Je vous salue, Marie (Hail Mary-1985)

Jean Luc Godard had been established as one of the masters of cinema for over thirty years by the time he wrote, directed and produced his fascinating exploration into the nature of the incarnation in 1985. Godard began as a writer for "Cahiers du Cinema" in the early 50s before graduating to making his own films from 1955 and becoming the most recognisable name amongst the directors of the French New Wave.

If, by the time the eighties came around, his output had begun to wane and lose a little of his early vitality, there was no shortage exploring ideas; It's no coincidence that his adaption of a key story from the Bible was followed by his re-working of King Lear (1987) and notable too is the film's repeated use of the historic-sounding intertitle "At that time" (Godard's interplay between the written text of intertitles and visual image is one of the most striking features of his body of work).

In essence the idea is a simple one - telling the story of Mary the Mother of Jesus as if it were to happen today - but hanging on that premise is the exploration of a number of themes including Marie's obsession with her changing body, her struggle to persuade Joseph of the baby's divine origin, her continued virginity, the contrast between the profane and the divine, the idea of a godly figure born into such a lowly background and Marie's struggle to come to terms with her new, and constantly evolving, roles. Many of Godard's films give an importance to, and occasionally verging on the deification of, his female leads. Indeed as David Thomson puts it "It was the discovery that he loved [actress Anna] Karina more in moving images than in life that may have broken their marriage".¹ Hardly surprising, then, that eventually he would turn his attention to the mother of God.

As those familiar with Godard's work might expect there's no shortage of cinematic concepts and contrivances. Those familiar with Il vangelo secondo Matteo by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who collaborated with Godard on 1962's RoGoPaG with Godard, will recognise that Godard uses the same part of Bach's St Matthew's Passion as his Italian counterpart. Godard also plays around with the continuity of his editing, focussing for long stretches on single scenes, or even shots before jumping ahead several days, months or even years. And then there's his characteristic humour for example towards the end of the film Marie's child, who has now grown to the age of young school child, asks a new-found friend his name and then proceeds to change it to Peter.

From a visual point of view the film is shot in the 1.37:1 that he favoured at the time. Godard uses this more equally-proportioned canvas to focus attention on an array of circular objects, most notably the full moon and the seemingly enlarged sun of numerous shots; the basketballs that Marie and her team-mates use to play; as well as a glowing spherical light shade, which sticks out from the edge of one shot like a huge white pregnant tummy, dominating the screen. Reflections of the sun's light are everywhere from the opening shot of sunlight skipping across ripples of the water's surface, to eighteen shots of the moon, "a Marian symbol of virginity and femininity".²

Not dissimilarly there is a lot of talk about "holes" and it's notable that the film ends on an extreme close up of Marie's lips; freshly glossed and open in a circle as if signifying that now Jesus reached a certain age she is finally sexually available. Indeed just a scene or two earlier had been Jesus telling his mother he is going to do his "father's work" and we don't see him again.

But the film's most central visual theme is the body of Marie herself as the camera focuses on her naked body in scene after scene. The intention of this seems to be to focus on the idea of Mary's own confusion and conflicting emotions about her body being taken over by this patriarchal God. As Godard later explained "I was trying to make the audience see not a naked woman, but flesh, if that's at all possible"³. However despite his claim that his "purpose was to try and shoot a woman naked and not make it aggressive, not in an X-rated picture way...more the purpose of an anatomical drawing."⁴, the film quickly becomes uncomfortably voyeuristic. Given that the subject of this voyeurism is a teenage schoolgirl, these shots, in light of present day attitudes, make these scenes all the more problematic.

The degree of nudity in the film may well be why it received such heated criticism from many quarters. Pope John Paul II allegedly claimed it "deeply wounds the religious sentiments of believers" - although I can find no original source for this quotation even if it did cheekily appear on the cover of one of the film's DVD releases - and it was banned in Brazil and Argentina. Indeed Godard himself tried to withdraw the film from distribution in Italy and was personally attacked (albeit with a shaving-foam pie in the face) when the film screened at Cannes.⁵.

Nevertheless, I'm always struck by the fact that this film is, theologically speaking, very conservative. It clearly pre-supposes that Mary is a virgin before and during her pregnancy and yet was banned and heavily criticised. In contrast, just four years later the far more revisionist and critical Jesus of Montreal was given the Cannes Ecumenical Jury prize, as voted for by religious representatives. The most likely explanation is that this is due to the film's heavy focus on Mary's naked body. Perhaps this at least, a victory of images over script, may have given Godard some pleasure.

At its heart there is an interesting question - "How would Mary have felt about the changes to her body throughout her pregnancy?" After all the giving of her consent was momentary, but she paid a high cost for that over the next nine months, and forever after. As Marie herself says at one point "Being a virgin should mean being available or free, not being hurt". Many expectant mothers feel a degree of animosity about the difference between their initial expectations about pregnancy and the reality. It's more than possible that Mary's attitudes also swung back and forth a fair bit, as we see here in the scene of Mary's "long dark night of the soul". Nevertheless the way the film explores these issues fails to draw them out as well as it might have.

None of which is to say that there is a shortage of ideas in the film. Indeed there's no shortage either of the kind of philosophising that was so typical of the French New Wave. Early on a professor tells his class "The astonishing truth is that life was willed, desired, anticipated, organised, programmed by a determined intelligence" and the film in general seems to move between an acceptance of God's existence but a rejection of his methods. In one of Marie's lengthy monologues she mutters "God's a creep, a coward who won't fight, who counts on ass alone...a vampire who suffered me in him".

The use of "vampire" here is probably a reference to Dreyer's 1932 Vampyr. As is typical of Godard Hail Mary cites the work of numerous artists including Dreyer. As Marie gives birth to Jesus we hear a man speak the words "What a strange road I had to take to reach you". It's a quote from the final scene of Robert Bresson's Pickpocket and it's followed up almost immediately by a shot of a donkey, doubtless referencing Bresson's Christ-figure film Au Hasard Balthazar. There's even a shot of Mary posed like Mantegna's painting "Lamentation of Christ".

But Mary's language here is also an example of the way the film plays the sacred against the profane. "Here's $500 for God's sake" says Gabriel to persuade Joseph to drive him to the petrol station where he delivers the annunciation under the unblinking light of the forecourt. It's clear that this Mary will remain as chaste as the biblical Mary, even as her use of swear words sets her apart from the Mary of church tradition. All the leading characters, be they saints in waiting or angels, swear or take the name of God in vain. Confronted with the news of Mary's pregnancy, Joseph blames "Guys with big cocks". Mary uses the "c" word as she wrestles with God's unusual calling.

Gabriel is accompanied here and elsewhere by a young girl. The pair reappear miraculously later in the film - emphasising their divine mandate - and Gabriel appears once more at the film's close. Also making an appearance is a character called Eva, her biblical significance underlined by her taking a bite from an apple close to the camera. She is contrasted with the chaste Marie, in a similar fashion to 1 Tim 2 contrasts Mary and Eve. Eva gives herself freely but is left alone towards the end. Mary stays with Joseph ans takes pride in her son. Many Annunciation paintings represent the Garden of Eden around the peripheries of the main picture and here the inclusion of this seemingly unconnected story works in a similar fashion.⁶

This constant attention to, referencing of and subversion of Christianity's visual traditions is what sets Hail Mary apart from so many other Bible films. Godard my only have been grabbing headlines on this production due to the ensuing controversy, rather than his artistry, but the fingerprints of a great master are all over this piece. Even if we're ultimately forced to concede it's far from his best work.


Je vous salue, Marie (Hail Mary, 1985) - Frequently accompanied by The Book of Mary by Anne-Marie Miévielle

====================
1 - Thomson, David, The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, (4th Edition, 2003) Little, Brown. p.342
2 - O'Brien, Catherine, "The Celluloid Madonna: From Scripture to Screen" (2011) New York, Columbia University Press, p.137
3 - Dieckmann, Katherine in Sterritt, David, "Jean-Luc Godard: Interviews" (Jackson, 1998) p.169
4 - Dieckmann, p.169
5 - "Godard Has A Bad Day In Cannes...And Tries To Withdraw 'Hail Mary' In Italy", Aljean Harmetz, The New York Times, 11th May 1985
6 - O'Brien, p. 45

Hail Mary DVD release

When I noted at the start of last month what a busy month it was going to be for bible films, I only knew the half of it. I guess October is the prime release month for the Christmas market, and thankfully there still seems to be some association between Christmas and Christianity, so perhaps I should have looked more thoroughly. In any case, in addition to the DVD releases Mary and Jesus of Nazareth, and the release of ABC's The Ten Commandments in September, I've just found out that Godard's controversial updating of the nativity story - Je Vous Salue, Mary (Hail Mary) was released on DVD on the 10th October. There are a number of extras including a promotional funding video which culminates with a plea from Godard himself for money. Like the earlier VHS release, this DVD also includes the film Book of Mary as part of the main feature.

I've discussed this film briefly on two occasions online, (here and here), though I am yet to give it the full treatment. Jamie S. Rich has written a good piece on both the film, and the DVD presentation at DVD talk, which looks at the film more in the context of Godard's other work, than that of other films covering similar material. It's well worth reading the whole piece, but here are a couple of pieces that I thought were worth quoting:

Eventually, Joseph comes to trust what Mary is telling him, but not before he whines a lot about not getting any loving. He's not the most compassionate person that could have been charged with the paternity of the Christ child.

[snip]

Yet, the professor's lectures tie in with Mary's quandary, a variation on the chicken or egg conundrum: does the soul exist to animate the body, or does the body exist to house the soul? Her body is what she feels is under assault. It's what Joseph wants to get his hands on, it's what God has used to plant his seed. Her soul is ultimately her own, and it's tied directly to her virtue. The greatest pain the Supreme Being has caused her is making people doubt that she has maintained self-control, that she hasn't given her soul over to lust. Despite the anger this causes her, Mary perseveres.

In the end, though, it's hard for Mary to tell if the price she has paid was worth it. Her son Jésus (Malachi Jara Kohan) has turned out to be a brat, and her husband has gone from adolescent sex fiend to resentful father.

I have two comments on this review. Firstly the character of Joseph is one of the more interesting of the film. Matthew's gospel simply calls Joseph righteous, although notes how it was only God's intervention that prevented him from calling off the marriage (1:19). It's a vague term in this context, but the text suggests that it was actually because he was a "righteous" man that he wanted to call the marriage off. I guess that some would see the Joseph of the film as incompatible with this "righteous" Joseph. However, Godard's re-contextualising emphasises how both Josephs, prior to their own revelations, are torn between acceptable social norms, and their relationship with Mary. Joseph of Nazareth was righteous, but in a culture where that was the expected norm, even if it led to divorcing your wife for her impropriety. Godard's Joseph is lustful and irresponsible, in a culture where that is acceptable - encouraged even - and here it is propriety that is considered grounds for breaking up a relationship. So the way Godard plays this one is as much a comment on the differences between the two societies, as it is a comment on Joseph himself.

Secondly, I don't recall thinking that the Jesus of the film was "a brat". Sure he is headstrong and confident, but then he is meant to be God made flesh. One scene that Rich may be thinking of is the one where he gathers a few followers and proceeds to change their names. I tend to think this is more Godard's joke than a serious comment.

Finally, I find the packaging for this DVD rather strange as the front cover is emblazoned, not with the comment of some film critic praising it, but, with a comment from Pope John Paul 2 saying how hurtful and offensive it is to people. This seems a rather strange move. Whilst many films have used their controversy to improve their marketability, this is usually done by suggesting the film is in some way heroic as if it is fighting censorial injustice or something. I can't think of another case where the marketing does this by gleefully wallowing in the hurt the film caused.

Nativity Movies

(A significantly revised and expanded version of this list can now be seen here.)

With Catherine Harwicke's The Nativity Story coming soon, I've been thinking of looking at portrayals of that story over the years and a conversation with a friend recently spurred me into action.

Whilst I think that, overall, films about Jesus's life have got the balance between his birth and the rest of his life about right, I'm surprised at how little the story has been filmed as a self-contained story. All films form the bible are stories within a big story, and this gives film-makers unusual liberty as to when and where to begin and end their narratives. For example, the recent One Night With the King starts with an event outside the story it is portraying, but this works because it's all part of a broader narrative. The story of Jesus's life is in fact a number of self-contained stories, hence why Mel Gibson can film the story of his death, just on its own. In fact Gibson adds on the story of the resurrection, so he too ends the film with part of a different story.

Of course, in this sense the nativity story is a story in its own right as well as a part of the story of the life of Jesus, and the bible story as a whole. Given the huge significance of this story to our wider culture - it's the basis for our society's largest festival/celebration - it's surprising, that the story has been filmed so infrequently in it's own right, rather than as the prologue to the story of Jesus's life. This hasn't always been the case as the list below demonstrates:

1908 - Edison - The star of Bethlehem - 10 mins - B/W
1909 - France - The Birth of Jesus - short - hand tinted colour
1910 - France - La Nativité - short - B&W
1910 - France - Gaumont - Herod and the Newborn King - B&W
1912 - US-Thanhouser - The Star of Bethlehem - 3 reeler - B&W
1913 - US-Selig - The Three Wise Men - 1000 ft - B&W
1914 - US - Edison - The Birth of our Saviour - 1000ft - B&W
1921 - Germany - Der Stern von Bethlehem - B&W
1950 - US-NBC TV - A Child is Born - 30 mins - B/W
1956 - GB - The Star of Bethlehem - 90 mins (remake of the above)
1960 - Italy - Herod the Great - 93 mins - colour
1969 - Czechoslovakia - Hvezda Betlemska (The Star of Bethlehem) - 10 mins - animated colour.
1978 - US-short - The Small One - 20 mins - colour
1978 - US-TV - The Nativity - 98 mins - colour
1979 - Ca-TV - Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith - 152 mins - colour
1982 - Italy - Cammina, Cammina (Keep on Walking) - 171 mins - colour
1985 - France - Je Vous Salue, Marie (Hail Mary) - 97 mins - colour
1989 - Italy-TV - Un Bambino di nome Gesù (A Child Called) Jesus - colour
2001 - Italy-TV - Close to Jesus: Joseph of Nazareth - 90 mins - colour

This list excludes recent cartoon treatments, and also films where the nativity story is only a part of the main story. I was tempted to include Mary, The Mother of Jesus, but whilst about half of that film includes the nativity, really it's a film about Mary's life, rather than just the nativity. For the record it was made in the USA in 1999, and was 88 minutes long.

So all in all there are 18 films about the nativity. Incredibly, seven of those appear in as many years, in the mid-silent period (1908 to 1914). Since the advent of sound at least half of the remaining films have been made for TV, and only 2 have been made in the US, 1 in Canada, and the rest have come from Europe.

I have actually seen precious few of these films, partly because they are usually so full of Christmas card tradition it's hard to take all the gloss and piety seriously. The sole exception is Jean Luc Goddard's Hail Mary. I do own a copy of Joseph of Nazareth and so I will be reviewing that within the next month or so. The one I would most like to see is Ermmano Olmi's Cammina, Cammina. I very much enjoyed his version of Genesis, and so would be keen to see his treatment of this one as well. (Edit: Now I have)

I wrote a few more comments on a selection of these films back when I first heard the news about The Nativity Story.

A New Film on the Nativity in the Works?

Jeffrey Overstreet just alerted me to this script sale at DoneDeal

"Nativity" centers on the two-year period of Mary and Joseph's life, culminating in their leaving Nazareth and journeying 100 miles to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. Key characters and events such as King Herod, John the Baptist's parents (Zachariah and Elizabeth), the shepherds who were witness to Jesus' birth; and the arrival of the three kings from the Orient will be fleshed out.

Writer: Mike Rich
Agent: Charles Ferraro of UTA
Buyer: New Line Cinema
Price: n/a
Genre: Drama
Logged: 1/25/06
More: Spec. Pre-emptive purchase. No producers are attached as yet.

Looks like it could be interesting, although I've become a little suspicious of new bible films being made ever since the success of the Passion. On the one hand it's good to see more being made, but on the other I can't help wondering if this is studios trying to cash in on the Passion bandwagon.

I've actually never seen a feature length film on the nativity story, unless you count Jean-Luc Godard's modern re-contextualising Je vous salue, Marie (Hail Mary). I have seen two shorter films that solely focus on the nativity, a 5 minute short produced by the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and a 45 minute film made by the same company that did Dogtanian, both of which were simply called "The Nativity". The latter is one of a myriad of cartoon versions of the story, most of which focus on minor characters. The former was sans dialogue, but did contain some effective sound effects like flies buzzing as Mary and Joseph enter the stable.

But other fuller length films have been made of the story. Most notably two films at the end of the seventies went head to head. Madeline Stowe starred opposite John Shea in the , yet again, imaginatively titled The Nativity in 1978. This film also starred a pre-Indiana Jones/Lord of the Rings John Rhys Davies, and possibly the oldest character ever to play Salome, Kate O'Mara - a native of my adopted county of Leicestershire - who was pushing 40 at the time.

A year later there was Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith, starring no-one particularly interesting (unless you count Marilla from Anne of Green Gables), and lasting for over two and a half hours. There was also a film called Mary and Joseph made in 1972, and another film called The Nativity made in 1952. There are a few pictured from that film at buyoutfootage.com

I haven't seen any of these last four, and to be honest I find to difficult to work up any enthusiam about them. Most of the longer Jesus epics manage to wring as much screen time out of those few chapters as possible, and few of the nativity films have much in the way of innovation. That is probably why I appreciate what Godard was trying to do, although it's still a strange and over-long film.

The most affecting portrayal of the birth of Jesus I have seen was actually from a BBC documentary Mary, which dared to show Mary as a young girl (as she apparently would have been), and a more realistic depiction of the birth - strikingly different from both the tranquil stable of the Christmas cards and the TV depictions of modern day births.

Sadly though it appears that the new film will go down the traditional route. The mention of three kings (opposed to Matthew's unspecified number of "Magi") in the blurb above, and the mention of a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (as in Luke) opposed to the whole story seemingly taking place in Bethlehem (as in Matthew). This reinforces my worry that this film is seeking to cash in on the devout. Nothing in the blurb above suggests that the script takes a more historical, or challenging approach to the story - just what is needed in my opinion.

Matt