A Brilliant Conflict

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It would be easy to dismiss this film as dull, and although there's no doubting the fact that I found this film very boring, I'm going to try to explain why this film's very unique concept just didn't come together in the end.That's what I've got to give the film kudos for: it's an original idea: not just being stranded on a desert island, but assessing a man's insanity by recreating a world all from his memory and imagination. Also, you can't fault the filmmakers for having a real stab at this weird way of showing the insanity that comes with isolation, and some of the sequences, especially those using historical recordings, were interesting to see attempted.However, in the end, it just doesn't work, largely because it's impossible to get engrossed in this film. It's an interesting story, but it's such an inaccessible way of presenting it, with unthinkably slow pacing, and a very pretentious latter stage that borders on the incomprehensible, and that all comes together to not only make this hard to understand, but exhausting to get through, being one of the heaviest film that I know I'll ever see.One of the other things that frustrated me about this film was Richard Strauss' performance. His chemistry with the voices in his head is weirdly brilliant in the opening stages, and it makes for some intrigue, but it's his descent from isolation to insanity to complete madness as the film goes on that I just didn't buy.His performance is ultimately not only intriguing, but it's annoying. He shouts his way through minutes on end of dialogue with himself, so loudly and incessantly that it just hurt my ears watching it, and was perhaps one of the most painful and draining periods of a film I've ever seen.www.themadmovieman.com

This is a movie about America and generational shifts. The fact that it was originally shot in 1968 should give you a clue. Plot: old-school army veteran is stranded alone on an enemy (communist China) island outpost sometime after nuclear holocaust (presumably). There are several plot-lines which must resolve during the course of the film.The first is, How does a man - any man - deal with absolute loneliness and the hopelessness associated with knowing that no one else exists in the entire world? Of course, this a step or two beyond Tom Hanks' Cast Away, as there is hope for Hanks, even if the pathos at that movie's end is also debasing. For Robert Strauss, the tour-de-force participant and titular "The Noah," the resolution is quite dramatic if entirely expected. I won't spoil the actual progression of Noah's self-awareness or madness, as the case may be, but I would like to comment that it's not as cleverly done as Cast Away. On the other hand, the impact of The Noah is exceptional, and with subtlety.The second resolution must be, How does a World War 2 dog-of-war deal with the modern (for 1968) age? This is handled on several levels, some with skill, some with a ham fist - your view on which are which will likely be tied to your birth year. Those of "the greatest generation" will possibly feel a great sympathy for the lead character, while those of the "hippie generation" could find themselves alternately awed then nonplussed (younger than that, and you'll be lost, except as it concerns fictional empathy). Not that director Daniel Bourla gave Strauss much more material than playing off old audio tapes from history; or that the screen writing called for a narrow range of emotions, from crotchetiness to self-pity. This is the main weakness of the film itself.The third resolution must be the filmmaker's (and thus your) view of America, especially in juxtaposition with communism. Will you be disgusted, cheered, or bored by the "army" of Chairman Mao busts? Where will you fall in the melange of flags, uniforms, culture shifts, and overarching philosophies? I found the movie to be quite schizophrenic in this regard, and that added another stratum of complexity to an already meaty subject. Just to mention one scene, after the "graduation" the "natives" become restless and it appears that a revolution is brewing; the manner in which The Noah attempts to meet this challenge is fascinating but at the same time quite excruciating since there is little doubt on the end-game and therefore not a lot of tension.Other implications from 1968 are apparent here and there: (1) the obvious counter-cultural message from Friday and Anne-Friday; (2) the overbearing war soundtrack; (3) the selection and arrangement of historical excerpts. Most of this is a bludgeoning message and therefore may be disregarded as so much era-centered squealing.On the very plus side, the finale will mark you. It is deeply etching and undeniably disturbing. It is not that it ices a cake, but that it is the cake. We learn in fact that the entire movie was a baking process leading to a product, which is the final few minutes. It will make you judge the rest of the film that much more harshly, but maybe that's good.

I think that someone was trying to be allegorical. They Failed.The first 2/3 of the film are mildly interesting as Noah invents friends and something resembling _DRAMA_ shows up, you almost feel as if maybe a _PLOT_ might ensue. There are nascent _CHARACTERS_ and some minor _CONFLICTS_ hinting that a larger conflict could occur. (Protagonist is up the tree, we know that rocks can be thrown at him.. and we are eagerly anticipating the first volley...) But then....nothing happens.The final third of the film degrades into a cacophony of a history-buff's self-serving game with an audio tape recorder. All links to plot, allegory, drama, character, conflict, and sanity are severed. Maybe this is supposed to represent Noah's ever-less-grounded state of mind, but the degree of his grasp on reality was well-established earlier in the film and the noise becomes as annoying as a Phillip Glass composition.Now to 2 small details worth mentioning: 1)There are some weak humorous points such as Noah's ability to construct a latrine or Noah's resemblance to one of the Marx Brothers. 2)The in-your-face allusion to The 10 Commandments was out of place and over the top.

I have only seen the last portion of this film on a cable channel about five or six years back (I think it was City College's channel, which frequently runs unusual film courses). I remember when THE NOAH came out in the middle 1970s. There was a review of it in NEW YORK MAGANZINE, and it got panned. But when it was shown on television it was treated with considerable respect.Basically (and ironically, as Strauss died after it was briefly released) it was Strauss's biggest chance to display his own acting skills to their widest. After his two appearances with Billy Wilder and his THE ATOMIC KID with Mickey Rooney, he was basically relegated to small support roles of a comic nature. He did have a recurring part as "Charlie Leech" the private eye who discovers that "Samantha Stevens" (Elizabeth Montgomery) was a witch on BEWITCHED, but he was only in a handful of episodes there. Strauss was always game for acting roles, and was perfectly willing to try carrying an entire film on his own shoulders. Here it was (except for two voices) as the sole human being left on earth after a nuclear war.One recalls the unfolding, unstoppable tragedy of ON THE BEACH, but there the citizens of Australia did have each other to live with until they all died in the end. Here Strauss is on an island, well stocked with food and supplies, and with radio contact to the rest of the globe. But there is no "rest of the globe" to contact. Initially he meets the situation with vague disbelief, then panic. But gradually he determines to face the end of humanity (in himself) with dignity. Our last image of Strauss on film is rather stoical, watching to see if anyone will show up after all, but determined not to give into temptation to make a fast end of it if he can.I wish the film was shown again - it was not as worthless a picture as the critic in NEW YORK MAGAZINE made it seem. And it gave Strauss a fine coda role to his underused career.