Feminism and apocrypha
The obsessive non-canonical narrative intrigues the question of the goals of the filmmakers. Not the story of Magdalene itself, not the resurrection of Lazarus, not the Last Supper. Discover new spiritual meanings? Christ with the face of the tired Joaquin Phoenix also talks about repentance, about the Kingdom of God, about unhypocritical faith, but miracles are given to him somehow more difficult, with tear. It's not very spiritual.
Replace the closest circle of disciples—Peter, James, and John—with one person, Mary Magdalene, and see what happens? It turns out that Peter begins to envy, there is almost no mutual understanding between Jesus and the 12 disciples. The idea of Magdalene’s special closeness to Jesus is not new and has been known since the second century. For some reason, the Gnostics found this interesting: perhaps they wanted to undermine Peter’s authority. But why do moviegoers do that?
Controversy with the Catholic Church? The image of Peter is such that the vain and for some reason black man does not attract the role of the first apostle. And textual reproaches to the popes for their humiliation of Mary Magdalene. Ordinary liberalism on the basis of gender equality is an ideological moment, uninteresting.
Is it because Mary is a woman? Most likely, yes, but it was not easy to think of this point: what other brains do the filmmakers still have? Women who by definition were mistreated in a patriarchal environment, following the example of Mary Magdalene, walk around cheerfully at the end of the film, their faces expressing confidence and strength. And for that certainty, you didn't have to wait for Pentecost. For radical emancipation, in fact, there is no need for evangelical meanings: take the disgusting Old Testament patriarchy (the Gnostics and, incidentally, anti-Semites agree with this), the optional and unpleasant role of wife and mother (the Gnostics could not tolerate marriage and childbirth), a positive assessment of negative biblical characters - the same unfortunate Judas Iscariot in the film (and how the Gnostics adored Cain! and the snake that seduced Eve, they really liked), add the authority and a special role of Mary Magdalene with Jesus (the gnos) in the text. The spiritual affinity between feminism and Gnosticism gives rise to speculation, but both the Gnostics and the filmmakers needed Jesus for some reason. The right to have Jesus to justify one’s position is not the same as seeing in Him the purpose and meaning of life. And in that sense they will never have their own Jesus.
Separately, it is worth noting the image of nature in the film as a kind of powerful element, with colors and sounds that increase the atmosphere of social tension surrounding Christ. It seems that Jesus’ nature is not at all subject here – we do not see the miracle of the cessation of the storm, no other actions that would speak of Jesus’ power over the elements. But at the same time, this method does not allow us to forget that "foxes have burrows, and birds of the sky have nests; and the Son of Man has no place to lay his head" (Luke 9:58), and this truth is really lacking in many Protestant films, not distinguished by special skill in camera work.
3 out of 10
Original