You won’t believe who is headed to see ‘Noah’ with Paramount execs

Editor’s Note: Glenn posted the following message on his Facebook page earlier today:

I just spoke in LA tonight for David Horowitz. He is a brave American who everyone should learn about. No matter what side you are on you should appreciate someone honest enough to see what he was doing and change course even at his own peril. Great group of patriots.

Tomorrow speaking in LA for another group that I will share on Monday. Then Paramount Pictures called this afternoon. They invited me and the team to a private screening of Noah at the studios in Hollywood tomorrow. Apparently, they heard what we spoke about on air this AM and would like a chance to make their case.

One of the Paramount executives who I hear is very sincere about his faith, asked if he could show the film and if we would see it and not rely on Hollywood critics.

Totally fair. Critics don’t get faith movies, are not reliable tastemakers, at least for me, and I think that it would only be right to give it a shot and hear him out.

We did tell them that we will be honest Monday. If it is hostile toward God I will report that but if the critics are wrong, we will report that as well.

Everything thing I heard about this paramount exe I believed and it isn’t right to torpedo a mans work based on those who have been unreliable in the past.

One way or another the truth will set us free.

  • David Croquet

    well, that’s interesting. Beck farted out of his mouth about how he would not see NOAH because of some shit he heard Pat read him. Being the spineless little whore that he is, now Beck will see if for free with Paramount executives.

    • Rob

      That’s constructive. Come back when you finish your online grammar course. I’m sure you’ve never given anything in your life a 2nd thought, right?

      • Anonymous

        Or probably a first thought.

        • Carla Adam


          ✒✒✒ ✒✒✒ ✒✒✒ ✒✒✒ ✒✒✒While Paramount and Aronofsky have, apparently, reached a decision for now, just be certain of what is being viewed.

      • David Croquet

        Rob, The Great Blumpkin stated EMPHATICALLY that he WOULD NOT see the movie and encouraged his audience to avoid it….dedicated an entire segment to it. I’m irritated by his horseshit, as well as his questionable taste. He won’t watch R-rated films, and he’s willing to spin on a dime about a fantasy Noah movie. The guy is not cultural bedrock

  • Anonymous

    Make sure the cut shown is the one to be shown in theaters to the general public.

    “Noah” has gone through numerous edits. Some of those edited versions have been shown around the country for test audiences. Aronofsky and Paramount have BOTH been showing their own edits. While Paramount and Aronofsky have, apparently, reached a decision for now, just be certain of what is being viewed.

    From the LA Times:

    “Aronofsky, who is both an atheist and a biblical scholar, knows that no
    matter how thoroughly he researched his film and for all of his
    attention to biblical detail — if you look closely there are seven pairs
    of some “clean animals,” as Genesis has it, in addition to the single
    pairs of other creatures — some will nevertheless find fault.”

    The LA Times writeup reminds me of the biblical scholars seen on science and history channels: They know the history and artifacts thoroughly, they have read and studied The Bible from cover to cover — however, they do not believe that The Bible is Truth. Has Aronofsky been faithful to the story? Has Aronofsky and his team substituted an alternate moral narrative that he can believe in? What will the viewers leave with? For me, the narration MUST unequivocally show these points:

    1. Humanity had become corrupt, evil and wicked both in mind and flesh.
    2. Noah and family were faithful as to what God asked of Noah.
    3. God was right and just in what He did.
    4. No living creature outside the Ark survived the flood.
    5. God has kept His promise.

    If the viewer is not shown all of these points then the movie is a failure. If the movie glosses over these points for some other agenda then the movie is a failure. It is up to the viewer to question these points or not. It is not for the director to insert ambiguity or doubt.

    One of the reasons Mel Gibson’s “Passion Of The Christ” was enormously successful is because Mr. Gibson told the story faithfully, no ambiguity and not watered down. The Passion is brutal and unflinching. It took a stand. Gibson recounted The Passion convincingly because Gibson IS convinced. Accept it or not. THAT is what got people talking.

    Can an Atheist accurately recount a black and white story? Possibly. All Truth is from God. Convincingly? What are Aronofsky’s convictions? We’ll see.

    • David Croquet

      Remarkably, you are saying the Genesis story of 500-year-old Noah saving all the animals on the planet by putting them all on a wooden boat is a black and white story, not open to interpretation? You are also saying that Gibson’s Passion film contained no ambiguity…but I remember the Satan character holding a little evil baby. In the group I saw that film with, one person thought that baby was supposed to look exactly like George W. Bush…and another had an entirely different interpretation

      • Anonymous

        You miss the point. Interpret/accept/deny as you please. If the narrative does not fit the story of Noah then the story has not been presented and the resulting debate will be about something else: Aronofsky’s interpretation.

  • Anonymous

    Collectivists assert that society is a creation of the legislator’s genius and magically exists apart from the individuals who comprise it.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.