November 1928. U.S. release: 15 June 1929. Silent version released 27 July 1929. 11 reels. 9,507 feet. 105 minutes. (Silent version: 9,058 feet). New York opening at the Winter Garden: 12 March 1929. (Available on a superb Warner Archive DVD that runs an amazing 108 minutes). NOTES: Reportedly three extras drowned in the flood sequence, but these stories may be apocryphal. Certainly cinematographer Hal Mohr so objected to the extras being placed in danger, he walked off the set in protest and was replaced by Barney McGill. Negative cost was around $2 million, only part of which was recovered at the box-office, mainly due to extremely negative reviews. COMMENT: I think it fair to say that "Noah's Ark" is a typical example of the silent film spectacle. Masses of extras are often impressively marshaled in awesomely impressive sets and on the whole the action and "spectacle" scenes still evoke wonder and excitement. Curtiz's direction not only has verve and pace but moments of glory. The movie is by no means the total write-off derided by many contemporary critics. In fact, I wouldn't write it off at all except for the hammy performance of Paul McAllister. He is simply plain awful in the modern story, but as Noah he is not just awful but derisive, insulting and so highly offensive, one wonders how such a deliberately, wickedly inaccurate portrait ever got past even the most liberal-minded censor. The Bible itself presents Noah as a robust, strong-minded, fearless drinking man in the prime of life, not a sanctimonious old goat. Admittedly, the writers got the "fearless" right. And I can understand their reluctance at the height of Prohibition to present Noah as a drinking man, even though the Bible does so. God describes Noah as "righteous", not as sanctimonious. The Bible writers also go out of their way to tell us that Noah and his wife, and their sons and their wives were VEGETERIANS; Noah and his family did not eat any of the animals in the ark. It was only after the flood had subsided and because all vegetation had been destroyed that God relaxed this rule. So the clothes that Noah's sons wear are probably wrong too. They don't look like cotton garments to me. Nonetheless, despite the movie's title, Noah doesn't figure in the picture all that much. Aside from McAllister, I thought the players acquitted themselves well. However, I'm amazed the Warner Brothers were able to get away with their extremely negative view of the U.S. army and the movie's finger-pointing depiction of incompetent army brass not only at the climax but even earlier on in the story. No wonder the movie was soon hidden away and never re-issued in its complete version. REVIEWS from newspapers and magazines of 1929: "An idiotic super- spectacle with parallel Old Testament and Jazz Age sequences — Moses against Scott Fitzgerald... Widely conceded to be the worst picture ever made." — Alva Johnson, The New Yorker. "A solid bore, with a very second rate war story in which everything from The Big Parade to date has been shabbily copied." — New York Post. "You never saw so much rain in your life... A wet blanket — just plain awful." — Los Angeles Times. "Frequently borders on the ridiculous... After sitting through this cumbersome production, one feels that it is a great test of patience." — Mordaunt Hall, New York Times.

I viewed this film this week on a tape I made about 20 years ago. I had not watched it since. Darryl Francis Zanuck (!), who wrote the script, used a familiar device of paralleling "modern" and a "historic" plots. in a more condensed form than Griffith had used the device in Intolerance; however, the parallels were just about as loosely drawn: comparison of World War I(a metaphorical "deluge") with the Biblical deluge that overwhelmed the world. It was interesting that the modern plot also ended like a Griffith film, with what turned out to be the vain vision of the coming of a world without war, as in Birth of a Nation. All that being given, one must say that the two parallel plots were equally well handled. The modern plot of three young people caught up in the war may have been clichéd, but it was so persuasively acted by Dolores Costello, George O'Brien, Noah Beery and, to my surprise Guinn Williams, who never before or after had an equal opportunity to demonstrate his capability as an actor. (His death scene was performed with both a masculine dignity and a display of his masculine love toward his buddy.) In my opinion, the friendship was handled better than the contemporary bond in Wings. Of course, the impact of the film, somewhat skewed by the clumsy interspersing of titles and spoken dialog, and its fame, will always rest upon the re-telling of the Noah legend. The delivery of the ten commandments, with the mountainside opening like a book, is extremely imaginative, even though it borrows from Moses'vision. But the impact of the advent of the flood has never been duplicated. It makes deMille's two-time separation of the Red Sea in a studio tank look weak. Of course, our later knowledge that several extras died in the cascade of water affects our reaction. However, one must say that no computer technology can ever match the sight of real water and real persons running for their lives. Actually, I'm rather ashamed that I can watch the scene and discuss it for its entertainment value. But I personally felt drained by the time the film ended. For me, it is a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

I realize in 1928 there were not that many films around and the movie industry was in it's infancy but still- why call your movie Noah's Ark when it clearly is not the story of Noah. I don't know who wrote this stuff but it is clearly science fiction. Why don't people just read the Bible and make a movie pretty close to that story. No- I guess they think they can do better than the truth. Still being 1928 the movie does have some good special effects which is the only reason I give it a 3. The script ruined it for me though. Ridiculous how anybody can name a movie after a Biblical person and then go so far from the Biblical account. I guess it sells. The story is also a bit sexist (which is a sign of those times I guess). Absurd.

This is a very disappointing effort by producer-writer Darryl F. Zanuck and Michael Curtiz in his American directorial debut. The film is obviously an attempt to replicate the DeMille formula of selling pre-code cheesecake in a biblical package. Which is OK if you have some original ideas. But this film has very little new to offer, and steals not only from DeMille, but from Rex Ingram's THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE and Frank Borzage's SEVENTH HEAVEN. The WWI story is blatantly derived from FOUR HORSEMEN, and carries over some of that film's problems. The idea that war can have a moral impact and yet remain immoral in the abstract doesn't cohere; and the portrayal of Travis (played by George O'Brien) and his buddy Al (played by Guinn Williams) as untroubled by moral misgivings about taking part in an apocalyptic war undercuts the anti-war message Zanuck seemed to be striving for. The maudlin sentiment - Al has a picture of "Mother" in his helmet - and facial mugging of the actors gives NOAH'S ARK the appearance of a film made ten years earlier. And the scene in the biblical section of a sightless Japheth divinely led to his lover Miriam (Dolores Costello) works no better than Charles Farrel's blind search for Janet Gaynor in SEVENTH HEAVEN. However, criticism of the incompatibility between the the modern and biblical sections is not valid. Both stories have apocalyptic themes; the comparison of God's decision to destroy "all flesh" in the flood, and the endgame specter of ten million dead in WWI would not be lost on audiences of 1929. Also the melodramatic tale of lust that leads the villain Nickoloff to condemn Travis' German wife to execution as a spy does roughly parallel King Nephilim's determination to sacrifice a virgin to an idol in the biblical section. More jarring than the parallel stories - or the ridiculous leopard skin costumes worn by Noah's sons - is the inclusion of spoken lines in the modern section. The actors' slow, careful, halting enunciation, and the drivel that come out whenever they open their mouths, kills the pace of the film and shows why Murnau believed the transition to sound was premature. The saving grace of the film is the spectacle of the ancient city and the flood itself, but the sets in the biblical section bear more than a little resemblance to the Babylonian sets in Griffith's INTOLERANCE, and the flood could not help but be realistic since Curtiz saw fit to let loose tons of water on extras who didn't know it was coming.

The conclusion of the movie leaves a bitter taste in the mouth .In his remake of his classic silent "J'accuse" (1937) ,Abel Gance too proclaimed universal peace.It was not to be the last of all the wars and men are still fighting at my time of writing.And there's another flood "in which we are engulfed which is more treacherous and persistent:the deluge of the mass production (and consummation)moves inexorably forward ,capturing everything that walks in whirlpools" of frozen food,rusted cars,DVDs and CDs,cans ,boxes ,hamburgers ,tons and tons of Bumf (papers) ,growing in an exponential way... Curtiz's movie was obviously intended to match the scale and quality (and commercial appeal)of De Mille'' "the ten commandments " .The structure is the same:a fine mixture of two stories ,a modern one (WW1,the deluge of blood)and a "biblical story" ,reversing De Mille's order .The connection between the two stories is perhaps tighter than in the 1924 work although in the first part of the movie the viewer may sometimes wonder what Curtiz is driving at. The biblical story has been " expanded " ,which was necessary for Noah's story is rather short and not particularly eventful if spectacular. Curtiz borrowed a lot from De Mille in the scenes of the deluge and when God "writes" to Noah (using thunderbolt).But his deluge is superior to John Huston's "the animals went in two by two" sequence in "The Bible" (1967) All in all,this is a very exciting show ,which features talking scenes ,including a whole version of "La Madelon" the Poilus' songs during WW1.The parade on the Champs D'Elysées with a painted Arc De Triomphe in the background and women throwing flowers when Travis sees Al marching on to war is a great moment.Melodrama reaches peaks of kitsch when the same is to execute ...his own wife ,condemned in mistake for spying. When will we see Noah's dove?

I remember watching "Noah's Ark" when I was 12 years old in 1962 in Brazil and fell in love with Dolores Costello... what a magnificent movie. I had never watched a Silent Movie... and was flabbergasted by it... by the sheer MAGIG of the images... Before the movie itself there was a little prologue showing "Noah's Ark"'s preview at the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood with red carpet and all... I think that predisposed me to be in awe with the whole thing. I loved it... but then NEVER heard of Dolore Costello or anything about the movie until the Internet Age came to the rescue... Carlus Maximus

Noah's Ark (1928) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Big-budget Warner film has parallel stories with the first dealing with an American man (George O'Brien) who falls in love with a woman (Dolores Costello) he saved after a train wreck only to then be separated after WWI breaks out. The second story deals with Noah being asked to build an ark and fill it with two of every creature on Earth in order to survive the great flood. NOAH'S ARK was meant to be an all-silent picture but while in production MGM was raking in cash with THE JAZZ SINGER so Warner went back and added sequences with sound. I've always found these early attempts to throw sound into a silent movie rather distracting and I think that's the case here. At least 80% of the movie is silent and I think the added dialogue sequences really don't add anything and the first talking scene between Costello and O'Brien is rather laughable. Overall, I was pretty disappointed in this film because I found the story to be lacking all around and in the end the only real reason to watch this is for the amazing special effects but more on them in a bit. I found the first portion of the film to be so heavy in terms of going over-the-top to get the religious elements in that they became quite annoying. DeMille is best remembered for doing this but I think he handled it much better than what Michael Curtiz could do here. The film certainly likes to preach but this here is to be expected but at the same time less could have been more. The WWI story isn't all that compelling because we've seen that type of story play out several times in the silent era. Two young people fall in love, war breaks out and they get separated. The subplot of the evil man trying to have the woman killed really didn't add any drama and the entire WWI sequence just seems like something added on and never really hits with any emotion. Once the stuff with Noah finally happens we're treated to some amazing special effects but it should be noted that at least three people were killed and countless others injured. It's said that Curtiz and Warner didn't care about anyone's safety and it's obviously true after you see the effects here. I think it's safe to say that these effects couldn't even be done today without the use of CGI so to see them in 1928 is just jaw-dropping. The flood sequences are among some of the best disaster effects you're ever going to witness and there are other moments like the train derailment that just make you stop in your tracks and take notice. These special effects are so ground-breaking that you can't help but recommend the movie to everyone but at the same time one wishes they had come up with a stronger, less preachy story or perhaps just filmed a Biblical tale about Noah.

I have wanted to see this movie for ages having seen a clip many years ago in a movie documentary. It was worth it as this is a good film with some nice performances and it is, as stated by other reviewers, a bit of a curio. However, the one thing that does let it down is the moralising, sadly DFZ shouldn't have dipped his toe into screen writing. Although Dolores Costello is the star, she is one of the weaker elements, her voice is clipped and quite English (even though she was American) and didn't convey at all the fact that she was meant to be a German Frauleins, it was obvious that she had taken speaking lessons and they really hadn't paid off. The two main male leads however are a different matter, George O'Brien starts off rather stilted, but as he goes on his speaking role improves, Noah Beery is pretty much the same and both are good to listen to as well as being pretty good actors. The flood sequence is highly impressive as is the train wreck, I loved the burning book sequence a la Moses, very cutely done. But, the moralising became tedious. the sequence where the preacher admonishes the mother for smacking her child was particularly nauseating and all this did almost spoil the film, Ben Hur handled it much better. But, this was something that happened a lot in that era of movie making and you can forgive it. The saddest part came right at the end when they spoke of no more wars, how naive.