Why didn’t Jesus have any female Apostles? Well, he kinda did, in Mary Magdalene — technically, Mary of Magdala, the small village in Galilee she was from (maybe); or Mary the Magdalene — who in the contradictory books of the New Testament is either the only person to witness or one of a group of women to witness Jesus’ resurrection. So, why isn’t there a Gospel of Mary? Well, there kinda is, though it was only rediscovered in the late 19th century and is considered to belong to the Apocrypha, and not part of the accepted canon of the Bible. So why wasn’t Mary’s testimony considered appropriate to be included in the “official” Scriptures from way back when?
Well, she was a woman, wasn’t she, and what do women know? What are women even for? Medieval scholars declared that surely Mary was a prostitute — 2016’s Biblical drama Risen perpetuated this notion — making the Bible cultural ground zero for the horrific “Madonna-whore” dichotomy to describe women. More recent, and kinder, approaches to Mary Magdalene have decided that maybe she was instead Jesus’ wife and the mother of his children… but this really isn’t much better: If she’s not a prostitute, she must be a wife? Argh.
All of that misogynistic crap gets thrown away in the fiercely feminist and proudly revisionist Mary Magdalene, which reimagines Mary (a glorious Rooney Mara: Kubo and the Two Strings, Carol) as a woman who cannot make herself fit into the expectations that constrain her gender: she “shames” her family by refusing to marry the man they’ve picked out for her; she has “longings” and “unhappiness” that she cannot even identify. She is suffering from a Roman-era feminine mystique… and she finds meaning and purpose, quite unexpectedly even to herself, as a follower of that charismatic preacher who’s been roaming the land (Joaquin Phoenix [Irrational Man, Her], who might be my favorite onscreen Jesus ever). Forget that junk in the Bible about Mary being possessed by demons that Jesus cast out of her: that nonsense gets treated here with the same disdain that all diagnoses of women as “crazy” or “evil” for refusing to be demeaned and diminished warrant. It’s gently done, though: “There are no demons here,” Jesus soothingly reassures Mary; there’s nothing wrong with her. It is, we are given to presume, the first time a man has treated her with the same empathy and kindness we have seen her be free with toward others.
With his second feature — his first was the wonderful Lion — director Garth Davis offers not only a rare woman’s perspective on the Jesus story, but a very humanist, very grounded take on it as well. This feels like a realistic depiction of the first-century Middle East, and its people (including Jesus) feel like real flesh-and-blood people: they are warm and cruel, funny and mean, complicated and contradictory. The script by Helen Edmundson (her feature debut) and Philippa Goslett (Little Ashes), lends no sense of grand portent to the story: no one here has any idea that the future is watching, which is as it should be yet isn’t a quality that most Bible movies embrace. (The name “Jesus” isn’t even mentioned at all until quite far into the film, long after we’ve actually met him, when Mary does. He’s merely “the healer” or “the rabbi.” We understand why so many people are in love with him, but it’s not because of the dogwhistle his name has become today.) With gorgeous, luminous cinematography by Greig Fraser (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Foxcatcher) and terrific performances all around — the cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor (Doctor Strange, Triple 9) as Peter and Tahar Rahim (Grand Central, The Past) as Judas — this can be seen as simply a historical drama, one that is enrapturingly beautiful and intensely emotional. The very few scenes that could be said to depict “miracles” don’t necessarily have to be seen as anything supernatural: they could be metaphors or even misinterpretations of naturalistic events. Mary Magdalene is so far from the cheesy panto that Bible movies typically are that it doesn’t deserve to be classed with the rest of them.
That said, Mary Magdalene also offers a powerful and much-needed rebuke to how modern Christianity has strayed far from the messages of its roots. Whether you’re a believer or not — and I certainly am not — there is no denying that the story of Jesus is a foundational one for our culture, one that has had and continues to have an enormous impact on all of us, of all faiths and of none. And the way it is being used today, especially but not only in America, as a way to bully and shame, as a stamp of approval to get rich and ignore the poor– oof. It’s not only that the Jesus of this movie — a rabble-rousing, anti-establishment hippie — would not approve, though he wouldn’t. Mary Magdalene also suggests that because Mary’s gospel was sidelined — oh, how Peter here scoffs at her presence among the Apostles, at her influence on Jesus, on her audacity to contradict Peter’s way of carrying on Jesus’ teachings — Christianity went down a twisted path that Jesus absolutely did not intend, and would not like. Mary — a woman! — was a true prophet of Jesus, Mary Magdalene would like us to know. Maybe the only one.
The compassion, the empathy, the kindness on display here, a sort of ongoing conversation between Mary and Jesus and spreading outward from there, is intensely moving. For the first time ever, I believed in Jesus. Only onscreen, and only like I believe in Frodo and Luke Skywalker and Captain America, but still.
Wow. This sounds like all kinds of wonderful. As an atheist — and someone who’s always believed that the historical Jesus would be appalled at what’s been done in his name — I’m absolutely eager to see this.
If the film treats its story as a realistic, historical drama with “real flesh-and-blood people,” rather than heightened myth, then I wish they’d cast Middle Eastern actors. Though I’m sure Mara, Phoenix, and Ejiofor give great performances.
The TWC situation sucks. Hope it gets resolved soon and the movie finds its way here, before President Pence establishes the Department of Christian Culture and its film approval division.
Yes, that might have been nice.
I am not sure what you mean here. The disciples seemed pretty mixed race to me, including two black ones. I did not have a problem with this personally, as Jesus’ message was for all races.
Then they could have cast a Middle Eastern actor as Jesus.
You’re a moron. How the fuck can you call yourself a film critic when your criticism boils down to: they should’ve had middle eastern actors. I don’t care how, where or when, just GET SOME DAMN MIDDLE EASTERNS IN THERE, CAUSE I’M A WHITE WOMAN AND DAMN IT I’M GUILTY!!! You poor, poor, pathetic excuse for a critic.
You might want to read her review—which barely mentions the nationality of the actors—rather than just responding to one or two sentences in the comment section.
But that would be more difficult than basic pattern recognition and prepared response.
You seem great.
Citations needed.
As others have pointed out: you clearly haven’t read her actual review. But even if she’d said what you think she said, your ridiculously hostile response isn’t very Christian of you. Go dig out your Bible and reread Luke 6:31 and John 13:34 and learn to be a better human being.
“All of that misogynistic crap gets thrown away in the fiercely feminist and proudly revisionist Mary Magdalene, which reimagines Mary …as a woman who cannot make herself fit into the expectations that constrain her gender:”
Regarding her being constrained – imagine her living in modern Iran, where some true feminists recently took off their veils – only to be ignored by Western ‘feminists’.
Y’know, it occurs to me that The Straw Man sounds like the name of a horror film. The Straw Feminist, on the other hand, would be a very different sort of movie.
What the hell are you talking about? The most cursory of Google searches finds lots of coverage of the protests in Western media, including sites with feminist bents:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaragahi/wearing-the-hijab-is-mandatory-in-iran-now-women-are
https://www.bustle.com/p/at-the-iran-protests-a-woman-removed-her-hijab-now-shes-missing-8012905
https://womenintheworld.com/2018/03/01/iran-police-publicly-beating-women-who-protest-the-mandatory-hijab-group-says/
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/international-womens-day-2018-white-wednesdays-in-iran-have-historical-roots
https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/29-women-arrested-in-iran-for-protesting-hijab-laws.html
Try harder.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iran-hijab-protests-headscarf-take-off-islam-muslims-middle-east-western-liberals-a8248106.html
QUOTE:
“Why won’t western feminists support the woman arrested for taking off her hijab in Iran? It doesn’t make you Islamophobic
Where is the outcry from the left when a female protestor in Iran is locked up for two years for daring to take off the head-covering she is forced to wear?
Shappi Khorsandi @ShappiKhorsandi Friday 9 March 2018 16:15 GMT”
============================================
MaryAnn – this woman knows what she is talking about – belatedly there are a few voices, but I would not class it as an outcry, and nothing compared with the frenzy of outrage at minor transgressions of famous white males from years ago.
I think the top rated buzzfeed comment from your link sums it up:
“Go Siame comment: Finally Buzzfeed gets it. The Hijab is a grotesquely offensive religious garment and to CHOOSE to wear it is an insult to the hundreds of millions of Muslim women who have it forced on them by governments and family members.”
So sorry we feminists aren’t doing feminism to your satisfaction. Or you could read this:
“’Those women are more oppressed’ is a terrible argument against feminism”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/04/international-women-oppression-feminism
But pretty much it’s your characterization that #MeToo and #TimesUp are about “minor transgressions” that makes you irrelevant to this discussion.
others can judge for themselves if you have answered the question
MaryAnn – just to confirm – do you agree with this comment: on the buzzfeed link by Go Siame:
(and note the word ‘finally’)
“Finally Buzzfeed gets it. The Hijab is a grotesquely offensive religious garment and to CHOOSE to wear it is an insult to the hundreds of millions of Muslim women who have it forced on them by governments and family members.”
I am not having this discussion with you.
fair enough, at least you are honest enough to say so
This film is about a period that predates Islam by six centuries. A critique of modern Islam is beside the point, although modern Islam seems to be your only focus.
I think my comments are relevant to the subject of feminism in this film, and the oppression of women both then and now. I am saying it is worse today, and the top buzzfeed comment explains why and so does Shappi Khorsandi. Others can judge for themselves if this is relevant to a film where the reviewer talks about (a) religion (b) oppression of women (c) feminism. So I repeat – why are those who call themselves ‘feminists’ not making a huge outcry about it, like they did about the ‘metoo’ thing?
It really isn’t.
“Why didn’t Jesus have any female Apostles?” – Simple answer, the 12 men represent the 12 sons/tribes of Israel. It is a Jewish thing. Yeshua did have a great many women disciples. They were very close to Him and He treated them with levels of respect that were considered shocking in His day.
“who in the contradictory books of the New Testament” – I have read list, after list of so-called contradictory passages in the New Testament. I think I have only found one that stands up to critical scrutiny. In one Gospel, Yeshua visited town A first, in another, town B first. Blaa, the kind of things that creep into a narrative naturally when human eye witnesses are involved.
“So, why isn’t there a Gospel of Mary? Well, there kinda is” – Have you ever read it? It doesn’t really make a lot of sense and it is considered to be fake. The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene and comes from the 2nd century.
“Well, she was a woman, wasn’t she, and what do women know?” A great deal, according to Yeshua. John 4:4–42
“A fiercely feminist and proudly revisionist historical drama that offers a powerful and much-needed rebuke to modern Christianity” – Really? I have been to a great many churches of different denominations. I don’t see much in the way of inequality. Not many Christian women call themselves Feminists, because of it’s links to abortion and man-hate. Now, please step off you Atheist soap box and just review the film!
Hey, everybody! White dude says everything looks peachy keen to him! We can all relax. Inequality is over.
James Middleton makes some thoughtful and interesting comments that contribute to the debate. Contrast this with your reply, which is completely argument-free, and just consists of mockery.
No, he does not make any “thoughtful and interesting comments,” nor does he contribute to any debate.
others can judge for themselves
OK.
He does not make any good points. He’s here to trash strawman versions for “feminists” and “atheists”.
You’re here to ride his dick for it.
You find only one of the 195 or so contradictions that stand up to scrutiny? Apparently you see only what you want to see. No inequality of women in churches? Guffaw. You also break the irony meter when you criticize a Bible book to be “fake”. They are ALL fake, edited embellishments of favorite stories and claims from earlier mythologies. The treatment of women by all the Abrahamic religions simply cannot be defended. They wouldn’t even allow them to participate in a stoning without a fake beard.
There’s a reason the various Gnostic gospels of the 2nd and 3rd century didn’t make it into the New Testament, and it should be pretty obvious even with a cursory glance at the Bible. The four canonical gospels are the oldest, most complete, and most consistent gospels we have, and scholars aren’t even particularly divided on that point.
The apocrypha shed light on some of the diverging branches of early Christianity, but almost nothing about their primary subject. The Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John gospels are more reliable than those attributed to Peter, Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc., if only because they were composed much closer to the events they recount. There’s no need to bring gender politics into it why Mary’s gospel isn’t in the New Testament, or why Gnostic theology is far removed from what Jesus actually taught.
LOL
We cannot even conclude if the Jesus of the Bible actually existed, never mind what he “actually taught.”
We can safely conclude that he existed. You can count the total number of credible scholars who believe that he did not on one hand. Neither of these two actually teaches at a university, and no one in any relevant field is losing sleep over this issue. Even if you decided to dismiss the academic consensus among biblical scholars as biased because many of them happen to be Christians (never mind how foolish that would be!) and only consider the opinions of scholars who are atheists and agnostics, the consensus is still overwhelmingly in favor of a historical Jesus.
Now as for what he taught, or meant, there is more room for debate. Should we interpret him as an apocalyptic preacher, a moral philosopher, a revolutionary, a hardcore reformist, or some combination of the above? There are cases to be made for each of these, and more. But we can safely rule out some of the more outlandish interpretations, like “Guru” Jesus.
[citation needed]
^ For what, the scholarly consensus? You can find that even with a cursory glance at Wikipedia. How about an actual counterargument?
If you say so
I do say so.
Enough. We are NOT debating the existence of a demigod Jesus here.
“outlandish”
LOL
What’s next, a troll face? You can do better.
Aww, sweetie, try joining the rest of us outside Fantasyland.
If “Fantasyland” includes enormous swathes of accredited critical scholarship, then you’re the one making yourself look cretinous, not me.
You’re really spoiling for a fight here — not very Christian of you.
The historicity debate is pointless, much like the “Was Shakespeare really Shakespeare” one. The important thing is that Shakespeare’s texts exist, to inspire and influence us. And whether or not Jesus existed, what matters is that the Gospels exist, for his self-important followers to ignore.
You don’t even know what my beliefs are, but even if you did, they are completely irrelevant to any of my points.
Maybe. But when you insist that patriarchy isn’t real but Jesus is, I can make an educated guess. :-)
But I already said your historicity argument is pointless, so… *shrug* You sure seem to care a lot about it, though.
Dude, look: Was there a hippie preacher called Jesus who wandered around ancient Judea? Could be. Did he walk on water, turn water into wine, and rise from the dead? *That* is the Jesus of the Bible. And there’s about as much evidence for his existence as there is for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
She did review the film. Bottom line: it’s a new take on the gospels that turns out to be more believable than the original. I thought so, too.
The film it doesn’t get into the question of Jesus being the son of God or not, being the Messiah or not. So there’s no reason to step on an atheist or theist or Christian soapbox to talk about it.
Thanks for this review – I’ll have to keep an eye out for this one!
I look forward to seeing his take. But Rock Jesus is still Best Jesus. :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QW2Wh1OZBA
On another Joaquin Phoenix-related note, I’m so sad to read that you disliked “You Were Never Really Here” on your current ranking of 2018’s movies. I was terribly excited to see a bracing attack on the sex slave trade that the critics raved about and was written and directed by a woman, no less. I suppose something about the male savior aspect did it in for you.
I’ll review it soon.
I found this review, searching for a reason to see, yet again, another “brave” and “bold” movie about Something history knows very little about. Like Interstellar, the core of the plot is missing – “what’s inside the black hole?”
Billions of people, for 2,000+ years, have lived and died over the divinity of the man the Roman Historian called “Crestos.” That is what is missing, and frankly, what no movie has ever achieved. The closest that this ideal comes to is Ben Hur, but there is still great mystery, unexplained. You’re supposed to just know.
Just Knowing is also the crutch on which this very good movie depends. No facts – you just have to understand that women are victims in a patriarchal society.
With that as the jumping off ethos, we comfortably forget the true concept of the “Jesus Event,” and wander happily in the fields of “What If.”
The photography is amazing as is the acting of Ejiofor and Phoenix. Oddly, the feminist portrayal of Mariamme Magdala (which is acted, I assume, exactly as the director wished) is peculiarly 2½-Diminesional – not quite 3D, but good enough to satisfy the Feminist “believers”.
What is even more peculiar is that there is a large body of scholarly work which, while eschewing the apochryphal Gospel of Mary, asks important questions about how the 2nd century treated women, after Paul dumped on them. There is little doubt among honest scholars, that Jesus’ retinue contained women who were treated as equals, and Mariamme was definitely one. A true Female desciple.
Here’s where the trouble starts. This movie representation slips into a parody of real feminism – a plastic copy – a religious statuette of Feminism. If one took away the names and simply looked at it from a 1stC AD point of view, the woman would have been stoned for her uppity behavior, even after acceptance of the Head Dude.
No. It’s far from a bad movie and very close to a great one. Worth viewing, but hardly a de facto defense of a historical event.
Dude is here to tell us what real feminism is, and what’s a parody, and that the patriarchy and misogyny are things that must be taken on faith, like belief in a supernatural deity.
Cool story, bro.
Yes, but that’s only a part of what I said. Are you actually saying that a male cannot define a term, simply because of his sex?
But you also intimate that the definition of misogyny hasn’t changed over time, which is a signal of two-dimensional thinking. Can you define feminism – I mean, in a meaningful sentence? And what about your poorly hidden sarcasm about a Deity you’ve refused to meet? These are not markers of a logician, or even an open mind.
I’d love to get you in front of witnesses for real debate. At least we could find out if you’re a real thinker, or just another vacuous repeater of catchwords and clichés. You sound like one of my film students who is surprised at a C grade for lazy thinking.
Ah, you must be on the faculty at the University of Adelaide.
Oh dear. This is not a good look on you.
https://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/09/16/speech-conversation-debate-engagement-communication/
If you could, would you mind telling what’s so bad about UA? I have a fondness for Aussies, but I can’t tell if your comment is sarcasm directed toward me or toward the school and me, or toward the reviewer, the school, and not me.. see where this is going? BTW, is that a badger sticking out of the only male’s neck? Also, the url you gave isn’t new, but it’s certainly mostly true. I’m retired now, but I have colleagues who tell me I got out in time. They’re telling me the inmates are running the prison, now.. so, there’s that..
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/mansplaining-ad-removed-following-criticism-online/9934590
Also: Whoosh.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Haha.
I don’t even know how to begin, let alone proceed with and finish my comment, because a) I am all for any (called for) revisionism of any story; b) I am a feminist; c) I like many, maybe even most, of your reviews…
Well, anyhow, I went to see this film because of your unqualified praise (except for the meager admittance in the comments section that casting Middle Eastern actors “might have been nice”) lavished upon it. And all I’ve got from that was an unqualified disappointment: no “revisionism”, no “feminism”, not even the magnificent production-values or ever-reliable Mara Rooney and Joaquin Phoenix, let alone your review, could save the hogwash of the script (mainly the artificial dialogue, incorporating nowadays English [read: American] phrases mixed with solemn Jewish (?) prayers, which made any attempt at “suspense-of-disbelief” literally impossible) can justify this, all in all, lame undertaking.
If you want the real story of Mary of Magdala, of Bethany and of Jesus you’ll find it in Maria Valtorta’s ‘The Poem of the Man God.’
Ah, does Valtorta have a time machine? How did she come by the “real story”? What makes you believe her account over any others?
Wow! The same year you see this flick, you choose to go to Rome? For Christmas? In time for midnight mass? And admit as much on Twitter?
Strange things are happening in this world, indeed…
She probably admired the Colosseum, too, even though I bet she doesn’t pray to Zeus. :-)
I did indeed, and I don’t.
As I believe I made of point of discussing in my review, only an idiot would deny that religion is not woven seemingly inextricably into our culture. I may be an atheist, but as a cultural critic, I cannot ignore religion.
I understand.
And my siblings and I have been to the Pyramids outside of Mexico City but we don’t worship Huitzilopochtli. :-)
And I’m an atheist who loves Christmas songs, and my favorite of all time is “O Holy Night.”
What is the world coming to?!
Oy vey! And I’m a Hispanic Catholic half and half who can’t help singing along with most of the songs in Fiddler on the Roof. I wish I could credit that to some Sephardic ancestors but the only people who know whether I really do have such ancestors died centuries ago and anyway, that doesn’t explain why I watch so many British shows despite being so obviously not Anglo-American.
If that’s not odd enough, there’s actually a scene in one of the musical numbers in FotR where one of the actresses actually resembles one of my real-life Hispanic cousins.
A movie is made from the vantage point of a woman. And immediately it is feminist. Immediately there has to be angry yelling against the bible and men.
Seriously… go find some peace with yourself.
Nope. MaryAnn has written negative reviews of movies told from a woman’s perspective. But you didn’t read anything else she’s written before you made this claim, did you, Tim? Of course you didn’t.
Yeah, totally out of the blue! What did the Bible and men ever do to hurt women?
Seriously… learn to give a fuck about all the ways the world is unjust toward people who aren’t straight white men. Or get out of the way of those who do give a fuck, and are trying to point it out and fix it.
Why don’t we ever get any SMART commenters attacking feminism? Oh wait, never mind.
I won’t be at peace until the patriarchy is smashed.
There is no patriarchy, but there are windmills.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
Ah, a reference to a novel about a deluded old guy who believes in chivalry and sees himself as a manly knight protecting hapless damsels. The patriarchy wasn’t in the windmills; turns out it was… inside him all along.
Turns out the patriarchy was the asshole men we met along the way.
You’re so cute.
And you’re not thinking about windmills; you’re thinking about a brick wall…
Hey, we can play this funny metaphor game all day!
US release on April 12th? YES!
Finally saw this, and I entirely agree with your review. Mara and Phoenix are just fantastic. Tahar Rahim is great, and his Judas has a heartbreakingly human motivation that I haven’t seen in any other versions of the character. A quietly powerful, deeply moving film that’s going to stay with me; so glad I saw this.