Mumbai (Harshit Yadav), December 10: Netflix’s latest film Mary, directed by DJ Caruso, has become a lightning rod for debate, sparking discussions on representation, historical authenticity, and cultural sensitivity. While the film ambitiously aims to portray the Virgin Mary as a relatable, human figure, its reception has been anything but peaceful. The casting of Israeli actress Noa Cohen in the titular role has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Palestinian advocates and conservative Christian groups, overshadowing the film’s artistic ambitions.
A Humanized Lens on Mary’s Journey.
Mary delves into the life of the Virgin Mary, exploring her transformation from a young, uncertain girl to the mother of Jesus. The narrative attempts to humanize Mary, emphasizing her inner strength, fears, and struggles. DJ Caruso, known for his work on thrillers like Disturbia and xXx: Return of Xander Cage, described the film as an effort to portray Mary’s emotional depth and the weight of her responsibilities.
“Noa Cohen brought a unique authenticity to the role,” Caruso explained in an interview. “We wanted to show Mary not as a distant icon but as a real person who faced extraordinary challenges.”
Although the director intended to do this, there are still a lot of people who claim that the film is not adequately executed. Critics point to the absence of emotional depth in the storytelling as one of the main issues in the movie, of which some even go as far as to trivialize the rather incomplete and hastily wrapped-up narrative.
Casting Sparks Global Backlash
Noa Cohen, an Israeli actress and model of 22 years old, has collided with severe criticism after it was revealed that she will play Mary in a forthcoming film. The already unstable geopolitical conditions of the Middle East have rendered the decision akin to a natural disaster. To be specific, those who are backing Palestinians in the fight against Israel and religious groups are furiously locating the sense of offensiveness in the casting. They claim that the choice of Umobi, the Israeli actress, stands for the strengths of the film in the face of the search for credible details about Mary, who is often presented as a Jewish Palestinian woman from Nazareth.
“There is something profoundly offensive about having an Israeli actor play Mary while Israel is committing atrocities against Palestinians,” wrote one critic on social media. Others criticized the filmmakers for neglecting historical and cultural accuracy.
Cohen, however, defended her role, stating, “Mary was a young woman filled with fears and uncertainties. This portrayal was about capturing her humanity, not about politics.”
A Visual Spectacle That Falters
On the technological front, Simone Is a sight for sore eyes. The film’s cinematography invades wide desert plains and also perfectly conceived period costumes, leading one to feel as if they were physically present in the lives of the people of ancient Judea. The character of King Herod was well-acted by Anthony Hopkins, and Ido Tako gave a solid performance as Joseph, but it seems that his character was not developed deeply enough.
Yet, these strong points do not provide a solution for the film’s weak spots. The lack of depth in the script was criticized, and several scenes have a visual emphasis more like a showcase, while underneath them there is a lack of storytelling.
The Broader Implications
Mary pulls the subject of representation in movies and asks various questions about it. How can the filmmakers manage the interest in doing something free creatively while still taking care of cultural and historical sensitivity? To many, the conflict over this movie is just a part of the conflicts about the worldwide story-telling.
Although Mary set out to add an original point of view to an often-looked-at figure, it became a learning opportunity to address the trials of converting sacred stories to the present audience. The film might be seen as an appreciated one for those who are stimulated by the visual effects, but it also raises problems related to history and religious interpretations.
I can imagine that some people will appreciate it for being eye candy; however, for others it may be the case of them regressing history and putting forward questions on religion. It is nothing but a reflection of the rifts and disaccords gotten from the cultural and political divides of our time rather than the “Mary” story.
