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.

Judas in Mary Magdalene (2018)

I posted my main review of Mary Magdalene at the weekend but there were a couple of the things about the film that I wanted to explore, but that felt a little too specific for a general review and that also seemed like good ideas for a blog post in and of themselves. The portrayal of Mary has been covered by numerous others and, in particular, it's been interesting to hear what various female critics and academics have had to say about her. So instead I'd look at the film's portrayal of Judas.

MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

Perhaps the most striking thing about the film's portrayal of Judas is that we don't find out his name until his character has had a chance to get well established. This has a major impact on the film's ability to portray him sympathetically.

When Mary first meets the disciples overall they are fairly morose and whilst not actively hostile, they certainly aren't welcoming. There is, however, one notable exception. This character is smiley and open and chats to Mary in a friendly fashion. She warms to him far more than the other, more remote, disciples.

One of their key conversations goes into why this disciple decided to follow Jesus. The story is a little unclear, but this is done in such a fashion as to makes the conversation seem more realistic, not because this character is hiding something. It seems his wife and daughter died as a result of Herod's unrelenting taxes in the midst of a food shortage, and Herod's willingness to call in the might of Rome to ensure his demands are met. It's not quite clear - even less so a few days after viewing it - whether they died by the sword, from hunger, from illness, or by their own hand, but clearly the disciple is still deeply mourning their loss.

It's no surprise then that what is most attracting this disciple to Jesus is his talk of the coming kingdom and the end of the world. The disciple sees this as a chance to be re-united with his family. And it's around this point in the story that the film confirms what many in the audience are already expecting: that this character is Judas. Even so, and like many moments in the film, the revelation isn't made dramatically, as if to underline it's theological significance. Jesus just casually uses his name in a normal every day kind of way, in a way that's consistent with the disciples klnowledge of him. There's no sensational music, dramatic cut, or camera zooming in. There's not even a gap in the dialogue. But to the audience it becomes apparent that just as the film has sought to turn the traditional portrayal of Mary on it's head, it is approaching the character of Judas differently too.

However, by delaying the moment when Judas' name is revealed, it allows the audience to get to know Judas as a character without associating him with all his cultural baggage. And obviously it goes out of his way to present him as a sympathetic character: friendly, smiley, nervous, vulnerable and clearly hurting.

After these initial moments, Judas' becomes a little less prominent for a while, but it becomes clear that the reason he is going to betray Jesus is to try and force his hand into revealing who he is and bringing about the kingdom. This is one of the most commonly given motivations for Judas' actions in films about Jesus, but here it's made more effective because Jesus does seem weak and indecisive. But whereas in other film this makes Judas seem aggressive, impatient, arrogant, misguided, or lacking understanding, here it's far more understandable. Judas' despair at what has happened to his family is beginning to envelop him. When Jesus fails to use the incident in the temple as the springboard for his new world he frets that he might not get to see his family soon enough. Jesus' weakness is also becoming more apparent so Judas really sees himself as being a good and helpful friend. He's entirely well meaning.

It's significant as well that we don't see the moments that Judas makes his arrangement with the high priest. Omitting scenes of Judas agreeing to betray Jesus again makes things more sympathetic. Crucially, throughout the film there is no mention of the 30 pieces of silver. Judas is not portrayed as dishonest, he isn't stealing money from the common purse, he doesn't chastise Mary for not selling her nard for money to give to the poor, he's not greedy, or even in debt. The money is never mentioned or seen.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this portrayal though is how it portrays Judas' final moments. In contrast to every other Jesus film to cover these, Judas does not hang himself until after Jesus has died, indeed he still hasn't entirely given up hope whilst Jesus is still alive. There's even one moment after the betrayal where he smiles. Whilst he is, perhaps, beginning to fear the worst he doesn't fully realise what he has done until Jesus is dead.

Even then, Judas has been so well meaning, so hurting yet hopeful that Judas still doesn't come across as a villain. And whereas the other male disciples have fled, Judas, along with Mary, is still there watching Jesus die, waiting for the moment.

And then Mary, reaches out, and touches a broken Judas by the hand to comfort him. And it's not entirely unwarranted. This is not the actions of a Mary who is so Christlike that she's willing to reach out to Judas even after horrific sin. It's because she, and we, understand how he got things wrong, that he didn't mean for this to happen (that's a common line in Jesus films, but here it never really elicits that much sympathy). It's quite a remarkable moment, because it feels like the actions of a compassionate human, not the act of a super-being, or someone so holy that there action seems unreal.

Nevertheless Judas' role ends as it always ends. Mary asks where Judas is going. He replies that he is going to see his family. We know the story enough to know what he means, but Mary does not, though perhaps she suspects it on some level.

In contrast with other portrayals (yet again) Judas hangs himself in the town, not in a garden or countryside. The final shot of Judas starts with a wide shot of the hillside covered with houses, in a way that is so typical of Matera. The camera gently zooms in and it becomes apparent partway through that in the doorway of the house in the middle of the shot a man has hung himself. Having started with the wide shot, with so many doorways apparent, the impact of Judas' mistake are dwarfed by the impact of the bigger shot. So many other human lives. So many other mistakes. Even this final shot carries the sense of compassion for Judas which is held throughout the film and is typical of Mary's role in particular.

=======

If you're interested in this post, you might also be interested in Carol Hebron's book Judas Iscariot: Damned or Redeemed - A Critical Examination of the Portrayal of Judas in Jesus Films (1902-2014) (2016) Bloomsbury

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.