Mary Magdalene (2018)

This is not a movie for people who know the Bible. It was filled with errors and a lot of important things were left out. Now I understand why it's not in Danish cinemas! I had to take a ferry to Sweden to see it (It's only a twenty-minute trip). At least I had a nice day ...

Fmovies: An unexpected brilliance and a mastery of story telling.

The story of the last weeks of Jesus Christ told out of the perspective of the first ever feminist, Mary Magdalene. It is an interpretation of the bible and the new found redemption of Mary Magdalene by the Vatican in 2016. Rooney Mara plays the title role and gives quite a solid performance. The material given to her is rather limited, but mostly due to the fact the the film feels terribly edited and cut down. Its a good performance but nothing she will win awards for. Joaquin Phoenix plays Jesus. He did have some good moments but generally feels miscast. He played Jesus too rough and too edgy. I mean edgy is good, but he often felt like a homeless vagabond preaching around with his not less weird followers. Not quite Charles Manson like but close. Chiwetel Ejifor was fine but he was rather wasted except for his scene at the end. The film is very nice to look at. Cinematography is great. The whole look and feel is accurate and it has a nice score. It did feel too modern often . the way the talk, the way they gestured and Rooney Mara's pierced ears did not help. I really would like to see Garth Davis' uncut version of it.

Mary Magdalene fmovies. Trying to do the impossible is not going to end well. How does one tell a convincing, fulfilling story by editing out 75% of the story ? I'm sure the players of this effort all considered this BEFORE attempting the production. And what we get is an UNfulfilling story that leaves us with a sophomoric aftertaste. Rooney is always a standout in anything she does, based primarily on her unique beauty and unique persona, both of which give MARY focus of our attention. Phoenix is an odd choice-I agree, but his characterization of JESUS is a FRESH take, the freshest since-The Last Temptation of Christ-Scorsese/Dafoe 1988. Mary is not nearly as provocative as The Last Temptation, and does get across to us the theme of Mary. That is- she is the Apostle of all Apostles, and quite a rarity by revealing that women of that time were just forbidden to act so independently-by forsaking the family/community/Society wishes for her/women., Also-this abstract of a story also has a surprising climax that pushes home the ultimate message of the movie. But-this profound message is so understated and comes and goes so quickly..this message may even miss the ears/hearts of many viewers. The only thing that truly ressonates at curtain closing, is that this movie was well performed and allowed us a NEW look into a most intriguing, fascinating story....if only it was more COMPLETE..told us more. Perhaps this should have been a Netflix mini-series. Yes-indeed- should have been a mini-series.

I know, I know its supposed to be about Mary, and it does a little bit of that, but it is also very much about how she sees Jesus. She sees him as a man carrying around the weight of the world on his shoulders, and she understands his true message when many miss it. In this way she serves a blank slate that we the audience can become.

She understands Jesus' true meaning behind the words in a way that only those outside of the story can. She as well as Jesus' mother both know that a gristly fate awaits him - just as we do.

I spent some time looking through the reviews, - many of the most negative reviews are arguing that it gets a lot wrong. So I wanted to argue a few of their points:

One reviewer says its wrong because Jesus didn't baptize Mary. The truth is we don't know. John 3:22 says Jesus spent some time baptizing, but then John 4:2 says Jesus wasn't baptizing, it was his disciples, but both of these moments are about Jesus' time in Judea - not Galilee, where Mary was likely baptized. It seems like in larger groups of baptisms, Jesus would have had his disciples share the work, and in a personal moment like baptizing Mary, (who many have suggested was funding these excursions), its likely in my mind that Jesus would have baptized her.

The same reviewer said that this film refutes that she had 7-demons cast out of her by Jesus (Luke 8:2). This is wrong by all accounts of Luke 8 that I can see. The Bible doesn't say Jesus cast the demons out. The Bible says that traveling with him included Mary who had had 7 demons cast out. The film shows her family attempting to cast demons out of her, and then Jesus sees her and says he sees no demons. This seems to fit well within the possibility of scripture.

It bothers me when people use scripture to try to refute or prove things. If you pull just a single line, you're missing the picture. And just because someone can quickly reference scripture, does not make them right.

Several said Jesus should appear in his early thirties. Again, we don't know. He was most likely between 33-36. The only mention in the Bible says he was younger than fifty.

Some people thought nobody looked semitic, but the Levant was one of the big melting pots, and there's not a lot of research on where all the white people were in 33 AD.

I agree they shouldn't have made Peter acting all righteous and jealous as he was in the Book of Thomas. Why must we tear someone down in order to lift another up? Also the trope of Angry Black Man... no thanks. Many called this a politically correct take on Jesus - and I'd argue that for this reason above that this was far from politically correct, and only reinforces bad stereotypes about gender and color.

Still one of my favorite films, hope this is useful for someone.

Mary Magdalene: Mary (Rooney Mara) is a fisherwoman, casting nets in the Sea of Galilee along with her sisters. She assists in a difficult birth, goes back to her fishing, sees a healer and his associates pass by, remarks that he must have little to do if he can preach every day. But Mary is also troubled, she doesn't want to be married off. Her erratic behaviour makes her family believe she is possessed and an exorcism is attempted. Later the healer (Joaquin Phoenix) comes to her and realises that she is not possessed.

The healer is Jesus and later Mary goes to see him preach and heal. When he restores a blind man's sight he is overwhelmed by the demanding crowd. In the background, Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) baptises people in the sea. Against her family's wishes Mary becomes a follower of Jesus and is baptised by him. They go on to Cana where Jesus preaches to women and Mary baptises them and some become followers. Peter is none too happy at this usurpation of his role.

This retelling of the Gospel stories is based on verses which suggest Mary was an Apostle and that other women were part of Jesus's broader following. In 2016 the Roman Catholic Church declared Mary was the Apostle of the Apostle and not a prostitute as the misogynist Pope Gregory had declared in 591.

There isn't a suggestion of a sexual relationship between the Magdalene and Jesus in this film, rather that she was the Apostle he dearly loved. The other Apostles have different views of what the mission of Jesus will result in: Peter is a zealot who hopes that the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem will result in an uprising and the driving out of the Romans. Judas believes that the dead will rise in the new Kingdom and he will be reunited with his dead wife and child.

Phoenix looks very much a Western Jesus but his worn countenance is that of an austere Essene. He foresees his own end, when he cures the afflicted or raises the dead he is physically and mentally drained. When he reaches the Temple he doesn't drive out the money-changers, instead he attacks the priests who are selling animals for sacrifice, Phoenix exudes righteous anger. Mara is quiet but intense, it is more difficult fora woman to take a leading role as an Apostle but Rooney convinces in this role.

In particular cinematographer Greg Fraser makes great use of shadow and fires, the flames being reminiscent of how Jules Breton brought blazes to life in his paintings. The screenplay by Helen Edmundson and Philippa Goslett (no crdits for Matthew Mark, Luke and John) is revisionist in the best sense of the word. Garth Davis as director has put together a new narrative of the Nazarene and Magdalene which won't be to everyone's taste but even an agnostic can find it enthralling. 8.5/10.