Mary (2024)

This is my fourth attempt at writing a review for Netflix's new film Mary (dir. D.J. Caruso), which is certainly far more attention than I'd planned on giving it originally. That's partially driven by my business in my day job -- not to mention the season -- but it's also because while I was not particularly taken by the film on my first viewing, it's become a little more interesting as I've grappled with how to write about it.

One of those questions is the team behind it. In many ways Mary is a bit of a left-field offering for Netflix. One critique of the film I read, said that Hollywood never does the Bible right. This surprised me, because even without having read much about it, it felt every inch like a Christian Bible movie. I've seen enough to know the signs. 

It turns out that this is essentially a faith-based film. The film names televangelist Joel Osteen as one of its executive producers as well as Adam W. Schindler, from the right-wing think-tank America First Policy Institute, as is its biblical scholar. Moreover, director D.J. Caruso's last film was another faith-based effort Shut In (2022) and before that he directed Redeeming Love (2020), the not-quite-modern-day adaptation of the Book of Hosea.

Yet Caruso is coming from a very different faith background to Osteen and Schindler. Caruso is a Roman Catholic, as he revealed in a fascinating interview with my friend Peter Chattaway. So while the film is essentially conservative, in that its presentation of Mary is unlikely to shock or surprise anyone, it doesn't feel like a right-wing evangelistic film.

Caruso's Catholic background is apparent right from the start as the film begins with the events surrounding Mary's birth. These episodes are not included in the canonical gospels, but do feature in the Protoevangelium of James (also known as the Infancy Gospel of James) from the second half of the 2nd-century AD. While the film doesn't overly dwell on this part of the story, it does include a number of its initial elements: Mary's parents are called Anne and Joachim; Joachim goes into the dessert while Anne prays for a child at home; an angel reveals that they will have a child; it's understood that there's something miraculous about the conception; then when she's young she is sent to the temple. 

From there things diverge and the focus moves to the palace of Herod the Great (Sir Antony Hopkins) while Mary grows up. Having snagged a major star like Hopkins, the screenplay gives him plenty of screen time, but it's clear that Caruso is unable to get the best out of him. The performance from the two-time Oscar winner is well below the level of everything else I've seen him do. It's tempting to blame his age, until you remember that he was nominated for an Oscar less than 4 years ago for his portrayal of Pope Benedict in The Two Popes (2020). 

Hopkins has long had an active Christian faith and taken many faith-related roles over the years from St Paul in Peter and Paul (1981) through to Methuselah in Noah (2014) and the recent Freud's Last Session (2023) where he played the titular psychoanalyst debating God's existence with a fledgling C.S. Lewis. Perhaps he was just too keen to accept the role he didn't vet it as well as he might have.

Certainly there are problems with the script. For one thing it seems to lack a sense of conviction, unusual for a Christian movie. I've always thought The Nativity Story (2006) tried to be three different kinds of film (a gritty coming of age drama at the start, a historical road movie adventure in the middle, and a traditional Christmas card schmaltz-fest at the end), but it certainly had no shortage of ideas or ambition. He's it's hard to work out what we should really care about.

I think that's partly because the film is far more interested in its male leads than in its eponymous hero.  Hopkins murders his way through wives, sons and workers, in order that we can be quite clear that him slaughtering of Bethlehem's innocents is very much consistent with his character. Joachim too gets far more developed than he has been in previous Nativity movies. But Mary, for all her screen time, feels rather underdeveloped. She takes in all the things happening around her, but is essentially a passive character. The subtlety of Noa Cohen's performance might be more revealing in the hands of a different director, but here any real sense of who Mary was is lost.

Yet while the film fails to really land Mary's character, it has a far more developed take on Joseph. For one thing it eschews almost all sense of him having second thoughts about marrying Mary and recreates him as someone who loves her completely from first sight. His character diverts significantly from his role in James, and to a lesser extent Matthew and Luke, but it does so in interesting ways, even if the scene where he thrusts a short sword into Lucifer's back, in a possible fantasy sequence, feels out of place. His unbridled devotion though, which plays as more than just strong teenage emotions, is quite a refreshing angle to look at things from.

The one female character who does get developed fairly well, at least far more significantly than in Luke chapter 2 is Anna, the female prophet who "never left the temple but worshipped night and day, fasting and praying" (Luke 2:37). Anna befriends Mary, when she first gets sent to the temple, and defends her later on when Mary's pregnancy is discovered later on. She appears as a mentor to Mary. The film also has Mary's mother and Elizabeth present at the birth, which was featured in the 2003 BBC documentary The Virgin Mary but not in any other onscreen depictions that I can recall.

Visually there's the occasional nice shot some of which reflect classical compositions and poses without feeling forced or sappy, but things feel a little too pristine and sterile at times as well. Moreover, as with most Netflix productions much of the quality props and sets are lost to the over-dark lighting. That doesn't appear to be a tribute to "O Little Town of Bethlehem" with its mention of "the dark streets", not least because the film's biggest failing is that it never fully manages to convey the "everlasting light" which will finally meet "hopes and fears of all the years". That is the real heart of the story, but it remains unignited here.With more heart, conviction and, above all, hope, Mary's flaws might have disappeared a little more into the background. Instead its notable elements are overshadowed and its blessings left unimparted.

Another Italian Nativity Film: Vangelo Secondo Maria (2023)

Over the years I've written about lots of Italian Bible films and quite a few Nativity films, indeed there's a special, and surprisingly large niche of Italian Nativity films, with one seeming to come along every few years most recently 2019's Il primo Natale (Once Upon a Time in Bethlehem) which went on to become that year's biggest grossing home-grown Italian movie at the box office.

Clearly, then there's a market -- in Italy at least -- for modern reworkings of the Nativity story and given the prominent role that Catholicism still has in Italian life it was only a matter of time before a new one came along. And so Sardinian director Paolo Zucca has adapted Barbara Alberti's controversial 1979 novel for Sky Cinema/Vision.

This time though it appears to be more of a dramatic re-telling than a comedy. From the looks of the trailer, and a few of the comments I have read about the film, Vangelo Secondo Maria will offer a more feminist take on the story (it came out in May in Italy) although it is naturally more conventional than Il primo's time travelling comedy.

The film stars Benedetta Porcaroli (above) as Mary, best known for the Netflix series Baby (2018-20) and the recent Sidney Sweeney nun-horror Immaculate (2024). Opposite her as Joseph will be Alessandro Gassmann (below), 33 years her senior, best known for . More pertinently, though, is the fact that he has already appeared in two other Italian Nativity films, Un bambino di nome Gesù (A Child Named Jesus, 1988) where he played the adult Jesus and Raffaele Mertes's La sacra famiglia (The Holy Family, 2006) where he also played Joseph. He had previously had a minor role in one of Mertes's other biblical TV movies Samson and Delilah (1996). So it's interesting to see him both play the father of a character he played a generation ago and to see him play the same character twice in otherwise unrelated movies. Also worth noting is Maurizio Lombardi who played Inspector Ravini so brilliantly in Netflix's recent Ripley remake.

The film's trailer came out 2 months ago and certainly gives the impression that it really wants to bring the story into the 21st century. For a start the camera work seems very contemporary with similar colour tones and lighting, and quirky camera angles, point of view shots that are more about conveying emotion than fact and some sequences that might be fantasy or might just be very outside of the typical telling of the nativity story. 

Then there's the music, which may be nothing to do with the film's final soundtrack, but it certainly conveys a contemporary feel, and the fact that it's sung by a woman adds to the impression that this will be a Mary-centred retelling. Lucia Tedesco puts it so nicely "Quello a cui noi assistiamo è la storia della vita di Maria dall’unico punto di vista di cui avremmo dovuto disporre, ovvero il punto di vista di Maria"(What we are witnessing is the story of Mary's life from the only point of view we should have had, that is, Mary's). That's something that comes across in the dialogue too. Right at the start Mary says "I don't want to get married" and cries that the law is made for men not women". Later on we just hear Mary's voice cry out "I'm challenging you to answer me".

But there's more to it than that. At one point Mary says "let's pretend that instead of husband and wife you're the teacher and I'm the student" and the following shots and dialogue suggest that Joseph takes her up on that and sets about equipping her, not only teaching her more about the law but also what looks like some kind of inner-life-focused martial art. And lastly there's the shot below which physicalises Mary in the viewer's eyes, even if not in Joseph's, and seems without precedent in a historical nativity film (as far as I can remember, at least, the only Mary film that shows something even vaguely equivalent is Godard's modernisation Hail Mary (1985).        

The title of the film of course seems like a nod to Italy's most famous and successful Jesus adaptation, Il Vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew, 1964) by Pier Paolo Pasolini. There wasn't anything immediately obvious from the trailer that seemed like a nod to Pasolini's film, aside from perhaps a certain fixity of the camera, but it will be interesting to see what else emerges if/when I ever get to see the final film. The other film that comes to mind is Giovanni Columbu’s Sardinian Jesus film Su Re (The King, 2012). 

The more fantastical elements of the trailer certainly seem like a significant departure from both Pasolini's and Columbu's approaches to the subject, although perhaps not out of keeping with some of his other work such as Il Decamerone (1970). I suppose one key indicator of this is the brief appearance of an angel (below), shot in side profile. Pasolini's angel was played by a young woman (Rossana di Rocco) who wore a simple white dress, but here the angel is played by a young man who has wings. This is a particularly interesting detail (to me, at least) because di Rocco did appear in a later Pasolini film dressed as an gel with wings, but here the character was a human dressing up as an angel. There's a sense that for Pasolini angel's wings were theatrical 

I don't want to speculate too much about the trailer. As most of the film is not there and some shots in trailers are sometimes absent from the final cut of the movie. There have been a number of reviews of the film. I won't go into them all, but a couple of things that caught my attention were as follows:

1. At one point in Sky Italia's own review they say "Tra riferimenti a Enki e Enlil, dei della mitologia mesopotamica" (between references to Enki and Enlil gods from the Mesopotamian myth). This caught my attention because I've been writing about those same myths in my work looking at Noah (Darren Aronofsky, 2014)

2.  Lucia Tedesco at Lost in Cinema also mentions that not only is the film shot in Sardinia but also that bits of the dialogue are in Sardinian as well. There are also significant spoilers in her review. She has an generally positive review of the film, as does Hynerd's (Eleonora Matta)

3. Alessio Accardo at Close-up Italia mentions director of photography Simone D'arcangelo and his love of  Andrei Tarkovsky, particularly Andrei Rublev. Despite the film that this film is in colour (as opposed to Rublev's black and white) I can certainly see the connection with some of Tarkovsky's other films.

I have no idea how I will get to see this film at the moment. I guess I'm hoping it will get a DVD release in time for Christmas, or at least be released to streaming.

Journey to Bethlehem (2023)

I was in the middle of teaching my "Italian [Cinema] for Beginners" course when I got to see this, which on top of various other commitments (such as the day job) all rather piled up. So unfortunately, now not only is it also several weeks after this film's limited cinematic run, but I'm still going to have to settle for an "initial impressions" type post rather than something approaching a proper review. Apologies, then, if my recollection is a little sketchy.

Journey to Bethlehem is the first Bible film to get a wide-ish release in the UK since I finished writing my book at the end of 2020. In that time The Chosen has taken over the world; its parent company Angel Studios have debuted a few other biblical films which have only really screened in the US; and Jeymes Samuel has debuted The Book of Clarence at London Film Festival, even though it doesn't go on general release until January. So it was nice to be in a cinema seeing any kind of Bible film, but particularly a Nativity-themed one as I've had a soft spot for them ever since having a chapter on recent incarnations published a few years ago.

Tonally, Journey to Bethlehem is very different from the most widely seen live action nativity movie, Catherine Hardwicke's 2006 The Nativity Story. The start of Hardwicke's movie tried to present an authentic context for the story: houses were ramshackle; clothing was plain and rough looking; the food and way of life appeared primitive. There was love, life and joy, though it's perhaps fair to say that Hardwicke's attention to detail did not always equate to historical accuracy, and that the movie strayed to become more schmaltzy as the film went on.

In contrast, Journey to Bethlehem directed by Adam Anders, wears its sense of razzle-dazzle on its sleeve right from the very start. Its a musical, released in the run up to Christmas. Why would we expect anything else? Any sense of painstakingly trying to recreate a credible version of the past is blown out of the water with an opening number brimming with bright colours, a burgeoning cast of singers and dancers, and swirling camerawork and choreography. This feels much closer to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) – an obvious point of comparison, I suppose – though more optimistic in tone. It's bold and full of energy and unafraid to break convention or to loose itself from the shackles of historical accuracy.

Yet for all that, Hardwicke's film certainly seems to have been an influence. Particularly in the early scenes, several of the shots and compositions echo Hardwicke's despite the sharp contrast in styles. Shots of Mary and her friends running in the open spaces around the village, or the lighting and tight compositions inside Mary's family home. Then there's both film's use of the Magi/wise men for comic relief. British viewers will enjoy seeing Omid Djalili (The Infidel) and Rizwan Manji (The Dictator) as Melchior and Gaspar respectively and they are funnier than their slightly lame counterparts in the earlier film. 

Another similar element to Hardwicke's film is the way it uses King Herod, played with great enthusiasm by a slightly over the top Antonio Banderas, this film's biggest star. In both movies he is set-up as the primary antagonist and features early in the film to add a sort of framing narrative to the events that will unfold.

The way that Herod relates to one of his sons is also similar. The historical Herod had at least nine sons and five daughters so it's striking that he's shown having such a close relationship with just one of them. Here the son is named as Antipater, Herod's first-born (known as Antipater II) who was one of three sons Herod had killed. Indeed, Antipater was executed for plotting to murder his father, the same year that Herod himself died, 4 B.C. – often seen as the latest viable date for the birth of Jesus.

While most of the characters are given significantly expanded roles from their counterparts in the Gospels, Antipater most benefits from this as his character is not even in the Bible. I can't help wondering if the use of the name Antipater is connected to one of Herod's more famous (surviving!) sons Antipas, who is the Herod who kills John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel and tries Jesus in Luke's Gospel. Is this possible conflation deliberate? Antipater here is played by Joel Smallbone, one half of Australian Christian pop duo For King + Country along with his brother, and starred as Xerxes in the 2013 film The Book of Esther.

All of which brings me onto some of the movie's possible musical influences. Antipater's solo "In My Blood" takes his rebellion against his father in a new direction as Antipater begins to realise what a tyrant his father is, and various comments on the song's YouTube video have noted the similarity in style to the US rock band Imagine Dragons. Elsewhere, even I noticed the similarity between Banderas' solo "Good to be King"and "El Tango de Roxanne" from Moulin Rouge (2001).¹

These points of comparison are hardly surprising. Anders made his name as a writer/producer for the music on High School Musical 3 (2008) and the TV series Glee (2009-2015) as well as working on films such as Hannah Montanna (20012) and Captain Underpants (2017). Indeed he has been nominated for for Grammy's for his work on Glee and other productions. So one would naturally expect  Journey to be very youth-orientated. It's both firmly in line with the modern pop-musical, created by an experienced practitioner, and family friendly as befits this kind of Christmas movie. At the same time the translation of that niche into a first-century climate in an arid climate leaves the lively, swirling choreography of "Mary's Getting Married" feeling as close to Bollywood as to Hollywood.

Interestingly, Anders also has Bible film credentials to his name having worked on both Evan Almighty (2009) and Son of Man (2014) and it's easy to draw the lines between these films – a contemporary take on one of the Bible's most famous stories and a evangelical attempt to retell the story of Jesus set in the first century – and see how he ended up making a film like this.

Yet Anders is not afraid to tear up the rule book, and he makes several bold decisions, most of which pay off.  The biggest example of this is perhaps the way the story is portrayed of one of attraction and love between Mary and Joseph. This is not exactly novel, but the relationship between the holy couple is most commonly portrayed as being driven by duty and faithfulness to God. Here it works, in no small part due to good performances between Fiona Palomo (Mary) and Milo Manheim (Joseph). There's great chemistry between the pair in the first scene where they meet. Both are unaware of who the other is. Joseph flirts. Mary rebuffs him on grounds of propriety, while still being a bit flirty in return. Incidentally, Manheim is Jewish and I can't help wondering if he is the first Jewish actor to play the role.

Another of Anders's bold decisions is his portrayal of the angel Gabriel, performed by Black rapper / singer Lecrae. Anders gives him piercing, azure blue eyes, white stripes of make-up on his face, and ditches the traditional white bed-sheet in favour of a costume that captures both ancient battle and modern glamour. The shoulders, chest and arms of Gabriel's garment is covered with glimmering metallic scales that both seem like armour and sequins. As scales they also seems reptilian a reminder that angels are not simply humans with wings, but something more, and that they have often been depicted very differently from humans, an idea at least flirted with in 2021's Midnight Mass.

This is also reinforced by the way Gabriel towers over Mary during the annunciation scene. While this is primarily due to Lecrae being 6'5" compared to Palomo's 5'3", the fact that the two occupy such different ends of the normal curve for human height gives the impression that he is significantly bigger than the human characters in general. Yet Manheim's Joseph is only two inches shorter than Lecrae and he never remotely seems to tower over Palomo's Mary in the same way. 

Another of Anders's interesting decisions is conflating the magi and the shepherds such that ultimately the wise men end up in the fields, along with (only a handful of) shepherds witness together the choir of angels arriving to announce Jesus' birth. There's a debate between some New Testament scholars at the moment as to whether Luke is unaware of Matthew's (magi-focused) version of the Nativity story , or whether he is an simply prefers, changes even, Matthew's version to his own with the shepherds. This choice was probably not inspired by that debate (more likely a way to include the shepherds without drawing focus from the magi), but it's interesting to see them combined (brought back together?) in this way.²

In the grand scheme of things, however, despite the number of changes to the original texts, I would argue they make little difference to the overall thrust of the story. Indeed while there are one or two interesting divergences, the majority come from translating a couple of ancient texts into a modern pop musical designed for a broad audience.

As such it makes for a pretty decent piece of entertainment that celebrates the story of the first Christmas and honours the original while repackaging it for a contemporary audience in a way that is rarely achieved. Strangely while I love the opening scenes of The Nativity Story, I think I prefer Journey to Bethlehem overall. At least I might find myself more likely to recommend it. Somehow the fact that it is more consistent makes all the difference. Adam Anders knows the kind of film he is trying to make, goes all out for it and delivers a far better movie than I was expecting. 

Indeed there's such an obvious sense of (if you'll pardon the pun) glee in Anders's handling of the material, particularly given the movie's high production values.³ It's his first feature film as director and his joy at being able to step out of others' shadows and make the film he wants to is palpable. You really get a sense of his love of colour, his costumes; the energetic way he moves and spins his camera to enhance the choreography, combining drone footage with zooms and pans and close-ups; the moments he stops to show off the landscapes of his chosen locations. This feels every inch like a labour of love and it's hard not to get caught up in such obvious enthusiasm. 

I'm intrigued to see how is received in the longer term. It's already made back its tiny budget,⁴ but largely passed under the radar first time around. However, word of mouth and the right streaming platform might make a major difference in years to come. Moreover, on the evidence here, Anders has great potential which might cause future fans to revisit it in years to come. I hope so. I think it does a great job of telling these pivotal and important stories in a way that will make them come alive for future (and present) generations.

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

1 - That said TikToker @montescreations also finds a similarity, a subversion even, of Albert Hay Malotte's "The Lord's Prayer".

2 - I'm largely persuaded by the Farrer theory, so think Luke knows Matthew, but not quite sure whether he's accessing a separate tradition or making radical changes to Matthew's.

3 - This despite a low budget, particularly for a historical movie, of just $6 million.

4 - As of today, thenumbers.com is reporting a $7,350,569 box-office take worldwide from that $6 million.

La Nativité (1910)

My final seasonal offering this Christmas is La Nativité (1910) seemingly released in some English speaking regions as Herod and the New Born King as seen in this advert which I believe was from 1910.¹. 1910 was in the middle of peak production of biblical movies (1908-13) and was one of at lease four biblical movies Gaumont was promoting at the time, with Louis Feuillade behind them all (available on YouTube).

Despite the film's greater focus on Herod and the magi, the action starts with the shepherds inside some kind of shelter. The absence of any scenes featuring Mary and Joseph before the day of Jesus' birth is notable. The shepherds appear bottom left of the screen with the camera peering over their shoulder to a black void beyond. To anyone familiar with this era of filmmaking it's obvious what happens next. It's unclear if this is a double exposure technique or back projection, but a single angel appears in the darkness. Here Feuillade's work is rather clumsy compared to some of the work his forbears have already produced by this stage. The shepherds hold their somewhat awkward-looking pose for what seems like an age. Then the angel appears. They briefly turn to face him/her, bow, and then reconvene, holding their pose for long enough for the original angel to be joined by the full choir. Once the heavenly host has departed, the shepherds leave the shelter by the same exit to the rear of the set.

Interestingly, a similar composition is adopted for the next shot. Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus appear cramped into the bottom left of the screen, with a view extending into the distance occupying the majority of the remaining space. I've seen various version of this scene that were recorded before this one, and in every other one I've seen up to this point the camera peers into the stable from the outside. Here however things are the other side the camera (and so, by extension, the audience) is inside the stable looking out into the night. Naturally the shepherds soon appear from the rear. It's notable that neither shot would work in a theatre - they only work from the specific vantage point of the camera, not the multiple viewpoints required for successful theatre composition. Even if Feuillade's compositions don't match the standard of his later work, the idea that he just arranges his scenes as if he were arranging a theatre set doesn't hold water.    

The version I saw runs to almost 14 minutes, but these two scenes with the shepherds occupy only three and a half minutes. As the alternative title suggests, the film's main concern is with the magi and King Herod. The next two shots cover the arrival of the magi, both outside and then inside Herod's palace. What's noticeable here is that one of the wise kings, presumably Balthazar, is played by a Black actor. I haven't researched extensively into who the first Black actor was - a cursory google suggest that a comedian called Stepin Fetchit (aka Lincoln Perry) was the first Black actor to receive a screen credit/earn $1 million but neither of these are the same thing, I'd be interested to know if anyone knows of an earlier actor from the African diaspora.

Oddly, in contrast to the use of this actor, Herod seems to be played by someone in brown make-up. I'm curious to know how this inconsistency arose. Using a Black actor in a positive role seems somewhat progressive, but the racist use of "brownface" undermines this. What, if anything, they were trying to convey?

One possibility is that it was a way of "othering" Herod. Herod's father was an Idumaean – a people from Edom, South-West of Jerusalem who had converted to Judaism during the Hasmonean period – and his mother was Nabataean (Arab) princess.  At the time of this production, though, Josephus' designation of Herod as an "Idumaen i.e. a half Jew" was seemingly how his background would have been understood. Perhaps this othering is intended not just to place a barrier between Herod and the audience, but also between him and the other Jewish characters (who are otherwise played by white actors). But given that the historical Herod would most likely be physically indistinguishable from the other Jewish characters the clear determination to mark him as different from them is strange.

Herod's throne room here is quite dramatically lit, in a fashion that Feuillade also used for the scenes inside Moses' house in L'Exode (1910). There, though, they suggested secrecy, as if the family might have been hiding from the Egyptians. Here, however, the darkness feels more like a moral judgement. 

The magi head to Bethlehem and  arrive at the grotto, shot from the same angle as before (pictured above). Next there's a cut back to the palace where Herod discusses the matter with his queen before calling three soldiers or perhaps advisers and instructing them to go to Bethlehem. The massacre scene is left off camera, as is Joseph's dream, so the next shot is simply Mary and Joseph walking quietly away from Jerusalem.   

The author of glowing review in the December 17th edition of Moving Picture World found the film's final scene – where Mary and Joseph rest in front of the Sphinx (still above) – as particularly striking, describing the 50 ft long shot as:

...a real master in every sense of the word. It would be impossible to find a more beautiful composition, with such admirable light effects and of such superior photography... this last scene is art, pure and simple and will remain engraved in the memory of every person lucky enough to have a chance to gaze upon it.

What I find more interesting is the fact that the composition of this scene matches that from the same scene in the earliest extant Jesus film La Vie et la passion de Jésus-Christ (1898). As far as I can make out it's not based on Doré or Tissot so it's possible that this shot is derived in some way from the 1898, though Merson's "Rest on the Flight into Egypt" seems more likely².

The MPW review also mentions a scene "Herod and the Woman" which does not seems to appear in the version available on YouTube unless the palace scene with his queen(my assumption) is intended. There are further reviews in the 1910 Moving Picture World including the December 31st edition (available here) which described it as follows:

An illustration of the first part of Chapter II of the Gospel of St. Matthew. No more beautiful and artistic film has been shown during the year. Every scene is a marvel of accurate representation. The scene which Hoffman has so graphically portrayed as the "Repose in Egypt," is one of the most impressive ever shown on a motion picture screen. It depicts the search of Herod for the new born King and details the flight into Egypt to escape his jealous rage. A reading of that chapter in the Bible will supply a synopsis more graphic and complete than any that could be written now. (view on IMDb)

Overall though the film is a bit of a disappointment. It's overly slow, not only by today's standards, but even compared to other biblical films of the time, and not in a contemplative way. Moreover it lacks the spark of Feuillade's other work even from the same year. Hard to believe that he was only three years away from the first instalments of Fantômas (1913-14). Without the action or novelty of many of the other films from biblical cinema's boom years it drags, even for those 14 short minutes. It's not bad, and short enough that it's not a bad option to drag out at Christmas and for those who are interested in Feuillade and his development as a director it's certainly worth watching. 

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

In addition to the version available on YouTube the film also appears as an extra feature in Kino's Fantômas Bluray set.

1 - I'm grateful to John Larsen for drawing my attention to the link between these two films. (If you haven't checked out his excellent website Between Movies, you really should. It looks like the add linked to actually came from 1910's Moving Picture News (not 1911 as stated in the tweet, though I have no idea how I got hold of it as the 1910 edition isn't in the MHDL archive). 

2 - I owe this observation to Twitter user @Zyber's post here.

The Chosen: The Messengers (2021)

Christmas with the Chosen opened to such demand earlier in the month that many theatres extended it's run. The show is now free-to-view on YouTube and the whole thing runs to 145 minutes including songs testimonies and mini-talks. Here, though, I'm going to focus on the final hour which is the dramatic presentation which The Chosen is known for, which has been given the title The Messengers. 

It's not the first time the show has tackled the Nativity story. While the birth and childhood narratives have barely featured in the programme's main series, the pilot (The Shepherd (2017) - my review) dealt with the story of the shepherds found in Luke's Gospel.

The Gospel of Luke is very much the focus of this new episode as well. The film opens in AD 48 as Tychicus smuggles Magdalene to a meeting with Jesus' mother. There Mary begins to recount the Nativity story from here angle so that Luke might include extra details amongst the "record of the stories" he is compiling.

However, the AD48 footage is intercut with that dated 4 BC, which opens with Mary and Joseph (Sara Anne and Raja Bond reprising their roles from The Shepherd) on the way to Bethlehem. Mary thanks him for going through with the marriage and they discuss the differences in what their messengers said to them. I like the scene where they arrive in Bethlehem and Joseph struggles to work out where to find his relative. Obviously he's been to Bethlehem before, but it was a long time ago and it is much busier this time. It's typical of the way The Chosen, at its best, makes its characters human and relatable.

The focus here, though, really is very much on Mary. While she more or less has the same screen time as Joseph in the scenes from 4 BC, the later footage clarifies that these are her reminiscences. The other factor pointing in that direction is what happens in the shots where Joseph is not present. Not only does she recite what was or will become scripture, but also it's those scenes which are the core of what she wants Luke to include in his account. 

There are a few things to unpack there. Firstly it's interesting to see Tychicus appear on film. He's a largely unknown name from the New Testament, but he is actually mentioned five times in both Acts and Paul's letters (Acts 20:4; Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:12 and Titus 3:12). They're all passing mentions, but together give a reasonable picture. He's from Asia and seems to work as one of Paul's messengers. 

This leads onto a second point about the identification of the "Messengers" of the title. This works at a number of levels. Perhaps the most obvious points of reference here are the accounts of an angel appearing both to Mary and separately to Joseph (in a dream). Mary and Joseph seem to have decided between them that these are different "Messengers". However, in the modern story, in addition to Tychicus the word messenger could also refer to 'Mother Mary' who is relaying her message; to Mary Magdalene who will convey to Luke; and of course to Luke himself who is writing a message to the world.

This dating of Luke's Gospel (during, or shortly after AD 48 ) is very early. Even most evangelical scholars would date it to the 60s AD and many would go past the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 towards the turn of the century. But AD 48 is even before the Council of Jerusalem, significantly before the "we" passages of Acts that many take to indicate Luke was an eye-witness of some of Paul's mission. Assuming Luke is also reliant on Mark, even the earliest dates for Mark's Gospel tend to be late 50s early 60s. 

Of course this is all, perhaps, missing the point. The most important function of citing AD 48 is to clarify the difference between these later scenes and those which are being recalled. Perhaps a later date might have been used (mid-60s), featuring an even older Mary, but that would then require this first hand testimony to be being given by a peasant woman around 80 years old, which would be stretching credibility in other ways.

It is an interesting conceit though because if the intention here is to shore up the reliability of this account ("OK Luke wasn't an eye-witness, but his account came directly from Jesus' mother") then why bring Magdalene and her perilous journey into play, particularly given that Mary also tells us that she has spoken to Luke directly before. Perhaps emphasising those previous meetings and Mary's direct testimony then is the point.

The crucial difference this time is not only that Mary is perhaps approaching her death, but also that she wants to ensure the words of the Magnificat are included in Luke's Gospel. I've mentioned before Peter Chattaway's observation that this is the first non word-for-word adaptation of Mary's story to feature the Magnificat in full. There are other potential details here that arguably Mary wants to see included – honouring the inn-keeper, the use of the manger, and the significance of the swaddling cloths – but these don't seem to carry the same weight: Mary explicitly instructs Magdalene to write down the words of the Magnificat. "These felt like God's words as much as my own".

In any case it's interesting that it posits a female source behind Luke's prologue, that at least parts of the Bible were written by women. Mary fully expects that Luke will take her contribution word-for-word and Magdalene writing it down marks a transition of sorts from oral tradition to a written source. 

This isn't the only occasion that the film quotes significant chunks of the Bible and I quite like the way it does this, adopting a variety of methods. For example, Mary casually refers to herself thinking deeply about things, a reference to Luke 2:19, a verse that I associate with my mother reading out for a Nativity tape we prepared for my grandparents when I was a child. Or how at their parting Mary blesses Magdalene with the benediction from Numbers 6:24-26. Other early church formulations pop up as well.

Perhaps the most striking use of the Bible, however, is earlier on when both past and future Mary recite words from  Psalm 63:1 at their differing moments in time.The sequence rifts on Pasolini's Il vangelo secondo Matteo  (1964) in a couple of ways. Rather than being all delivered in one shot, it's split between different scenes spliced together, in a similar-ish way to how Pasolini did with the Sermon on the Mount in his take on Matthew's Gospel. That seems less the idea on subsequent watches, but certainly it was my initial impression. Moreover, one of the scenes here reproduces the composition of the messenger's annunciation to Mary in the opening moments of Pasolini's film: Mary is shot from slightly below eye level and behind her a filled-in archway is shown.

Another interesting visual idea is that Joseph sees the angels visiting the shepherds in the distance before Mary has even given birth. The special effects are a little more fancier than they are in The Shepherd where the whole thing remains off screen, but the whole episode remains committed to the human emotions and interactions that are going on, rather than the more spectacular elements. 

I feel there are other little moments I'd like to explore – the way Magdalene writes on her lap (correct), whereas Luke uses a desk; the question as to whether Mary's writing is in Aramaic or Hebrew (anyone? [1:57:56] - it doesn't seem to be NT Greek); or whether the symbolism of the swaddling cloths was something the original audience would have understood – but I don't have time and am not sure it's of much interest to many.

Overall there are two things that the show does nicely. Firstly, it's a fond portrayal of that period so often explored by the creative Christian imagination: the pre-Gospels era of the early church. In reality so little is known about this time and this framing narrative is almost entirely the filmmakers invention (which is not a criticism,this is dramatic exploration and the film-makes make no grander claims for their work). Nevertheless, they make the frame at least as engaging and intriguing as the picture itself and they draw you into its world.

Secondly, its evident love of the Magnificat. It's not a passage that gets much love in the evangelical world, but it's a rare example from the Bible of a theological formulation placed on the lips of a woman. Prior to this I would probably have seen it as a later formation by the church prior to the Gospels being written, but the film makes a good case for this being something that gradually emerged from Mary as she explored her experiences. Initially just between her and God; so precious to her that it was a while before she could even share it with Joseph. Then something that it took years before she felt comfortable passing it on to others in the early church – not even sharing it with Luke when she told him the rest of her story.

For me I most associate the Magnificat with my Dad who used to belt out the Romer/Hillebrand version of the hymn with aplomb during my childhood. So in one show I find myself, twice, transported back to my childhood and my parents faith and the warmth and hope of the Christmas message. That's clearly just me, but it nonetheless seems to chime with the moments on which the film dwells. Mary and Joseph will soon flee for their lives; Magdalene already speaks of the church facing persecution; and the older Mary will die before too long. Yet, for now there's a focus on a baby and the hope his birth brings, not just for his parents, but for the whole world.

Il primo Natale (2019)[Once Upon a Time in Bethlehem]

In 2019 I had a chapter published on Nativity films. Last year I had a chapter published on Italian films, which was written and finalised in 2019. So naturally, right at the end of 2019, an Italian film was released about the Nativity which was reported to be Italy's highest grossing home grown film in for 2019. That film was Il primo Natale. It's taken me a couple of years to get hold of it and to find the time to review it, but now seemed like an appropriate time to finally rectify that (although I was originally hoping to post this before Christmas Day).

The film is the brainchild of Italian comedy duo Salvatore Ficarra and Valentino Picone, known as Ficarra and Picone, who wrote and directed the film as well as playing the lead roles of Salvo and Valentino respectively. The two are fairly well known in their native Italy, indeed a docu-series about them called Incastrati will be released on Netflix from 27th January. 

While the Italian title translates as The First Christmas it had a limited release in English-speaking regions under the snazzier title Once Upon a Time in Bethlehem, no doubt tugging its forelock towards Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and, of course, the original Once Upon a Time film Sergio Leone's spaghetti western C'era una volta il West, (Once Upon a Time in the West, 1968). 

The film follows the not unfamiliar trope of modern-day people transported back in time to observe/take part in past events, which has formed the backbone of shows like Quantum Leap (1989-93) and Timeless (2016-18), as well as being the plot for various episodes of Doctor Who (1963-), though it's been a feature of moving pictures since at least 1913's An Unsullied Shield. Back in 1967 one such time-travel show Time Tunnel covered the story of Joshua in an episode called The Walls of Jericho so Il Primo Natale is hardly the first time someone thought of doing this with biblical stories. 

Indeed various child-focused animated Bible series have done this as well, including both versions of Superbook (1981 & 2011) and Hannah Barbera's The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible (1985). But the only feature films I can think of that even come close to adopting this approach to the Bible is Wholly Moses! (1980) – where Dudley Moore's character finds a scroll recounting an alternative history of Moses and is then Moore plays a leading character in the story itself – and Year One (2009) where the two cavemen encounter Bronze Age Sodom. Neither film makes an explicit claim of time travel.

Here Salvo is a thief specialising in religious art and Valentino is a Catholic priest. When Salvo steals a valuable baby Jesus figure from Valentino's church, he gives chase and the two are magically transported back to Bethlehem just days before Jesus is due to be born. Figuring that Mary is probably best placed to perform the kind of miracle they need to return home they attempt to try and track her and Joseph down. Naturally this proves less than straightforward and there are cases of mistaken identity; zealot plots; a one-eyed blacksmith; and time spent enjoying Herod's 'hospitality' all providing humorous scenarios. 

Some of these moments work better than others. There's a good scene early on where the pair mistakenly wash their faces with the water their hosts use to wash the dust off their feet. Humour doesn't always translate across language barriers, but this was just one of several moments that I found  myself laughing at, and the comic potential of Ficarra & Picone is evident throughout.

What I find particularly telling is that the pacing and plot of the film work fairly well. Aside from romantic comedies, many comic films rely to heavily on a single joke, struggle to get away from the pacing and story arc length of the TV series from which they derive, or feel too much like a series of sketches stretched out. One of the reasons I think Life of Brian (1979) is Monty Python's most successful film is because it feels like it's a film with a proper plot, narrative, character arcs and structure rather than a series of (admittedly hilarious) sketches. While Il primo Natale is certainly not of that calibre, it's hangs together as a film, though I think it has one too many endings.

Moreover it also manages to be genuinely moving in places. Ficarra and Picone have bags of charm and chemistry and their double act serves the film well and the script manages to avoid being overly cynical or overly sentimental towards its subject matter. It's respectful of Mary, Joseph and Jesus while picking apart some of the more questionable traditions that have sprung up around them. Here, for example Joseph is beardless, much to everyone's surprise. Moreover, the film even manages to bring in some contemporary relevance.

In honesty I tend to avoid most modern Christmas films. The comic ones don't fit my sense of humour: The romantic ones seem overly cloying, or manipulative (do not get me started on Love Actually). So while it's not particularly special, it certainly struck a chord with me. I can understand why Italian audiences went for it at the box office and I can well imagine watching it over future Christmas holidays. It's a decent enough, light-hearted consideration of the Nativity which doesn't trample down its subject matter in order to elevate itself. That's a difficult balance to strike so whilst it's not exactly a Christmas miracle, I hope it finds a wider audience.

The Chosen: The Shepherd (2017)

According to Peter Chattaway, a special cinematic episode of The Chosen was the highest ranking new release at the American box office last weekend. Christmas with The Chosen: The Messengers charted 4th in the overall box office, but the top 3 were all new releases. Given the series' unusual distribution method, that's not just news for Bible film fans, but also for those tracking the changing relationship between streaming and cinemas.

Sadly, it's not screening in the UK and I don't appear to be on the publicist's radar, so I thought I would continue my series on The Chosen by reviewing the show's pilot, which was also about the Nativity. As Peter discussed in an interview with the series' producer Derral Eves, while both instalments cover the original Christmas story, they do so from different angles meaning neither steps on the other's turf. From the look of the trailer, this 5-minute clip and Peter's review, the new film will be much more focused on Mary and Joseph, and (presumably) the angels that appeared to them.

But as the title of The Shepherd (2019) suggests, the pilot primarily revolves around one of the shepherds who goes to visit Jesus and interestingly while "The Messengers" are the titular characters in the new film, they are not even seen on screen in this one. Given that the film was working on a very low budget that was probably a decision made for budgetary reasons more than artistic ones, but it works well. For me, angelic appearances, be they from The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1907), The Nativity Story (2006) or even Netflix's Midnight Mass (2021), never really work. Aside from the sheer over-literalness of them, they also bypass the imagination, and the viewer then has a brief moment to focuses intensely on the film-makers' visual interpretation, before the angels disappear again. 

So The Shepherd's approach, which is similar to that of other Jesus series such as 1977's Jesus of Nazareth, is to shine a light on the faces of those receiving the message, but to keep the angels themselves off camera. It works well artistically, keeping the focus on the shepherds and their reactions. Moreover the actual words the angel(s) speak(s) are inaudible. This actually nicely encapsulates the film's overall approach. Much of the central focus of the biblical account, and particularly the words that are spoken, are moved to one side. Instead the focus is on the wider context. Likewise Luke's words which set the context for his gospel, are replaced by the filmmakers own textual introduction

Given that so far I've only seen two episodes of the series and this pilot (not to mention that there is a whole third series coming which nobody has seen yet), I'm a little cautious about extending my observations. Nevertheless this seems like it sums up the series (so far). The Chosen is about providing a a broader, or palpable context for the Gospels. It will be interesting to see how this extends as Jesus' role becomes more significant. It could also make for an interesting comparison with the Brazilian telenovelas, also the product of evangelical filmmakers, and also adding a lot of additional context around the original stories).

The angels sequence doesn't occur until the halfway point of this twenty-four minute episode. The initial focus is on the eponymous shepherd (Simōn), who appears to have reduced mobility in his left leg. He and his colleagues are heading towards Bethlehem. The film cuts towards an interior of a synagogue where a service is taking place and eventually it becomes clear that these men are not only absent from the service, but unwelcome.

This also brings out another theme that seems to be a feature of the series – the opposition between establishment or official Judaism, perhaps we could even read mainstream Judaism, and the Jesus movement. Naturally, the words being read from the scriptures are Micah 5:2-4 "But you Bethlehem... from you shall come forth one who will be ruler over Israel". 

This theme is also developed in a parallel, intercut, scene. Arriving in the village, Simōn approaches a pharisee (or at least a man dressed as pharisees tend to be in Jesus films) who seems to be buying spotless" lambs for sacrifice. The shepherd calls him teacher, quizzes him about the messiah and even challenges his answer about the messiah being "a great military leader" by citing another scholar. The 'pharisee' is outraged at his audacity and sends him on his way.*

Simōn's shepherd colleagues leave him behind meanwhile the readings inside the synagogue have moved onto Isaiah 9:2 "he people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light". (This does make me wonder what he's missing. Is there a Christingle service going on in there?) The shepherd pokes his head through the door but is shoo-ed away before he can find out.

But then just as he leaves he meets Mary on a donkey, and Joseph. he gives them directions to a well and, Ben-Hur style he offers them a swig from his canteen. Joseph asks about accommodation and mentions that they are from Nazareth. Simōn starts replying with "You know they say 'Nothing good can come from...'" but Joseph interrupts abruptly with "I know what they say about Nazareth". 

It's a nice scene, built on the foundations of  all those 'coincidental' meetings from so many biblical films in the past, a good way to ensure the film remains Simōn's story, told from his perspective, but also to showcase what the film-makers can do with the biblical characters. Again it's this pattern of liberating them from the biblical text to make them more rounded, but necessarily therefore more 'fictional', characters.

There follows a montage of sorts with Simōn making his own way back to camp accompanied by prophetic scriptures from the synagogue still ringing out; while his colleagues laugh and joke by a fire. Again it's providing this wider context for the story. Indeed, there's essentially a 'world building' that is at the core of The Chosen which greatly expands on a context for the Gospels, without featuring much of the biblical text, (though Peter notes that the new film is the first Jesus film – aside from the 1979 word-for-word version of Luke – to actually include all of the text of the Magnificat).

Given the focus on Simōn it's surprising that when the angels finally appear, they appear more to his three colleagues than Simōn himself. Whereas they stand in the blinding glow of the light, he is apparently further away. He still seems to hear and understand, but without the full visitation experience. Perhaps this is meant to signify that his meeting with Mary and Joseph was of greater significance, or that he possessed such inherent true faith that he did not need to see a flashy miracle. Either way as he starts running to the stable, his leg is healed and he discards his crutch.

The scene inside the stable is largely wordless and, but for the over-use of slow motion, fairly brief, but as the shepherds depart we do see something that is relatively rare even in Nativity films – the shepherds telling other people in the village about their experience, including a Roman soldier. This is accompanied by a voice-over reciting Isaiah 9:6-7 ("Unto us a child is born...").

However, there's a final encounter with the marketplace pharisee from earlier who asks Simōn is he has "found a spotless lamb for sacrifice". Of course, this is meant to be ironic because Simōn has just "found" Jesus, the sacrificial lamb of God (geddit?). Simōn thinks about it, smiles to himself (as if he understands the scriptwriters joke) and there's a cut to black for the end of the show, which I kind of like.

It's a brief vignette, yet one which even at under 19 minutes feels a little bit stretched out. Given the short amount of material that is being adapted it could have been shorter and taughter, but that doesn't detract from fairly good production values, some nice compositions, and a good central performance. And the writer, director and actor work well together to produce a fairly well rounded character. As a first look of The Chosen, it's not a bad introduction and quite a good way to taek15-20 minutes out to think about the original Christmas story and it's interesting too to see how much things move on between this and the first episode proper of the series.

Nit-picker's Corner

These are some details for my fellow pedants, but I don't consider them to have the same importance with the above...

As with the first episode there's an opening series of titles which here assert that this is "based on the true story from Luke's Gospel". I discussed my thoughts on that in my coverage of the first episode, but here it also adds that "the prophets of Israel had been silent for 400 years". That number is oddly specific for something that is so debatable. Israel (as opposed to Judah) had been disbanded following Tiglath-Pilesar's sacking of the kingdom around 722BC. Judah's prophet's continued and Malachi is usually dated to the decades before 400BC, but many scholars date the book of the prophet Daniel to much, much later (around 150BC). That's not a popular view in the evangelical world from which this film has arisen, but even in those circles it is voiced occasionally.

The prophecies whispered of a coming messiah who would save God's people

*I find this scene problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly ever since reading Katie Turner's thesis about costumes in Jesus films I find the ahistorical visual othering of the pharisees even more troubling than I did before. But this is a low budget production so it's perhaps unrealistic to expect it to do anything beyond mirroring the conventions of the genre. Secondly if this man is a pharisee why is he not only absent from synagogue, but working on the Sabbath? And I'm curious as to how this market location in Bethlehem relates to the site of animal sacrifice in Jerusalem. I imagine that if the numbers of sheep used in the temple were considerable they would have had to be sourced from further afield, but then the pharisee would then surely need someone to help him get them there, such as, well, a shepherd. Lastly, based on my limited understanding, the kind of back-and-forth debate the shepherd attempts to engage in is a common Jewish approach to the scriptures, so it seems odd that the pharisee would be outraged. But perhaps this is the film-makers point, that Judaism in Jesus' time had lost its way.

Like I say these are minor thoughts that come to me, not really substantial criticisms of the film, but I know they will be of interest to some people who read this blog so I thought I may as well share them.

The Nativity (1952)(aka The Play of the Nativity of the Child Jesus)

Those who follow me on Twitter will know that I have been running a Nativity Film Advent Calendar but there's one film that I have owned for about a decade yet have only just seen. Marketed as The Nativity and available on DVD via various Mill Creek collections, I'd always thought it was something akin to a Christmas special for the Living Bible series. As it happens though it's nothing of the sort.

The production is a made for television Christmas special for Westinghouse Studio One that originally aired on CBS on December 22 1952. Both of the copies I have are even accompanied by Westinghouse's adverts for their own products - themselves historical artefacts, not least because for this exceptional production they have chosen to bookend the film with them, thus leaving the main performance unsullied by commercials. It's also interesting though to hear the technical descriptions of problems viewers might be having with their earlier and/or inferior TV sets which could be remediated by them switching to a Westinghouse one.

Anyway, the production itself is not so much a TV film as the filmed performance of the medieval style mystery play. The opening titles cite the 14th and 15th century mystery plays of York and Chester, even apologising for the use of archaic language. It's unclear who has welded together these plays, whether this is the work of a much older writer, or whether it's simply that a modern screenwriter has selected the both of them. Certainly the fact that the rhyming patterns seem to vary throughout the production suggest some kind of blending of these two traditions.

The film is shot in black and white and the dialogue is accompanied by the Robert Shaw Chorale performing ancient carols and choral music in a wonderfully evocative fashion. The combination of the archaic dialogue and the music really conjures the atmosphere of the latest iteration of a long running and much cherished tradition. This is enhanced by the high contrast lighting. The shots seem to exist largely in darkness punctuated only by the occasional shafts of light. Silhouetted figures are everywhere. It's no doubt a technique borrowed from film noir - shroud the cheap sets in darkness, and not only do you avoid the impression of cheapness, but you also lend a great deal of atmosphere.

As ought to be expected the plot plays it fairly straight. Mary hears she is to have God's child and heads to Bethlehem with Joseph. Angels visit the shepherds in the fields. Three kings arrive in Judea from afar and whilst they stop at Herod's palace for directions, Mary has her child. The shepherd's arrive, followed by the kings, before both the latter and Joseph himself hear God tell them of the threat to Jesus's life.

What's interesting is where the elaboration in the text lies compared to more modern productions. The discussions and inner lives of Mary and Joseph seem of little consequence, but eloquent verses of poetic praise usher forth from the mouths of the magi, yet somehow this does not feel out of place.

In a year where I've watched numerous Straub-Huillet films and read and thought a great deal about their concerns with multiple layers of history and the rigorous adaptation of poetry/prose this feels strangely fitting. I don't know of a link between Huillet/Straub and this production's director Franklin Shaffner (who would go on to direct Planet of the Apes (1968) and win an Oscar for his direction of Patton to years later, but the slow long-takes, relying on gradual zooms and pans rather than editing feels reminiscent and perhaps goes back to Bresson and beyond. It's a shame the transfer is rather poor, because I suspect a proper restoration, with sharp images accompanied by crisp sound, might really be something.

Prior to this Shaffner had already completed a drama called Pontius Pilate (1952) for Westinghouse, which usually appears in the same collections as this programme, so I will have to review that one in the run up to Easter. There's nothing in the synopsis on the back of the DVD to suggest it is also based on 15th century texts, but who knows...

Per amore solo per amore (1993)

Giovanni Veronesi's Per amore, solo per amore (For Love, Only for Love, 1993) is probably best known for featuring a young Penelope Cruz as the Virgin Mary. Yet Cruz is not the only actress to play Mary in the film as it starts while she is barely more than a toddler. This enables the film to focus more on Mary and Joseph than about Jesus, per se, whilst deftly avoiding the question of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Nevertheless, it is the film's portrayal of Joseph that has drawn accusations of blasphemy, though it hardly faced the degree of outrage that films such as Hail Mary (1985) and Last Temptation of Christ (1988) experienced.

Whilst Maria/Mary starts the film as a little girl, Giuseppe/Joseph is already in his thirties. It's often said that Mary was quite possibly only around thirteen at the time Jesus was conceived. In contrast, Roman Catholic tradition, seeking to uphold belief in Mary's perpetual virginity despite the Bible talking about Jesus's brothers and sisters, has often argued that before his betrothal to Mary, Joseph had already been married, fathered children and been widowed, making him already well into adulthood. Whilst the idea of a middle aged man marrying a thirteen year old seems uncomfortable to us, this has been culturally acceptable in many cultures over the centuries. Personally speaking that makes me uncomfortable enough, and by portraying much as significantly young still when she first meets and is, in some way attracted to Joseph only increases the unease.

The area of contention is more concerning Joseph's behaviour at the start of the film. When he encounters a thief, Socrates, stealing his water, he initially reacts threateningly, but then takes him in, and the two become life-long friends. Shortly afterwards, Joseph arrives in the village during a stoning, shot, initially, rather strikingly, with a point of view shot from the victim's perspective. In addition to linking with the story of Joseph's son preventing such a stoning later in his life, this device strongly places the viewer on the side of the victim, such that even though she dies, Joseph's attempts at intervention clearly marks him as on the same (moral) side as the audience.

Shortly afterwards, however, other aspects of Joseph character begin to be revealed. He instantly strikes up a friendship with the young Mary for example, but he also repeatedly visits a prostitute in the village and gets drunk, behaviour in sharp contrast with his traditional image of moral uprightness. Joseph's liberalism clashes with that of the local religious leader, Cleofa, who, in the clumsy assignment of modern categories has a more culturally conservative perspective. It is he who upholds the mob's right to stone an adulteress, yet he also opposes Joseph's behaviour. In an early twist (it's been 25+ years) it turns out that Cleofa is Mary's father, setting the stage nicely for changing attitudes as both men move more towards the positive middle ground between them..

These establishing scenes occupy the first third of the film, and the film then changes gear as the we leap forward in time and Cruz is introduced as Maria for the first time. It's has clearly been a while since they have seen each other and the wordless alternating point of view one-shots as they are reunited suggest the two simultaneously falling for each other at 'first' sight. There's a lengthy working-out of these feelings however including, Joseph chasing through back streets just to catch another glimpse of Mary, an unusual communal gathering that seems part way between a speed-dating event and a meat market and Joseph wrestling with another would-be suitor of Mary's until he passes out. Eventually, though Joseph makes a big romantic proposal, she accepts, and then he and Mary's father come to an agreement over her dowry

But then Mary leaves town suddenly and unexpectedly. Because this film is from Joseph's point of view both he and the audience are left in the dark. It gradually occurs to us what has happened because we know the story, but Joseph knows nothing until Mary's father arrives at Joseph's house one night to return the bride-price. Joseph is distraught. What's interesting that we never see the annunciation, with or without an angel, but neither does anyone seem to blame Joseph for the pregnancy (though I might have missed something in the Italian). Eventually, after Joseph decides to continue with the marriage Mary tells him about the message from the angel, but we only experience it as he does. We the audience have to take her word for it just as he does. Just as he's getting used to that he find out that they will also not be consummating the marriage. This is also worked out very much of his point of view. We witness his desire for his wife, and him struggling to come to terms with that. More drunkenness.

By the time it comes to the biblical part of the story in the final third, the film has reconciled itself to a more conventional ending. Nevertheless, there are a few interesting flourishes. For a start, Socrates accompanies Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There's also a moment when the three of them encounter crucifixions on the road to Bethlehem, with people stoning those on the crosses. This pairs with the earlier stoning scene and of course the future crucifixion of Mary and Joseph's son and perhaps highlights the link between the people attempting to stone women also being complicit in Jesus's death at the hands of the Romans.

Another unusual touch is the location for the birth, which takes place under a natural shelter/open cave rather than in a more 'conventional' stable. In particular it's notable that there is no visits from shepherds or wise men, but a sizeable crowd do arrive to gaze at the new baby. And then the family move on with the film mainly having finished.

First, however, there's a final epilogue, which the film changes to eight years later (from the twelve in P.F.Campanile's source novel). Mary and Joseph and his old friend Socrates are reunited just as Joseph's life is coming to an end. There's a final conversation between the two men, most of which was lost on me, but what is significant is that we see, more or less simultaneously, Socrates washing Jesus' feet, and Mary's feet being washed by her, now, eight year old son. I think there's perhaps an implication here that whilst Joseph has not witnessed angels as Mary has, that nevertheless his own silent guardian (God-figure?) has been with him all along. Certainly this explains how it is that Socrates provides the film's voice over, even though he loses the power of speech very early in the film.

It's frustrating for me that my listening skills in Italian are still rather poor because I'm fairly sure there is plenty that I am missing. What's clear however is that the film attempts to go beyond the rather limited character of Joseph we find in the Gospels (where he is not much more than a re-embodiment of his dream-responsive, Old Testament namesake) and indeed the saint of church tradition. Whilst some will object to the more unholy elements of that portrayal it's nevertheless an interesting attempt to meld some of the things we do know about that culture with modern notions of love, morality and faithfulness. It avoids being twee without feeling the need to be gritty and there are some nice shots of the Tunisian desert which make the most of the advantages of the widescreen aspect ratio.

A Child Called Jesus (1987)

To those of us used to modern biographies, the paucity of information about the first thirty or so years of Jesus' life seems rather strange. Only half the gospels even mention his birth, and only one mentions any incident that happens to him between infancy and the start of his ministry. At least some of our ancestors shared our bemusement at this. Additional, non-canonical writings spring up in the following centuries such as The Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Protevangelium of James which different parts of the church treat with varying level of respect or scepticism.

It's proved a more fertile subject for recent artists too. In the US, 2016's The Young Messiah was itself an adaptation of Anne Rice's earlier "Christ the Lord" series of novels, whilst other films such as Jesus (1999) and La sacra famiglia (The Holy Family, 2006) have also sought to fill some of these puzzling silences.

Perhaps the most significant of the 'recent' films to explore this period in Jesus' life is the 1987 mini-series A Child Called Jesus (Un bambino nome Gesù). An Italian and American co-production it follows a common practice of dubbing sound back onto the visual footage back in the studio, meaning the American version was dubbed, and not particularly brilliantly. It makes it hard to find a version in better (but still not perfectly) dubbed Italian with subtitles.

The film starts dramatically in Bethlehem, moments before Herod's soldiers arrive. The film's first words are literally Joseph being told to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt, and in following scene we see an almost distressing pallid Herod being dipped into and out of a huge bath of Arabian mud, fearing the prophecy from Micah 5:2 about a ruler coming from Bethlehem, despite the slaughter he has carried out seeking to prevent it.

There's a jump forward seven years, but whereas Young Messiah chose around this time to send Jesus and his parents back from Egypt to Galilee, here we find that they have not yet even properly reached Egypt yet, instead they have built a new life in a town on the border between Egypt and what a subtitle calls "Palestine". Director Franco Rossi (who also directed RAI's version of Quo Vadis? two years earlier) captures the uneasy feel of a border town, not least in a scene where a rebel zealot seems to be grooming child soldiers to fight the Romans).

The comparatively safe life Jesus' family have found there though is about to come to an end, however. Unfortunately a fictional character called Sefir (though he sometimes calls himself Nathan Ben Joab) is pleased to have finally tracked them down. Sefir, who is played by Pierre Clémenti, who once had the role of Jesus himself in Philippe Garrel's Le lit de la Vierge (The Virgin's Bed, 1969), claims variously to be Syrian, or from Qumran, or perhaps to have been one of the original battalion of soldiers that Herod dispatched to Bethlehem.

Whatever his origins, he is determined to catch up with Jesus and his parents and finish what he started 7 years ago. Firstly he builds an alliance with a Roman commander called Titus Rufus. Then he employs a killer called Chela, who turns up dead when his attempt to bury Jesus under an avalanche of rock fails. Jesus, it is implied, only survives because of his mother's desperate prayers for him. Sefir tries to blame Joseph, but I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that this isn't true. For Joseph this is the clear sign of the need for decisive action. Despite recently accepting a lucrative contract making some benches for the local synagogue, he decides to take his family properly into Egypt, to Alexandria.

It's around this point that we begin to see the first of a number of surprising flashes forward to events during Jesus' ministry. Though it's a little unclear at first as to what exactly Jesus is witnessing these echoes from the future, it gradually that he is experiencing these visions, even if he doesn't know that he himself is the character appearing in them. The first time it's Jesus' question to the disciples "Who do you say that I am"?, but later we will get flashes of his healing Jairus' daughter, the miraculous catch of fish, the Wedding at Cana, Gethsemane and finally his burial. There are also a few indications that some of his later teaching imagery was picked up during his childhood (when a shepherd tells him of his willingness to leave the 99 sheep to find the lost one, for example).

The other element of Jesus ministry that is foreshadowed here is his supposed rejection of some of the established areas of Jewish practice. At one point surprised at the complexities of lighting a lamp in the correct way he says "If lighting a lamp is complicated it would be easier if people would sit under the moon". Shortly afterwards we see him sizing up a money-changer, as if already wise to the possibility that he might be shortchanging his customers. Most strikingly, when Joseph suggests buying a dove to sacrifice in the temple Jesus objects, saying "but doesn't Almighty God prefer to hear his birds alive, greeting the morning?" What's clear is that Jesus is a strongly opinionated child, who, at least initially, his mother is finds a little troublesome. Gradually through the course of the film she stops chiding him and starts listening and respecting him.

Much of this could be seen as anti-Judaism, yet the film is very clear about Jesus' Jewishness. As well as constantly showing Jesus, Joseph and Mary in and out of synagogues and temples, essential connections between his family and the other Jews are made in every community they encounter. At one point we see a Jewish religious meeting and witness a reading of the Ecclesiastes 3 passage about the passing of time. Particularly surprising is the scenes where the Holy Family join in with the Feast of the Tabernacles.

In addition to portraying various Jewish rituals, it also evokes some early Christian, but not biblical, texts as well, most notably an incident found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas where Jesus creates a bird out of the clay. It's not Jesus' only miracle, however, in another scene, towards the end of the film where Jesus himself is just starting to become aware of his powers, we see him heal a female leper. There's even a suggestion that after Jesus and Mary have been separated from Joseph, after he is thought to have been killed in a fire, that Jesus is involved in reuniting them.

If the dubbing is the worst element of the film then its visuals are certainly the best, even on the somewhat blurry/grainy copy on DVD. Rossi's camera frames the natural beauty of the locations beautifully, even in its native narrowscreen. It helps of course using some of the same locations as Rossellini used in Il Messia (1975).

Whilst his interiors are a little less striking there are still some nice looking shots, not least the views of the desert and the film's stunning visual climax. But Rossi also utilises several nice motifs such as using background objects to create halos at various points. Another of his motifs is framing eyes behind/through wooden lattices. This device is used several times, especially of Mary. It's something that could be interpreted almost romantically, an observation my friend Peter Chattaway makes regarding similar framing in The Passion of the Christ (2004).

However, it's notable that eyes are mentioned a few other times as well. One particularly notable incident hears one of the adults asks Jesus not to look at him with his "puppy dog eyes". In some ways I can't help but wonder if this is a retort to another Italian Jesus-film-maker called Franco. Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) was famous for Robert Powell's azure, unblinking eyes. Here Rossi voices the concern that eyes can have influential power, though it also enables those feeling its pull to escape them. Perhaps most significant, given the prevalence of eyes in this film are the only words I recall the boy Jesus speaking that are recognisable from the Gospels. Towards the end of the film, Jesus speaks from Matt 6:22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light".

Ultimately, of course, Jesus, Mary and Joseph are all united and end up back in Nazareth. That's not so much a spoiler as to say simply that whilst the film is almost entirely invention, it does not contradict the specific things the Bible does say about Jesus' childhood. Jesus and his family return home with plenty of time before Jesus gets lost in Jerusalem. It must have been tempting to include that story in this film, but it's to the film's credit that it has strong enough convictions about what it is trying to do that it avoids it. It's perhaps a little overlong and you have to put up with the dubbing, but it poses some interesting questions and serves up some great images as well.