Here's the actress:
Here's a photo of a young Israeli woman from Google:
Can anybody really look at these photos and actually complain about the physical appearance of Mary in this film?
Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
I respect your comments.
However, the opening comment by the poster of the thread, pyro, said that he wanted protestants to back off on their opinions and consider this a different kind of discussion....as if we were inside a Catholic catechism class.
That's fine with me. I'll do that. But that makes it a protected thread.
For me, I probably wouldn't think I was being intensely disagreeable when others would think that my disagreements were designed to be rude.
I guess the Latinos should all throw out their Virgin of Guadalupe statues, since Mary appeared to Juan Diego as having Indian/mestizo features.
And all those iconic images of Mary in Europe should be tossed, since a lot of those look pretty Northern European.
Yeah, yeah but what about showing Mary in PAIN? Blasphemy.
Unfortunately, the Bible says no such thing. Martin Luther did--inventing the doctrine of "sola scriptura" from thin air. And he had zero authority to do so.
Is the Bible true?? Yes. Is all the truth of Christianity contained therein?? No. (And the Bible itself explicitly says exactly that.)
Dear xzins,
"I respect your comments."
Thanks.
And that's the point, xzins. You're usually respectful of other folks' comments, viewpoints, beliefs, etc.
Having a heavy-duty theological dispute with you is usually a pretty pleasant affair. Remembering Chesterton, it shouldn't be impossible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Although Pyro7480 has asked for respectful commenting, nonetheless, the articles themselves preclude making the thread protected. Clearly, Catholicism is contrasted with Protestantism, directly, by name.
If there are non-Catholics who believe that their beliefs are poorly represented by the Catholic author, it is unfair not to permit them to say so in this thread. It's difficult to justify the exclusion of non-Catholics with non-Catholic viewpoints from this thread.
That being the case, I don't know why it should be so darned difficult to treat each other and each other's beliefs with a modicum of respect. And I don't know why treating each other's beliefs with a modicum of respect isn't built-in and explicit in the forum's rules.
This is clearly a thread that should be: open; but where folks should deal respectfully with the material.
The rules certainly require the first, but certainly don't require the second.
sitetest
Jesus, the heavenly and eternal momma's boy. Who can be safely ignored by those who'd rather talk with His mother? Marian devotion puts the acCENT on the wrong sylLAble.
Did you guys really have to get THAT vulgar about the Mother of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, true God and true Man?
See post #80.
One comment in particular stood out for me, in light of my wondering if this should be a "caucus thread."
If there are non-Catholics who believe that their beliefs are poorly represented by the Catholic author, it is unfair not to permit them to say so in this thread.
The difficulty is that disagreement is regularly seen as being disagreeable whether intended or not.
Taken in consideration of pyro's comment that the "reformed" should hold back on their opinions, it just strikes me as the definition of "caucus thread."
That is not to disagree with you at all about common courtesy being an avenue that would allow all threads to be open. But, as long as some are asked to be discreet in their opinions, then we have a potential problem.
No, you have it wrong. Try meditating on the richness of the Incarnation...I mean really thinking about the miracle of it all. That God would come down and take flesh from a simple girl whom God Himself loved beyond all measure....to knit his divine nature with her DNA. Think about that.
Our Marian devotion ALWAYS leads to Christ. She always points to her Son, Our Lord. Look at the icons of Mary. She is always pointing to Christ. Our rosary meditations are so Christocentric. We are devoted to her because she was and is completely devoted to the Godhead. She gave her whole being, body and soul to God. That is our call as well. And we are devoted to her because she reminds us of our vocation as Christians...to give heart and mind and body and soul to God.
...the cult of the BVM...
What in the world are you talking about? Care to provide any extant evidence of same? Or are you throwing this out there with the same cavalier contempt you exhibit with your Marian 'goddess'...?
Dear Antoninus,
Thanks! That nails it! I'll let my wife know your view.
sitetest
Vulgar how? We weren't referring to sin. We weren't using crude slang. *You're* the one who posted an article that seems to be all up in arms about the intactness of Mary's hymen.
Reread the articles (there are actually two). Neither refers to a specific body part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.