by Brett Manero
I intended to write this review some two weeks ago, but the busyness of the Christmas holiday got to me. I watched the recent film, Mary, while en route from Denver to New York just before Christmas, and I’m finally getting around to a second viewing. The following is, I hope, a fair and accurate review of this film.
As so often happens with religious films, especially ones which focus on some of the most important figures and events of Christianity and Judaism, there is often much debate about the accuracy, faithfulness, and even the agenda of these films. The 1970’s series, Jesus of Nazareth, is a prime example. That series is one of the most recognizable about the life of Christ, one that endures to this day. It does contain certain inaccuracies, drawing criticism especially from Catholics (criticisms that are valid). Overall, it is an impressive depiction of the Gospel events and the good very much outweighs the bad.
More recently, The Chosen has been hotly debated by Christians. It takes a unique approach to Christ and the personalities and lives of the Apostles. It goes deeply into the marriage of Simon Peter, and takes significant artistic license in depicting the social awkwardness of Matthew. I’ve met Catholics who love it, and others who have it very clear to me that they greatly dislike it. Overall, I have immensely enjoyed The Chosen, and I believe its impact on viewers and on culture has been immensely positive. Are there flaws in it? Certainly. Its depictions of Mary and St. Joseph are questionable, but overall it is another impressive depiction of the Gospel.
Even a masterpiece such as The Passion of the Christ isn’t perfect. Don’t get me wrong – Mel Gibson’s phenomenal film arguably remains the greatest religious film of all time (other than, perhaps, 1959’s Ben-Hur). It gives us the most intense and needed depiction of the cruelty of the Passion and Crucifixion, and therefore showing us all the more just what Our Lord endured in the Passion. It gives us a marvelous depiction of Mary and her experience at the Cross, something which other films haven’t done as much. The Passion is truly a religious and filmmaking masterpiece, even if it too has flaws.
Which brings me to the recent Netflix film, Mary. The film features relatively unknown actors, with the exception of the brilliant Sir Anthony Hopkins, an Oscar winner and one of the finest actors of his generation. Produced by Netflix, I was both intrigued by and also somewhat suspicious of this interpretation. Overall, it has beautiful cinematography, fairly solid acting, excellent writing, and offers some interesting twists and artistic license on the life of Mary. It also definitely contains some errors, which Catholics ought to be aware of when watching the film.
Much of it appears to have taken inspiration from the Protoevangelium of James, an early-Church document that is not considered divinely inspired or canonical, but nevertheless has been widely respected as a source of Mariology and the life of Mary. Among the Protoevangelium’s details used, Joachim’s (Mary’s father) retreat in the desert to pray for a child, the desperate prayers of both Joachim and Anne (Mary’s mother), for a child, and her young life as a consecrated virgin in the Second Temple are notable. This is very well-done and shows how filmmaking, when based on historical sources, is exceptional. Her daily life as a consecrated virgin in the Temple is shown, reminding me somewhat of the film The Letters, which depicts the calling of St. Mother Teresa from inside her monastery to go out to the streets of Calcutta to serve the poor.
As I continue to analyze the film, here are some notable scenes and thoughts of mine:
The interaction between Gabriel and Satan. In a pivotal scene, Satan appears in the Temple to tempt Mary away from her devotion to God and the Temple. The angel Gabriel – ever present throughout the life of Mary – quickly arrives to intervene. I found it fascinating that Gabriel’s words to Satan are: “Lucifer! Let her go, brother.” The fact that he refers to Satan as “Lucifer”, his original angelic name (according to Isaiah 14), was an interesting twist. He also refers to Lucifer as “brother,” perhaps calling out the devil for his traitorous abandonment of God and his fellow angels when he fell from grace. It is a hearkening back to the “better times” when Lucifer was a good angel who was indeed a brother of Gabriel and the other good angels. This scene was well done.
The presence of Lucifer/Satan in this scene also touches on another theological debate: just how much did Satan know about Mary and her unique role in human history? In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we find the details of Satan’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The dialogue between the devil and the Savior is somewhat fascinating: one almost gets the sense that the devil isn’t quite sure of who Jesus is, but perhaps has an idea. By starting his temptations with, “If you are the Son of God,” he is perhaps trying to convince Jesus to perform a miracle for the very purpose of confirming that yes, He is indeed the Son of God. Perhaps Satan has observed Jesus of Nazareth for His entire life: He sees a man unlike any other, without sin, who has never once fallen prey to temptation. This breaks the pattern of sin in human history, for humanity has been enslaved to sin and Satan ever since the Fall. Perhaps the devil did discern that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah, and wanted a tangible miracle as proof. It’s a mystery, ultimately, but one worthy of debate.
The next logical question is: what did the devil know of Mary and her uniqueness? As with Christ, did Satan know that Mary was special, unique, and immaculately conceived? St. Thomas Aquinas makes the point that the Incarnation of God the Son was hidden from the “powers of this world,” that is, from the devil. God becoming man in the womb of Mary was therefore kept hidden from the devil, and rightly so. This must mean, therefore, that such events as the Annunciation to Mary, and the dialogue between Mary and Gabriel (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke), was likewise hidden from the devil, to protect Mary and the Christ Child. But as Jesus grew up and lived a sinless and perfect life, as He was baptized by John and anointed with the Holy Spirit, did the devil then start to suspect Him of being the Messiah? We can debate on and on, and take different approaches to it. Anyway, the scene of the devil tempting Mary in Mary is well done: it beautifully shows her purity and devotion to God, and the pathetic attempts of the devil to tempt her, as well as his anxiety in wondering just how and why she is so unique.
The introduction of Joseph. The film masterfully introduces Joseph. In a scene where he first meets Mary, Joseph is shown wielding a sling as a tool for hunting. Due to the intervention and advice of the angel Gabriel, Joseph is instead led to Mary. His use of a sling is a clever, sweet, and all-around smart way to link Joseph back to his ancient ancestor, King David. David, of course, famously used a sling to defeat his nemesis, Goliath, in 1 Samuel 17:40:
Then he took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in his shepherd’s bag or wallet; his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Philistine (1 Samuel 17:40).
In my opinion, we don’t emphasize enough that Joseph is really and truly a direct descendant of David and therefore should be heir to the throne of Judah. He is a new David, albeit a more peaceful and purer one. His carrying of a sling – and one that he won’t be needing – is a fine nod to his ancestor David.
Joseph’s defense of Jesus and Mary. I have to admit that I’m split on this one. In the scene where the Roman soldiers murder the infants of Bethlehem, the film becomes somewhat of an action film where Joseph personally fights a brutish Roman soldier who is intent on murdering the child Jesus. Joseph, after a brutal struggle, ends up killing the soldier in a rather gruesome way. It’s probably the most shocking scene in the film. In one sense, I think: Joseph must have been masculine, a true husband and father, ready to defend his family as needed. He kills the soldier out of defense for himself and his family. And yet, I do think this scene went a bit too far: the slaughter of the Holy Innocents was a horrific act by Herod and the Romans and anyone who defended themselves against this was perfectly justified in their self-defense. However, there is something unsettling about watching Joseph kill another man. I wasn’t there of course, but I like to think that the Holy Family escaped from Bethlehem just in time, avoiding any need for a personal fight with the soldiers. This can be deduced from the message from the angel, warning Joseph about the incoming slaughter:
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod (Matthew 2:13-15).
Mary’s labor pains. This is an obvious one. Like Jesus of Nazareth from the 1970’s, Mary depicts Our Lady as having tremendous labor pains during the birth of Christ. This is clearly erroneous. The tradition of the Church is that Mary, being free from original sin (and any personal sin) from the first moment of her conception, would therefore not suffer from the consequences of sin, which for women will be labor pains, according to Genesis 3:16. The Protoevangelium likewise implies that the birth of Jesus was miraculous, just as His conception was.
And lastly, Anthony Hopkins’ performance as Herod. A master of acting, Hopkins was an excellent choice for the role of the sadistic Herod. His obsession with power and self-preservation and his disdain for the Jewish people comes through readily. His paranoia and cold stare are terrifying to watch. Hopkins masterfully portrays this ancient villain with great accuracy.
Overall, I enjoyed Mary. Like previous portrayals of the Biblical events and figures, Catholics ought to take caution and rightly call out the errors where they exist. But we can appreciate what’s good and fascinating in it, and there is much of both.
Leave a Reply