nativity1.jpg
A Maid of Constant Sorrow

The Nativity Story / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | December 1, 2006 | Comments (43)


While I expected The Nativity Story to have the same singularity of focus as that other recent religious film, The Passion of the Christ, I certainly didn’t anticipate it to be almost as somber. From the first notes of “Veni Emmanuel,” intoned in a Gregorian-style chant that would be almost comical if it didn’t take itself so seriously, it’s clear that director Catherine Hardwicke is determined not to let joy get in the way of a good story. The film, which chronicles the year leading up to the birth of Jesus, is suffused with an odd weight, and it’s not solely from cinematographer Elliot Davis’ penchant for leaching the color out of every scene. It’s almost as if Hardwicke is determined to carry on the young girl in trouble motif of her debut, 2003’s Thirteen. But while that film was a cautionary tale of a young girl throwing her life away, The Nativity Story at times plays like an odd reverse: A coldly celebratory tale of a holy woman who’s utterly unmoved by her role in the fate of mankind. The joy here is spread too thin, and the resulting film never quite lives up its potential.

The film begins in Jerusalem, with King Herod’s command that all the infants in and around Bethlehem be murdered. Herod (Ciaran Hinds) fears the realization of a prophecy that a child will rise up and overthrow him. The screenplay from Mike Rich (The Rookie [uh-oh], Radio [double uh-oh]), drawing mainly from the Gospel of Luke, then jumps back one year to Jerusalem, where Zechariah (Stanley Townsend) receives a vision at the temple that his wife, Elizabeth (Shoreh Aghdashloo), will bear a son, who will turn out to be John the Baptist. Aghdashloo is the first bright spot of the film, and she brings an amazing dignity and grace to Elizabeth, who accepts with awe and reverence the part she is to play in all this.

The action soon shifts to Nazareth, where young Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes), Elizabeth’s cousin, lives a quiet life working in her family’s field. Castle-Hughes certainly brings the right look to the part, but all of the verve she showed in Whale Rider is missing; she smiles infrequently at best, and then grows even more dour after receiving her own vision of the angel Gabriel, who announces that Mary will bear the son of God despite never having been with a man. This could have been a powerful scene, a wrenching look at faith and doubt and fear through the eyes of a girl just figuring out the perils of puberty. But Rich’s script is too committed to adhering to the flaws of scripture, namely, the cursory dialogue and neglect of emotional insight. Mary only questions the angel once, after which she kneels before him and says she’s ready to do the will of the Lord. It’s the quickness of this change of heart, and the blandness with which it’s executed, that lie at the heart of the film’s flaws. Hardwicke has Mary shy away from questioning her fate too much, but she also keeps her happiness reined in, creating a virgin mother with all the emotional resonance of a flannel-board figure. Castle-Hughes goes about her role with a dull, beatific resignation, which stands in sad contrast to the performances of Aghdashloo and Oscar Isaac, who plays Mary’s husband Joseph.

Joseph is the emotional core of the film, and it’s Isaac’s performance that grounds the film and delivers its purest moments. Having already purchased Mary as his bride through a dowry, her sudden pregnancy threatens to ruin Joseph’s life and business, and Isaac fully embodies the shame of Joseph’s outsider status. His young bride shows up pregnant and claims the father is God himself, and Joseph has to sit there and take it. The townsfolk shun Mary for her perceived infidelity, but Joseph becomes a cuckold. There’s an amazing moment where a fortune-teller in a market offers a blessing on Joseph and Mary’s child, telling Joseph that to see one’s face in a baby is truly a wonderful thing. For an instant, Joseph’s face falls, as he remembers that he will only ever be an adoptive father to his child, but he soldiers on. Although Joseph eventually accepts Mary’s pregnancy as divine, having received his own vision from God (visions being apparently pretty big back in the day), his conflict over the matter makes him the most relatable character in the story.

Joseph and Mary eventually travel to Bethlehem to participate in the census, and Hardwicke conveys the dangers and discomforts of being eight months along while traveling 100 miles in 10 days on the back of a camel. The scenes revolving around the physicality of the ancient world work well, especially the visceral account of the infant John’s birth. Elizabeth groans as she grasps ropes tied to the rafters for support, while Zechariah waits nervously outside. Hardwicke manages to bring home the dirty reality of primitive childbirth, but it’s one of the few times the film rises above the level of emotional neutrality.

As Joseph and Mary reach Bethlehem, she starts having contractions, and Joseph’s panic is palpable as he bolts from house to house, screaming for someone to let his wife lie down and give birth. Eventually finding refuge among the livestock huddled under a rocky cave-like outcropping, Mary gives birth in what is one of the film’s genuinely moving moments, despite Castle-Hughes’ unchanging passivity. As the stars literally align, it seems only Joseph is awed by what’s happening right before his eyes. The birth is a cleaner affair than Elizabeth’s — this is a PG-rated family affair, after all — but Hardwicke still manages to create a few instants of transcendent glory.

Glory, yes; happiness, not so much. Linus’ recitation of Luke in “A Charlie Brown Christmas” packs infinitely more punch because it focuses on the heralding of good news and the arrival of something special, whereas Hardwicke’s film manages to make the birth of Jesus as depressing as Mel Gibson’s chronicle of his death. Part of it is Castle-Hughes’ single-minded commitment to portraying a Mary free of emotion, as if she was already posing for a stained-glass portrait. But the film is ultimately undone by Hardwicke’s odd reluctance to even pretend to rejoice in the story’s central birth of Jesus. In The Nativity Story, it feels like he’s already dead.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Van Wilder 2 - The Rise of Taj | Pajiba Love 12/04/06





Comments

Why, Ciaran, why?

Posted by: ranylt at December 1, 2006 8:59 PM

A good call on Linus' speech. I'm not religious, nor particularly sentimental, but every year when he takes that stage and explains to Charlie Brown what the true meaning of Christmas is, I totally tear up.

Posted by: Tim at December 2, 2006 12:56 AM

I hate to sound all religious and what not, but the correct spelling of Elizabeth in the Bible is EliSabeth. Yeah, that "s" is a bitch to remember.

Whatever happend to people making movies around the holidays like "It's A Wonderful Life?" I know that movie has been run into the ground, but if you haven't seen it in ages or if it's your first viewing since seeing it as a child, it truly captures all the joy of Christmastime. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Jimmy Stewart films though.

[The NIV, NASB, and New King James translations use "Elizabeth," as does that ultimate arbiter of such issues, IMDb. But you're right that it's "Elisabeth" in the original King James. Also: The ending to It's a Wonderful Life gets me every time. Every. Time. -- D]

Posted by: Gigi Worthington at December 2, 2006 1:30 AM

I was never really drawn to the film, (and not just because of Keisha Castle-Hughes real life pregnancy) but going from this review, I definitely won't. It just seems so lukewarm. And as much as I love Shoreh Aghdashloo, who was stellar in "The House of Sand and Fog", I can't muster up the desire to go see it this one.

Posted by: Brie at December 2, 2006 3:09 AM

I'll stick to the stop-motion animation versions of Christmas...

Posted by: Eh... at December 2, 2006 5:01 PM

The baby jesus movie makes the baby jesus sad.

Posted by: jbrader at December 3, 2006 2:26 AM

Shoreh Aghdashloo is awesome and underrated. Still not interested in seeing this movie, though.

Posted by: Daphne at December 3, 2006 1:07 PM

Lame lame lame lame lame.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 3, 2006 4:35 PM

"Lame lame lame lame lame.
Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 3, 2006 04:35 PM"

The movie, or the birth of Jesus?

Posted by: Ray at December 3, 2006 5:11 PM

It's sort of a shame, because Luke, as I read it (as a Jew, and not till I was 23) was full of some really fun moments. Like when Mary and Elis/zabeth (really spelled with neither an s or a z, but a letter in an entirely different language) are both pregnant and bump bellies with each other so the babies can meet.

Posted by: Ricki at December 3, 2006 5:58 PM

ricki thats cute.
i'm going to go look that up.

Posted by: WTF at December 3, 2006 9:20 PM

Ricki's not making it up. It's even depicted on the walls of many chapels in Italy, one I recall depicted them with transparent wombs and little babies inside. One of the weirdest biblical moments to put on a fresco.
Also, I won't be seeing this movie. Too much like church.

Posted by: maj at December 3, 2006 9:57 PM

Yes, visions and bullshit were HUGE back in the day.

Posted by: BarbaboSlim at December 3, 2006 10:09 PM

Well, I like some points the reviewer mentioned and will pay attention at them when I see the film, but well, do I need to? I mean, he told the whole movie in it.

Posted by: Lucas at December 4, 2006 12:28 AM

"Well, I like some points the reviewer mentioned and will pay attention at them when I see the film, but well, do I need to? I mean, he told the whole movie in it."

This comment is funny/disturbing.
Like someone coming out of the movie theater after watching "Passion of the Christ" and saying incredulously, "Jesus Christ died?!"

Posted by: pj at December 4, 2006 2:33 AM

PJ - can't wait for somebody to post a nasty e-mail about a poster neglecting to give a spoiler alert.

Posted by: Samantha T at December 4, 2006 7:28 AM

Well now that you mention it Samantha, it is EXTREMELY rude to give away the ending of the Passion without a spoiler alert. Some of us have NOT seen it. I mean, christ,

*SPOILER ALERT* * SPOILER ALERT*


Jesus dies? OMFG he just gave away the whole fucking movie.

thanks a lot.

Posted by: BarbaboSlim at December 4, 2006 11:46 AM

"...leading up TO the birth..." first paragraph.

Posted by: abbey road at December 4, 2006 12:15 PM

Well the birth of Jesus wasnt all that friendly if you read the bible at all. It would make sense for it not to be that happy with all the struggles and all. Jesus's life was to die for us so thats not to pleasant either in movie context.

Posted by: Brian at December 4, 2006 3:22 PM

I hate to sound all religious and what not, but the correct spelling of Elizabeth in the Bible is EliSabeth. Yeah, that "s" is a bitch to remember.

Elisabeth is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew, Elizabeth is the English translation. If you really wanted to use the correct spelling of her name, you'd use Elisheva which is a more accurate transliteration.

Posted by: roses at December 4, 2006 4:31 PM

I hate to sound all religious and what not, but the correct spelling of Elizabeth in the Bible is EliSabeth. Yeah, that "s" is a bitch to remember.

Elisabeth is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew, Elizabeth is the English translation. If you really wanted to use the correct spelling of her name, you'd use Elisheva which is a more accurate transliteration.

I must say, I do get a kick out of how people try to out-intellectualize (I realize that's probably not a word) each other in the comment section on this website. Are we all so insecure that we need to let the whole world know how smart we think we are?? I mean, gosh, why not just say, "I'm smarter than you are so, nah nah!" and leave it at that. Personally, I'm not really gonna lose any sleep worrying about how Elizabeth is spelled. I'm more concerned about why nobody can seem to make a decent film about the birth of Christ. It's really unfortunate that the reality of the Christmas story, what it meant and still means for all of us isn't better portrayed in this film.

Posted by: Megan at December 4, 2006 7:44 PM

Megan-

Okay, I'll bite. I'm so much smarter than you are ;) Not really though. I agree with your point that better movies should be made about the Nativity. Christ's birth should be one of the main attractions/ celebrations of Christianity, and I find it hillarious that a depressing movie was made about it currently. Way to lose future converts, Christians! I did this Christmas musical when I was in Christian elementary school titled "Angels Aware." It was about how the angels relayed the birth of Christ specifically through Gabriel's (God's messenger angel), Michael's (the highest angel, well after Lucifer left), and Sara's (the head of the "Sara"phim choir of angels. That always drew a laugh from the audience, maybe out of pity) POVs. Now, if that could be made into a movie, I would cry, "Hallelujah!" from the rafters of my old church. That would be one awesome movie especially when the whole cast of angels starts singing "The Perfect Ten" (somehow Moses and the Ten Commandments were drawn into the plotline). Please, believe that I still have the audio cassette for that musical, and when I'm feeling exceptionally religious or wistful, I put it in. Ahhh...such fond feelings I have of this musical.


Dustin- I did my annual rite of Christmas passage by watching It's A Wonderful Life today. The ending is simply perfection and causes me tear up every time (this coming from a gal who laughed during supposedly the most climactic/romantic parts of The Notebook). If only more movies were made with "Capra"corn... *sigh*

Posted by: Gigi Worthington at December 4, 2006 10:54 PM

*Opens mouth and inserts foot* I meant Mr, Daniel Carlson. Jeebus, I am so embarrassed and extremely sorry! *turning a deep shade of crimson*

Posted by: Gigi Worthington at December 4, 2006 11:10 PM

Dang. I'm bummed. I was hoping this would be a fun and genuinely uplifting movie to take my kids to, as opposed to the Tim Allen crapfest or the talking penguins.

All my usual snark aside, I'm a big fan of Mary...I think of her and the other Mary (Magdalene) as the original feminists, the Religious Riot Grrrls of the Ancient World. They hang with Jesus, perform miracles and talk to angels, while the menfolk run around trying to figure out what's what and whether or not they should really believe all this crazy Messiah talk.

Guess I'll have to wait for the no-holds-barred, ass-kicking biopic these gals truly deserve. Meanwhile, I want a copy of Gigi's grade school musical. As I recall, Christmas was a a rockin' good time to be a Catholic school student. Way more fun than Lent, obviously.

Posted by: Mustang Sally at December 5, 2006 11:01 AM

Nevermind whether Elis/zabeth is spelled with an S or a Z. Jesus isn't spelled with a J.

Yeshua is the original Aramaic proper name for Jesus the Nazarene. The word "Jesus" is actually a mis-transliteration of a Greek mis-transliteration. In Hebrew Yeshua means Salvation while the name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 5, 2006 1:49 PM

I should point out that the above information is from:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm

Posted by: BWeaves at December 5, 2006 1:51 PM

BWeaves, thank you for so nicely illustrating my point....

Posted by: Megan at December 5, 2006 3:17 PM

I was? I thought I was being sarcastic. What font do I use for that?

Posted by: Bweaves at December 5, 2006 5:37 PM

Okay, so they made the story of Joseph, Mary and the spawning of Jesus into a joyless trudge through scripture? Did they at least have happy angels? You know "I bring you tidings of great joy..."? What is wrong with people? I mean, even if it was just a story about a young woman who mysteriously turns up pregnant and the string of events that has her (a) trying to explain this, (b)taking a long camel ride and (c) having a bunch of strangers show up in the hovel in which she gave birth because the locals didn't offer hospitality (HUGE sin!) to her and then to have those strangers give the new family stuff and talk about how one day this child would make a big difference in the world, at least according to the angels who told them to get their asses in gear and go check this out... well, then, that would be a good movie. Honestly, the story just begs to be made into an awesome celebration of life, relationships, overcoming obstacles and reaching out to each other under strange circumstances. Why is this so hard??

Posted by: Reba at December 5, 2006 10:02 PM

Merry Christmas, Jesus...Sorry this movie was so lame.

Posted by: Kerry at December 6, 2006 9:28 AM

getting technical. during that time it was mary that had 'sinned', not the locals. the locals were actually mostly her kin. mary was from bethlehem, and being a matriarchal society the jews came to their mother's relative's town to be taxed and submit to a census. in the eyes of the town, it was the worst thing she could do to be unmarried and pregnant. no one at that time believed her story, except the shepherds on the hill and the wise men that weren't there yet, and that was the reason "there was no room for them in the inn." there was probably plenty of rooms all over town but nobody wanted to be seen giving business to the sinners, blasphemers.

Posted by: serlady at December 6, 2006 9:41 AM

I feel sorry for you Daniel Carlson...May God bless your soul. This movie was an excellent depiction of the WAY IT WAS and Mary's struggle to fufill prohecy. No, I don't think there would have been much joy in becoming pregnant as a virgin, being threatened to getting stoned to death, outcasted by your family and friends, trecking 100 miles on the back of a donkey pregnant and starving with a man you barely know, only to land at your destination and have to give an unmedicated birth in a cold manger...This was an absolute instant classic. I took my boyfriend and my 4 year old daughter to see this and we all did not want the movie to end. You must just not be a man of faith...But I bet you'll be exchanging presents at Christmas right???

Posted by: Heidi at December 6, 2006 12:46 PM

"He's NOT the Messiah, he's a very NAUGHTY BOY!"
"I think I'll name him Brian"
Sounds like the Pythons might've captured this story better than Hardewicke did. Pity, because I agree with Reba about the potential for a film like this being interesting and exciting, especially now, when faith is tested and the Catholic church in particular, could use some decent PR. Of course, I only go to church with my Gram on Christmas and Easter, so I really can't talk.

Posted by: Go Big Red at December 6, 2006 12:53 PM

Heidi- it seems to me that Daniel isn't saying that the story isn't dramatic, but that the acting and filmmaking leached that incredible drama away from the story itself, much in the way cinematographer leached the color from the film.

Posted by: go big red again at December 6, 2006 12:58 PM

Heidi - I agree with go big red again. You seem to have goten the wrong idea from the review. Daniel was not saying that Mary should have been jumping up and down with joy, but that there was no discernable emotion being shown. No joy, no sorrow, no real fear, nothing. A story that should have been truly moving was told in a cold, almost sterile way. It is hard to connect to a person if they don't show much to connect to.

And really, are you saying that an angel coming down from heaven to tell her that God chose HER, out of all people, to carry and raise the savior of humanity wouldn't give her the tiniest bit of exhileration? She wouldn't smile ONCE at the idea?

My real issue with your comment (and I know I may be risking some serious responses) is this: What does Daniel's faith have to do with the review (or the movie)? And what about this review makes you think he is sorely lacking in it? Could it just be that he didn't like the movie? I would like to believe this is not your only consideration when making such a conclusion on someone's belief.

Posted by: Vermillion at December 6, 2006 1:29 PM

Well put, Vermillion. BTW, Heidi, please go back and read the passage commonly referred to as "The Magnificat." "My soul doth magnify the Lord," etc etc etc. It is the most joyous passage in the whole book! That's why Mary is such an incredible figure, historically and religiously, regardless of denomonation: despite all her hardships, despite all her struggle, she saw the big picture and rejoiced!

Halleluia! Would that more of us could do the same. And maybe lay off the accusatory tone next time you disagree with the critic: it being such a joyous and festive time of year and all.

Posted by: Tammy at December 6, 2006 2:19 PM

I'm so disappointed to hear that Keisha Castle-Knight's depiction of Mary in this movie is wooden and unemotional. I haven't seen the movie but when I saw the previews I was really hoping for a deeply moving portrayal; instead it doesn't sound like the actress grasped the true gravity of the role. Two years ago I sang a solo from Mary's point of view in my church's Christmas choir, and not being a soloist or even a particularly great vocalist, I was very intimidated and really didn't want to do it. But our director knew what she was doing - she wanted that emotion (fear of not being good enough) to come through in the song. I had to really tap into the huge range of emotions that Mary must have gone through, all of which have already been mentioned here. If I can grasp that emotional depth and portray it in a song, then I'm sure a well-paid actress who has been nominated for an Academy Award should be expected to capture it in a movie. I'll watch the movie when it comes out on DVD, and judge Castle-Hughes' performance for myself, but if everyone is correct then it's a sad disservice to the real story of Christ's birth.

Posted by: KC at December 7, 2006 1:19 PM

while i agree with your review, let's take a moment to think about it. i sure as hell wouldn't be happy if i were 14-year old who just got married off to some stranger (tradition or not.) the fact that i got some vision from an angel and accepted the "gift" doesn't mean that i need to be happy about it. she accepts it but that doesn't mean she's gonna be full of joy. pay attention to what else is happening in the movie. between her family's financial problems and everyone in town hating her for something she can't help....i don't see how she'd find the silver lining in it either.

still. good review. and you're right- joseph is the best represented character.

Posted by: oh well at December 13, 2006 3:53 PM

Can we just ban religious films altogether? not because i hate them so completely, but then you'll have the bible thumpers endorsing it and saying that it is the "truth", like The Passion of the Christ...it's a film about some made up stories...i wish they'd stop taking it so seriously and shoving it down our throats to be honest...

Posted by: Gina at December 17, 2006 4:12 PM

But you're right that it's "Elisabeth" in the original King James

Not to labor the point, but the King James version is *also* a translation!

Posted by: barbara at December 19, 2006 12:56 AM

...the dangers and discomforts of being eight months along while traveling 100 miles in 10 days on the back of a camel.

Can't believe nobody caught this, I was waiting for someone to pick it up, but I believe they were riding a ...... DONKEY! Not a camel. Sorry to be picky but if you are going to review a movie you should at least get one of the main "characters" correct -sheesh!

Posted by: Darren at December 20, 2006 12:31 PM

I think people have been responding to that first post about the correct spelling of 'Elizabeth" because it was a fairly pretentious comment to make.
"Oh by the way, you spelled the name wrong." Right. There are a lot of things wrong with a comment like that, and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
1. Hebrew uses a different alphabet. Strike one.
2. The King James version of the bible was translated by scholars who had a very imperfect understanding of the texts they were translating. Archaeological discoveries of texts that have been made since the 16th century have dramatically increased our ability to understand ancient texts.
I remember in elementary school I and a small group of Baptist friends used to get together and read the Bible. I had a NAS, and one day, when they realized it, they told me I was reading the wrong version, basing this solely on the fact that the NAS is a more recent translation and will often state things in a different manner.
The sad fact is, this is what the -adults- in their Church taught them. Ignorant adults who should have known better.
So it rubs me (and a lot of other people) very wrong when someone decides to display their 'superior knowledge' with some comment about the -spelling- of an -English- translation of texts that were written nearly two thousand years ago, in a -different language-.
But ignorance seems to rear it's ugly head when people are emotional about a topic. Whether a person is for or against Christianity, they seem to be rather passionate in their beliefs.

Now, enough of my tirade.
The birth of Christ is the most joyous, climactic event of the entire Bible (save one). You have to understand that this event has been prophesied about from the first few chapters of Genesis. For thousands of years. It is the Salvation of mankind that God has been promising. It is the fulfillment of the prophecies that fill the Old Testament. FINALLY! Even at that point many of the people who believed Jesus really was the son of God believed he would literally be King of the Jews and take them to freedom, redefining their dominance over the Middle East.
This is in every way painted as a joyous, wonderful event in the scripture, to be topped by nothing less that the Resurrection. Whether you believe the Bible or not, -this- is the heart and soul of it.
So yeah, I think it's a big deal if it's made into a movie that depicts neither the pain Mary was feeling, nor the joy. Indifference is worse than hate, so they say.

Posted by: ameagari at December 23, 2006 1:10 AM

Most of the people who have posted these comments need to see the movie before saying anything negative about it. I think it's bias to be saying negative things when you haven't even viewed the movie. Personally I found the movie rather amusing to the fact that I already knew the story. It's better if you have read the story in the Bible. It makes the movie that much better. I actually like the fact that it follows the bible. Mary did go through many struggles during this time and so it would only be natural that the film would have a somber feel to it. The film seemed like it was made to be like the biblical story more than to have good reviews. Sometimes the truth of something isn't always the most pleasant to be portrayed in a film.

Posted by: Lori at March 22, 2007 3:37 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.