Noa Cohen as Mary in the eponymous Netflix movie. Image from Netflix / Mary
At the outset, let’s make it clear that the controversial Netflix film “Mary,” while having biblical roots, is not entirely derived from the Sacred Scriptures. Devout Catholics or not, one should not see the story as a straight narration of biblical events. Expectedly, the producers merely shared a creative interpretation of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
One may wonder about the basis for the script. In a previous interview, D.J. Caruso, the film’s director, said they looked to the Gospel of James. The non-canonical text told the story of Mary’s birth, her childhood, her engagement to Joseph, and to the virginal conception and birth of Jesus. Accounts by historian Josephus also influenced the script, particularly its political aspect. Several scholars and theologians were also consulted, according to writer Timothy Michael Hayes.
Using non-canonical texts as basis for this film presents no inherent problem. After all, the movie is an interpretation and requires an open mind. It attempts to be authentic while being intentionally and expectedly inaccurate.
The refocus on Mother Mary, ably portrayed by Israeli actress Noa Cohen, aims to peek into her mystery — her human self. By emphasizing her “humanity,” the film allows viewers to reimagine her blessedness as a “gift from God.” To achieve this, the film harped on Mary’s core emotions. We see Cohen’s Mary as somewhat euphoric as she follows a butterfly. In another scene, we feel her determination and diligence at the Temple of Jerusalem. Her compassion for a beggar across the street is also depicted. These simple emotions build up what would prepare Mary for more complex encounters later on.
Cohen portrays Mary’s indignation toward the tyrannical King Herod, outstandingly played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. We see her confusion at her sudden betrothal to Galilean carpenter Joseph, played by another Israeli actor Ido Tako. Mary subsequently endures worry, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, distress, and fear, all while maintaining grace and composure. While beautifully rendered, the film does not necessarily offer anything new or novel to the viewers.
The trouble lies in the fact that while the film centers on basic human emotions, it fails to connect with the audience. While the film attempts to humanize Mary and instill inspiration, it fails to elevate her character. The material portrays her as admirable, but not transcendentally fascinating as “a gift from God.” Unfortunately, the film falls short of evoking such emotions
Towering shadows
There were two characters in the movie that appeared to have relegated Mary, the main character, to the sidelines.
Anthony Hopkins’ brilliance as Herod shines through. His nuanced acting is unmistakable in its subtlety, and his stage presence dominates every scene. Australian actor Eamon Farren’s portrayal of Lucifer/Satan is equally striking, with his evil made almost too real.
Hopkins and Farren’s palpable onscreen presence, through no fault of their own, is so commanding that it tends to overshadow Cohen’s portrayal of Mary.
The roles of Herod and Lucifer call to mind the inclusion of Satan, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas in Mel Gibson’s opus “The Passion of the Christ.” However, what worked in “The Passion” does not work in “Mary.” In the 2004 biblical drama, these characters were seamlessly integrated, while in the 2024 film, Herod and Lucifer/Satan appear larger than Mary herself.
“The Passion of the Christ” imbued a sense of forgiveness. Mary, on the other hand, anchors itself in love and promises to pierce the audience’s heart but ultimately falls short, even in that regard.
Editor’s Note: Louie Laresma is a broadcast journalist and a former copy editor at CNN Philippines and GMA Network, Inc.