Written by Lauren Moore, BibleMesh Institute Research Fellow in Theology and Mission.
Lauren is also a doctoral candidate at Union School of Theology (Wales) and VU Amsterdam, studying Roman Catholic Mariology from an Evangelical perspective, and is a fellow of the Rome Scholars’ and Leaders’ Network.
What do Anthony Hopkins, Netflix and Joel Osteen have in common? The Virgin Mary. It sounds like the start of a joke, but this Christmas, in the midst of the movies filled with snowstorms and over-worked business executives who rediscover the magic of Christmas in small town America, Netflix have released Mary, a feature film about the mother of Jesus.
As an Evangelical Protestant mariologist, I was intrigued to see what Netflix would put together with a Catholic director (DJ Caruso), Joel Osteen as (one of many) Executive Producers, Anthony Hopkins as King Herod and Los Angeles Bishop David G. O’Connell as the film’s spiritual advisor. What angle would they take? Biblical? Traditional Roman Catholic? Historical? Feminist? The possibilities seem endless.
This article will help navigate this movie and offer some insight into the origins of the narrative they have put together about Mary.
A Marian Backstory
“Mary, your birth was a gift for your mother and I, it was a miracle.” This line from the trailer was the first indication that the film would follow a Catholic narrative. The narrative comes from the Protoevangelium of James an apocryphal text that was formally rejected by the Catholic Church as early as the 5th century, but nonetheless has left its influence. To this day, the nativity of Mary is celebrated on 8th September and the feast day of her parents Anne and Joachim is celebrated on 26th July every year. And while there is no historical evidence supporting the story told in this apocryphal text, the narrative of the nativity of Mary has stuck in the hearts and minds of Catholics and Orthodox to this day.
The film follows this story and recounts the miraculous conception of Mary to Joachim and Anne, who were married, desperately praying for a child, and who both received a visit from an angel promising them a child. In return they make a promise to give their child to God, (Prot. Jas. 4:1) by giving her to the Temple in Jerusalem to become one of the daughters of the Hebrews (Prot. Jas 7:2-3).
In the film this looks very similar to a scene from the Handmaid’s Tale, young girls dressed in red robes, walking two-by-two in the Temple, being trained by an older woman, the Prophetess Anna. Mary becomes one of these girls, a “handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38 KJV) before being betrothed to Joseph, who was chosen by God, even though he was old and had his own children (Prot. Jas. 9:2). At this point, the film deviates from the Protoevangelium of James and from the broader Roman Catholic narrative, by implying a romantic relationship with a young, single (not widowed), childless Joseph.
Eschewing Roman Catholic Doctrine
Although advised by a bishop and directed by a Catholic, there are many aspects of this film that will likely disturb Roman Catholics. Again, as an evangelical Protestant, I’m more surprised than bothered by these, given how the film is largely created by and for Catholics. The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary teaches that Mary remained a virgin before, during1 , and after the birth of Jesus, and by default, so did Joseph. Romance between the two of them in the film implies their marriage was more than platonic.
The birth scene of Jesus also poses a problem for Catholics, in the same way that the Christmas episode to The Chosen did, by portraying Mary in the pangs of childbirth. Pain in childbirth is a consequence of original sin, (Genesis 3:16) and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary declares that Mary was born without the stain of original sin2. Without original sin, its consequences (both death and pain in childbirth) ought to elude her. And yet, the film Mary portrays a scene of a normal, painful labour and birth. In this sense, while not fully rejecting the dogmas of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception, the film does not adhere strictly to these Catholic teachings.
Although it does somewhat follow the Protoevangelium of James, it also picks up on historical elements, like King Herod’s paranoia3. It takes some creative license to suggest that he saw Mary (in the Temple he built) and developed a paranoid fixation on her, making it a storyline fit for any modern thriller: a young, innocent girl and her child escaping the grasps of a violent, obsessive king. And like all thrillers, there needs to be a level of heroism. Some online sceptics were concerned that the film would take on a feminist “Girlboss” tone, portraying a warrior-like Mary who conquers her foreign oppressor by sheer woman power. While there were hints of this, it was not the central message of the film.
A Profoundly Secular Film
And herein lies the intrigue of the film: it was profoundly secular. It followed some of the narrative of the Catholic tradition, while not fully proclaiming a Catholic message. It had hints of feminism, while not fully pushing a feminist agenda. It had a small pinch of the “believe in yourself” message, but didn’t go further. It had all the makings of a Game of Thrones-Handmaid’s Tale mashup epic, while still maintaining a tone of innocence and beauty. It was careful to not be too religious, using the somewhat generic “God” rather than referencing terms such as the Holy Spirit, or the Jewish Adonai. It tries to play it safe, perhaps to gain a wider audience and greater revenue.
But in the quest to gain a wider audience, Mary has diluted its message. What is the message of this film? What does it teach us about Mary or the Gospel? It does perpetuate the refuted story of Mary’s nativity but it doesn’t seem to use this narrative to elevate or venerate Mary, using it rather to fill in Mary’s back story not found in Scripture. In that sense, perhaps we need to be careful not to dig too deeply into the backstories of people for which we do not have details in historical accounts or Scripture. But this is a minor critique.
What I found most disappointing was the lack of message, the lack of philosophical or spiritual depth which many of us seek around Advent. Don’t get me wrong, the film was wonderfully entertaining, well-acted and with beautiful cinematography. I would thoroughly enjoy watching it again, but simply as a refreshing change from the latest Christmas RomCom.
- Meaning that Jesus was born miraculously, without passing through the birth canal.
- Pius IX, “Apostolic Constitution: Ineffabilis Deus,” December 8, 1854, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/18541208-costituzione-apostolica-ineffabilis-deus.html.
- Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (Gutenberg, 2001), https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2848.