Mary (Netflix Film): Review
DJ Caruso's new Netflix Bible adaptation/biopic, Mary, follows the story of Jesus' mother from her own miraculous birth through the virgin birth of Jesus and on to the flight of their family from the murderous King Herod. It is a frustrating film but not for the reasons that many have feared.
From the onset, there is a certain type of critic that is automatically skeptical of any Christian or Bible-based film. The expectation, which is a result of a lot of legitimately cringey content, is that any film that is made for Christian audiences will be low-production value, poorly acted, preachy, and boring. Fortunately, Mary overcomes many of the typical pitfalls of Christian movies. It is a beautiful film - gorgeous costuming, stunning locations, excellent cinematography. Most of the actors do a good job as well – nothing Oscar-worthy but certainly not the stilted performances you would expect from typical Christian fare. The film also isn’t that preachy. Yeah, we get a little bit of soliloquizing here and there, but nothing out of step with what you would expect in a biopic. The only pitfall that Mary does fall into is boredom – not because of a lack of spectacle or drama but because of its poorly constructed story. Let me circle back to that in a minute though.
Just as there are critics who have a bias against all Christian films, there are also Christians who have a bias against all films produced by mainstream secular corporations like Netflix, regardless of whether the film itself is ostensibly Christian or biblical. The assumption is that executives and the mainstream film system simply cannot produce authentic Christian/biblical content. To me, it seems unfair to discount a film or show before actually watching it based solely on the platform. Of course, executives could suck authenticity out of a film or balk at the particularism of Christianity/Judaism, but I actually expect this to happen less and less in our current environment. Any competent executive should be able to look at the failure of inauthentic biblical films like Exodus Gods and Kings and from the success of authentic projects like The Chosen (which has captured the imagination of Hollywood and secular film media) and recognize that giving Christians the authentic biblical films they want is the best financial decision. Mary is far from immaculate, but I don’t think they are necessarily due to the involvement of Netflix.
I have seen some Evangelicals and Protestants question whether the film is too Catholic because it contains extra-biblical traditions about Mary’s conception and her parents Joachim and Anne. While it certainly leaves open the door to a Catholic view of Mary, that doesn’t seem like an inevitable conclusion from the film. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are Catholics who question whether the film isn't Catholic enough, since it depicts Joseph as a young man with no children when he marries Mary (yes, I know some Catholics believe Jesus’ brothers and sisters may have actually been cousins, so it could work). But I honestly just don’t think the film is drawing on the tales of Mary's early life to make a theological or polemical point. Mary seems much more interested in using the mythic quality of these stories (which doesn't bother me).
I have also seen historically orthodox Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) concerned about the involvement of Joel Osteen, the famous Prosperity Gospel megachurch pastor. I’m not a fan of Osteen’s theology, but I don’t see much influence of Health, Wealth, and Prosperity thinking on the film anyway, so it seems like a moot point. If you worry that the film could be a Trojan Horse for the Prosperity Gospel (kind of like how people feared The Chosen was for Mormonism), don’t. Again, Mary just doesn’t seem interested in those types of questions or debates.
Oh, and I have also seen some complain about how the actress portraying Mary is Israeli. This criticism seems so ridiculous and anti-Semitic that I just don’t have much time for it. Yuck.
Mary doesn’t fail because it is Christian or because it comes from Netflix or because it is Catholic or because it is Protestant or because it was produced by Joel Osteen or because of the ethnic identity of its actors. No, Mary fails because of its writing.
Now, as an aspiring writer, I feel a bit skittish about attacking the screenplay of Mary because there are many things that the script does far better than I could ever hope to do in my current work. The dialogue is often engaging and eloquent, there is some really intriguing world-building related to the Temple, and the individual scenes generally flow quite well. Unfortunately, these strengths are ultimately overwhelmed by the film’s big picture problems.
One of those problems is with the genre. Like many biopics, Mary is not driven by its own intrinsic narrative. Instead, the film tries to encapsulate the events from across the youth of its titular character, leaping from event to event in a manner that feels disjointed and prevents us from feeling a real sense of real urgency or drama connecting to and understanding the characters. Indeed, it often feels as if characters are puppets who act not due to their own intrinsic motives but rather because the film needs to get to the next important bit of Mary’s life.
This is made even worse by the heavy use of the angel Gabriel as a deus ex machina (Sidenote: I found the costuming and movement of the Gabriel character quite interesting). Characters in the film rarely get to make real decisions or come into meaningful conflict with one another. When characters need to act, Gabriel just shows up and tells them what to do. When one character isn’t sure if he/she can believe another character, after a brief moment of tension, the mention of the man in the blue robe clears up the misunderstanding immediately. Obviously there are a couple of these moments that are biblical and could not be avoided. But many of them – the most egregious – have no foundation in Scripture. But the problem with these moments isn’t that they are extra-biblical – the problem is that they rob the characters of real agency or depth.
Which brings me to one of the chief sins of Mary. The titular character feels quite flat. That’s not due to the acting or directing – Noah Cohen does quite well with what she’s given. It’s because Mary rarely gets to make any choices or act in a meaningful way. As Syd Field has pointed out, “action is character.” We get to know who someone is by seeing what they choose to do in response to difficult situations and conflict. When a character like Mary is simply swept along – passively acquiescing to the plans and directions of others – we’re never really able to grasp what’s going on beneath the surface. The only moments in which Mary gets any real agency are during her time as a Temple maiden – when she chooses to go out to feed the poor or when she shows up late to prayer because she’s been tending to her garden. Unfortunately, moments like these are not given enough space to give us meaningful insight.
The only character in the film who shows any real depth is Anthony Hopkins’ King Herod – precisely because his actions are self-directed, goal-oriented, and actually have consequences. Although the pick of Hopkins for Herod feels a little on the nose, I suppose there’s a reason why Hopkins is the go-to pick for pensive old kings. I would have liked to have gotten a better sense of some of the forces that Herod is under pressure from – and Herod starts to feel a little over the top by the end of the film – but I never felt disengaged while Herod was on screen. Indeed, the film would have worked much better if it had focused on Herod and eliminated or minimized a few of its minor antagonists. The Satan character feels particularly cartoony and unnecessary. There are also various Jewish factions – Zealots, the High Priests, nomads – which never get fully fleshed out and feel flat.
Herod also has a chief agent, Marcellus, whose role in the film is a bit puzzling. After a brief public interaction between Herod and Mary leaves the king dazed, Marcellus becomes convinced that Mary has magic powers and makes it his mission to find out who she is (we never really get much insight into what his own worldview is or why he’s so motivated to pursue a random girl that gave Herod a headache. Still, it’s not a bad setup – I could see a version of this film where Marcellus’ pursuit of Mary exposes him to things that challenge his worldview or at least his allegiance to Herod. And we get a hint of that – when Herod orders the massacre of the firstborn, there’s a moment where Marcellus seems conflicted. And yet he quickly turns into nothing more than a goon, dedicated to killing the Jewish babies without any sense of remorse or self-reflection.
Speaking of Marcellus, another big problem I had with the film was the climax. Never mind the historical inaccuracy of setting the slaughter of the Bethlehem children so soon after Jesus’ birth (many scholars believe the wise men didn’t come until Jesus was one or two) or the implausible number of newborns said to be born in Bethlehem during this time or the way everyone (not just the wise men) seems to know that the baby Messiah has been born due to the star in the sky. After the slaughter of the innocents takes place, Marcellus and his men chase Mary and Joseph to a small homestead. There we get the climax: a violent fight to the death between Marcellus’ men and Joseph and the owners of the home.
How is this conflict resolved? By having Mary appeal to Marcellus’ men and stir their conscience? By giving Joseph a chance to kill a soldier but instead having him to show compassion? No, it’s by having Joseph and the homesteaders cut down the Roman grunts and then wrap Marcellus up in a flaming net so that he burns to death. So I guess the solution to Roman violence is… more violence? It feels so out of place – not only with Christian theology but with the rest of the film itself, which in other places suggests that the violent way of the Zealots is misguided. If there’s anywhere it feels like there may be truth to the “Netflix will ruin/corrupt the biblical story” fear, it’s here. Killing the bad guy may work for the ending of Gladiator but it doesn’t make sense as the pivotal action in a story about the mother of the Messiah who laid down his life for his enemies. I’m not even saying killing the attackers was morally wrong – it was clearly an act of self-defense on behalf of innocents – but that is just not what this story is about.
It’s a shame that the film fails in such critical areas because, as I briefly alluded to above, Mary actually has a lot going for it. The visuals really are stunning, the world feels fantastical and fascinating, but not in a way that undermines biblical historicity. And most of the actors do quite well. Still, I can’t see any of that saving the film from being a disappointment to viewers, regardless of their faith background.
I may circle back and leave an actual recap of the film and do a little analysis, but I wanted to get my review up for now and mull things over a bit. Feel free to offer pushback about the film – but please know I’m not really interested in debating the Prosperity Gospel or Protestant vs. Catholic views of Mary, etc. If you have honest questions though, I’m glad to try to help clarify things.
