Controversy over Jewish-Israili actress playing Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like you are trying to shut down dialogue and criticism by claiming I lack empathy and am prejudiced. It’s not going to work.

It is possible to have very different conceptions of Mary based on religious texts. I was expressing mine which appears to be offensive to you. The notion of God impregnating a 16 year old or anyone else for that matter us beyond silly, problematic, and offensive to me. I should be able to express that. The purpose of PPR is not to evangelize or uphold scripture. The guidelines make it very clear that we can harshly critique religious institutions, ideas, and figures as long as we aren’t attacking adherents of that faith.

As the OP I suggest that consideration be given to separating a lot of the last part of this thread. To me the discussion has evolved to a point that has no relation to the original topic.

^^ Did either of you watch the movie in question? What did you make of it?

^ Religious figures are also not above criticism, right? For example, we can critique YHWH, Mary, Jesus, John, Paul, and Ringo or the idea of them whatever that might be?

We're still talking about the movie, aren't we?

Critical reception
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 29% of 14 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.30/10. Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 27 out of 100, based on 6 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable" reviews.

The film received mixed reviews from critics. Ronak Kotecha of The Times of India rated the film three out of five stars, writing that it "falls short in its quest to be truly divine". He noted that the screenplay felt restrained and underwhelming, contrary to what one would expect from a religious epic. He commended the performances of Cohen and Hopkins, but noted that the supporting cast's performances were constrained by the script's lack of dimensionality with regards to their characters. He also commended the production design and costuming. Catherine Bray of The Guardian rated the film two out of five stars, calling it "fairly straightforward", but "a wade through dull dramatisations of bits of scripture". She commended the performance of Hopkins as one of the more entertaining parts of the film. Tim Robey of The Daily Telegraph rated the film one out of five stars, calling it "the worst film of the year" and writing that "there's hardly a single moment in Mary which helps us figure out why it was made". He noted the dialogue as "heinous" and the cast's performances as "strangulated". He also criticized the film's lighting and color grading.

Isabella Soares of Collider called the film "surface-level and uninspiring" and wrote, "Mary is tonally uneven, and its script falls flat". Despite the film being marketed as both a coming-of-age film and thriller film, Soares found the film to be neither of the two. She further called the film "a missed opportunity" that "fails to make full use of its protagonist's perspective and show a deeper look at one of the most famous figures in Christianity". John Serba of Decider wrote, "...Mary is highly watchable, with agreeable pacing and an earnest tone funneled through a committed cast", but noted that "the film is at best moderately engaging, and somewhat inadvertently courts indifference." He commended Cohen's performance despite the screenplay's "clunky dialogue", but noted that viewers might be better off rewatching The Greatest Story Ever Told for the "cinematic apex" of the religious epic genre.

Religious media response
Mary received mixed to negative reviews from Catholic media outlets, largely due to differences between the film's content and Catholic teachings. Amy Welborn of Angelus commented that the film's source material seemed to be "a highly selective mashup of the Gospels, the noncanonical "Protoevangelium of James", [...] and a Joel Osteen sermon". She felt that this, in turn, "create[d] a picture of Mary that is inconsistent, to say the least, with her actual role in the Christian story." Joseph Pronechen of the National Catholic Register noted that the film "portrays the Blessed Mother with reverence but takes troubling liberties with Catholic doctrine", which include depicting Mary having labor pains during childbirth, which he claimed was contrary to Catholic teaching. This, however, has been disputed among Catholic theologians. Pronechen also noted the complete omission of the Magnificat.Nick Olszyk of The Catholic World Report rated the film 1⁄2 out of five stars, calling it "so strange, haphazard, and poorly written that any profundity and meaning are easily lost".

Non-Catholic media outlets tended to receive the film more favorably. Christopher D. Cunningham of Meridan Magazine, a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publication, "[Y]ou can feel the care and craft that have gone into [the film]. . . . This doesn’t feel like there was a tinkering team of religious advisors sanding down every moment that might conflict with how anyone might see the nativity story. It simply feels like an expression of faith from those who made it." He commended the performances of Cohen, Tako, and Hopkins, and called the production design and effects "top-notch". Mark Judge of Chronicles wrote, "Mary is beautiful, gorgeously shot, and expertly acted film that shows how the Mother of God was human while never diminishing her unique role in the history of the world." He also noted that the film "is what religious conservatives have been begging to see again since the time of The Passion of the Christ: a masterfully done faith-based movie."

It sounds like it will be too violent for me, so I won’t be able to see it until an edited version comes out on TV

although the reviews aren’t so great anyway…

Ronak Kotecha of The Times of India rated the film three out of five stars, writing that it "falls short in its quest to be truly divine". He noted that the screenplay felt restrained and underwhelming, contrary to what one would expect from a religious epic...

...He commended Cohen's performance despite the screenplay's "clunky dialogue", but noted that viewers might be better off rewatching The Greatest Story Ever Told for the "cinematic apex" of the religious epic genre....

...Mary received mixed to negative reviews from Catholic media outlets, largely due to differences between the film's content and Catholic teachings.

Amy Welborn of Angelus commented that the film's source material seemed to be "a highly selective mashup of the Gospels, the noncanonical "Protoevangelium of James", [...] and a Joel Osteen sermon"...

...Joseph Pronechen of the National Catholic Register noted that the film "portrays the Blessed Mother with reverence but takes troubling liberties with Catholic doctrine", which include depicting Mary having labor pains during childbirth, which he claimed was contrary to Catholic teaching...

.... Pronechen also noted the complete omission of the Magnificat.

Nick Olszyk of The Catholic World Report rated the film 1⁄2 out of five stars, calling it "so strange, haphazard, and poorly written that any profundity and meaning are easily lost".

...Christopher D. Cunningham of Meridan Magazine, a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publication, "You can feel the care and craft that have gone into the film. . . . This doesn’t feel like there was a tinkering team of religious advisors sanding down every moment that might conflict with how anyone might see the nativity story. It simply feels like an expression of faith from those who made it."...

...The script, written in 2020, by writer Timothy Michael Hayes, went through 74 drafts until our shooting script was finalized...

.He commended the performances of Cohen, Tako, and Hopkins, and called the production design and effects "top-notch". Mark Judge of Chronicles wrote, "Mary is beautiful, gorgeously shot, and expertly acted film that shows how the Mother of God was human while never diminishing her unique role in the history of the world."

. He also noted that the film "is what religious conservatives have been begging to see again since the time of The Passion of the Christ: a masterfully done faith-based movie."

Only one sentence in the entire Wikipedia page about the casting “controversy”. Other articles put more emphasis on the choice of casting just mentioning anonymous social media posts. So for all intents and purposed my choice of title is about a controversy that for all intents and purposes does not exist.

Well, the controversy exists in social media. Anything involving a Jew is going generate a lot of social media posts. The actors did a good job with the material with which they had to work.

Is it a real online controversy or a few social media posts used as clickbait that fooled yours truly?

Absent the "controversy", I wouldn't have bothered to watch the movie. So, I suppose that I ought to thank you for making me feel compelled to watch it.