Over at IMDB.com (the only place I go for my news) they're reporting that the Pope, Pope Whatshisface, will not be attending a special premiere screening of the new film, The Nativity, to be held at the Vatican: "Sixteen-year-old Whale Rider actress Keisha Castle-Hughes stars as Jesus' mother Mary, but the fact the New Zealander is pregnant and unmarried is said to have embarrassed the Catholic Church."
Riiiiight. But I suppose that 2000 year old unmarried pregnant women are all right then? Maybe she was just using method acting...
or the rhythm method?
10 comments:
I have no idea how The Church could ever be "embarrassed" by someones actions. Not after all the crazy stunts we've pulled. Have some grace, ugh.
Poor girl. I read in another source that they're not letting her attend the screening. Lame.
Well since you mentioned it in the next post, it doesn't seem ironic at all to me, unless the new girl's baby was conceived immaculately... otherwise the situations seem completely dissimilar...
It is definitely lame how they're reacting to it, though. On the third hand, keep in mind their obsession with Mary - they revere her so highly, it's tantamount to having a gay man play Jesus.
Ultimately it seems a little rude to produce a film about the central figures of a major religion, using actors who don't follow that religion... not wrong per se, but a little rude. Sadly, it's a lot less rude than the 'The Church' is apparently being in return.
Well, not completely dissimilar: she is young, unwed and pregnant. The source of the child aside, its the same thing. The experiences of social shame and isolation that Mary must have experienced, regardless of how she got pregnant, should at least temper the Vatician's attitude towards this actress. Ostracizing someone for being unwed and pregnant doesn't seem very Christian or, as Dave said, grace-filled.
An aside: It always strikes me how the Church (not simply the Catholic Church, but the Church at large) reponds to things like this much like the Pharisees respond to things in the gospels.
I haven't read anything about this particular actress's faith so I can't say.
Tom! It's awesome because now I know what you look like. :)
Ok, first, I'd have no problem with someone who is gay playing Jesus. I'm sure the guy who played Him in "The Passion" has lied, cheated, gosssiped, envied, been boastful, and even rebellious towards his parents (which are all sins the Bible aligns equally with homosexuality).
Second, I'm curious as to why you think it's rude to have people who are not Christians play the parts of Biblical figures. What would you rather have... A Christian that misrepresents Jesus or an non-Christian who does a flawless job? If they do their job accurately, as in historically accurately, then I'm fine with it.
Mike, I think you hit it with the Pharisees in the gospels comment. It really is saddening to me. *sigh* THIS is the kind of P.R we Christians get now.
As I said, I agree that their reaction is unjustified. Not graceful or Christian at all, as you say. The shame and isolation that Mary underwent was of course misplaced, but it would have been placed more or less correctly, had she conceived by other means in those times.
I agree what they're doing is wrong, I merely disagree that Mary's situation can be said to parallel hers. They aren't looking down on her simply for being pregnant and unwed; I think it's clear to everyone they're looking down on her for having had sexual relations outside of marriage.*
I promise, I used homosexuality as my example because it would have the greatest effect in illustrating my point, not because I hold it to be a special worse sin than any of the others. Considering that we are talking about the PR arena, a public-statement type sin that the actor claims not to regret or feel guilt over (e.g. homosexuality) would be a larger issue (though, again, not worse) than other sins.
I, too, considered writing 'not that I would mind that,' but then I reconsidered and wrote my third paragraph.
I think that a person who believes in Jesus and who has spent their life trying to understand Him (and the Bible and its characters, etc.), would be better equipped to portray Him and/or those characters.
Naturally I would not prefer a poor portrayal, and as I said, ultimately it's not wrong for someone else to try their hand. Just a little arrogant, maybe, if that's the right word. There are a lot of actors in the world, right?
Like if they made a movie about the life of someone who is a very competent actor, and he's on board with the project, he would probably expect to play himself. It could be considered a snub for the studio to go after someone else. Granted, no Christian actor today actually is any of the Biblical characters, but they (may/should) have spent a lot of time researching them - and in the case of Jesus, actually getting to know Him. This is why I would consider it slightly rude or arrogant to select an actor from outside the faith. Again, not wrong, just a little bit rude. Not something I would expect to hugely affect the quality of the picture.
There's also the issue of subtle falsehoods creeping into the performance. For instance you mentioned historical accuracy - in the case of Mary I would consider that to mean an immaculate conception and a virgin birth, but few non-Christians would be likely to agree. This element of their worldview could produce some form of agenda which could affect the performance. Really though, that issue isn't automatically done away with merely by using an actor who claims Christ. So I'm just writing for fun at this point. Not that I wasn't enjoying it before... I totally was.
Come to think of it, I suppose someone who may in fact already have been taking flak for being pregnant would probably have some unique perspective to offer on the subject. Possibly more than anyone, Biblical scholar or not. So in this case I will say that I mind even less than usual. Maybe not at all anymore; it's hard to tell now, the amount is that small. :)
* (unless it was an artificial insemination... I don't know, but I think they would also view that as wrong outside of marriage, which I think is probably right, and possibly also within marriage, because they are crazy... either way it wasn't how Mary's pregnancy came about)
Are you sure you mean Immaculate Conception, Tom? Immaculate conception is the (almost exclusively Catholic) belief/dogma that Mary herself was conceived without sin, not that she conceived Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. In other words that Mary was conceived Immaculately.
I like that you clarify rude as opposed to wrong, Tom. My argument for using non-Christian or non Jewish actors to portray most Bible characters (Jesus being the obvious exception) is my personal concern with white-washing, or Sunday school-ifying, them in order to make them look better than they really are - and undermining the idea that you don't need to be perfect to beused by God. Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, the apostles all had some rather unpleasant character flaws or made some pretty stupid decisions.
Though even with the portrayal of Jesus, things like denominational biases worry me. A relative of mine once re-edited (with a pen) a section of book by Max Lucado that suggested Jesus likely drank wine and (*gasp*) danced at the Wedding of Cana, because her understanding - what she had been taught her whole life -of "holiness" could not include drinking alcohol and dancing. Any actor who is sensitive that the character's significance to many people and concern for an unbiased and historically accurate depiction (ie not blonde) should be encouraged.
I can feel this discussion coming down to technicalities and semantics. Ah well.
I understand why you used homosexuality as an example I was just showing, or hopefully showing, that the Catholic Church really has no legs to stand on here. Obviously every sin is equal, obviously the Catholic church agrees with that, yet they're inviting 7000 people to come to this movie and denying one girl entry, why? It's not defendable.
Even if this girl hadn't gotten pregnate she wouldn't have been worthy of representing their idea of Mary.
Dwell on this for a second: The Church has killed thousands of people for some ridiculous reasons. In the 20th century they finally step up and admitt they were wrong and ask for forgiveness. We say we're just human and to give us a second chance. This asking for forgiveness is a HUGE theme throughout the later half of the 20th century and the begining of the 21st.
This girl gets pregnate, and we say "nope!" You messed up and now we're punishing you.
That's ludacris.
Mike wrote EXACTLY what I thought when I read your comment. No matter who you hire you're going to have biasis. I doubt you could get anyone to play Jesus the way I see him :)
As for that little re-write, Mike. Wow. At least it was only Lucado though.
Well the problem with our argument is that we don't disagree on the main issues. The Catholic Church is being stupid, we agree. It's not wrong for non-Christian actors to portray Biblical characters, we agree. So yes, the points we have some disagreement on would indeed be small ones to argue over... it just so happens I love to argue over technicalities...
Where we disagree is really only on whether the situation is actually ironic given Mary's own situation, which I still don't think it is. Awful yes, ironic no. That's just me though.
Yeah, I think the only dispute is the "irony" of the situation, and I think that's a matter of perspective.
Oh wow, this was intense! I can't believe I missed out on this whole discussion, where was I?
Mike your blog is hard to keep up with
Post a Comment