A respectable biblical drama produced by Netflix, a company often accused of being overly woke. Perhaps the decision to produce a biblical drama stems from the cancellation of subscriptions by conservatives due to what they perceive as overly woke material.
The film is primarily based on the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal gospel. Before anyone takes offense at this, let me clarify: all the Marian feasts, from the Entry into the Temple to the Dormition (except for the Annunciation, which is found in the canonical Gospels), are derived from this apocryphal text. The Church frequently draws from apocryphal sources; their non-canonical status doesn't render them heretical or dismissible. For example, the imagery of Christ being born in a stable also originates from the Protoevangelium of James.
Anthony Hopkins stars as Herod (good, yes, but clearly included as a big name to attract attention). Then again, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth had more Hollywood big names. Hopkins truly shines, however, in the final scenes portraying Herod’s divine punishment.
Thus, the conservative Catholics criticizing the film as blasphemous, according to reports, come across as uninformed. (As for Palestinian criticism over the lead actress being Israeli rather than Palestinian, in an era of genocide, I’ll simply ask: what does genocide have to do with an artist’s ethnicity if they're playing the role of a Jew?)
Since I haven’t read the Protoevangelium of James, I can’t confirm whether the film takes creative liberties or remains entirely faithful. I assume its feminist tone is drawn directly from the apocryphal text, as female empowerment is a key characteristic of Gnostic Gospels. The same goes for the significant roles of Gabriel and Lucifer (the Manichaean struggle between angels—good and evil—is evident here). Even Gabriel’s demon-like appearance reflects the Gnostic coexistence of good and evil (as seen in The Last Temptation of Christ). This also explains Joseph’s immediate acceptance of the pregnant Mary—a Gnostic perspective wouldn’t depict the virtuous Joseph initially doubting her fidelity.
I read online that critics had mixed opinions about the film. The negative reviews mostly complain about its lack of depth. Sorry, but that’s laughable. We’re talking about a cinematic adaptation of a Gospel—what depth would you expect? To avoid misunderstanding, I’m not dismissing its meanings. I’m pointing out that Gospels consist of straightforward narratives, not novelistic depth (e.g., character psychology). By this logic, we should also dismiss the Gospel According to Matthew by Pasolini, considered one of the greatest biblical films, for lack of narrative depth. The only way to give depth to a biblical work would be to write a script in the vein of Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation, which isn’t a faithful biblical adaptation.
Regarding the religious identity of the creators, I read on Wikipedia that the director is a practicing Catholic. The film, however, also had input from pastors and Muslim consultants. The involvement of Muslims makes sense, as the Quran acknowledges Christ’s virgin birth, though it considers Him a prophet, subordinate to Muhammad. Additionally, Mary is the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran, so Muslims venerate her and Jesus (though only as Mary and a prophet, respectively).
The film’s only sin is its unnecessarily long duration. It spans about two hours, covering the Virgin Mary’s life from the announcement of her conception to Joachim (I’m unsure if this detail is in the Protoevangelium or a creative choice) to the Presentation at the Temple. For instance, the Annunciation doesn’t occur until the 44-minute mark!
The entire final portion of the film, from the Nativity onward, stands out, culminating in a confrontation with the Romans (which feels more like Zorro than a biblical drama—though, being based on an apocryphal text, action is to be expected).
Netflix also produced the equally excellent Paul, Apostle of Christ, starring Jim Caviezel (of Gibson’s Passion of the Christ) as the Evangelist Luke.
