« Compare and contrast | Main | BTW »
November 28, 2006
Nativity Story
But now a couple of the flaws (or more softly, insufficiencies) I found. The movie seems undecided which way it wants to go. On the one hand it wants the deep drama associated with presenting one of the most incredible events in human history, on the other hand the movie is so scared of coming across too heavy that it finds itself obligated to sprinkle (and sometimes spray) comedic relief wherever it can. The Three Wise men, for instance, end up acting more like the Three Stooges than anything else. The looks and reactions of the main characters to the difficulty of their situation and the uncertainty of their future more often provoked nervous (and heartfelt) laughs from the audience than concern. Granted, there are many poignant moments in the movie, and nothing can draw tears like seeing the story of Jesus Christ’s birth portrayed on the big screen with Hollywood’s full light and sound magic. But nevertheless, the constant switching between sadness and slapstick was a bit jarring, and not as polished as it could have been.
The film has been widely previewed across the country over the past couple of days - if you saw it, tell us what you thought.
ttp
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I saw the movie last night with my wife and mother. All three of us are Catholic school educators, so we really enjoyed the sneak preview privilege!
The film does a wonderful job of transporting us back to the time of Christ's birth. The details were one of my favorite parts of the production. I enjoyed the meticulous attention given to the agricultural way of life (sowing, reaping, grapes, cheese, milling, homes) the Jewish rituals (slaughter of animals, prayers, biblical language, cutting of foreskin, etc.), the Temple of Jerusalem itself and all of the intricate robes of the priests of the time, the very real fear the Jewish people had over taxes and the political climate of the time (crucifixion, Herod's murdering of the children, taking of a daughter in lieu of taxes), the instrumentation of the three magi. The list could go on and on. The movie did the little things very well I thought.
There were also many simple moments that were poignant and made me tear up, like when Mary washes the feet of Joseph or the concise exchange with the shepherd, or the delicate holding of hands between Joseph and Mary. There were many such moments.
I also really liked Joseph in the film. All three of us agreed that the film shed new light on Joseph as "heroic" and virtuous in a way that is often neglected. I thought Mary perfect for the role, but my mother thought her deficient in some respects. On the whole, I think her facial language conveyed her piety and faith very well. I also liked how the movie portrayed their common struggles with her strange pregnancy. The dream sequence in which Joseph almost stones Mary was moving.
I guess, in short, I liked the simplicity of the movie. Could it have been better in some ways? Yes, but I think it was a sincere and mostly successful attempt at creating sacred art. We desperately need more sacred art in our VERY profane world. I think we are so out of touch with what passes for sacred anymore...
Adam
Posted by: Adam Thompson at Nov 28, 2006 11:38:37 AM
Saw it! When I gather thoughts together more (and am not at work...) I will post on my own blog, but briefly, I liked it. Didn't love it, but liked it. It may age better with a second viewing too, one reason that I think that I didn't go totally for it was that I was always a bit suspicious of it... would they do something stupid? Would they preach at us any PC crap? Would they bring in any "fad" theories of bibilical scholarship? Would they show Mary, at least by outwards appearances, "sinning" (granted, the pristine image we Catholics tend to have of Mary is perhaps a little too pristine, she was a real girl after all and just because she didn't sin doesn't mean that she didn't feel emotions and make mistakes)
Well, thankfully, the answer is (mostly) "no" to these questions that were always in the back of my head. So now I will have to wait until I see it again to see more about what my real impression is of it.
One thing that I REALLY liked - the scene of the Visitation. Glorious.
One thing that I really DIDN'T like - the angelic parts. Both too much like "Touched by an Angel" ("glowbug" and all) and not enough like it, in terms of the angels seeming too wooden and unreal.
Theologically, of course, the question of Mary having labor pains did come up, the crowd murmuring amongst us at our Catholic leaders' screening picked up considerably during that scene and most of the snitches of comments I heard around me had to do with people questioning that and asking each other what Tradition really said about it. Unfortunately, that kind of distracted me from the actual viewing of the Big Moment itself - but then again, the Big Moment distracted itself by being very abrupt - one second you were waiting with Mary in labor, the next, whoa, popping into the scene is Baby lofted high in Joseph's arms with no umbilical cord or blood or anything. "Look, it's Pop-Tart Jesus!"
All in all, it was a good movie, and a perfect example of a "Mere Christianity" movie. As in, it holds true to the common orthodox Christian understanding of the Virgin Birth of our Lord, though without the added details that could have been gained through the Traditiona and traditions of the Church, and/or her mystics' experiences, as Mel used in the "Passion of the Christ". I would recommend it to everybody, with the exception of perhaps very small children at the beginning of the movie - they start the movie with a violent scene of the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod (Honestly, I don't know why, other than to grab our attention.... kind of weird, perhaps it is an editorial decision that the studio made thinking that it was a better marketing scheme)
Oh - and from now on I'm singing "We Three Wise Guys from Orient Are". Good grief. I liked them though. :)
Posted by: Romain' Roman at Nov 28, 2006 11:51:56 AM
Sounds like medieval drama - maybe I'll see it.
I'm working on a paper right now about a fart-filled interlude in an 8 hour 15th century mystery play based on the life of St. Martin of Tours. Between the Saint's last colloquy with his followers and his actual death scene we have a farce on the death of a miller in which the apprentice demon is waiting under the miller's bed for his soul to be - umm - expelled from his body.
The next scene involves St. Martin's soul in the form of a dove flying up to heaven...
In other words, all-solemnity-all-the-time is not the undying tradition of Catholic drama.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Nov 28, 2006 12:56:55 PM
Roamin' Roman,
I don't think our view of Mary could ever be "too pristine." Of course she felt emotions, but there is no biblical evidence of her "making mistakes." Tradition teaches that Our Lord was born as light passes through a stained glass window. The visions of the mystics echo that at well. Also, she was free of the stain of Original Sin and there is no reason to think she would "need" to suffer labor pains.
Posted by: S at Nov 28, 2006 1:03:13 PM
Posted review at my blog.
Posted by: Bill Cork at Nov 28, 2006 1:11:48 PM
S - some good points, but I do disagree with your comments. Of course Mary can never be considered too pristine in terms of salvation history and her sinlessness and fullness of grace - but she was NOT God, and therefore is not perfect. All rational beings but God can make mistakes, because they are not God and do not know everything. Hence, we can indeed believe that Mary could (and probably did) make common - but sinless - mistakes. She's not all knowing, that's the whole point of God using her, so that we may learn from her faith and trust. Surely Mary did made mistakes in her understanding of what that Child was - we all must, the only one who knows God is God. Scripture supports this, when they were upset with the Child Jesus for staying behind in the Temple, one could say they were mistaken in their assumptions about what Jesus should be doing.
If it's not taught by revelation through the Scriptures or Tradition, the Magisterium of the Church, it is theological opinion. Augustine, the Church Father who said what you are citing about Christ being born like a beam of light, is not in himself dogmatic. Augustine's opinion is always to be respected, but unless what he says is confirmed by the Magisterium of the Church it is just that - opinion, it is not a dogmatic definition and we must be careful not to make it one. Additionally, I would caution anyone against being "sola Augustine" in this case - to say Augstine literally meant "beam of light" and that's that is, I think, presumptious. There is a possibility he did mean that, but there is also ample reason to believe that he was speaking ahistorically. Go read Fr. Z's blog comments for more citations on this subject, and argue away there to your heart's content. :)
Another thing of note to this discussion is that Scripture teaches that Christ was man like us in ALL things but sin. Why would not God thus give him to us through the ordinary means - nay, the miraculous means! - of a woman's body? Virginity is not defined as NOTHING (not even a baby) entering the birth canal, and would have no impact on the virginity of Mary before, during or after the Birth.
Also, I never said that Mary would "need" to suffer labor pains - I don't know where you got that one from. None of us have said that she needed to. I don't know whether she did suffer them or not, and if she did, I don't know if she needed to suffer them. I do not presume to know the answer to questions that are debatable, though I am of course happy to debate the possibilities. If the Magisterium discerns the answer by the Spirit one way or the other, I accept that interpretation.
Posted by: Romain' Roman at Nov 28, 2006 2:14:19 PM
I met a Hollywood refugee a few weeks ago. He claimed his Catholic nativity movie, "Miriam," was shelved when potential producers got wind of this movie.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Nov 28, 2006 2:33:21 PM
Here is something regarding Our Lady, the Churchs tradition and Labor pains.
The Church has taught the truth of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity from ancient times. St. Ambrose, one of many Fathers of the Church to teach about his beautiful mystery, had interpreted the closed gate of the temple, spoken of in Ezekial 44:2, as the closed womb of Mary. The Second Vatican Council spoke of, “the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it” (LG #57). In the Catechism, we read of , “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC #499) In 1992, Pope John Paul gave a talk in Capua, Italy, to celebrate the 1600th Anniversary of the Plenary Council which had been held there to discuss Mary's virginity in childbirth. He stated, “it is a well-known fact that some Church Fathers set up a significant parallel between the begetting of Christ from the intact Virgin and his resurrection from the intact tomb... they all testify to the conviction that between the two saving events -- the generation-birth of Christ and his resurrection from the dead -- there exists an intrinsic connection which corresponds to a precise plan of God: a connection which the Church, led by the Spirit, has discovered, not created.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as, The Roman Catechism, teaches us that, “to Eve it was said: ‘In pain you shall bring forth children’ (Gen. 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.” Mary did not suffer from the effects of sin as we do, since she had been immaculately conceived. Another example of this is that while our bodies corrupt after death, Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.
Sometimes we can learn a great deal about the beliefs of the Church through her prayers. In one of the Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Mary at the Foot of the Cross”, we pray, “In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.”
Posted by: Fr. Joe at Nov 28, 2006 3:50:18 PM
Frankly, I think those that nitpick this movie based sorely in whether the Virgin Mary had labor pains or not are completely missing the point of the entire movie.
Posted by: Veronica at Nov 28, 2006 4:41:37 PM
Thanks for saying so, Veronica.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Kathleen Lundquist at Nov 28, 2006 5:11:54 PM
Roman,
You disagree and point out that I choose to site Fathers of the Church. I do not claim to be an expert here. However, I do a fair amount of reading. You seem to site your own opinions of Mary and not the Church Fathers. You were giving a review of the movie, and so your opinion of Mary is certainly a part of your review. You might enjoy reading a work of one of the Doctors of the Church, St. Anselm. He wrote a beautiful little book whose entire subject is the true meaning of Jesus staying behind in Jerusalem after the Feast of Passover. He never mentions any "mistakes" on the part of Joseph and Mary and he does not say they were "upset." I believe they sought him "sorrowing," not fuming. I find the attitude that, “Mary was a real girl, after all” to be more of a Protestant perspective than a Catholic one. I have actually heard a Protestant friend use those very words when expressing disdain for the reverence Catholics have for Mary. I did not say Mary was God. She is Theotokos-the Mother of God. I think the church literally means Mother of God here, Roman, with all the meaning that title carries with it. I will not see the movie The Nativity because I do not enjoy Protestant interpretations of Mary and her role in Christ’s life.
Thank you Fr. Joe for your wonderful authoritative comments.
Posted by: S at Nov 28, 2006 5:28:30 PM
Forgive the somewhat off-topic remark, but here goes: Sometimes on other sites, I've run into discussions of Our Lady's virginal body, in which certain individuals feel free to speculate about the most intimate details of our Queen's body based upon no solid evidence, using terminology proper to an OB-GYN* examination room . . . it just isn't right. Mary is our Queen, crowned in glory; no one should violate her personal privacy be speaking unnecessarily of her in that way.
Please let me add that I am not speaking about general conversations avering Our Lady's perpetual virginity, and explanations of the concept so that others may understand and appreciate this quality. That is a good thing.
But once the truth of her perpetual virginity is understood, to debate the details of it all . . . well, when that occurs, I can only think, how astonishingly impertinent and indelicate.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Nov 28, 2006 5:47:34 PM
Marion: Amen.
Posted by: derringdo at Nov 28, 2006 5:53:46 PM
I saw the movie and liked it very much. I hope more films like this are made.
I also disagree with American Papist in regards to the Three Wise Men. I saw nothing wrong at all by providing a little bit of subtle comedy through the Wise Men and I thought their silliness made their seriousness in their adoration of the child Jesus even more powerful.
And Marion, Amen.
I think the biological makeup of Our Lady is very intimate and sacred. She was a perpetual virgin no doubt, but isn't virginity about chastity and purity and nothing to do with the biological makeup of the woman.
Posted by: Brian at Nov 28, 2006 6:06:08 PM
I guess that there are some matters about which the good Lord has seen fit to enlighten us, and others upon which a curtain of silence has been drawn.
Someday, many mysteries will be revealed.
Can you imagine, upon reaching Heaven, and beholding our Blessed Mother crowned in glory, approaching her with inquiries about what the virgin birth was like for her personally? Did she experience this sensation; did she undergo such and such a physical change. . . ?
I don't think so.
If I wouldn't presume to ask Our Lady for such details if I met her in person, I wouldn't want to discuss them, so to speak, behind her back.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Nov 28, 2006 7:27:15 PM
To suggest that suffering labour pains somehow taints Mary's Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity is an extraordinary quantum leap of faith and logic. Surely virginity is about chasitity and purity - they physical detail may provide a degree of 'proof' but any ob-gyn specialist will tell you it is not definitive. If Jesus was 'born of woman' - there is only one way for that to occur, to suggest otherwise is to question not merely perpetual virginity but the Incarnation. Some gnostics questioned whether Jesus trully died on the cross or merely 'appeared' to do so. Here we have the suggestion that Jesus was not truly born of woman but merely 'appeared' to be born.
Posted by: Clara at Nov 28, 2006 8:10:22 PM
Marion:
Amen and amen. I personally find discussions about the details of our Blessed Mother's 'physical integrity' to be both disrespectful and absolutely pointless.
Posted by: Veronica at Nov 28, 2006 8:43:33 PM
I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone here. I love the fact that Catholics have a forum such as this. I do think all of you who are upset about the discussion of Mary's perpetual Virginity ought to back up and read Fr. Joe's comments. He cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church documents, and prayers for specific Masses honoring Mary. Clearly, someone with authority in the Catholic Church has deemed the subject worthy of discussion! The subject today grew from reviews about a movie, which apparently portrays the very thing you all think should not be mentioned! I thought this wonderful blog was one place where no one needed to be PC.
Posted by: S at Nov 29, 2006 10:09:25 AM
It seems clear to me that in Fr. Joe's post, the Church DOES teach that Our Lady did not suffer the pains of labor. The Catechism of the Council of Trent isn't nullified or anything. As for discussing "intimate details" about Our Lady's virginal form, as "S" notes, the Church in her wisdom has discussed this and made itself clear that Our Lady remained intact. Believing so doesn't remove the fact that Christ was born of her (passing through the birth canal), just that I think we can assume that because A) she felt no pain and B) she remained physically intact that saying Christ passed into this world "as light through a stained glass window" sounds like a good description to me. Plus, it's cool. :)
Anyways, I look forward to seeing the movie, and I DON'T think discussing this one aspect is "nitpicking." We're talking about Our Lady and what we believe about her as a Church, and that's important. Good for the movie to trigger this discussion.
Posted by: Anne at Nov 29, 2006 12:12:57 PM
Why on earth is it relevant whether or not Mary experienced labor pains? Sounds like an unimportant aside to me.
Posted by: JonathanR. at Nov 29, 2006 12:14:17 PM
Dear S.,
I am afraid there has been some misunderstanding, and I would like to do what I can to clear that up.
I think most of us would agree that Our Blessed Lady's perpetual virginity, together with other circumstances surrounding the miraculous Incarnation and Birth of Our Lord, are most suitable topics for conversation.
And I liked Fr. Joe's comments, which you referred to, very much.
Elsewhere on the web - not here - I have come across a number of conversations consisting of lengthy speculations about . . . the clinical details of Our Lady's condition before, during, and after the Nativity of the Lord. And folks have gone on to argue and debate their speculations surrounding these most intimate details.
I won't repeat those . . . anyone who hasn't read them is lucky.
The latter is what I think a consensus here has agreed, is out of place.
As for being "P.C.", I know this stands for politically correct, but how one would go about being that, I haven't a clue.
Posted by: Marion at Nov 29, 2006 12:36:48 PM
Saw it Monday at a Manhattan theater. The room was packed with Friars and Sisters of the Renewal, Daughters of Charity and Sisters of Life. That, in and of itself, was a grace-filled moment for me.
I liked the film a lot, and most of the little things I faulted the movie for (the truncated Magnificat, for instance) were tempered by the knowledge that the filmmakers were trying to appeal to the widest non-denominational audience as possible.
But, it was a real kick for my two buddies and I to watch the faces of the hustling and bustling New Yorkers as all these men and women in religious garb spilled onto the neon-lined street.
Priceless!
Posted by: Didymus at Nov 29, 2006 12:54:08 PM
Marion,
Thank you so much for clearing things up. I was under the impression that you and those making later comments viewed the discussion on this blog as well as my comments as disrespectful and inappropriate. Having not seen the movie myself and having no intention of seeing it, perhaps my comments are inappropriate after all.
Posted by: S at Nov 29, 2006 1:11:20 PM
This whole concept of "intact" is a male concept for evidence purposes.
My younger sister at the age of six was in a bicycle accident which broke her hymen. I had a medical condition that required a grown-up exam at the age of 14 and mine was broken by the doctor.
This is a common occurrence, but I guess we would have been stoned back in the day or been considered unmarriageable, but we were "virgins" in spite of what had happened to us.
Doesn't bother me in the least to think that Mary had Jesus the normal way, but didn't suffer any pains. I know women who have delivered that way.
We know that the earth circles the sun nowadays and not the other way around. We should also give up the non-biological idea that a ripped piece of skin renders one no longer a virgin - even though that constituted proof of fooling around in the old days.
Posted by: Julia at Nov 29, 2006 1:21:23 PM
Thanks, Julia. I was just about to chime in on the same issue.
Also, S. perhaps you should see the film and then decide if it helps or hurts your faith. If your faith in the Incarnation is hurt by a cinematic depiction of labor pains, maybe there are larger issues to be concerned with. Sounds like those who have seen it have found it interesting.
Posted by: MercyMe at Nov 29, 2006 4:10:10 PM
