The Jew who would be Mary

Jewsweek ^ | February 27, 2004 | Alana Newhouse

[NYer]

In one of the last scenes of The Passion of the Christ, the character of Mary, played with emotive steel by the Romanian Jewish actress Maia Morgenstern, embraces the mutilated body of her dead son. Streaks of dirt and Jesus' blood form swaths of darkness on her light skin, as Morgenstern looks ahead with a combination of maternal wrath, sheer exhaustion, and the placidity of faith.

It is a subtle evocation of complex emotions in a movie that often settles for the comfortable starkness of simplistic interpretations. In an interview with the Forward, Morgenstern, 42, an actress in the Yiddish State Theater of Romania and the child of Holocaust survivors, batted away charges of anti-Semitism and questions about the motives of the filmmaker, instead choosing to focus on her own role in one of the year's most controversial cultural offerings.
"I discovered a wonderful character -- very human, a mother, a Jewish mother, a mother losing her child while she couldn't do anything," she says in an interview at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles. "She could not interfere. From time to time, she's weak, she's desperate, she loses faith."

Morgenstern -- whose name, in an apparent coincidence, means Morning Star, one of the Virgin Mary's oldest monikers -- began her career in Romania's Yiddish theater, with which she continues to tour. She caught the eye of a casting agent, who introduced her to the man whom she repeatedly refers to as "Mr. Mel Gibson." Almost immediately after reading a copy of the script, Morgenstern accepted the role, and she has since become the focus of curious speculation, with many asking how a woman whose grandfather was murdered at Auschwitz could participate in a film that some fear could incite pogroms against her fellow Jews.

"I trust my parents very much, and they are my first critics," says Morgenstern, tugging at a reddish ringlet peeking out from under a white-knit hat. Like her, she says, both her mother and her father found the script moving, philosophical, and not the least bit anti-Semitic.

"I'm trying to be honest, to explain, to open a real fresh eye to the vision of Mr. Mel Gibson and of the film. Again and again -- I underline and underline this -- it's not the people who are blamed," she insists, knocking her mirthful tone down to one of deep foreboding, with almost alarming swiftness. "It was some leaders. Unfortunately, we have so many examples -- even now, every minute -- of political, social, military, religious leaders who are dealing with our fears, with our hopes, who are trying to manipulate our ideas and our fears. And that film speaks about this."

"It's a masterpiece. Art, pure art!" she says. "Like La Pieta de Michelangelo, it's not a lesson."

According to both the actress and her director, the two established a special working relationship, one that bordered on the telepathic. "At the start I didn't even know if she could understand me," Gibson told the Forward in an e-mail. "I mean she has a great command of the English language but for more complex explanations, I'm thinking, 'Is she even going to get this?' But after a very short while I realized that she was way ahead of me."

When asked about allegations that Gibson's artistic choices amounted to filmic incitement of hatred, Morgenstern shot back. "Anti-Semitism is a big word. It's a very big word, and we need to be very careful with it," she says, drawing a line between feelings and actions. "There were public newspapers or people calling me 'Bloody Jew.' But I do have a career in Romanian country, I can follow my dreams, and use my name -- Morgenstern."

"I'm an artist and an actress not to wear pretty clothes, but to be responsible .... As an artist, [I want] to bring life a little bit more light, a little bit more hope. And I hope any film, any theater, any part I'm interpreting will make people think and be better. Maybe the word is too big, and I didn't dare say it to myself every day, but this is my deep, deep wish."

[NYer]

Maia Morgenstern
"Morning Star"

[NYer]

Last night's edition of EWTN's Life on the Rock, included a film clip of an interview with Mrs. Morgenstern. She was absolutely radiant as she described her interpretation of Mary.

[AnAmericanMother]

What a truly beautiful face!

Like the morning star in the midst of the cloud and as the moon at its full she shines.

[NYer]

What a truly beautiful face!

Yes. Do you think this is a face that protestants can relate better to than a statue of Mary? Mike Brown, web master at Spirit Daily, in his own persona review, writes:

"This movie presents the Blessed Mother in a way that reintroduces her to Protestants. They are able to see her as someone they can relate to. She is down to earth. They will laugh with her. They will cry with her. They'll more fully appreciate (as will everyone else) what she went through. Hopefully, they'll grow to love her. "

[drstevej]

To Mr. Brown:

First, as a Protestant, I did not need a re-introduction to the biblical Mary. I am quite familiar with her.

Second, I found the potrayal of Mary in the Passion of the Christ to be exceptionally well done both in the script, directing and acting. The movie did not change my view of her, it did deepen an understanding already there. Her focused devotion to and love for her Son was presented magnificently. No wonder she is called blessed.

Third, I was honestly surprised that Gibson's portrayal of Mary omitted reference to (either directly or indirectly) the aspects of Mary that are so prominently a part of Catholic Marian devotion and dogma -- the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption, mediatorial role, etc.. Even the scene on the cross when Jesus entrusts Mary to John ("behold your mother"), in the subtitles, uses a lowercase "m" for mother.

The portrayal was quite faithful to the biblical portrait and avoided eisegetical excesses.

*** "This movie presents the Blessed Mother in a way that reintroduces her to Protestants." ***

Nah, Mr. Brown, the movie presents the blessed mother of our Lord in a way that could explain to Catholics how this Protestant (and I suspect many other Protestants) already see her.

[ksen]

Amen Pastor J.

[Thorin]

God Bless Maia Morgenstern! She was magnificent as Our Lady!

[ultima ratio]

I have to say, from another perspective, that I was struck by the response from the Protestant community which has been so welcoming to Gibson's vision. It affirms we have a mutual love for Jesus as well as a mutual opponent--the anti-Christian secularist culture that despises Christianity in general--or at a minimum misinterprets it. The denominations should therefore fight their family feuds privately--but join forces to do combat as partners in future endeavors. We should all welcome this comraderie and not fear it whatsoever, though we are not about to worship anywhere but in our own churches.

[AnAmericanMother]

Agree 100 percent.

As an Episcopalian (though I'm now moving into the Catholic church) I have been standing in the middle between Protestants and Catholics for a long time.

This ought to be like family quarrels - they ought to stay IN the family. My daughter and son may squabble between themselves (surprisingly very seldom though) but when they face the outside world they will defend each other through thick and thin.

[drstevej]

***This ought to be like family quarrels - they ought to stay IN the family.***

What, then, are we to do with the Reformation and the issues it raised? What are we to do with Cyprian's "extra ecclesium nulla salus?"

In affirming our points of agreement we should not ignore or hide our points of divergence. Our very real doctrinal differences are on vital issues.

[drstevej]

***The denominations should therefore fight their family feuds privately--but join forces to do combat as partners in future endeavors.***

Interesting that Gibson's traditional Catholicism has engendered more controversy within Catholicism than his Catholicism has engendered controversy among evangelical Protestants.

It will be interesting to see in the long view whether evangelical Protestants or Catholics use the film more effectively in evangelistic outreach. My guess is that evangelicals will more intentionally and agressively use the film to evangelize.

[ArrogantBustard]

Steve, have you any clue how thoroughly Catholic that presentation of Mary was? That the whole point of Catholic Marian devotion is based on the idea that hers is the 'perfect' human response to God's call to holiness? I was a bit concerned that the Protestants would be put off because the film shows much of the Passion through her eyes ...

[Campion]

Even the scene on the cross when Jesus entrusts Mary to John ("behold your mother"), in the subtitles, uses a lowercase "m" for mother.

Did you notice, however, that both John and Peter address blessed Mary as "Mother"? Or that she is the only person to explicitly ask to share her Son's sufferings ("let me die with you"), not counting Peter's little brag before the fact (which turned out to be hollow). That's what the term "co-redemptrix" means; one of the Popes said as much. (I can dig up the quotation for you if you wish.)

Gibson didn't touch on other Marian dogmata because they aren't germane to his story.

[AnAmericanMother]

I am not advocating ignoring points of divergence.

I am advocating doing so in a courteous, knowledgeable, and charitable manner. No extended quotations from Foxe's Book of Martyrs, no trashing of Martin Luther personally.

Especially since there are plenty of folks out there (mostly of a Moose Limb persuasion) who are ready, willing, and able to kill us all without discriminating between one variety of Christian and another. Not to mention the secular anti-religionists who want to wipe Christianity out of the national life.

Ya gotta have your priorities straight, doc.

[redgolum]

I agree with you. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is in a bit of a bind. Gibson is Catholic, but by many reports not one that is in union with Rome. So if they support him, they can be accused by some as supporting a schismatic.

On the other hand, if they don't support him, they have a bit of a credibility problem. This movie has affected many Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, in a positive manner. To out right deny it would invite a backlash.

So you end up with the "don't talk about it" tactic. Don't support or condemn the movie, just hope it goes away. Not all bishops have this view, and definitely not all Catholics.

[man of Yosemite]

She deserves an oscar nod for her performance. She was fantastic!

[AnAmericanMother]

It will be interesting to see in the long view whether evangelical Protestants or Catholics use the film more effectively in evangelistic outreach.

Going to be a hard comparison to make, because Catholics don't place the same emphasis on evangelization (gee - that's how "evangelical Protestants" got the name.)

The only evangelical Episcopalian I know simply uses it as a gag to bait Jehovah's Witnesses who are foolish enough to ring her doorbell.

[ArrogantBustard]

Not all bishops have this view,

Can't speak for bishops, but my Pastor is actively encouraging his parishoners to see it, and will hold a seminar on it the day after the parish trip to the theatre.

[dsc]

"Third, I was honestly surprised that Gibson's portrayal of Mary omitted reference to (either directly or indirectly) the aspects of Mary that are so prominently a part of Catholic Marian devotion and dogma -- the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption, mediatorial role, etc.. Even the scene on the cross when Jesus entrusts Mary to John ("behold your mother"), in the subtitles, uses a lowercase "m" for mother."

I think you really overestimate the importance of those things to ordinary Catholics.

Look at the Rosary...of the fifteen Mysteries, what are those in which Mary is prominent?

The Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the Finding of Jesus Teaching in the Temple, the Assumption, and the Crowning.

Of those, I think you probably only have a problem with the last two, and those are the two I--and I think others--regard as least central. Certainly, they are not as central as the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, two of the Mysteries in which Mary plays only a peripheral role.

In the face of the empirically demonstrated fact that she intercedes for me with her Son, I just can't get all exercised over the question of her perpetual virginity or the immaculate conception. I accept what the Church says on those issues as an exercise in obedience, but my faith in God tells me that whatever the truth of these matters, they are exactly as they should be.

I hope some day to find out, but I doubt that it will matter much in Heaven. She will have a special place, because--as the angel said to her--she is blessed among women. If it turns out that she was perpetually virgin, then that will be perfectly the way things are supposed to be, and if it turns out that she was not, then *that* will be perfectly the way things are supposed to be.

I think getting too wrapped around the axle about things like this is a form of overscrupulousness.

"Even the scene on the cross when Jesus entrusts Mary to John ("behold your mother"), in the subtitles, uses a lowercase "m" for mother."

People who capitalize "Mother" in that context do so incorrectly, although probably out of a good-faith intention of honoring Mary. The Catholic Faith does not hold her to be divine.

[ultima ratio]

Regarding "extra ecclesium nulla salus"--which IS a vital issue--the Catholic Church had already come to terms with it before Vatican II, rejecting any literal interpretation of that doctrine. On most other issues, we can slug it out and still join forces when necessary, the way nations do when external perils threaten them mutually. To pretend we have no differences is to falsify reality and to deceive ourselves; this does nobody any favor. But mutual anger and hostility is destructive as well. There's a right and a wrong way to quarrel.