Arabic Jesus Film - The Resurrected

Photo by Tinou Bao, used under a Creative Commons Licence

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Secrets of The Cross

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT Reviews Magdalena

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

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

Magdalena Available Online

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

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

Magdalena - Released From Shame - Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Magdalena: Released from Shame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gospel Comparison: Jesus Anointed by a Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Mary Scene Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29 min]Younger and Gretchen in bed

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

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

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

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

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

[54 mins]- More modern footage,

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

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

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

[64 mins] - Younger interviews Childress and Palese

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Secrets of Mary Magdalene - Documentary

The phenomenal success of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", and the film adaptation earlier this year has led to a new wave of interest in Mary Magdalene. This is no doubt why Hidden Treasures Productions have released their documentary on Mary Secrets of Mary Magdalene onto DVD. It's directed by Rob Fruchtman and features a host of Magdalene experts including Elaine Pagels, Lesa Bellevie, Deidre Good, and Dan Burstein who also wrote the corresponding book.

Secrets of Mary Magdalene is another docu-drama, built largely around interviews with a host of, mostly female, writers and academics, but also containing dramatised footage to accompany the narrator's commentary. The dramatised footage is fairly well done, although the length of Jesus's hair is a little distracting, and shows episodes from the canonical gospels, footage of Mary leading and teaching, as well as some of the more legendary episodes such as her flight to France.

Whilst the programme does explore some these legends it certainly keeps its feet on the ground a lot more than either Dan Brown or the authors of "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". For example, it never gets into fantastical analysis of "The Last Supper" and whilst it covers the theories about The Holy Grail, it moves on fairly quickly.

The film goes on to discuss the Gnostic gospels and their presentation of Mary as well as social / historical evidence that Jesus would have been married. It also looks at the role of femininity within the history of religion, notably Christianity.

Unfortunately the documentary loses a bit of credibility with its lax attitude to historical methodology. It builds a little too heavily on "history is written by the winners" scepticism, and offers no real analysis on the historical veracity of the various gospels. Deidre Good starts going down that road at one point, but the film quickly moves on.

This is a mistake in my opinion. Whilst there are no gospels dating from the time Jesus was alive, Mark, widely accepted as the earliest canonical gospel was written within the lifetime of many of his followers, with the other three reaching their final form in the subsequent 30 or so years. The Gnostic gospels are harder to date, and appear to be written across a longer period. Whilst some scholars claim the the Gospel of Thomas may be contemporary with the canonical gospels, others are significantly late. Antiquity is not definitive proof of historical accuracy, but in general there is a good correlation between the two. This is a crucial issue, which much of the rest of the film's information depends on.

The DVD contains a couple of significant extra features. Firstly there is a "round table" with six of the experts from the film, where they further discuss some of the issues covered by the film. This lasts for about 50 minutes. There is also an additional, half-hour feature, "More Secrets of Mary Magdalene" as well as a trailer and a scene selection menu.

Review - Abel Ferrara's Mary

Few actors are famous in the way that Juliette Binnoche could claim to be. Whilst the people on the street are largely ignorant of both her and her work (save perhaps Chocolat), many of those in the art film crowd know that Binoche’s contribution to a film is reason enough for them to see it. It’s not surprising, then, that much of the publicity and discussion for Abel Ferrara’s Mary has focussed on her, particularly as she is playing the title role. Hence there has been plenty of talk about Binoche’s role as Marie Palese, an actress who is inspired by her role playing Mary Magdalene in a Jesus movie and so heads to Jerusalem in search of spiritual enlightenment.

However, the star of this imaginary movie, is charismatic actor turned director, Tony Childress (Matthew Modine). It's clear that Childress has also funded and produced the movie himself, in exactly the manner he desired, regardless of the storm of criticism it has attracted. As such, he is clearly fashioned in Mel Gibson’s image. Childress’s film, This is My Blood, may be as unconventional as Gibson’s film was ultra-traditional, but the parallels are clear. When Childress jokes that the reason he made the film was "because that Gibson movie made like a billion dollars" we sense director Abel Ferrara underlining the similarities whilst simultaneously poking fun at the inevitable rush to cash in on the success of The Passion.

One of the interesting things about the film is that it's hard to tell what sort of film This is My Blood actually is. Indeed, we see very little of it. The opening scene of Mary appears to be lifted straight from Childress's movie, only for the next scene to suggest that this was actually Marie Palese's dream. Later on, a dreamlike shot of Palese gives way to what appears to be another scene from the movie. Since the vocals are introduced first, over the top of this footage of Palese, it initially suggests that this too is only in her mind. Yet this scene is immediately followed by one of a TV presenter informing his audience that they have just witnessed a clip from the actual movie.

Hence it is difficult to know exactly how much of the movie is shown. At best, only five scenes from the movie are included – and two of these may simply be in Marie Palese's, mind. Of the other three, two are taken solely from the non-canonical, Gospel of Mary. Thus, the only scene from the film that definitely is taken from the gospels is that of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. And the sound accompanying this clip is not even from Childress's fictional movie, but from an academic explaining how this act demonstrated Jesus's message of love.

So, the majority of the film remains a mystery. How much is from the canonical gospels? The Gospel of Mary is very short, certainly not long enough to be the basis of a feature film, how greater part does it play, and what does the rest consist of. Furthermore, what are the offensive elements in the film? It is criticised both by some Jewish groups on grounds of anti-Semitism, and some Christians because it departs from orthodoxy. Is it even meant to be a good film? The Jesus it portrays is horribly miscast, but is that Childress's fault or Ferrara's? Interestingly, Childress frequently repeats the message that his critics should see the movie before they offer criticism, yet, in stark contrast to, say, Jesus of Montreal we are given only a fleeting glimpse of it to make up our own minds.

Childress's movie, however, is only a small part of the overall story. The main story, is about the spiritual journey of Ted Younger, played by Forest Whitaker. Younger chairs a national TV program discussing religious issues for a mainstream audience, grilling various experts from academics to religious leaders. He is deeply ambivalent about his faith, both publicly and privately, and the film implies that this is amongst the reason his show is such a success.

Ted knows neither of the other two main characters at the start of the film, but when he sees the movie at a press screening, he decides to try and interview them both for his programme. Childress is naturally keen to promote his movie, and agrees fairly readily. Palese, however, has been settled in Jerusalem for a year, and is reluctant to return to anything to do with acting. Younger is only able to get hold of her because he has been having an affair with Gretchen, one of Palese's friends.

This sparks a series of three phone calls between Ted and Marie. The first begins with Ted trying to get her to appear on his show. Marie is evasive, preferring to turn the conversation around to her recent spiritual insights. Initially, Ted is left unimpressed by Marie's statement that "Jesus helped Mary Magdalene, and s/he’s helping me now". Yet, strangely, when his personal life runs into problems, he finds himself calling her up to discuss them. Younger is clearly in need of redemption. "I’ve done so many bad things" he later confesses and whilst he’s no Bad Lieutenant we see enough of his behaviour to be unable to deny his self-accusation.

Director Abel Ferrara manages to draw impressive and complex performances from all three actors. Binoche's final scenes are shot without sound, yet convey the process of her finding peace wonderfully. Modine swaggers about with a driven self-importance and yet somehow connects you to his suffering despite his arrogance, and self-centredness. Quite what Ferarra is trying to say by having this character play Jesus is unclear, but it's a fascinating question that in and of itself raises a number of possibilities. Whitaker gets the most screen time and delivers a remarkably nuanced performance which gains greater and greater depth with repeated viewings. His final scene touches on something that is rarely shown in modern cinema taking the narrative deeper when most directors would have been content to have finished. There is also an impressive supporting performance from Heather Graham, as Younger's wife, Elizabeth. Graham plays against type, and this works to great effect.

All in all, Mary marks a return to form for Ferrara. In addition to an interesting premise, a strong script and a number of excellent performances, he also infuses the film with energy, wit and vitality. At times his tongue seems firmly in his cheek, and yet that never detracts from the film's gravity. Elsewhere, quirky sound and vision editing add a sense of mystery and uncertainty, whilst the cinematography manages to capture the atmosphere of late-night introspection and isolation perfectly.

Unorthodox theories about Mary Magdalene have gained great prominence in the last few years. Yet most of the discussion has focussed on the history surrounding Mary Magdalene, and the early Christian communities that both developed and were, no doubt, ultimately defined by the Gospel that bore her name. Mary takes things in another, arguably more mature direction, refusing to concern itself with the details of her life after the resurrection, the alleged minimisation of her role in church history, and the suppression of the gospel that bears her name. Instead it suggests that any such community would have been primarily recognised as followers of Jesus, with any identification with Mary being very much secondary. Hence the film ultimately examines how those that have identified with Mary and/or have been inspired by her (whether past, present or future) might impact those around them with the message of the one she followed.

Close to Jesus: Mary Magdalene

There’s been so much going on this month, that I’ve been unable to do much reviewing here recently. However, as I have finally got hold of a copy of Abel Ferrara’s Mary (on DVD) then I thought I would start by reviewing the other recent film on the subject, Mary Magdalene from Time Life’s Close to Jesus series

========

2006 has been a big year for films about Mary Magdalene. Although technically 2005 (by a whisker), Abel Ferrara’s Mary gained widespread acclaim early in the year as it played at film festivals before enjoying a limited run in theatres. Sadly it never got a proper release in the US and the UK and so few, in the English speaking world at least, have even heard of it. By contrast, the year’s other film about Mary was so hyped up that it was impossible to avoid. Based on a best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code was always going to be a big deal. Whilst its glimpses of Mary Magdalene are fleeting, it is probably even more influential today, in terms of how people in the west view Mary Magdalene, than the bible.

As Dan Brown would be keen to point out, history has not always been so kind to her. The earliest film about Mary was made in 1914 (Mary Magdalene). Although it is now lost, it appears that Mary was in love with Judas, but discovers Jesus and becomes his follower. In order to stay close to Mary, Judas also becomes his follower. Thirteen years later, Cecil B DeMille would use a similar plot device in his The King of Kings only in this instance Judas would follow Jesus first.

Whilst Mary continued to be portrayed in the majority Jesus films, most portrayed her as a prostitute despite the lack of biblical and early Christian evidence for such a position. But apart from that she had the title role only twice more; in the Mexican film Mary Magdalene (1946), and in the Italian film Mary Magdalene (La Spade e la Croce - 1959) starring Yvonne De Carlo (who had played Sephora in The Ten Commandments).

That is until Lux Vide decided to film four spin-offs from their Bible Collection series. The Close to Jesus series features fictional reconstructions of the lives of four of the more peripheral characters from the Gospels – Thomas, Joseph (of Nazareth), Judas, and Mary Magdalene. These four films effectively sever all ties with the earlier Bible Collection film Jesus. Whereas the role of Mary on that film was played by Will and Grace’s Debra Messing, here the role is taken by Maria Grazia Cucinotta. Likewise Jeremy Sisto has been replaced, by a Danny Quinn. Quinn’s portrayal is halfway between Sisto and Johnny Depp, and is arguably the weakest aspect of the film.

There is another, important but subtle, distinction that needs to be made between the two films. Whilst there is much in Jesus that is interpretative or fictional, those aspects are based on the historical texts of the gospels. One may disagree with how they have interpreted or extrapolated those texts, but essentially they have tried to fill in the gaps to address modern concerns with a historical figure. Mary Magdalene is quite different in this regard. Not only is there insufficient material to use as a reasonable basis for extrapolation, but the film deliberately avoids the Mary of the gospels. So the biblical scenes which include Mary, her exorcism (Luke 8:2), and her presence at his death (Mark 15:40) and resurrection (John 20:1f) are entirely absent. This contrasts strongly with other made for TV films about these characters, such as 2004’s Judas which attempts to construct a credible series of events leading up to the moment that would assure them of their place in history.

That is not to say the story here is entirely unwarranted. Whilst the exorcism scene is absent from this film, the minor details in the opening verses of Luke 8 are incorporated. Mary’s closest friends in this film are called Joanna and Susanna. This typifies the film’ approach – the focus is on Mary and her pre-conversion life, but it locates her at other places in the story where the gospels do not, most notably in the court of Herod. Interestingly, Joanna, here, is not the wife of Chuza, manager of Herod’s household, as in Luke’s gospel, (Luke’s inclusion of this detail suggests that she may have been the original source for the more private details of Herod’s dealings with John, such as Mark 6:20). But this detail - one of Jesus’s followers being intimately acquainted with aspects of Herod’s house – has been credited to Mary instead, which allows it to be explored more fully.

Mary also witnesses various examples of Jesus’s teaching and miracles, in a variety of locations, and the film treats these incidents with varying degrees of respect. For example at times Mary is simply the witness to a piece of teaching or of a miracle. It happens more or less as the gospels record, although obviously interpreted on a visual level. Yet at others Mary’s presence is more intrusive. When, early on in the story, Mary attempts to drown herself she is saved by Peter’s nets as he makes his miraculous catch of fish. Whilst it’s perhaps a playful literalisation of Jesus’s promise to make him a fisher of men, you cannot imagine the gospel writers leaving it out had it truly occurred.

Such intrusions are rare. What this film does do well is put the emphasis on Jesus’s original audience. In most Jesus films, Jesus is the main character. The very nature of having 12 disciples means that few of them get any real screen time, and too much exploration of their histories would disturb the flow of the narrative. An alternative approach is that taken by the fifties biblical epics which focussed on characters who lives were changed by Jesus. In most cases, however, these characters were changed by Jesus’ actions (particularly his sacrificial death) rather than his teaching. The one exception here is Salome (1953) a revisionist version of the deatjh of John the Baptist which ultimately shows the eponymous heroine being changed by Jesus’s words, and climaxes in the Sermon on the Mount.

Here, however, Jesus get a far greater screen time than in those fifties films (plus we get to see his face), but the focus of the film is clearly on one specific member of his audience. This allows the viewer to more readily adopt the position of Jesus’s original audience, and understand some of the exegetical subtleties involved through this fresh angle. For example, Mary’s hitherto idyllic life is brought to an abrupt end in the opening moments of the film when her husband gives her a divorce simply because she is barren. This draws attention to the fact that this was permissible at the time (although certainly under review), whilst also preparing the ground for Jesus’s teaching on it, rooted in equality, and limiting its acceptability. But, Jesus’s call to love your enemies fails to have any initial impact on an embittered and vengeful Mary.

This aspect of the film reaches its climax in the scene where Mary anoints Jesus. It’s a strange episode to choose. Whilst the gospels either leave this woman unnamed (Mark 14, Matt 26, Luke 7) or identify her as Mary of Bethany (John 12), church tradition somehow confused over the differing accounts and the various Mary’s in the gospels, and formulated a mythical Mary Magdalene. This Mary was a repentant, adulteress prostitute saved from a stoning to become Jesus follower, who expressed her gratitude through this dramatic anointing.

Whilst it is, therefore, questionable whether this story had anything to do with the real Mary Magdalene, the film uses its ahistorical perspective to good effect. This scene, coming near the end of the film, is easily its most powerful. By then we are so well acquainted with this Mary, that her freedom from bitterness, and her emotional response give this oft depicted scene fresh power. There’s also a clever touch here, as one of those outraged by Mary’s actions calls her a prostitute, a nod towards the tradition mentioned above which the film categorically avoids.

The film ends sometime after the crucifixion as it started, with a Mary bringing someone healing. There’s an interesting circularity here. The Mary of the opening scenes was happy, and sufficiently at peace with herself that she was able to and care for and heal those around her. Her divorce and her subsequent treatment transformed her into an angry, bitter and hurting woman. Renewed and restored by Jesus she is able to return to her initial calling, although this time in his power. In many ways, though, Jesus has only restored the equilibrium, rather than performed a transformation.

The fact of the matter is that we know precious little about Mary’s life, and I suspect if you asked the makers of this film they would happily admit that this is almost entirely speculation. At the same time, such speculation, if handled correctly, can shed new light on the gospels, and the impact Jesus’s words may have had on his original audiences.

October: A Busy Month for Bible Films

I can’t think of a time in which more has been happening on the bible film front as this coming month.

One Night With the King - At Cinemas from 13th October
First up there is the cinema release of Michael O. Sajbel’s One Night with the King - an adaptation of Tommy Tenny’s novel about Esther. This is going to be one of the first film’s released by the brand new “Fox Faith” label. Its release has been delayed by almost 2 years. The cast list, however, is impressive. In addition to Tiffany Dupont as the lead, Peter O'Toole, Omar Shrif and John Rhys Davies are also involved.

Color of the Cross - In Cinemas from 27th October
Also of great interest is the release of Jean Claude La Marre’s Color of the Cross, which is the first historical life of Jesus film to use a black actor to play Jesus. It’s unclear whether or not this is another “Fox Faith” film or not – certainly they will be distributing the DVD when that is released.

Jesus of Nazareth - Full version DVD Region 2 Release 16th October
This month also sees the long overdue region 2 DVD release of Jesus of Nazareth (1977). Whilst the 4 and a half hour version has been available for a while it’s good to see the proper version get released at last. As a bonus, it’s going to come with a nice metallic case. I’ll be reviewing the film later in the month in my first ever Jesus Films Podcast, and post a brief review of the DVD shortly.

Mary - DVD Release on 3rd October
Having only received a very limited cinematic release the region 2 DVD for Abel Ferrara’s Mary goes on sale on the 3rd. Ferrara’s film sounds like it is very, much along similar lines to Jesus of Montreal in terms of approach to its religious subject matter, but of course its theme and form maybe completely different. The film is about an actress playing Mary Magdalene in a film whose involvement with the film inspires her to go on a spiritual journey.

The Nativity Story at Heartland Film Festival
As I mentioned last week, Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story will be getting it’s first public viewing at the Heartland Film Festival. A week or so later the album "The Nativity Story: Sacred Songs" will be available to buy.

So plenty to look forward too. I’m slightly envious of those of you in North America as One Night With the King and Color of the Cross won’t get released here, at least for a while. Whilst I hope that I get sent review copies for these films, I won’t know until nearer the time. That said Mary doesn’t look like it's going to get a region 1 DVD release for sometime so I guess I’ll have to take the rough with the smooth.

European DVD & American Cinema Release Date for Mary (2005)

This will be old news to anyone who also follows my friend Peter Chattaway's blog, but The Reeler has announced that IFC Films will be distributing Abel Ferrara's recent film Mary.

Though it's not yet been confirmed on the IFC Films' website it's encouraging news. The film has already been released in France, Italy, and a number of other European Nations, but has only been seen at a handful of film festivals in the US, and not at all in the UK. Whilst that means it will still be a while until I get to see it, it means that there is at least a chance I will get to see it in a cinema at some stage.

Even more encouraging is the news that Mary is being release onto DVD in Europe in October. Unfortunately the information at the Amazon.fr website doesn't reveal whether it will be dubbed or subtitled for French customers and so I can't work out whether or not someone who only speaks English will be able to watch it and, more importantly, understand it. It is apparently going to be a 2 disc, "Edition Collector". I'll be interested to see what extras are actually going to be on the discs once more details about the DVD are released. 2 discs for an 83 minute, relatively obscure, film suggests that there will be a number of extra features. Back in February I suggested that Alex Grazioli's Odyssey in Rome would be one of them given it is essentially a making of / behind the scenes affair. Elsewhere, Jeffrey Wells has suggested that Rafi Pitts' Ferrara documentary Not Guilty should also be included.

There's also a tantalising discussion of the film by Robert Davis at Paste magazine. The brief review ends

The movie examines the relationship between performance and contrition. All the characters are actors; some are trying to open a channel to God while others are putting on a show intended to earn some grace. It’s a fitting topic for Ferrara, whose movies frequently embrace the same contradictions. They’re all here in Mary—the excess, the guilt and the search for truth. Intriguingly jumbled with some assembly required.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

The Da Vinci Code has finally made it to cinema screens, and "behold, the greatest cover-up in human history" has finally been revealed. Whilst critics of the book have slated it for a myriad of errors, even including its title (calling Leonardo "Da Vinci" is like calling Jesus "of Nazareth"), the film has gone one step further. Even its creators think it's bad. So bad, in fact, that even the very top critics only got their first glimpse of it at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday - two days before its general release. The film is of course bullet-proof. Like Star Wars Episode III, it doesn't matter how much the critics pan it, it will still be a box office smash. But I can't help wondering if there is a conspiracy going on when film-makers cover-up their films to prevent "the truth" from getting out.

So, having decided to see and review the film, it was something of a relief to find that it was not as bad as I'd been lead to believe. It's no classic of course, but on the whole it's a reasonably entertaining thriller as Dan Brown's novel is. It's unlikely to do as well as the book - its opening night was only 12th in the list of biggest first nights, and it's difficult to imagine that word of mouth will give it a long cinema run, particularly given the critical slating it has received.

For those who are still unaware of the plot, the following should provide a rough overview. Harvard Professor of Symbology Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned to the scene of a murder in the Louvre - the corpse in question being its curator Jacques Saunière who was due to meet Langdon around the time of his death. This, and the strange clues left by the dying curator, lead the police to suspect that Langdon is the killer. We of course know different because not only do we witness the murder, but we all know that nice Tom Hanks would never murder anyone. Instead, we're encouraged to identify with him through a number of camera shots from his point of view.

Langdon is promptly rescued by Sophie Neveu who is played by Audrey Tautou (Amélie) who also turns out to be the dead curator's estranged Granddaughter. Hence the two of them flee police captain Fache (Jean Reno) and try to find out why Saunière died and why. They are helped by a trail of cryptic clues left by Sauniere leading them onward.

En route they enlist the help of Langdon's friend Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian McKellen). The clues seem to be pointing towards the legend of the Holy Grail and Teabing is the world expert. In the most infamous part of the book Teabing reveals how the Holy Grail is actually the still-existing bloodline of Jesus, who fathered a child by Mary Magdalene just before he died. Magdalene escaped plots by the early church to kill her and her daughter, fled to France and helped by secret organisation The Priory of Sion the knowledge of all this has remained hidden, but in tact.

Perhaps, the thing that is most intriguing about the film is its the process of adaptation. The movie is fairly faithful to the book, but it's always interesting to see how the film-makers have changed the original work whether for practical reasons (like reduced time), or to eliminate weaknesses within the original work, or to alter why or what it says. Whilst alterations are fairly minimal, all three types exist, and, as a result, have rendered a stronger work of art that the original novel.

There was always a sense with the novel that there was just too much information. Dan Brown had done a fair bit of research, and he wanted everyone to know exactly how much, hence the book was crammed with irrelevant bits of trivia that just felt a bit like someone was showing off. Screen writer Akiva Goldsman has sensibly trimmed many of these excess leaving only the meat of the film's controversial claims.

Furthermore, Goldsman has also removed many of the weakness of the original work. For example the scene where Neveu, a professional cryptologist, discovers the meaning of her name is, mercifully, excluded. Not only does this remove one of the books silliest implausibilities, it also removes that sense of one riddle too many. Most impressively, the film delivers a decent ending - the most disappointing part of the book, is brought up to the standard of the rest of the story in the film.

The most interesting type of alteration are the deliberate changes to the ideology of the movie. Lest, anyone gets carried away thinking the film might not challenge Jesus's divinity, or might not bash the Catholic church at every available opportunity, let me be clear. This is still one of the most anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Catholic, films of all time. However it is noticeable that the film tries to soften the blow slightly.

The pivotal scene in this regard is the one in Teabing's study. In the novel, Teabing and Langdon team up to make their outrageous claims. Langdon himself is there to be convinced. Suddenly, all that identification with honest Tom slots into place. We are meant to see these theories through his eyes. Some have seen Langdon's partial conversion to Teabing's theories as evidence that this film is more church-sceptical than the book. I would argue the latter. Brown condescends to his audience such that the novel is almost saying "of course this is all so obvious that we all agree on it don't we"? Director Ron Howard's film puts the audience in the place where they can choose for themselves. Langdon is convinced, we need not be.

The film blunts the edge of the controversy in other ways too. Ian McKellan's performance as Teabing is so wonderfully over the top that he comes across as slightly batty. In the novel, much of what says has already been hinted at or validated by Langdon. When Teabing appears and provides all the answers he fills the role of wise old sage, exposing history's "greatest cover-up" in a way that far surpasses what Langdon is able to offer. In the movie, he is equally as knowledgeable, but somehow he just comes across as an obsessed conspiracy theorist, and (plot spoiler) as we find out he is the villain the question is raised as to how reliable he is.

The movie also removes some of the book's historical errors, and challenges others, yet at the same time introduces new ones, for example actually suggesting that the pagan Christian violence in 4th century Rome was started by the Christians. Langdon questions that version of history but it's the former that is given the greater weight as it is the version that is shown happening. A little further on though, Hanks' character cites a more realistic (although still shocking) statistic for the number of women killed on suspicion of being witches, and there are various other attempts to remove the film's more glaring errors. It's difficult to know how to respond to this. It's good that these inaccuracies are not being spread further, but unfortunate that some of the more difficult to explain historical distortions are made more plausible.

The other interesting ideological change is in the role of the sacred feminine. In the book this is a key theme. Langdon himself has just published a book on it. But other than the odd mention early on, this theme is conveniently suppressed. For Christian's and Jews alike, the offensive suggestion that pagan sexual fertility rites were practised in Solomon's temple is absent. The level of pagan activity in Sauniere's life is similarly reduced.

Perhaps, most significantly in this regard is the way the role of Sophie Neveu is altered. In the novel, Neveu is a modern, 21st century heroine, beautiful, resourceful brave, but also highly intelligent, matching Langdon step for step with her ingenuity and her riddle solving abilities. Here she is far more the typical Hollywood female. Undoubtedly brilliant, capable of making the male hero look worried, but reduced by the end of the film to little more than something pretty for the boys to look at. Somehow this brilliant cryptographer is unable to solve any of the codes her grandfather left her, despite the fact she has been trained by him, and Audrey Tautou has to settle for staring admiringly as clever Tom Hanks solves all the puzzles.

The other major character whose role is diminished is that of self-flagellating monk Silas - a member of conservative extremist Catholic organisation Opus Dei. He has been charged with destroying the grail at all costs, and we know him to be the murderer from the start. Whilst the film retains much of his perverse self-flagellating, it compresses the story of his past life to a very brief flashback. This reduces Silas (Paul Bettany) to an unsympathetic one-dimensional character. The other Christian characters are similarly one dimensional, and universally wicked that it's difficult to see how anyone could defend the film against the charge of being anti-Catholic.

So the film modifies the role of religion in the story, and ends up with a horrifyingly clichéd Hollywoodism "what matters is what you believe". It tries to reduce the offensiveness and controversial nature of the novel, but seems, almost inadvertently, to increase this in other places as well. Visually there is some interesting work, the scene in Teabing's study where he reveals the clues allegedly hidden in Leonardo's Last Supper is a triumph, and there are a few other interesting shots. However, the sense of tension and action that made the book such a page-turner is dissipated - the action sequences are a little dull, and the puzzles are solved a little too quickly. Perhaps it will be this, rather than the swathes of discussion and protests surrounding the film, will be what subjects this controversial story to the confines of history.