Je vous salue, Marie

When this movie came out in 1985, I was in high school and quite interested in seeing it. I was raised Christian, and have always had a special interest in Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

I recently bought a copy of the film for $1 at a local video store "going out of business" sale. I thought the film might not really be as bad as I remembered it (after all I was only 15 at the time!!!) and figured for $1, what do I have to lose. The answer was perfectly clear when I watched it last night....

This movie is neither inspiring NOR blasphemous...it's just NOTHING.

A movie asking the question "What if Jesus was born today?" could be a very interesting film. But "Hail Mary" never even tried to really tell the story of "The Virgin Birth". Instead, we are bombarded with countless images of teenage Mary (played by Myriem Roussel) caressing her nubile naked body and playing with her pubic hair. At one point the camera is so close to Roussel's crotch the whole world became her gynecologist! This doesn't move the story along or even come off as "artistic nudity". It's pure shock value and nothing more.

The characters are incredibly unlikable. Mary is a cold, rude girl. Joseph is a sex crazy cab driver. The Angel Gabriel is a violent b***ard who can only be calmed by a little girl that travels with him. Juliette Binoche plays "Juliette", the high school tramp who is trying quite hard to get into Joseph's pants. Seriously, this movie is a MESS!!!

There is also a pointless subplot of a college student named Eva (played by Anne Gautier)who is having an affair with her older married professor (played by Johan Leysen). There is a very random nude scene involving these two that I still can't figure out.

Seriously, don't even bother with this film.

I think most people fail to realise that what this film really does is look at the way in which images are constructed and i think it does so very effectively and interestingly and all who doubt that are missing the point. I think the use of sound+image in the film is worthy of study and should not be dismissed as merely boring, the scenes of mary naked are not pornographic or artistic they arte framing flesh and the body not fetishized objects that we are used to seeing on screen.

Let's just get this out of the way: Either you "get" Jean-Luc Godard, or you don't. He's a little like some of the abstract expressionist painters: some find beauty within their works, others see nothing but washes of color. He also works in a very impressionistic manner, and for anyone looking for traditional storytelling, most of his films will be frustrating at best. It's not even so much a question of "intelligence" or not; more like some people relate to certain forms of poetry more than others.

The Review:

I saw Hail Mary when it came out in 1985 in the one indie theater in Wash. DC brave enough to show it despite threats and a line of protesters (none of whom had seen it, of course!) came away deeply affected, even if I didn't quite understand everything he was going for. It was like reading a poem by TS Elliot: lyrical, magical, circular, and certainly way "out there." But what "it" was I knew then as I do now: It never set out to be anti-Christian, blasphemous or disrespectful to the Biblical figure of Mary.

The movie starts from the place of the basics of the original nativity story but in the late 20th century: Average but chaste girl who is also strong-willed and independent being told that she will become pregnant via divine intervention. Disbelieving at first, she begins to feel that it is actually true, standing firm under the accusations of infidelity by her somewhat simpleton boyfriend Josef.

Almost everything from that point on is like a poetic and subjective meditation on womanhood, motherhood, and the transformation each goes through in order to bring us all into the world. There are some side plots and a few fairly comic storylines that thread through, but that to me is the central heart of what Godard is considering. Nudity when used is naturalistic and not of a sexualized nature. Mary as a character is depicted as one of the strongest of any of the characters even if there are moments of doubt and internal conflict. Much of the film is shown in short vignette style, often with voice-over of Mary's thoughts.

The one area I found distracting was how abrupt many of the transitions, especially the music and general sound design, but also visually from scene to scene. I understand that this was for the most part intentional, but personally feel like it might have been more effective to have overlapping sound edits or fade-off than such abrupt cuts. Either way, now as then, I came away feeling inspired and thoughtful both regarding her story but the more universal story of motherhood that the film so obviously celebrates.

So why the controversy anyway? Though in my opinion the movie does not seek to be disrespectful to the figure of Mary, it doesn't seek to venerate or worship her either. For the people who object to the movie therein will be the problem (again, assuming they even see it at all). But that's NOT really the problem of the movie, it's the problem with how the figure of Mary has been deified into something far beyond a mere mortal woman. That mythologizing, to me is completely at odds of what made the story original story compelling in the first place. If Mary was always something of a demi-god then how does anything she went through even matter?

NOTE: Most streaming platforms still won't show Hail Mary, but the public library streaming service Kanopy does, so that is one option if you want to watch it.

THE BOOK OF MARY (short film) I should also mention all original screenings in its initial theatrical release were accompanied by the 30 min. Short film The Book of Mary (French: Le livre de Marie) by Godard's longtime companion/collaborator Anne-Marie Miéville. This is still the case with many streaming platforms.

Despite both having "Mary" characters, there seems to be almost no relation from the one film to the other, which probably contributes to many viewers confusion. It's a great little short, but personally I can't see how they relate.

This is a fascinating film. The story of a modern day Virgin Mary dealing with issues like human sexuality and the divinity as well as themes of "intelligent design" /creationism are challenging for the viewer to say the least. Godard has always been way ahead of his time in terms of formal aspects of film as well as socio-political points of view. This film was shot in 1984-85 and he addresses issues that are very relevant to the contemporary resurgence of faith - especially in American society today.

The fact that the professor's teachings are thinly veiled creationism as science is very revealing. It provides background and encourages the viewer question what is really going on with Mary and the idea of the creator/divine affecting her body and her life.

The nudity is not exploitative. A feminist reading of the film would probably be positive since the character of Mary is shown as intensely self-aware and strong rather than victimized or exploited.

The cinematography of Menoud and Firmann is excellent throughout. This applies to both the nature photography as well as the narrative composed shots. I think a lot of the shots were composed with the idea of replicating some classical paintings (Giotto, Fra Angelico) with severe fore-shortening.

The sound track is multiple-layered mix of music from Bach (St. Matthew's Passion, concertos) and Dvorak, dialog and sounds of natural environment and wildlife. It's a relatively short film (78 minutes)- but it's amazing to see and hear how densely compact it is with a very complex relationship of sound and image.

The way this film tackles the concept of divinity as it pertains to modern life is bound to cause controversy amongst conservative followers of organized religion precisely because it forces you to question what is taken as absolute. Whether you find it blasphemous or reverent is beside the point -that's the difference between spoonfed mainstream movies( like POTC) and the engaging cinema of Godard. You will find no moralistic pandering here. If you are close-minded or easily upset about nudity, then this film is not for you. If you have an open mind and are just curious to see what one of the true masters of cinema was capable of 20 years ago then you should see this interesting film. If you are willing to question the story of Mary not only from a theological perspective but from a post-modern point of view, then it is essential viewing.

Hail Mary is done in the exact same style as the only other late Godard film I've seen, First Name: Carmen, which, I believe, he did right before this one. The narrative is fractured, much more so than even his classical films such as Breathless and Pierrot le fou, and it is impossible to understand exactly what's going on. Like in many of his early films, he plays with sound effects and music. It may have been clever and interesting in Une femme est une femme, but it has grown old here.

Still, Hail Mary, like First Name: Carmen, musters enough mood to make it well worth seeing. With First Name: Carmen, I was interested at the beginning and bored by the end. Here, although the prologue is quite good, the first half of the real film bothered me, and the second half grew more interesting as it progressed. What I'm saying here is that you have to stick with it and be patient. It can be rewarding.

Also, Hail Mary seemed to me one of Godard's more visually accomplished films, probably second to Vivre sa vie. You'll see some of the most gorgeous photographs of clouds and the sun, the moon, fields, flowers, and nude women. Some of the nudes are absolutely stunning and it never felt to me pornographic (unlike First Name: Carmen). They reminded me of beautiful paintings that I have seen by the likes of Lucien Freud (I don't know if people know him, but I was particularly struck by some of his sleeping nudes; I think he is the son of Sigmund, and I know he was a companion of Francis Bacon). Other more abstract photos reminded me of Picasso. 7/10.