Magdala (2022) Plays at Cannes ACID

I've paid Damien Manivel’s Magdala only a fraction of the attention that I should have and now I find that it has already played at the ACID Festival (Association for the Distribution of Independent Cinema) that runs alongside the main Cannes Film Festival, so it really is about time I posted something about it.

Magdala is a dialogue-free film, apparently similar in style to Albert Serra's Birdsong (2008), that features an elderly Mary Magdalene, reflecting on her time with the long-departed Jesus. It's French made, and, at only 78 minutes, it's one of the shorter biblical features I've come across in a while.

As ever, my friend Peter Chattaway has been much more on the ball with the news. After an initial post in January 2021, he followed up in April with the news the film would be playing at ACID, and now he's got excerpts from some reviews of the film and a few images and video clips.    

In an interview for Cineuropa Manivel describes his film as "very minimalist in some sense, but it also places sensations centre stage" and was born out of his desire to work with the film's star, Elsa Wolliaston, again, following their collaboration on two short films La Dame au chien and Isadora’s Children.  

The reviews seem largely positive so far, though, that is, in part, because all the reviewers seem to appreciate Manivel's austere approach. As a fan of that kind of thing, I'm looking forward to it too. Hopefully it won't be too long before I'm able to report back. Mubi streamed Manivel's last film Isadora's Children (2020) – for which he won Best Director at the Locarno Film Festival – so hopefully they will be showing Magdala at some point as well.

The Sword and the Cross (1958)

La spada e la croce (The Sword and the Cross, 1958) was a vehicle for Canadian actor Yvonne De Carlo who took the leading role of Mary Magdalene, in a film which involves Jesus a great deal more than many such Jesus cameo films, yet still keeps him away from the glare of the camera.¹

De Carlo came to prominence in the 1940s, in a series of films for Universal Pictures which hinted at her future participation in peplum films, but were set in different eras. Her breakthrough film, Salome, Where She Danced (1945) contains the name of a famous (biblical) object of the male gaze, and in two of her next three films  Song of Scheherazade (1947) and Slave Girl (1947) she played a dancer in revealing costumes. It's strange, then, that one of her first scenes in The Ten Commandments (1956) features her sitting out whilst her sisters, Jethro's daughters, dance to impress Moses. Heston's Moses is initially smitten by De Carlo's Sephora, but he seemingly loses interest in her from the moment he meets God at the burning bush. In between she made two fine noirs with two of the genre's great directors, Brute Force (1947) with Jules Dassin and Criss Cross (1949) with Robert Siodmak.

In many ways, De Carlo's role in La spada is the mirror of her role in Ten Commandments. Here though it is the woman, Mary who is the focus, and she who has the life-changing supernatural encounter which leads to the effective, though not actual, rejection of previous partners in favour of a more spiritual life. However, in contrast to Heston's Moses, De Carlo's Mary does not immediately change track in a Damascene style conversion. Instead her experience is closer to that of Anthony Quinn's eponymous hero in Barabbas (1961) - the encounter is significant, meaningful, but initially troubling.Only later does it become apparent that some sort of metanoia (change of heart) has occurred.

Magdalene's initial response to the Jesus movement is mockery. Whilst her sister and brother (Martha and Lazarus) are followers, she torments one of his male followers by having him tied up, dressing provacatively and dancing before him in an attempt to "convince him that sin is more amusing than virtue". When she fails, she rips off the mask that her paramour/provider Anan has given her, and when her true face still fails to arouse the man, the camera defocuses on her face and she flees the room.

It's then she hears Jesus' voice, accompanied by esoteric sounds. Going to her balcony she sees that a ghostly vision of Jesus has materialised, his head hidden in the shadows. The encounter prompts her to scold Anan "Don't touch me. No-one must ever touch me again", but she is filled with fear rather than love or faith. Mary remains in this troubled, haunted state, and resolves to go to the temple to pray, though what kind of conversion has occurred is somewhat ambiguous.

It's there that she is caught by the mob and becomes the woman accused of adultery from John 8. Indeed the film conflates various biblical women into the figure of Mary Magdalene. In addition to the unnamed woman of John 8, she is also combined with the sister of Martha, and the woman who anoints Jesus' feet. Given the previous scene where Mary at the encouragement of a powerful man dances to add torment a holy man, she also fulfils the role of  Salome.

Jesus, of course, intervenes. The moment in question is shot from what initially appears to be his point-of-view, but then he walks into shot. Again we see his body, but not his head. But anyone thinking that this encounter will propel her to a sold faith would be mistaken. When Martha mentions Jesus to her, she reacts "The Nazarene! Enough of this talk of the Nazarene". Martha's insistence that Jesus is the messiah only prompts Mary's self-loathing to come to the surface "Why would the real messiah come to me?...His forgiveness means nothing to me. I know what I am, and I know how I'll end." It is only when Lazarus dies and Mary calls out for Jesus that her faith becomes apparent Lazarus is raised, of course, and finally Mary becomes devoted and free to express her faith.

The Bible tells us so little about Mary Magdalene that all this invention and conflation is necessary to fill out a 90+ minute film, but what is most surprising is that the one passage in the Bible where Mary features most prominently - their post-resurrection meeting in the garden - is omitted. Indeed the film ends somewhat surprisingly and darkly at the foot of the cross moments after Jesus' death. Gaius Marcellus, the roman centurion who she has, through the course of the film, come to love and then pass over in favour of the messiah, tries to dismiss what has just happened. "Jesus will be forgotten after his death" he suggests, as if to help. But, by this stage, Mary has been inspired: "No", she counters, "it is by his death that he will begin to live". The film ends a little darkly, but given the audience knows the rest of the story it is not without hope. Perhaps such an ending poses a question to the audience. If nothing else it's one way of avoiding one of the central dilemmas of biblical epics - how to sufficiently appease the opposing beliefs of faithful and faithless about the events being depicted. That said, if this is the reason for ending the film at this point the logic seems inconsistent. Jesus has already healed Lazarus and gone beyond the miracles in the Bible by adding gthe miraculous (and somewhat spooky) materialisation following Mary's dance.

The materialisation scene is just one example of the film's unusual attitude to Jesus' physical body, Whilst Jesus is in one sense present far more than in films such as Ben-Hur and The Robe, the manner in which the camera is never truly permitted to fully behold him. In many scenes, including  when Jesus prevents Mary from being stoned and her visit to him in a cell before his execution, we see just his arm, or hear his voice as his body stands just off camera. In the materialisation scene his head is so hidden in the shadows it caused one scholar to mistake his body for being "headless".² Other scenes, such as his appearance before a crowd in Pilate's courtyard, are shot from afar, so that the audience can just about make out his body in full, but cannot distinguish the features of his face. Finally we come to the crucifixion scene which uses a combination of the above strategies. Firstly the scene is shown from afar; then as the sky grows dark and a storm begins to rage the camera closes in on Mary at the foot of the cross; then in two shot of Mary and Gaius Marcellus, Jesus' legs appear between them at the top of the shot. This is followed by the camera slowing panning upwards to reveal the body of the crucified Jesus in full, but in darkness contrasted against the sky. Finally, seconds before the end of the film, a flash of lightning finally reveals Jesus' body in for just a split second.

It's tempting to speculate as to why the film adopts such an attitude towards Jesus' physical presence. Given the final reveal, it works as a metaphor for Mary's slowly ascending faith finally reaching completion. But it also suggests that the filmmakers are uncomfortable with the nature of the incarnation and the idea of Jesus fully human body.

The film's attitude to Jesus' body contrasts starkly with its attitude to Mary's and whilst the decision to make Mary the central character could be read as a more feminist approach to the subject, the objectification of Mary's body is just one of a number of concerns with its attitude to gender. In particular Mary's financial dependence on Anan is contrasted with her concerns, at least, that she is growing too old to retain his affections. De Carlo was only 36 at the time.

This peaks in the dance scene. Mary is clearly hurt when Anan gives her a mask to wear during her performance, interpreting his insistence as a sign that he no loner finds her face attractive. When her masked performance fails to arose the captive follower of Jesus she throws it off in the hope that her face will succeed where her body has not. It does not. The man's rejection of her body seems in accordance with its almost gnostic attitude to Jesus' body. The film is also guilty of double standards in this respect on the one hand sexualising De Carlo's body in order to boost the film's box office appeal, whilst on the other, chastising Mary for appearing sexually "available".

Also problematic in terms of gender is the film's conflation of various female characters in the Bible into one, Mary. This contrasts with La spada's fleshing out of the role of various male characters who are only mentioned in passing in the biblical text. Other women do appear in the film notably Mary's virginal sister Martha and Pilate's wife Claudia, but the film's contrast between "virgin" and "whore" is the person of Mary is problematic even despite the fact she is not quite portrayed as being a prostitute.

That said La spada was arguably the first in a string of Biblical pepla where a woman was the leading character. The following year Solomon and Sheba (1959) would significantly enhance the queen's role to the extent that by the end of the film the audience is more invested in her character than that of her male counterpart. 1960's Esther and the King followed the two-names pattern but relegated Esther's co-star to a nameless "King", in the title at least. The Story of Ruth also released in 1960, went a step further and only named the female charcter in its title.

=======
1 - Various cuts of this film are available including a 97 minute English version and a slightly longer 101 minute Italian version which includes the trial before Pilate and a scene in which the subsequently freed Barabbas chokes Anan to death. Barry Atkinson also notes the existence of an even shorter 88 minute cut.²
2 - Atkinson, Barry (2018) Heroes Never Die: The Italian Peplum Phenomenon 1950-1967. London: Midnight Marquee Press. p.81.

Jesus' Female Disciples (2018)

About ten years ago, Channel Four was a reliable source of documentary films about the Bible. In particular Robert Beckford hosted various programmes that enabled the station to cover both it's mandate to include some religious content and it's charge to produce provocative work and promote alternative points of view. Sadly, eventually things ran out of steam; for a while Channel 5 took on 4's mantle and churned out the odd religious conspiracy doc; and then that too seemed to pass. The last few Christmases and Easters have seen rather threadbare.

It's a welcome return then, to see that this year Channel 4 broadcast Jesus' Female Disciples: The New Evidence as its Easter offering. Fronted by Prof. Joan Taylor (Biblical Adviser for this year's Mary Magdalene movie) and regular contributor to biblical documentaries, Prof Helen Bond, the programme takes a look at the first female followers of Jesus.

As would be expected much is made of the first few verses of Luke 8 which names Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna as those who "provided" for Jesus and his followers "out of their resources". Unsurprisingly then the first section focuses on Mary Magdalene. It does well here to avoid getting bogged down to much in Pope Gregory and the Da Vinci code, the presenters dismiss the smear job on Mary with a few good-humoured eye rolls. Instead it looks more at Mary's origins. Mary's name may indicate that she haled from Magdala, but which of the many? Having journeyed to one of the more likely candidates they go on to talk about how Magdala is Aramaic for tower. This leads to a particularly interesting point. Just as Simon was called Simon Peter, the rock, and James and John were known as Boanerges (the sons of thunder), might "tower" be Jesus' affectionate name for Mary?

After the break move onto the next woman on Luke's list, Joanna. Joanna, Luke tells us was the wife of Herod's steward Chuza. This takes Taylor and Bond to the city of Tiberias, the location of Herod's palace, a place we have no record of Jesus visiting and, as is pointed out, somewhere very different to the small towns and villages Jesus is normally found in. Bond also suggests, a little speculatively, that it was probably Joanna (rather than Mary) who provided the lion's share of the money for Jesus and his followers.

At this point I was rather expecting the programme to move onto Susanna, but of course little else is known about her other than her name. Instead Bond and Taylor move on to another passage of the Bible, Mark 6:7-9. This is the passage where Jesus sends his followers out to spread his message two by two. Noting how the phrase "two by two" recalls the story of Noah's ark, where the words very much mean one male and one female, Taylor suggests that this would be the natural interpretation here as well. After all, given cultural boundaries between men and women, it would hardly be appropriate for men to be ministering and baptizing women.

Having looked at the texts the presenters then move on to look at some of the archaeological evidence for female followers, disciples and leaders. First of all they find an early shrine to St Salome (The Cave of Holy Salome), who the Gospels identify as being at both the crucifixion and the resurrection. The cave - one of the earliest remaining Christian churches - where they find a graffitied prayer to the saint. They then relocate to Napoli where they find late 5th century paintings of Cerula complete with evidence suggesting she was a bishop.

Having opened with a volley of Jesus film clips, this documentary got off to the perfect start, but the rest of it was well worth staying around for. Having watched many of these films over the years, as well as being involved in biblical studies for most of my adult life, it's always good to come away with something new; this time there was a good deal I hadn't heard before. As you would expect from the Middle East and Rome the visuals were pretty good and the traits that I suppose should really be thought of as the genre conventions (going on a "journey", academics pretending for the camera they don't know stuff they plainly do, the overly dramatic language) were largely kept under control.

What's more whilst the majority of TV documentaries still tend to have only a single presenter, or two men (the buddy-doc) it was good to see two female presenters working together and playing off each other to get their respective points across. Some will find it too speculative, but this is the nature of working around the margins of ancient texts that are, even at best only a partial reflection of what really happened. To that end, the programme explored some interesting and fresh ideas and theories based on the limited evidence: It's good to have Channel Four doing this kind of thing once again.

Available on catch-up for 7 more days

Further Thoughts on Mary Magdalene

(Photo credit - Transmission Films)
I made a second trip to see Garth Davis' Mary Magdalene (2018), yesterday, so thought this would be a good juncture to discuss a few other observations I have about the film, some of which only occurred to me during a second viewing. (Link to original review)

Attendance
The first thing that surprised me was the attendance. This contrasted greatly with the screening I went to on the film's opening night, where perhaps only 8-12 of us watched it two weeks before Good Friday. This time, at 6pm on Easter Wednesday, the, admittedly small, theatre was packed out, with about 60-80 in attendance. Having recently read one of my friend Steven D, Greydanus' tweets about the amount of time spent at church in the run up to Easter, I'm wondering if the recent strategy of releasing Bible films in the run up to Easter is perhaps misplaced.

Brutality of Mary's Family
It's often the earliest scenes that most benefit from a repeat viewing and so it proved here. Among various things to strike me this time was the brutality of Mary's eldest brother Dan. I recalled it the first time, but second time around the way he bullies all the members of his family - even his father - is really uncomfortable. Whilst none of Mary's family are in favour of her leaving to follow Jesus, there are a range of responses. In contrast to Dan, there's Mary's other brother Joseph (?). It is he that is the first one from Mary's family in contact with Jesus, and he that suggests "the healer" might be able to sort out his sister after the failed forced exorcism. Mary's father lies somewhere between the two. Certainly he lacks the anger of his eldest son, and he too is shown to be intrigued by the Jesus movement, but he also stands aloof from it in the scene where the people of Magdala swarm round Jesus on the beach (very reminiscent of Jesus Christ, Superstar).

Supersessionism
The other things that was utmost in my mind in these scenes and throughout, is the question of whether the film is supersessionist and therefore anti-Semitic. This line of thought was planted by an anonymous article in The Conversation which argues that whilst the film "dodges many of the anti-Jewish pitfalls of earlier Jesus films" the way it shows Jewish worship in the synagogue at Magdala "presents Judaism as unchanging from antiquity to today".

The two issues the article hones in on are the gender segregation in the temple and the use of modern Hebrew rather than the Aramaic that would have been spoken at the time. I was staggered by the author's claim that "no evidence to support a division of genders in synagogue worship in antiquity" as I have seen/heard this presented on numerous occasions. I have, however, never looked into the issue myself. The author cites a paper on Leadership in ancient synagogues which provides evidence of women leading in synagogues at that time. That already disproves my previous understanding, even if it doesn't go quite as far as the author's assertion ("no evidence"). This quite key as the film is at pains to portray Mary leaving a 'world' that oppressed her to join a movement that liberates her and treats her as an equal, and to an extent plays those two worlds off against one another. And in rewatching the film it's clear that the religious aspect of the former world is a key component (though not the only one) of her oppression and one that the film ramps up, for example the over reaction to her praying in the synagogue. The use of Hebrew rather than Aramaic seems less problematic to me, but it does portray Judaism as frozen in time, which is a key element of supersessionism as I understand it.

Two other scenes came to mind in this respect. The first is the contrasting scenes from Cana, where significantly there is no interaction at all with the religious aspects of the town. In Magdala many are baptised, but Mary is the only new recruit. In Cana Jesus comes away with a substantial following.

More significant, in this respect, is the film's other depiction of the Jewish religion, and again it's very negative. As The Conversation article points out the scenes of sacrifice in the temple are portrayed as a problem, and Jesus' opposition to them goes significantly beyond what we find in the various clearing the temple passages in the Gospels.

I feeling led by the article's line of thinking to question whether it's even possible for a Jesus film to avoid supersessionism. And to wonder, if so, if that equates to all Jesus films being anti-Semitic. Mary Magdalene gets a lot right in this respect - it avoids the most troubling passages completely, it even shows some fair minded Jews who listen to Jesus, and agree to disagree (although they are too few in number), it absolves Judas of blame and it makes it clear that it's the Romans who are responsible for killing Jesus because the people have called him Messiah. And yet, it undoubtedly pits Jesus against, Judaism and ultimately portrays him as being a bridge between his people and our modern values such as female equality. Can any Jesus film avoid this?

Plot spurred on by Crisis
Anyway, there were a few other things which came to mind. Firstly, it occurred to me this time around that as much as Mary's change of path is sparked by her meeting Jesus, it's also the result of a crisis, namely her impending marriage to a man she doesn't love. It's her reaction this (rushing to the synagogue to pray out loud) that make those around her think she is possessed and leave her feeling drastically adrift from her family.

Repeated Ideas
I was also struck by the number of themes and ideas that repeat through the film. So there is the opening shot of Mary floating/sinking in the water, which is not only repeated later in the film, but is also what Mary describes just before she asks Jesus "Is that how it feels to be one with God?" Then there is the phrase that Jesus uses when asked about forgiveness asks something along the lines of "How does it feel to hold all that anger inside? Does it lessen as the months go by?" Mary repeats this later in the film (after the resurrection if I remember rightly) only changes "months" to "days".

Then there is the repeated retelling of the (reworked) parable of the mustard seed, which, again occurs at the very start of the film and then towards the very end. This is interesting in itself as the revision is quite significant, but quite nicely done (if I didn't have so much to do at the moment, I might devote a whole post to this, but still). There are four ancient versions of this parable, three from the Bible (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as well as one in the Gospel of Thomas. These vary quite a bit suggesting it's use was widespread in the era before the gospels were written down. Mary's version changes the protagonist from Matt/Luke to a woman (like the protagonist in the following Parable of the Leaven) and she plants it in her garden, rather than sowing it in a field - a far more caring and nurturing image. Perhaps when the DVD comes out I'll go into more depth.

Similarities with Paul
Lastly, there are also a number of similarities between this film and last month's other big screen Bible film, Paul, Apostle of Christ. Both films are kind of semi-fictional, turning their backs on some of the key material in the Bible in favour of their own material. Mary ignores John's post resurrection sequence; Paul is located in the time after the account in Acts has ended. Both films also have a quietness about them. Paul is wordier than Mary but still everyone speaks in hushed tones. This extends to a somewhat anti-epic feel to both films. Both have crowd scenes, but the vast majority of time in both films is spent tucked away from public view. Also both films minimise the violence in the places where it would be expected (in the crucifixion and the beheading of Paul), but introduce some grim scenes elsewhere, namely human bodies burnt by the Romans. And both give their lead women more elevated roles than either they have had before on film or in the source material, but don't really develop any other female character. I've got a feeling there are other similarities and may add a few on if they occur to me later.

Needless to say there are a few things I will be keen to re-visit when this film comes out on DVD.

Mary Magdalene 2018

This review is a bit of a work in progress and I intend to write a few more posts about the film over the next few weeks. Still it seemed important to get something down whilst it's still in cinemas, not least because I didn't want to leave it three years like I did with Noah.

Arguably the three most influential religious films of the last century were Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc (1929), Pasolini's Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964) and Jewison's Jesus Christ, Superstar (1973). It's perhaps not surprising, then, that Mary Magdalene, a films so heavily invested in its visuals, evokes these three films again and again. Just as Dreyer's film is dominated by Falconetti's face as he transforms Joan into something of a Christ figure, so director Garth Davis focuses on Rooney Mara's features as he shapes Mary into a far more compelling figure than the man she is supposedly following. Both Mary and Pasolini's Gospel of Matthew were filmed in Matera where the jaggedness of the buildings and landscape contrasts with the smooth round shapes of shawls clasped tightly round the heads of their wind-battered owners. And then there is Superstar; Chiwetel Ejiofor frequently channelling Carl Anderson's scowls and glares, his charisma and masculine self-belief, and his bristling bewilderment at the way the movement he loves is drifting off course as their scruffy-looking leader is drawn towards Mary (Rooney Mara).

Yet for all the ways in which it mirrors these twentieth century films, what makes Mary Magdalene interesting is its twenty-first century sensibility. As the title suggests, this film is not primarily about Jesus, but about one of his most important followers, Mary Magdalene, and whilst it's not the first film to tell the story from her perspective, it's a worthy attempt to liberate her from both the church's labelling of her as a prostitute, and various dramatists portrayal of her as Jesus' potential love interest.

That it does so is thanks, largely to Helen Edmundson and Philippa Goslett's script which picks up the story in Magdala, where Mary still lives with her father. When she heads into the village synagogue to pray one evening, the town's religious officials worry about her demeanour, whilst the men of her family feel that she has disgraced them. The two groups of men take it upon themselves one evening to try to literally drown out her demons and then seem at a loss about what to do when she appears traumatised by the experience. And then, "The Healer" arrives.

Jesus turns up, sees the core of who Mary really is. He soothes her and brings healing to her badly bruised soul. Little wonder, then, she decides to flee her over-bearing and violent family to follow him. Jesus, welcomes her presence, not least because she seems to understand both him and his message better than the male disciples do. They talk about a war that he has no interest in; she talks about "what it feels like to be one with God". No-one has ever asked him that before. She is able to gently point out the ways his approach is, apparently unintentionally, making it hard for women to get involved. She encourages him to preach in the parts of the town where the women gather and points out how "The women are too afraid to be baptised with the men" (hardly surprising given Mary's family's attempts at exorcism by submersion in water).

What's interesting about Edmundson and Goslett's script is not only the way it never forgets it is about Mary, and not Jesus, but also the way it finds small, out of the way, elements in the gospels to elaborate upon. It does this in order to enrich its theme whilst simultaneously retaining its respect for the source material. It's noticeable, also, how these scenes often show the moment itself, rather than the predefined package we're presented with in the gospels. In one scene Mary and Peter are travelling on their own to spread the message, but there's no build up to the scene preceded by Jesus makes a speech about them going out two by two and how they are to do it. We simply join them on the road as they are doing it. And here Peter learns about the importance of mercy which clashes with his pragmatism, but comes so very naturally to her.

Similar in this respect is the scene where Jesus raises a man from the dead. It's not entirely clear if this is Lazarus or the widow of Nain's son? It has elements of both, but focuses less upon the broader meaning and theological significance of the moment and more on the experience of it. Naturally enough the narrative ends up in Jerusalem, but the sometimes endless scenes where Jesus is dragged from one patriarchal leader to another are not included, but it's handled so skilfully that it honours the significance of these events without losing its balance and focus.

Indeed, the film's gentle pacing,  Hildur Guðnadóttir and Jóhann Jóhannsson's haunting score and its lingering shots of ruggedly beautiful landscapes stay with you long after the film. Yet for all these strengths I never quite found it as satisfying as I'd hoped. Whilst the sensitivity and spirituality of Joaquim Phoenix's Jesus is welcome, he seems to lack passion and drive, instead coming over as more stoned than inspired. It's not hard to work out what Mary believes in, nor what the film stands for, but as to what Jesus' message is, it's hard to tell, He has a series of good lines, but brought together they add up to very little aside from a potentially popular Instagram feed.

Whilst it's hardly surprising that the film has been far better received by women than male critics, I wonder if this is mainly because Jesus is a far less well rounded out and defined character than Mary. Mistaking Jesus' lack of passion for that of the film as a whole is easy to do when the character you most naturally relate to is somewhat weak. But whilst male critics shouldn't let the film off for that, we should recognise that the reason we are so attuned to it is because in almost all other cases the shoe has been on the other foot. We've been treated to numerous well-rounded, interesting depictions of Jesus, accompanied by only cardboard cut out portrayals of the female characters in the story, if they are even there at all.

Indeed, taken as a whole, this film is passionate, it's just Mara's Mary who is carrying it and embodying it, all the while skilfully navigating the rocky path between being seen as either too pushy or too passive. The film's Mary is neither. She's an advocate for change in the name of inclusivity - it's no coincidence that this is the first Jesus film where Judas is treated compassionately after the crucifixion, rather than simply before it.

Whilst I'm not sure the film has quite earned the feminist film credentials that so many have thrust upon it, perhaps its most strongly feminist element is the way that it is Mary who comes out as the bold, flawless, creative and original visionary in contrast to a Jesus who is a misguided dreamer. and weak leader. The film is beautiful to look at, and its unhurried rhythm gives viewers plenty of time to think about Mary's more compassionate vision of faith and whether she has something to say to us too.

Mary Magdalene Round Up

I've been toying with the idea of whether to post this piece or whether to stick to my usual pace of roughly twice a week, but now I figure, with 2 Bible films being releases in the next 10 days, I should probably just crack on. So here's a round up of various bit and pieces to do with the Mary Magdalene film which opens in the UK on Friday.

Firstly, Kermode and Mayo's Film Review broadcast an interview with the star of Mary, Rooney Mara as part of last Friday's show. It starts around 40 minutes into full programme, which also includes a few comments from them around the fact that Rooney Mara still hasn't manage to see the finished film yet. Alternatively you can listen to just the interview which is around 12 minutes long. Their review will be in next week's show.

The earliest reviews for the film have been rather poor however. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian calls the story "toothless" and sums it up as "a platonic apostlemance". Empire's Dan Jolin is only marginally more impressed finding Phoenix's turn as Jesus unconvincing and the film itself losing "focus during the crucial final act". Guy Lodge of Variety finds that "its characterization of Mary herself feels tentative and incomplete".

In contrast there's a much more positive piece at The Telegraph, though the eagle-eyed will notice that it says it is "brought to you by Mary Magdalene". That's either a startling new resurrection story, or an indication that the piece suggesting the film could be an OscarTM contender isn't as neutral as it might be. Currently the film is at only 36% at Rotten Tomatoes, though it has a more respectable 6.4 at IMDb.

Part of the reason for this maybe that there have been a number of church leader screenings, events which tend to generate an unusual initial enthusiasm & high ranking on IMDb (where anyone can vote) which contrasts with Rotten Tomatoes where there is some kind of pre-requiste of actually knowing something about film. (Disclaimer: That's not snobbery - I'm not good enough for RT either!)

One of those pre-screenings was held in London by Damaris (I guess my invite must have got lost in the post, right?) who have also produced a media resource in partnership with Mothers' Union which you can download here.

Two of the people who saw the film at another screening were Prof. Joan Taylor, an academic adviser on the film, and Helen Bond. Afterwards they discussed the film and have released it as a podcast.

These days it's always worth keeping an eye on Twitter if you're wanting to keep on top of stories such as this. If you're already folloing me, I'm @MattPage. Two other people are worth following as the release date approaches are Michelle Fletcher @NTRight who has seen the film and liked it; and, of course, Peter Chattaway (@PTChat) who hasn't but is always worth following for Bible film related news anyway.

Speaking of Peter, over at his blog there are links to a featurette of the film, as well as quotes from and links to a number of other interviews.

One final piece of news is that this film has passed the Loughborough test, and so I will be reviewing it at some point over the weekend, depending on how awake I feel after a week at work and an evening screening.

Mary Magdalene gets a trailer and a website

We've known that a film about Mary Magdalene was in the works since FilmChat/Deadline broke the story in January 2016, but until now there's been very little to go on. For a while now we've known that Rooney Mara had the title part and that Joaquin Phoenix was playing Jesus, but aside from the various photos of them smoking on set, the filmmakers have been keeping things relatively tight.

Now, however, there's an official website for the film and a trailer, which you can see below (click for HD/fullscreen)

The website is fairly barebones for now, but the trailer shows us quite a lot. For a start Phoenix's portrayal of Jesus looks like it will be one of the most interesting we have seen. Aside from his acting pedigree, there's also the rather weathered look of his preacher from Nazareth. Historically, actors playing Jesus were often made as photogenic as possible - even getting Jeffrey Hunter to shave his armpits in King of Kings (1961). More recently there's been a tendency towards more grittier productions, especially since The Passion of the Christ (2004), but Jesus, bloodied face aside, has still tended to have good teeth and skin. In comparison, Phoenix's Jesus looks well worn. At 41, Phoenix is quite a bit older than Jesus probably was, but the harshness of the lifestyle, probably evens this out a bit. Hence we get a Jesus who looks like he has experienced the ups and downs of real life.

We also see a lot of images of Jesus smiling, but not always winningly, as well as a good range of other emotions, including fear and anger. Various films have focused strongly on one of these before, or incorporated several of them in a more toned down form, but this seems a very emotional Jesus, but also one who is, not necessarily intended to appeal to audiences enough to carry the film. The real star here - at least if we take the film's title seriously, is Mary Magdalene.

I know far less about Rooney Mara than I do about Phoenix, but her figure here seems far more photogenic and appealing than Phoenix. I'm not quite sure photogenic is the right word here as it suggests a degree of personal taste. Put it this way, swap their costumes for 21st century office attire and it's clear who would fit in more naturally.

That said even Mary's clothing here gives a suggestion that her character is wealthier than most of the other characters, and certainly compared to Jesus. If I'm right on this then it touches on a key fact about Mary that tends to be overlooked. The main piece of background information we have about her, from Luke 8:1-3, is that she was one of the group of women who funded Jesus and his followers. In fact, her name comes first amongst those benefactors, and it would not be inconceivable that this meant she was the highest of his donors. In this light the smearing of her as a prostitute, seems like an almost deliberate attempt to bury an uncomfortable fact.

The other piece of information this passage gives us is that "seven demons had gone out" from her. Given its run-time, the trailer goes into this relatively deeply. The first part of the trailer includes a voice over where one male character says "You have brought shame on our family", followed by another man saying "there's something unnatural inside you". We then see several shots of Jesus and Mary with Jesus saying "Your family says you battle with the demons", Mary saying "If there's a demon in me it's always been there" then another shot of a smiling Jesus reassuring her that "There are no demons here".

But what follows is also more interesting. There are apparent conflicts with a seemingly resentful Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), reminiscent of Abel Ferrara's Mary (2005) and the non-canonical Gospel of Mary. There is also a scene where Jesus seems to be encouraging Mary to carry out baptisms. Most interestingly of all, Mary asks Jesus "Is that how it feels to be one with God" and Jesus replies that no-one has ever asked about how it feels. None of this is really that unexpected given this is supposed to be a film about Mary, though it looks like it will be a more interesting and self-respectful portrayal than the one we find in Magdalena Released From Shame (2006). Be prepared for a string of stories about a feminist Mary Magdalene between now and the film's release.

Speaking of which it looks like the film will be release over here in the UK on the 16th March, Australia on 22nd March and the US on March 30 (Good Friday). There are a few more details on the official website, but it's fairly sparse at the moment.
HT Peter Chattaway.

Phoenix and Mara to star in Mary Magdalene

I'll hopefully post more info on this film shortly, but there's been relatively little official info on this one so far.

What we do know is that Rooney Mara will be playing Mary Magdalene and that Joaquin Phoenix will be playing Jesus. Chiwetel Ejiofor also has a role and Garth Davis, who directed the excellent TV series Top of the Lake back in 2013 is down to direct.It's due for release in November.

There is of course the vaguely controversial/iconic photos of Phoenix and Mara in costume smoking on the set, and Peter Chattaway has a little bit more.

Hopefully there will be more about this one soon.

Bellucci: From Malèna to Magdalena

Whilst the path the film treads is not unpredictable, you might want to look away if you've not seen it as I'm going to give away a few key spoilers.

As I'm heading to Roman this week, I watched the 2000 Italian film Malèna last week. The film, set during the Second World War stars Monica Bellucci as a woman who receives news of her husband's death in combat and as a result has to fend for herself against the town's more predatory inhabitants. As might be expected Bellucci's character, Melèna, has a considerable number of suitors, not least the teenage narrator whose desire for Melèna leads to voyeurism. Her other suitors however are less keen to keep their distance with many seeking to exploit her lack of finances for their own sexual desires.

At the same time Melèna's reputation with the town's women is getting worse and worse leading her to greater isolation and desperation. Ultimately she ends up fraternising with the Nazis and so when the way ends and the Nazis leave she is left to face the town's ire. What begins as a celebration of the town's liberation ends with Melèna being dragged from the barracks in front of a baying crowd, stripped, beaten and then having her hair cut off. The scene (from which the above image is taken) is strongly reminiscent of John 8:2-10 - the woman caught in adultery, and, of course, with Bellucci also playing this role four years later in The Passion of the Christ it's not hard to make a connection. I don't know if Gibson had seen this film - or even just this clip - when he made the film, but certainly the way it is staged and shot contains many similarities, as does the way Bellucci performs it.

However, in contrast to The Passion, this film's lead does not intervene to rescue the woman at the centre of the mob. He waits, and watches, certain that he should step in, but too afraid to do the right thing. For those used to such scenes featuring Jesus - or any of a number of heroes from similar scenes in other genres - the lack of intervention is agonising.

There are a number of other interesting links with Mary Magdalene in this film as well. Firstly there is the idea of Melèna as a fallen woman. Whilst it's church tradition, rather than the Bible, that has portrayed her so, its certainly part of the reason why that scene resonates so much.

Not unrelated to this is Melèna's changing image, most notably from a brunette to a red-head to a bleach blonde. This is perhaps rather tenuous, but there is something about Magdalene's transformation that could be expressed as a reinvention or a change of image.

More importantly there is the way the film finishes with the reappearance of Malèna's husband - a resurrection of sorts - who returns as a heroic if scarred figure who restores Malèna to wholeness once again. And perhaps thanks to her admirer being economical with the truth, he sees her without sin. Perhaps its because I am also thinking a lot about Jesus of Montreal at the moment, but I found the way the film explores truth, the perception of truth, oral transmission, kind lies and vicious lies to be very interesting.

Incidentally I believe I only watched the international cut of this film. There is, apparently, also a scene which was cut from this version which shows Malèna playing the part of Mary the Mother of Jesus as part of some kind of religious pageant (see it here). It seems to me that this changes the meaning of story massively. I'm still thinking over the impact of that.

Arabic Jesus Film - The Resurrected

Photo by Tinou Bao, used under a Creative Commons Licence

Peter Chattaway has posted an article from Variety about a $2 million Jesus film being made in Lebanon. Shooting is due to start in the summer with the aim being for an initial release at Easter 2010. That's starting to look like a busy period; Mary, Mother of the Christ is also due to arrive in cinemas at the same time.

It looks like Lebanese director Samir Habchi (Beirut, Open City) will direct the film, currently named The Resurrected, whilst the actor chosen to play Jesus is called Youssef Al-Khal.

Despite the claims of producers Eagle Pictures / the Marwa Group, there have been a couple of similar projects recently. Back in 2006 there was talk of a Coptic Jesus film and i talked quite a bit last year about the Iranian Jesus production Mesih (a.k.a. Jesus, the Spirit of God).

Like Mesih, the producers are hoping their film will foster "mutual respect... between Christians, Muslims and Jews". Having seen neither film, I'm keen to see how this would work in practice, particularly as elsewhere there's talk of the "redemptive nature of Jesus’ message" and the film's working title obviously refers to a specifically Christian doctrine. The producers plan to take aspects from the canonical gospels but it will be interesting to see if any other ancient sources are also in evidence.

The story will apparently be told from Mary Magdalene's perspective via the use of flasbacks, an idea that was used in 2007's Magdalena, Released from Shame. As they are planning to shoot on the sites where Jesus visited (such as Tyre), it will be interesting to see if they opt to film on either of the two Israeli sites touted as being Mary's supposed home town of Magdala.

Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner

Channel Five's Secrets of the Cross series continued last night with Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner. Having downplayed the Jesus Tomb controversy, I was curious to see what angle the filmmakers would take this time around. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has proved so popular that there's little mileage to be made converting Leigh Teabing's lecture into a documentary and the film's publicity suggested that would be focussing elsewhere.

After a brief introduction the film explores the subtleties of the brief details about Mary found in the Bible and proceeds to explain how she came to be thought of as a prostitute. Having aquitted Pope Gregory for slander (he was, apparently, simply trying to provide a role model for sinners) we move to Magdala to hear about the rebellion-tinged peasant lifestyle that Mary would have left to follow Jesus. There's then a passage about Mary's exorcism which suggests that it was invented by Luke to damage her credibility. This is practically the only controversial assertion in the first half of the film, and we're soon back into consensus country with the claim that Mary was a women of wealth who was one of Jesus's supporters.

The second part of the film begins by looking at what the non-canonical gospels have to say about Mary. This is one of the weaker sections of the film. It starts with the Gospel of Philip's "used to kiss her on the [blank]" passage which Bart Ehrman defly demythologises. But it's apparently close enough to the "Da Vinci Code" to justify a brief excursus to examine the strange Provencal traditions that surround Mary. It's all a bit odd and rather spoils the programme's flow. There's a mention of Mary as a mystic and we return, somewhat awkwardly, to gnostic writings and the Gospel of Mary. Ehrman tries bravely to downplay the importance of the Gospel of Mary, but the narrator gets the final word in and, as with the 2006 documentary The Secrets of Mary Magdalene, we're left with the impression that all ancient documents should be set on an equal footing. As with Brown's novel the somewhat grassroots evolution of the biblical canon is ultimately overlooked and the process is depicted instead as a conspiracy.The final section returns to look at Mary's importance as the first witness of the resurrection. But it all ends up in something of a muddle. So Mary is meant to be important because she was the first witness to the resurrection. But actually she just had a vision. Which, it turned out, was no good as evidence because she was just an "hysterical woman". But thankfully she inspired the men to have them too. And then their stories inspired the empty tomb story. Meanwhile they ignored her mystic wisdom and wrote her out of the story. All of which is supposed to make her the real founder of Christianity and somehow comendable eventhough it means she ultimately mislead millions of people.

So the film concludes that she was neither a leader in the early church, nor an intimate companion, she was just in the right place at the right time. Except, is it possible for there to be a right place and a right time if you just happen to be hallucinating? And does it count as being in the right place at the right time if you get written out of the story later anyway?

Tenous final segments aside, there are one or two memorable visuals. The switch between the woman washing Jesus's feet and Mary (played by Lucy Shaljian) was effective. On the other hand, the sight of the inhabitants of Provence hoisting the gold-space-suit-clad skull of Mary through the streets will stay with me for all the wrong reasons. But it perhaps reflects the documentary as a whole: It's just a group of people making a lot of noise about something that is showy, full of air but ultimately unprovable at the core. Perhaps they should have stuck with Dan Brown.

===============

In related news, Mark Goodacre has posted his own thoughts on Who Really Killed Jesus and the only quality daily paper still covering this is The Telegraph and even they appear to have simply re-hashed the Channel 5 blurb.

More on Secrets of The Cross

Channel 5's religious documentary series Secrets of the Cross continues tomorrow night with Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner The Channel Five website doesn't have a dedicated page to this yet, but the listings describe the show as follows:

Religious documentary focusing on the life and legend of Mary Magdalene. Recorded in the Bible as the first person to see Christ after the Resurrection, Mary's exact role in Christianity has long been debated. This film examines the scant details of her life and questions the theory that she was deliberately sidelined by the Christian church in order to protect the male hierarchy.

Filmmakers CTVC, however, have published their page and it summarises it thus:

Mary Magdalene’s vision of a risen Jesus was the spark that ignited the flame of Christianity, turning the Jesus Movement from a minor Jewish sect into a new world faith. Without her there may never have been Christianity.

Yet strangely, rather than celebrate her as a founder of the faith, the Gospels say almost nothing about her, the early Christian church branded her a whore and western art and literature have constantly reinvented her down the centuries. She remains one of the most mysterious women in history.

This programme goes in search of the real Mary Magdalene and asks whether all the conspiracy theories hide an even greater truth.

Interestingly, both synopses suggest the documentary will be calling into question the theories about Mary popularised by The Da Vinci Code. As with Secrets of the Jesus Tomb it appears that this film will debunk the debunkers.

I'll hopefully review that at some point in the middle of the week. Meanwhile, I've written a different review of Who Really Killed Jesus for ReJesus. I'm both surprised and disappointed that none of the other bibliobloggers have published their reviews or thoughts yet. It was a serious documentary which will have engaged viewers that might not ordinarily be interested in Biblical Studies. Mark Goodacre has promised to post something, but otherwise it seems like bit of an opportunity missed.

CT Reviews Magdalena

I've just got back from a week's holiday in North Wales hence the lack of posts over the last 7 days. There are various stories I'd like to catch up on over the next week or so, starting with Christianity Today's review of Magdalena: Released from Shame. Overall, CT's Carolyn Arends seems to agree with most of what I wrote in my own review which, coincidentally enough was written after I saw the film on my last holiday.

I'm planning to revisit this film shortly, as I want to look at how it functions as a gospel dependent on another, already established, gospel. Meanwhile Peter Chattaway (who blogged this first) wonders whether Mary is "played by two different women in the new film". The answer, I think, is no. Mary's presence in Luke's gospel, and the subsequent film, is fairly minimal anyway - just the mention in 8:2 about her exorcism and her support for Jesus's ministry, and the empty tomb scene. I'm fairly sure the first scene is re-filmed and significantly expanded. The second I'm less certain on, but if the original actress appears at all, it's only the back of her head that's shown. But on top of all that, this version of the story is a harmonisation rather than one based on just one gospel (Luke), and so it incorporates a whole load of material, including (again IIRC) Mary meeting Jesus outside the tomb. I'll try and confirm this and report back at the end of this post.

Magdalena Available Online

Mike Leary (who has recently moved his web presence to the nice looking film-think.com) has noted at Arts and Faith that Magdalena: Released From Shame is now available (legitimately) on YouTube.

Ever since I saw this back in October, I've been meaning to write a piece about how this film compares to the later gospels, taking an established (and authoritative?) evangelistic text, and adding fresh material that addresses the concerns of the target audience more directly etc. I was going to use colours and everything! But I never quite got around to it and was beginning to think I never would. This might just be what I need to get it finished. Watch this space...

Magdalena - Released From Shame - Review

My friend in Morocco was given a DVD of this film at a conference recently, although she couldn't remember which one. A quick search on Google, however, reveals that this has happened in a few places, and that the film has been screened at other conferences. I've got a fair bit to say about this film's use of material from The Jesus Film which I'll save for another post. For now, here's my review
========
The Jesus Film was finished 28 years ago, and in the intervening period it has gone on to become the most watched film of all time. Yet whilst missionaries all over the world continue to value it as an evangelistic tool others clearly seem to be aware that their beloved movie is starting to appear dated. As a result, the last few years have seen a number of different versions of the film be released, including a version made for children and a longer edition of the film featuring a brief introduction from Genesis.

Magdalena - Released From Shame is the latest, and most radical development in this tradition. In addition to incorporating its own extra-biblical scenes, it has also incorporated a number of additional stories from the gospel that were not included in the original production. Brian Deacon has reprised the role of Jesus from the original - vocally at least, but in order to avoid the inevitable continuity errors that would result from the passing of almost 3 decades, Jesus's face is not shown in these scenes - it may even be a younger actor. Close listening, however, reveals a slight difference in Deacon's voice: it is richer and more noble than it was in 1979.

This leads to a couple of interesting moments, when we see a more intimate conversation between Jesus and one of his audience. We see their face in close up with part of the back of Jesus' head in the foreground. But the expected, and usual, reverse shot (showing us Jesus's face and the back of the other person's head) never materialises. It's a little off putting, but it does focus the attention on the response of those who originally listened to Jesus, and recollects all those 50s Bible epics which were so reverent they didn't even show his face.

As well as inserting extra scenes / shots, it has also added extra flourished to the original. So the original angels were white men with 70's fros and a white bed sheet, Here they are more indistinct CGI figures. We also see the occasional piece of symbolism, most notably the snake who slithers amongst a pile of ropes during Jesus trial, but is seen dead shortly after Magdalene sees the resurrected Jesus.

The film also jumbles the chronology. We start in 40AD with Mary Magdalene telling a group of her friends about Jesus. She goes right back to the stories of creation and Abraham before jumping to the events of the Nativity and Jesus's baptism and onto her encounter with Jesus. At this point the film returns briefly to Mary and friends before proceeding with the story of Jesus's ministry and execution in a more linear fashion. From then, up until Jesus's ascension we occasionally return to AD40, but it's the Jesus story that by far predominates.*

Essentially then this film seeks to tell the story of Jesus in from the perspective of Mary Magdalene - the message of Jesus is mediated to the audience by her. In addition to the scenes from 40AD and those from Jesus's ministry that feature Magdalene, she also provides the occasional bit of narration. Unfortunately, the actress playing Mary Magdalene herself (Rebecca Ritz) is one of the film's greatest weakness. She is far too earnest and, as a result, comes across as somewhat patronising. Worse still, there's no real passion in her account of this supposedly life-changing encounter.

The film's intended audience is also made fairly clear. Mary is primarily telling the story to a woman who has not heard about Jesus, and who rather conveniently feeds Mary the exact questions she needs to move her monologue on to the next part in the narrative. Unfortunately, it's as forced and awkward as it sounds, and it's not helped by a wooden, unconvincing performance by Shira Lane as the the would-be believer.

The other major key to the production's intended audience is the selection of episodes it includes. Nearly every scene from Jesus's ministry - whether from the original film, or more recent footage - has a woman as one of the crucial characters. The promotional material for the film is clear that in addition to Mary Magdalene the film also covers the stories of the Widow of Nain, the woman caught in adultery, and the haemophiliac who touches Jesus's robe.

In addition to selecting these stories it also inserts shots of Mary and the other woman around Jesus's ministry. So when he delivers his Gospel manifesto to a packed synagogue in Luke 4 we see Mary and a friend in the women's enclosure at the back. Likewise when an adulteress is brought before Jesus for Judgement, it is Mary who observes that the man should also be present.

So this is very much a film made for women, who perhaps find the usual male-dominated Bible films alienate them. As such it could have been a worthy project, but sadly, it's been poorly executed.

Despite it's popularity with missionaries abroad The Jesus film has always been unpopular with film critics. Not only is it a not particularly well made film, but it's rubbed salt in the wound by going on to become the art form's most widely seen specimen. It's unfortunate, then, that the parts of Magdalena which stand out as being the most well crafted are those which have been cut and pasted from that original Jesus film.


*The end of this paragraph was changed to it's present form on 27/11/07 to amend an earlier error.

Magdalena: Released from Shame

Thanks to Thomas Langkau for tipping me off about this one. Nardine Productions are soon to release a new Jesus film - Magdalena: Released from Shame. It's currently in production (with a 2008 release according to the IMDB), but here's what the Nardine Productions website has to say about it:

An original film that traces Jesus’ interactions with biblical women as seen through the eyes of one of His followers, Mary of Magdala. In a beautifully emotive way, this 90-minute docudrama captures these historical accounts.

Magdalena: Released From Shame will be available in many of the world’s major languages in 35mm, DVD and VHS formats.

There's a fairly impressive official website which contains four clips from the film plus a theatrical trailer (although it's unclear as to whether this will actually make it into theatres, or just go straight to DVD). There's also a cast list, gallery, and the following synopsis:

A woman caught in the shameful act of adultery; a social outcast shunned in society for 12 years because of a despicable illness; a widow mourning the loss of her only son. An ugly thread of shame, sorrow and hopelessness painfully weaves its was through these women's lives.

After spending three years following Jesus, Mary Magdalene has seen it all - lives changed, miracles performed, the sorrow of death and yet the triumph of life. Mary has watched in amazement as Jesus taught a whole new way of looking at life and at people. Jesus radically transformed her own life when he healed her from demon possession, so much so that she became his follower.

Fast forward to A.D.40. Although Jesus no longer remains on earth, Mary Magdalene still lives a changed life. Despite his miraculous works and his surprising compassion, not everyone bought into the teaching of this man, Jesus. Skeptical about this supposed Savior, Mary's friend questions her, "The God who created all of this? I doubt He even sees me, much less knows me."

In response, Mary Magdalene passionately retells the details of Jesus' life - from birth to death, and eventually to resurrection - and how his life continues on in the lives of those who follow him...

It becomes obvious from looking at the various parts on the website that this is no ordinary Jesus film. My curiosity was first aroused when I noticed that Brian Deacon's name was mentioned amongst the cast. Deacon played Jesus in the 1979 Jesus film, but is in his late 50s now. I assumed it was simply an interesting cameo - after all the clips I had seen thus far were clearly very modern.

Then I watched the trailer and realised that what this film is actually doing is incorporating clips from the 1979 film (and, possibly, the wider "Gospel of Luke" project that was recorded at the same time) into a modern film. The Jesus in the newer sections of the film is usually seen from behind or in long shot. This is confirmed by the last of the 4 clips I watched where the action cuts from a newly recorded shot spliced with a clip from the 1979. I would guess the voice of the modern Jesus is also Deacon, and it may be him under that wig (although I suspect it is someone else).

I can already see potential parallels with this and modern gospel scholarship - some sayings going back to the original Jesus, others incorporated into the text in order to tell the good news - but I'll wait until I see it before I go down that route.

There are a couple of other points that I'd like to make at this juncture. Firstly, there's obviously a strong focus on the woman that Jesus encounters. Magdalene is clearly a separate women from the woman caught in adultery. The synopsis clearly mentions the widow of Nain and the haemorrhaging woman. The clips also include the Samaritan women. Since the story is told by Mary Magdalene to another woman it's certainly possible that the occasions when Jesus acts compassionately towards women are in the forefront of her mind. It will be interesting to see how far this focus goes and which other stories are incorporated.

Secondly, I was very pleased to see that this is the first Jesus film (at least that I've come across) that raises the point that "the very act of adultery" requires two people.

Gospel Comparison: Jesus Anointed by a Woman

Yesterday's post got me thinking about the story of the woman who anoints Jesus. I mentioned this incident last year when looking at From the Manger to the Cross. I've always found the varying accounts and the way they vary a bit confusing. There are numerous details in each telling and they all seem to vary significantly from each other. It's also strange because the story is one of the few that is in all four gospels, and because it is Luke's account that is the most different rather than John's as we would normally expect.

Anyway, yesterday I decided to tabulate all the incidents and see how they compare across the four gospels. The results are below, and you can view all four stories in parallel using the Synoptic Parallels page.

Detail	Matt 26:6-13	Mark 14:3-9	Luke 7:36-50	John 12:1-8
Before Passover		Y		Y
2 Days Before		Y
6 days Before				Y
At Bethany	Y	Y		Y
House of Simon	Y	Y	Y
(The Leper)	Y	Y
(The Pharisee)			Y
Lazarus present				Y
Martha serves				Y
A Woman	Y	Y	Y	Y
=Mary				Y
=Sinful			Y
Alabaster Jar	Y	Y
A pint				Y
Nard		Y		Y
Ointment	Y	Y	Y	Y
Broke jar		Y
Poured	Y	Y		Y
Tears			Y
Head	Y	Y
Feet			Y	Y
Wipes Feet			Y	Y
With Hair			Y	Y
Kissed Feet			Y
Smells Fills House				Y
Some objections..	Y	Y	Y	Y
Pharisees object			Y
Disciples object	Y
Judas objects	Y			Y
Why not sold	Y	Y		Y
Year's wages				Y
Judas a thief				Y
Kind of Woman			Y
Leave Her Alone	Y	Y		Y
Parable & Rebuke			Y
Beautiful Thing	Y	Y
Day of Burial	Y	Y		Y
Always Have Poor	Y	Y		Y
Wherever Story Told	Y	Y
Total	17	19	14	23

By doing this on a spreadsheet I was able to do a few comparisons. Firstly, the number of elements of the story that are common to all four gospels are startlingly few. Essentially, Jesus goes for a meal, a woman puts ointment on him and when some present object Jesus rebukes them. There are however a stack of differences. Where and when does this take place? Does the woman anoint his feet, his head or both? Who objects, and what do they object about? And what is Jesus's response.

Some of these details amalgamate quite nicely. Simon could have been a Pharisee who had contracted a skin disease at some point in his life, perhaps when he was much younger. The woman could be Mary of Bethany, who could have had a sinful life. Other details flat out contradict themselves, such as whether this took place two days before the Passover or six days before. Others could possibly co-exist, but would seem unlikely to do so. Perhaps the disciples objected because of the waste, AND Simon objected because of the woman's character.

There are a number of ways to respond to all these details. Firstly, one could decide it was all one incident. The details over timing are minimal and perhaps the woman, who was Mary of Bethany, anointed both his head and his feet with both ointment, and her tears, and wiped his feet wit her hair as well. There were two sets of objections to this behaviour, and Jesus dealt with both. This is the way the majority of harmonised Jesus films try to go, with the woman performing multiple anointings. The major problem with this is that none of the gospels describe the event in this way.

The other possibility is that there were two such events. One recorded in Matthew, Mark and John, and the other recorded in Luke. Certainly, of the 14 details mentioned by the third evangelist, the only one it shares with the other three accounts (other than those elements common to all four as listed above) is that it took place at the house of someone called Simon.

This version of events is how the film From the Manger to the Cross chooses to show things, with two different events. There are, however, additional problems with this. Firstly, it is difficult to know how likely this is. The action seems to have been fairly shocking in it's time. Would two such women have had such a similar response, given how few similar incidents of woman responding in dramatic ways to Jesus are recorded?

Secondly, the details of the other three accounts still don't match up all that well. Of almost 40 individual details, no single account contains more than 23 (John), and Matthew only contains 17. Furthermore, if we compare them we find that although they agree the incident took place at Bethany, and that the conflict and Jesus's reprimand concerned the potential sale of the ointment for the poor, there are only 9 details which they have in common. Comparing them in pairs, Matt/Mark share 15 details, Mark/John share 11, and Matt/John share just 10.

On the other hand there is still a good deal of conflict. Mark and John conflict over when this took place, John implies (at least) that this took place in Lazarus's house, whereas Matthew and Mark say it was Simon the Leper's house. Matthew and Mark only mention Jesus's head being anointed, whereas John only mentions the feet and so on. There is of course the possibility that there were three such events (Mark/Matt's, John's and Luke's), but that would just be getting ridiculous.

Thirdly, it seems reasonably clear that when Luke is writing he is familiar at least with Mark's gospel, and possibly Matthew's as well, yet he erases their story and brings in his own. If he was aware of their incident, and another one which he prefers, why not include both? Mark was happy to do that with the two feedings of multitudes (4000, and 5000 in Mark 6 & 8), as was Matthew, although perhaps the fact that Luke was not has some significance.

Fourthly, there is again the point that none of the gospels record there being two separate incidents. Such a theory is purely conjecture, based on trying to tie up the details of the four different accounts.


How does all this relate to the films, comments about From the Manger to the Cross not withstanding? Well firstly, what is remarkable is the number of films that add a new detail all of their own, namely that this woman is Mary Magdalene. In fact, as programmes such as The Secrets of Mary Magdalene have pointed out, it is the confusion between this story, and those of the unnamed adulteress of John 8, and Jesus's exorcism of Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), that led to Magdalene being labelled a repentant sinner.

Mary Scene Analysis

Having reviewed Abel Ferrara's Mary last month I'm now posting a scene analysis, of sorts. I say "of sorts", because, as I noted in my review the film does not really have much to do with the New Testament per se. as the fictional Jesus movie that the film is about seems to be as much derived from the non-canonical Gospel of Mary, as the New Testament. Instead of giving a list of biblical and extra-biblical scenes as normal, instead I'm going to describe various scenes, with particular emphasis on the scene's involving the actress who plays Mary Magdalene in the fictional movie Marie Palese (Juliette Binoche). Naturally this post contains spoilers galore.

I should perhaps give a brief intro to the film (although read my review for more detail). Tony Childress (Matthew Modine) is a film producer who is making a controversial movie about Jesus, based in part on the Gospel of Mary. Mary is played by an actress called Marie Palese (Juliette Binoche) who has a religious experience as a result of filming the movie and moves to the Holy Land. But the film really revolves around Ted Younger, a TV presenter whose programme looks at various controversies surrounding the life of Christ.

[0 mins] - Credits
[3 mins] - Mary Sees the Risen Jesus - (John 20:1, 10-17)

We see two women, two angels and the empty tomb. Jesus appears, but then this scene ends abruptly and cuts to Palese waking up in bed as if from a troubling dream, suggesting this was actually her dream

[6 mins]- The movie wraps and we see Younger's show and meet his wife.
[15 mins]- Press screening. Incorporates...
[17 mins]- 1st excerpt from Gospel of Mary (paraphrased)

They grieved and mourned greatly, saying,
"How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If even he was not spared, how shall we be spared?"
Then Mary stood up and greeted all of them and said to her brethren,
"Do not mourn or grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be with you all and will defend you. Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men." When Mary said this, their hearts changed for the better, and they began to discuss the words of the [Savior]. Peter said to Mary,
"Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women [cf. John 11:5, Luke 10:38-42]. Tell us the words of the Savior which you have in mind since you know them; and we do not, nor have we heard of them."
Mary answered and said,
"What is hidden from you I will impart to you."
And she began to say the following words to them.
"I," she said, "I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him,
     'Lord, I saw you today in a vision.'
     He answered and said to me,
     'Blessed are you, since you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is your countenance' [cf. Matt. 6:21].
     I said to him,
     'Lord, the mind which sees the vision, does it see it through the soul or through the spirit?'
     The Savior answered and said,
     'It sees neither through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind, which is between the two, which sees the vision
[cut to shot of Younger watching, also signifying a jump in the text]
When Mary had said this, she was silent, since the Savior had spoken thus far with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren,
"Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas."
Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior.
"Did he then speak secretly with a woman [cf. John 4:27], in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"
Then Mary grieved and said to Peter,
"My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?"
Levi answered and said to Peter,
"Peter, you are always irate. Now I see that you are contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her?

[20 mins]Younger arranges an interview with Childress.
[28 mins] - 2nd excerpt from Gospel of Mary

...and Desire said,
'I did not see you descend; but now I see you rising. Why do you speak falsely, when you belong to me?'
The soul answered and said,
'I saw you, but you did not see me or recognize me; I served you as a garment and you did not recognize me.'
Followed by a behind the scenes shot of the movie. The whole sequence has a dreamy feel to it.

[29 min]Younger and Gretchen in bed

Not only does this scene reveal Younger is having an affair, but we also realise that she is Marie Palese's friend. She reveals Palese has been away for a year, after going to s deep place, living two lives for the sake of the film and that Childress never helped her come back from that place. Later we see Younger get Palese's number from Gretchen's mobile whilst she sleeps

[34 mins]- 1st 'phone conversation between Younger and Palese

MP:Do you believe in Jesus
TY:I guess he existed yeah sure
MP:What do you believe?
TY:I don't know
MP:It takes courage to walk in the truth, and it takes courage to become fully human. Jesus helped Mary Magdalene, and (s)he’s helping me now.

[37 mins] - Elaine Pagels expounds her theories on the Gospel of Mary
[39 mins] - Footage of Younger arguing with his wife, and conducting an interview
[44 mins] - Shots of Palese in "biblical" dress (Magdalene?) sailing of on the sea (of Galilee?)
[46 mins] - Younger discovers blood. His wife's prematurely in labour.
[52 mins] - 2nd 'phone conversation between Younger and Palese

TY:My baby’s so sick, so sick, can’t even breathe
MP:Do you love your baby?
TY:Yeah
MP:As his father would you do everything in your power for him?
TY:Everything
MP:If your baby asked you for something would you give it to him
TY:Yes
MP:Do you think the father, your father would do the same for you?
TY:D’you know what, my Dad’s dead, but yeah
MP:No I mean your father Ted, the father that’s always there. He loves us more than we humans can comprehend
TY:Oh well if he loves me so much then why is he doing this to me?
MP:Have you asked him? Have you spoken to him?
TY:How can I ask him if I don’t even know if I believe in him? I want to go to him and fight I don’t want to speak to him. I don’t know how to do that
MP:Well he sent us a messenger so we could understand, so go to him, pray, try
TY:I can’t speak to God.

[54 mins]- More modern footage,

This includes footage of both Jews and Muslims worshipping in Jerusalem, and Marie lighting three candles (for Ted, Elizabeth and their baby?) in a church. She then attends what appears to be a Jewish Passover seder which is interrupted by an explosion. Footage of Ted in hospital, and Palese disappearing down a dark street. Directly cuts into...

[59 mins] - Last Supper - (John 14:27-28, 16:32, 15:20,25, 16:1-4)

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you. I do not give as the world gives
Do not let your hearts be troubled, do not let them be afraid. If you loved me you would rejoice...
The hour has come when you’ll be scattered, each one to his own home. And I will be left alone
Because they will persecute you as they have persecuted me.
They do this to fulfil the word that is written in their law, they hated me …
I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling
The hour has come when you will be put out the synagogues, indeed, the hour has come when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.
I’ve said these things before they occur, so when they do occur you may remember that I spoke of them and you may believe.

[64 mins] - Younger interviews Childress and Palese

Scene follows on directly form the last one so it is unclear whether or not the Last Supper scene is part of Mary's imagination/memory again, or as part of the TV programme. Clip is followed by Younger interviewing Childress, before a call from Palese is patched through...

TY: What would make you leave behind being an actress
MP: I had no other choice, I played the role of MM, and I became fascinated and inspired by her. I wondered if I could change. You know my heart was hardly able to contain anything else. That’s why I stayed...
TC: What you doing now? Healing lepers?
MP: I will say that we are all capable of becoming better people...people’s inner turmoil every day, one thing I’d like to say is that my wish is that all people in the world acquire peace within themselves, that’s all I want to say

[67 mins] - Jesus washing the disciples’ feet - (John 13)[70 mins] - Younger's prayer.
[73 mins] - Movie Premiere

Protests outside premiere which is called off because of a bomb threat. Childress projects movie and we see a few broken up excerpts, interspersed with shots of Mary at sea

"You are blessed when the sight of me does not disturb you. There lies the mind lies the treasure."
...
"Where do you come from, murderer, and where are you going, wanderer?...My craving has faded, and I am freed from my ignorance...I left the world with the help of another world...The design was erased by virtue of a higher design. Henceforth I travel toward repose(?)"

[78 mins] - Younger and his wife re-united
[79 mins] - Palese returns to shore still in biblical dress.
[80 mins] - End Credits


A Few Notes
Further to my post questioning the relationship between Marie Palese and Mary Magdalene I noticed in fast forwarding through recently the parenthesis provided by the two scenes of Mary by the shore of the sea (presumably of Galilee. In the first shot her companions are going out to sea, in the final one, they are returning from their voyage. (I also noticed a couple of fleeting shots of her in a storm at sea when Childress is projecting the movie after the aborted premiere. It's unclear here whether this is footage of the film, or, again, in his head. Certainly the way Palese directly addresses the camera would be unlikely for such a movie). Given that the first and last shots surround the scenes where Ted prays for forgiveness and the healing of his family, ultimately leading to his confession to his wife and their reconciliation, (not to mention an epiphany of sorts for Childress) it would appear that there is something of a "fishers of men" motif being indicated here.

Some people have noted that the extant text of the Gospel of Mary never actually stipulates that the Mary it refers to is Mary Magdalene. There are of course up to six different Mary's mentioned in the New Testament, and this could possibly refer to any of them. That said it seems hard to imagine that many of them would have such prominence other than Mary Magdalene, and Mary Jesus's mother. In any case this argument mainly seems to be employed to permit people to ignore the text without taking it seriously.

I'm still unclear what this film is saying about Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ. On the one hand it would appear to side with the maker of a controversial Jesus film and support Gibson's right to free speech, but on the other Childress is so arrogant and unsympathetic that one can't help but wonder if that is intended as a reflection on Gibson too. Furthermore the film seems to have strong sympathies regarding the Gospel of Mary, not only bringing it to greater prominence, but also giving a platform to one of its most vociferous champion, Elaine Pagels, and indicating the faith that the work might inspire. But it does so, by showing how the established church has suppressed the work, another thing that appears contrary to Gibson. Perhaps Ferrara is simply taking the line of disagreeing with what Gibson does, but defending his right to do it.