Mary (2005) watch online HD

The latest film by Abel Ferrara, "Mary", was without doubt one of the most eagerly awaited films of this year's Venice Film Festival, where it won the Grand Prix.

"Mary" will of course be linked to two other big 'relegious' films of the moment: "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Da Vinci Code". However the film stands firmly on its own merit.

"Mary" can easily be read as "Ferrara's reply to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"", a film which made great impact culturally and indeed commercially, like one of the summer blockbusters of 2004 in the United States. However "Mary" does not derogate from the sulfurous tradition which characterizes the films of Abel Ferrara since the beginning, and as such his film is significantly more intellectually provocative than Gibson's film, if slightly less approachable.

While giving us a completely revolutionary vision of the character of Mary Magdalene, the director questions the cult of spirituality, while once more questioning his faith with a rare humility.

"Mary" takes as it's starting point the now almost mythical Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus. The film then evokes three characters bound by her spirit and her mystery... Marie Palesi, an actress, who is playing Magdalene in a film. Tony Childress, a director who is playing Jesus in his own film. Ted Younger, a celebrity journalist, creating a TV show about religious faith. Between fascination and spiritual search, destiny will join these three together.

Before Ferrara's "Mary" was even thought of, Juliette Binoche had already been approached to play Mary Magdalene by the historian Jean-Yves Leloup who translated the "Gospels according to Mary Magdalene" and was working on a dramatization. At the time, Binoche declined this offer. Today it is partly thanks to her and Jean-Yves Leloup that "Mary" exists. The historian's dramatization forming the film within a film. Due of this thoughtful and rich background "Mary" does not rest only on one simple "reaction" to the vision of Mel Gibson.

The character of Tony Childress (Matthew Modine), director, playboy and megalomaniac seems partly inspired by Mel Gibson but also by Ferrara himself - or his reputation at least. Tony is brilliant in his art but hopelessly poor in life.

The message conveyed by "Mary" is subversive in that the film questions the basis of the mystic Judeo-Christian teachings while approaching what can be regarded as one of the more taboo questions of religion, namely the integration of the female into the Divine Word. From this point of view, "The Passion of the Christ" failed and was even symptomatic of the commonly allowed representations of women in religion, namely the worshiping mother, Mary, and the prostitute, Mary Magdalene and the choice to entrust the role of Satan to a woman, while the Word belonged fully to a man - Jesus. On the contrary, Abel Ferrara, who bases his film on the Gospels discovered in 1945 and in particular on the texts credited to Mary Magdalene herself, provides us with another vision of Magdalene as the chief disciple. He thus returns to the female figure the capacity to spread the Word, which women were dispossessed of through the centuries.

The film opens with Mary Magdalene (Juliette Binoche) directly after the resurrection. The film is warm and glowing. Then Tony Childress (Matthew Modine) yells cut and the audience is plunged into the reality of the film. After the shoot finishes Childress prepares to return to New York. However his leading actress Marie Palesi (Juliette Binoche) is so affected by her role that she reuses to go with him. Instead she abandons her career and goes to Jerusalem in search of the true Magdalene and resolution for her faith.

Back in New York Ted Younger (Forest Whitaker) approaches Childress to appear on his spiritual TV show. Younger's life is a mess, and although his work has lead to his questioning of faith in his personal life he does no such thing. Instead he blatantly cheats on his pregnant wife (Heather Graham). Childress' film "This is My Blood" has caused controversy with the far right and the Jewish lobby. The premiere is threatened with violence. Younger manages to contact Palesi in Jerusalem and creates a telephone confrontation between her and Childress on his show. This confrontation has major implications for all three.

The history of Mary Magdalene, such as it is suggested by the extracts of Childress' film, is put at the same level as those of Marie, Ted and Tony. However, it ends up rising above theirs since its message will touch each one of them successively. The director films much in darkness and closed places - cellars, studios, a car or an empty apartment - leading an atmosphere of oppression, supported by a throbbing musical score. At times this darkness is contrasted with beams of illuminating light. Rather than being a trite visual allusion this leads to a revelatory sense of change.

The acting is sensational, Juliette Binoche seems literally inhabited by her roles - both as Magdalene and Palesi. She goes from serene to distraught to serene again. Forest Whitaker delivers an upsetting performance and proves once more that he is one of the best actors of his generation. Finally the performance of Matthew Modine is cerebral and emotional work, difficult since he could easily have become a caricature of Gibson or Ferrara.

"Mary" is successful in the aim to embrace the complexity of the religious faith. Wiser seemingly than usually, Abel Ferrara delivers a fundamentally subversive work. The film conveys a deeply human message with universal vocation which does not require faith in order to be understood or appreciated. In fact the film can be simply be read as a religious horror film - without the devil.

After the conclusion of the shooting of the polemic movie "This Is My Blood" about the life of Jesus performing the role of Maria Magdalene, the successful actress Marie Palesi (Juliette Binoche) feels obsessed by the life of her character and decides to stay in Jerusalem in a quest of faith and self-knowledge to fulfill the emptiness of her life. The selfish and egocentric director Tony Childress (Matthew Modine) returns to New York, where he meets the atheist host of a famous TV show Ted Younger (Forest Whitaker) in the prescreening of his movie. Ted is presenting a series of programs about the life of Jesus Christ and invites Tony to participate as a guest in his show. Meanwhile, Ted has one night stand with Tony's assistant and his upset wife Elizabeth Younger (Heather Graham) has problems with her pregnancy having an early delivery. When the desperate Ted sees the pain of his wife and his premature newborn son, he regrets and feels the need to pray for his beloved family.

Abel Ferrara usually uses Catholic icons in his movies; however, "Mary" is specifically about elements of the Catholicism, such as faith, guilty, sin, love and regret. The story is very well acted by Forest Whitaker, Juliette Binoche and Matthew Modine; however, the screenplay is confused and something is missing to make "Mary" a great movie. Nevertheless, it is an original story and does not disappoint. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Maria" ("Mary")

Today I saw Ferrara's "Mary" for the third time and still was not able to get under its chameleon skin. There are some characteristics which I'm almost sure of. It's provocative. It boasts raising relevant questions which need not be considered solely religious. It indulges in emotional hyperboles bordering on kitsch. (Whitaker's endless monologue reminded me of Keitel's repeated howling in "Bad Lieutenant", similarly torturous and ridiculous at the same time.) It's structurally sophisticated, visually appealing, and probably honest .... But I can't get the message. Or to be more precise : I am not quite sure that this critical treatise on modern life + values is more than a cheap sermon in the end.

Mary is the key figure within my dilemma. I wonder if the director would admit the possibility that she, too, is an erring child of her time - neurotic, confused, prone to self-delusion while searching for truth/meaning of life .... The shots of the fishing boat in the final segment (including that suite of Semitic beauties at dawn !) seem very questionable to me.

One of my favourite reviewers, Mr. Ekkehard Knoerer, doubts whether the director and his screenwriters actually know what they want and do. I don't know either ; but then again, sometimes it's better not to know.

This film is far more ambitious in its scope than it is successful in delivering its message. Despite the illustrious cast, there was nothing remotely spiritual in either the characters or the performances, save perhaps Forest Whittaker's scene of repentance in church towards the end, which nevertheless left much unresolved and was ultimately unconvincing. I think this is therefore inadvertently more a demonstration of the inability of the contemporary film industry to discuss spirituality, than it is about Jesus, the Apostles or Mary Magdalene. Juliette Binoche was feeble in her portrayal of Mary Magdalene, delivering a confused, slightly hysterical and nondescript portrait of a woman who is otherwise known to be both an extraordinary person and supposedly the film's central concern. The character played by Matthew Modine was the most convincing, in his cynical, hypocritical and totally materialistic egotism - and I think this fact alone says something about the 'spirit' which guides the whole movie. But even this admittedly interesting character was left sketchy and undeveloped.

Discerning viewers should be warned: not only is the film an attempt to justify heresies the church has known and rejected for valid reasons since the dawn of Christianity (as well as some new-fangled ones), but it fails even in its heretical intent - the whole film is a series of loose threads leading nowhere. It leaves one with a vague feeling of religious unease and a sense of the demonic gnawing monotonously away at Christian tradition; yet another rusty nail in the resurrected Body of Christ. I should mention that I'm not against free speech or even the misrepresentation of religious truth, here ably conveyed in their fictional 'interviews' by the purveyors of error themselves, Jean Yves Leloup and Elaine Pagels, would-be academics prostituting their respective disciplines for the broader public; but if you are going to make a movie with a heretical or blasphemous message, at least make it good artistically. In all, a waste of 2.5 hours.

I'll need to start at the end of this film. No spoiler, don't worry. Just me saying, "Huh?" Ferrara's rambling, affected film left me stranded at the end in a Dead Sea. I really wanted to find something to recommend in this film, but all I could think of was how unfocused it was, how miscast, and how dull.

One particular problem was Ferrara couldn't decide if he wanted to make an investigative documentary or a inspiring religious drama. On the one side we've got real theologians yammering away about Jesus and Mary, and clips of violence in Palestine. On the other side we have two stories about New Yorkers having spiritual identity crises, and an actress still neurotically lost in her role wandering through the streets of Jerusalem looking for something to eat, or something. In the end we get a murky, arty film with meandering plot lines that don't really go anywhere.

In addition we have a casting problem. Juliette Binoche as the ersatz Magdalene plays her role as a treacly, new-agey Christian proselytizer. She reminded me of the people who accost you on buses asking you if you've found Jesus yet.

Modine and Whitaker, both plainly uncomfortable playing their roles, end up giving us melodramatic performances that, when arriving at the moment of spiritual catharsis, cause them to start chewing up the scenery. I couldn't help thinking that Whitaker's appeal to God in a hospital chapel made him look like a subject in a Goya painting, but without the pathos that the artist's subjects engenders. Both actors were not able to evince any genuine feelings, which is due mostly to a plot that doesn't allow them to develop their characters in the first place.

Better to watch Kazantzakis, or even Gibson. Or see "Cammina, Cammina" by Ermanno Olmi.

My wife and I were trying really hard hard hard to see this piece of art to the very end, hoping that its endless boredom will end up, as it says "thriller" on its genre. No plot we did find, no interesting part, no good feeling of watching a movie but anger how wonderful stuff HBO showed up on Saturday prime time in the Czech Republic. Who pays for this "art"? The authors only stole some ideas from Da Vinci Code without making their final product interesting. Just non stop rehashing "Jesus this and Jesus that, and Mary Magdalene this and Mary Magdalene that", just good for priest seminary.

I understand that not every day is a holiday, isn't it? But why on Saturday evening prime time, HBO, why!?

It is really hard to understand what kind of message this film is supposed to convey. We have several threads of story that start and seem to lead nowhere. Juliette Binoche is an actress who after acting as Mary in a film about the life of Jesus is struck by religious fervor and apparently starts identifying herself wit the the Bible character. Forest Whitaker is a religious TV host who does not seem to care to much about God, but when disaster strikes his personal life he remembers Him and starts praying and believing - are we supposed to believe as viewers that this sincere? The film about Jesus starts some kind of controversy which seems to refer to Mel Gibson, but the real Mel Gibson as much as I may not like him is certainly sincere in his beliefs, and does not look like the cynical character in this film. Although 'Mary' lasts only 83 minutes the screen time is too long, so it is filled up with scenes of the biblical story (from the film in the film, or trying to convey some confuse metaphor? who cares?) and an episode of a Jewish Passover celebration in Jerusalem interrupted by an act of terror with no connection whatever with the rest of the story.

It is hard to grasp why this film was made, what is it really trying to say and why actors like Juliette Binoche and the now-Oscared Forest Whitaker got involved with it. They act well, but it's wasted talent. Unless you are a fan of Bible inspired films, there is no good reason to spend the time seeing it.

During the 80's and 90's,director Abel Ferrara was one of the leaders of the independent cinema making amazing films which challenged the spectator.But,his recent works are far away from his previous works.New Rose Hotel and R Xmas were a little bit disappointing but they were interesting experiments.But,I do not know what was Ferrara thinking when he was making Mary,a tedious and boring movie and,by my point of view,a huge let down in his career.During 83 minutes,the movie shows us three stories which are totally boring and uninteresting.I think Ferrara wanted to make an analysis about the religion but,still with that,I think he had to do a better work to make a coherent connection between the stories.For me,it is very disappointing that Ferrara,who made excellent films with very little resources(like,for example,Bad Lieutenant,The Addiction,Ms.45 and The Body Snatchers),was behind this crap.I hope Mary is only an unexplainable false move in Ferrara's career and that,he will get redeemed soon.But I cannot recommend Mary,which is a tedious film.

I really enjoyed the actors playing, however I think the movie could have spend more time on most of the interesting subjects it only "listed". During all the movie, I really enjoyed it, but when it finished I thought "That's all ?" and found that it was in fact quite empty. Nothing about what was the life for women at the time of Jesus, about interesting ideas which leaded Mary to drop her career, ...

I really think this movie would have been really great with 30 more minutes and more stuff to make us think about the ideas it "lists".

However I think it's beautiful and interesting enough, so you should go and see it :)

It seems like Juliette Binoche is trying to compete with Orson Welles, who received joint third billing in The Third Man in return for about 8 minutes screen time. Here Binoche draws top billing and gets to work about ten or twelve minutes. It's very possible that without her prominent billing this wouldn't draw flies. Sure, the usual suspects, the Festival crowd who like to award prizes to worthless material - check L'Esquive if you don't believe me - have appeared out of the woodwork at Venice but I was part of an audience of eight and most of those I suspect were sheltering from the snow that fell on Paris earlier today. Perhaps it's me but I couldn't detect much of a reason for actually making this. After the hackneyed opening - the rolling of the rock only to discover the body of Jesus is no longer there and a director yelling 'cut' to let us know it's only a film - director/actor Matthew Modine tells Binoche it's time to go back to NY, just like that maybe two minutes after completing the scene, no wrap party, no packing, nothing! only for her to announce she's splitting and leaving for Jerusalem like now, Man. Okay, she's been profoundly affected by perhaps months of filming and immersing herself in the role of Mary Magdalene but we have to take that on trust. After that we get dragged into the story of Forest Whittaker, a celebrity TV interviewer who just happens to be making a series of programmes on Religion and hardly ever gets back to his pregnant wife who, in the real world, instead of yelling at him would be down at the studio because as a celebrity he surely has enough clout to have his wife there. There's lots of talk and I mean TALK, endless, meaningless and in between Binoche wanders around Jerusalem looking cute as Amalie but ultimately this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying ... nothing.