MARY MAGDALENE: The Biblical Forerunner of Feminism

Biblical cinema, Rooney Mara, Joaquin Phoenix, and the director of Lion — that combination intrigued me instantly. A screening of Mary Magdalene promised a fresh take on a well-known subject, one that would aim for both emotional depth and spiritual elevation. Thankfully, to a large extent, it succeeds. It’s another biblical adaptation crafted in a modern, realistic style, offering a valuable new perspective. Yet, the film doesn’t entirely avoid its blind alleys.

The story of Jesus of Nazareth, the savior of humankind, is so universally known that both literature and film have repeatedly tried to approach it from alternative angles — to look at his life through the eyes of someone close to him or someone who met him by chance. Ben-Hur, for instance, only seemingly tells the story of an Israeli prince’s spectacular fate. In truth, it focuses on a conversion that occurs in the protagonist’s heart through his encounter with Christ. Another example is Barabbas, starring Anthony Quinn, which explores what became of the murderer judged alongside Jesus and pardoned by Pilate. This shift in perspective appeals to the viewer because it allows one to see Jesus from a distance — to judge him by the fruits he bore.

Garth Davis takes a similar approach in Mary Magdalene. This time, the story of the Messiah is told from a woman’s point of view. According to Christian tradition, the film’s protagonist was Jesus’s closest companion, living among the apostles after he cast seven demons out of her. She is the one who brought oils to his tomb. She is also the first witness to his resurrection — which is why she is called “the Apostle to the Apostles,” her role in the story of salvation being of great importance. Yet, for centuries, the Church portrayed Mary Magdalene in an unflattering light.

The stereotype persisted that the sin she had committed — one she left behind upon joining the apostles — was prostitution. She was openly linked with the adulterous woman mentioned by Luke in his Gospel. Only recently, with her feast day being elevated to the rank of a solemnity, has the Church begun to acknowledge that these associations contradict Scripture and distort the true message carried by her figure.

Davis’s mission, then, was to highlight the qualities of Mary of Magdala that justify her sanctified status. The director treats the notion of sin — the one attributed to her and from which she frees herself — with intriguing subtlety. In the film, Mary is meant to be wed to a man named Ephraim, but she feels no calling toward marriage and struggles to understand her difference. Normally, there would be nothing unusual about that, except that in Jewish tradition, marriage was seen as a near-sacred act.

Any deviation from that norm, especially for women, was frowned upon — often equated with a life of sin. Yet it seems that rejecting tradition was Mary’s destiny, for something greater awaited her. She encounters an extraordinary mystic, a mysterious teacher named Jesus, who opens her eyes to the truth. It is his path she decides to follow.

Despite its biblical setting, Mary Magdalene resonates with modernity. I have the impression that one of the film’s aims was not only to restore Jesus’s disciple’s reputation but also to express admiration and respect for women. And while I usually find overt feminist signals inserted merely to flatter contemporary trends rather tiresome, here everything feels natural and justified. Using a biblical figure to convey female strength and independence works — creating a parable about a woman who, in a moment of ultimate trial, was able to rise to the occasion and see light within darkness.

Mary’s sensitivity contrasts sharply with the apostles’ more militant attitude — a contrast made crystal clear by the film’s ending. The Church, the film suggests, was built not upon the testimony of the first witness to the Resurrection but on the voices of those who initially refused to believe it. Importantly, the film avoids scandal and delivers its bold moral lessons with restraint and subtlety, without throwing accusations in the viewer’s face.

However, its attempt to cater to modern sensibilities and multiculturalism deserves mention. Davis’s film stumbles when it casts a Black actor as Saint Peter. I have nothing against Chiwetel Ejiofor (though I still can’t pronounce his name) — he’s an excellent actor, and outside of the biblical context, he gives a convincing performance as a determined disciple. But given that Peter was a Galilean Jew, the casting choice feels inconsistent. Unless, of course, we treat the film as a kind of alternative history that selectively reinterprets its source material.

I genuinely liked Phoenix’s portrayal of Jesus. As for Rooney Mara, however, I can’t say her performance stands out from her recent roles. She acts with little expressiveness or spark, and I’m not sure this role suited her. I have a problem with her as an actress — in nearly every film, she seems to play the same pale, withdrawn persona, more like a street mime than a character meant to captivate.

Mary Magdalene also struggles with pacing and priorities. The story is told from the perspective of Jesus’s devoted disciple, yet throughout the film, it feels as if her character serves merely as a narrative device — a way to disguise the fact that we’re once again watching the same familiar story, just told differently. Competing for attention with Jesus Christ himself is no easy task, but it would have helped if Mary’s psychological portrait had been developed more deeply.

Ultimately, though, much good shines through — both during and after the viewing experience. The film is solidly crafted, beautifully shot, and convincingly styled. Its tone is striking too — some scenes grip the throat with rising tension. Combined with its meaningful themes, Davis’s film offers genuine satisfaction, despite the flaws it couldn’t escape.