Fr. Geiger's Review
The Nativity Story Not on Par with The Passion of Christ
By Fr. Angelo Mary Gieger, FI
On November 27th, I attended a prescreening of New Line Cinema’s The Nativity Story, after having read and participated in several blog discussions concerning the Virgin Birth. Going into the theater, my expectations were low, due to the amount of confusion expressed by Catholics who were discussing a depiction of Mary in the throes of the pain of childbirth. In all fairness, however, I have to report that I found the movie, in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery, albeit one from a clearly Protestant tradition. But for that reason, not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady.
Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them. Unfortunately, we now often find ourselves defending the Christmas mystery, both from the secularists, and from the demythologizing scripture “scholars,” who casually explain away the whole infancy narrative, from the apparitions of the angels to the very event of the Incarnation itself. Happily, no such agenda is apparent in this film. Present are all the angelic apparitions, the miraculous star, and the Magi actually called by their given names from Catholic tradition: Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. In fact, in this movie, it is Melchior who drives home the essential truth of Christmas, by quoting the prologue of St. John, calling the newborn Jesus “the Word made flesh.”
Producer Wyck Godfrey, writer Mike Rich and director Catherine Hardwicke, have created a film that seems to consciously follow in the footsteps of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Recognizing the public’s desire for Gibson to produce a Christmas story, they took up the torch, so to speak, when Gibson showed no interest in the project. The connection with Gibson’s movie can be seen in the similarities of the promotional material, the shoot location in Matera, Italy, and even in the opening shot, tilting from the sky downward and through the clouds. According to one report, a fake olive tree built in Matera for The Passion of the Christ is even used on the set for Nazareth.
However, the contrasts between the movies are even more striking. The Passion is a fundamentally Catholic film, while The Nativity is clearly a Protestant one. While scriptural blanks exist in both cases, Gibson provided the necessary details through the help of Catholic mystics, ultimately yielding a multi-layered, contemplative, and wholly reverential film. In stark contrast, Hardwicke, a Presbyterian, directs a much more “ecumenical” Nativity, one in which the filmmakers consulted “as many historians and theologians as possible,” yielding a film that is predictably muddled.
Consensus theology generally renders an ecumenism of the lowest common denominator. As such, this portrayal of the Nativity manifests this tendency where one would expect it to, in regard to the character of Mary.
Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology. According to Godfrey, Hardwicke was chosen to direct because “[s]he has had great success at really capturing the lives of young people in particular, and the conflict, crisis, and pain of growing up.” In fact, Hardwicke co-wrote and directed Thirteen, a hard-edged, R-rated story about teen rebellion. Unfortunately, the Mary of The Nativity seems to have been spattered with the same brush that Hardwicke used for the earlier film.
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. That's very personal and startling, and you can imagine how that would make a person feel.
So much for the Immaculate Conception, the joint predestination of Mary with Christ (Pius IX, Pius XII), Her perfect and effective cooperation in God's plan, and the Perpetual Virginity. Ignoring these doctrinal truths results in a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology. In fairness to Hardwicke, this was hardly her intention. In her mind, this movie is about “the most famous teenager in history.” The Nativity itself is just the setting for a story about growing up.
This mindset leads to a general observation regarding the difference between the Catholic approach of The Passion of the Christ and the Protestant one of The Nativity Story. It is roughly equivalent to the vast differences seen in the style, scope and substance in the works of the likes of a Mary of Agreda and that of a Max Lucado. Whatever attempt was made by the Catholic mystics to represent the psychology of the Incarnate Son of God or the Immaculate Conception was done from a decidedly doctrinal point of view, characterized by humility and reverence. Whereas, the more Protestant and humanistic approach relies almost entirely upon complete character identification. The reader or viewer must be able to see themselves in the place of the main characters. This usually involves creating scenarios in the experience of these characters similar to our own, irrespective of a received tradition. Perhaps the most universal scenario portrayed both in literature and drama is the human experience of the Fall. Certainly, the Catholic contemplative tradition has always sought identification with Christ, and Our Lady, but this in no way involves a meditation on the Fall. In The Passion of the Christ we find plenty to identify with, but Our Lord and Our Lady are never seen as anything less than heroic. The difference between the Mary of The Passion of the Christ and that of The Nativity Story is the difference between being raised up by the sacred truth we contemplate or being dragged down by the debasement of the mystery through a failed effort to understand it. The Mary of the The Nativity Story is definitely and decidedly fallen.
Thus, 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. All this, of course, changes with the Annunciation. A pregnancy she cannot explain is the crisis that transforms her. It is understandable that a Protestant mindset toward Our Lady wouldn’t resist the temptation to novelize her, for the purpose of character identification, or to capitalize on such an opportunity for dramatic tension.
Likewise, the artist’s hand hones in on the climax of the story, the birth itself, with mixed results. Hardwicke creates dramatic tension by conjoining the frantic efforts of St. Joseph to find shelter with the supposed labor pains of Mary. The light of the star arrives at the manger cave and shines in through a hole just as St. Joseph, clearly awestruck, delivers the Holy Child. Here, dramatically speaking, Hardwicke succeeds. The reverent intentions of the filmmaker are clear enough, but confusion on the part of Catholics is inevitable.
Following the premier of the film at the Vatican on Sunday, heated discussions about the “painlessness” of the Virgin Birth immediately erupted. However, many of the comments in the blogosphere miss the point entirely. The essential truth of the Virgin Birth, as taught continually by the Fathers and defined by the Church, does not concern the presence or absence of pain during Jesus’ birth. The central truth of the Virgin Birth is that Christ was born of Mary miraculously, as a sign and confirmation of His divinity. The Virgin Birth has always been distinguished from the Virginal Conception, because it was a separate and distinct miraculous event. It was not a natural birth, nor is it explainable by natural causes. Our Lady’s physical virginity, with all that it implies, remained integral and intact before, during and after the birth of Jesus. St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure and the Catechism of the Council of Trent all teach the painlessness of the birth as a logical consequence of its miraculous nature.
The Virgin Birth is an essential part of the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity, and in addition to its value as a sign of Christ’s divinity, its miraculous nature just further underscores Our Lady’s unique, grace-filled and exalted place in God’s plan. It inspires us to praise Her, admire Her and love Her for Her glorious Virginal Maternity. And while one might expect a Protestant filmmaker to get this wrong, it at least opens up the discussion which can help correct a real doctrinal error believed by many Catholics.
Other aspects of the movie enjoy only mixed success. While individual scenes are visually beautiful, the total effect of The Nativity’s filmmaking is one-dimensional and rarely moving. The overall seriousness and reverence with which the subject matter is treated is broken by the rather awkward comic relief provided by the Magi, an unnecessarily disturbing scene of a young Jewish girl being abducted by the Romans, and an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth to John the Baptist. (The slaughter of the innocents, shown in two sequences, is a relatively mild presentation.) While the scenes of the Magi may indeed appeal to children, the presentation of the two births, especially Elizabeth’s, are just not suitable, in my opionion, for young children to view. The portrayal of St. Joseph is refreshingly masculine and virile. His character is well-developed as a just man, and his honor becomes a central theme of the story. Unfortunately, this is juxtaposed by the aforementioned rather flat and disappointing portrayal of Mary.
It is also worthy to note that there is at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph in The Nativity Story, namely, 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.
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. Whether considered in light of its virtues or its flaws, the movie provides an opportunity to catechize people about the true meaning of Christmas, about the real gift that is Jesus, and about His Holy, Ever Virgin Mother, Mary.
The subject matter of The Nativity Story lends itself so well to the promotion of true devotion to Mary. Unfortunately, the way in which it was treated will only confuse the ignorant and confirm them in Marian minimalism. Perhaps there is some hope that the likes of a Gibson will one day match the sublime Marian art of The Passion of the Christ with a Nativity story truly worthy of Our Lady.
Ave Maria!
I saw this movie, and my review was that it is a "nice" movie. It was obviously non-Catholic, having downplayed the words of the Magnificat and having used some bible passages as dialog (which sounded strange)...but overall I thought the movie was "nice"
I should also note that the depiction of Joseph was phenomenal, and (correct me if I am wrong) St. Joseph gets even less play in Protestant tradition that Our Lady.
In fact I kind of got the impression that he was the hero of the movie.
Just an opinion though, I'm sure Stephen Greydanus will have a review in short order.
I have no problem with saying the portrayal of Mary doesn't meet Catholic standards, but why should it have to? Aren't protestant interpretations allowed?
Marking.
I would merely say that Roman Catholics should bear with non RC interpretation of Scripture in films, as non RC Christans have had to be so patient with so many films, up through Gibson's "Passion."
Romans 14 & 15
>> The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ,...
Pain and suffering was a fundamental characteristic of Christ's life and no less an attribute to those close to him, especially Mary. I fail to understand how the 'true' birth of Jesus is equated with a painless delivery. If in fact Mary did experience pain during the miraculous birth, are we being foolish to suggest she didn't?
Respectfully, Mary was a very holy and blessed woman. But, she was a mere woman. The Bible does not say her childbirth with Jesus was painless. Protestants are people of the book. Catholics are more people of tradition. If you don't like it, don't go. The focus of the nativity should never be Mary. The real Mary would point to Jesus rather than some dispute that draws attention from Him. He's the reason for the season. Not Mary.
Did the movie also misrepresent the Catholic Church's teachings on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
The extra-biblical beliefs about Mary are truly amazing.
Thanks for bringing this one to the forefront.
Oh please...I saw the movie yesterday...and it is a wonderful movie...the birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, was all of 30 seconds in this movie.
I know Protestants who are raving about this movie, who are scheduling group outings to go see it. My Catholic relatives have no interest in seeing it.
Bookmark for later
Let's put Pope Benedict over the top!
http://www.islamonline.net/polls/english/24-12-06/Survey.asp
Pass it on.
It is my understanding that pain during child birth is part of the punishment for original sin. Since Mary was born without original sin, it makes sense, along with the other given reasons, that the birth of Jesus was painless.
And I'm still wondering if the movie is any good.
I think we look silly.
Three conditions for the plenary indulgenceAnd so the Supreme Pontiff, motivated by an ardent desire to foster in Christians this devotion to Divine Mercy as much as possible in the hope of offering great spiritual fruit to the faithful, in the Audience granted on 13 June 2002, to those Responsible for the Apostolic Penitentiary, granted the following Indulgences:
a plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");
A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation.
(Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy)
I ask my "Reformed" Christian brethren to be respectful of Catholic theology with their comments on this thread. Thanks in advance for your cooperation
That worked, didn't it?
As a Catholic, I did not take my kids to see it but my wife and I did. I think the biggest problem with me in regards to the movie is that it was a huge BORE!!!!! I was disappointed at how horrible the movie was. I could be the only one I don't know, but I was disappointed that is for sure.
[I ask my "Reformed" Christian brethren to be respectful of Catholic theology with their comments on this thread. Thanks in advance for your cooperation]
Why,sure. You have a right to be wrong and I have a right to say so. Mary did not retain her virginity, she had more children as bible readers know. She also was a sinner saved by the grace of God as her statement in Luke , chapter one.
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
All sinners need a saviour and Mary was a sinner saved by God and a virgin who the Holy Spirit used to conceive Jesus of Nazareth, who is God in the flesh and who was crucified for our SINS and Rose again the third day for our salvation that the grace and love and plan of God may come to fruition. Mary can not save sinners because she is a saved sinner.
Only Jesus was crucified for our sins, Pyro.