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.

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.

Hail Mary (1985)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

I guess it goes without saying but here's yet another religious film that sparked off controversy when originally released. There were mobs of protesters at theaters across the world and even the Catholic Church tried to get it banned even though God knows they should have been dealing with other issues and not a movie. With that said, I'm really not sure what any of the fuss was about as the film never once offends God, Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In the film, Mary (Myriem Roussel) is your typical teenager who enjoys playing basketball and working at her father's gas station. Her boyfriend Joseph (Thierry Rode), a taxi driver, is getting frustrated because Mary won't let him touch her after dating for two years but his fears and jealous grow worse when Mary turns up pregnant. Godard re-telling this story in modern times is a pretty interesting touch and I think the final message from the movie is that Mary was human like any other woman and not just a cartoon character. Pretty much the said thing Martin Scorsese did with The Last Temptation of Christ in terms of Jesus being a real human and we all know the controversy that film started. As for this film, I really don't see any need for any type of controversy. Mary is seem naked throughout the movie so perhaps this is what some got upset about but I'm pretty sure the real Mary was naked at some point in her life. I think Godard handles the film fairly well even though we get several scenes of Godard being Godard with some strange edits, rambling nonsense and some scenes that amount to nothing. I'm not sure what Godard's reasons where for making this film but I think the utter strangeness really helps the film and certainly makes it stand out among other religious movies. Roussel is terrific in the role of Mary and really captures the confused teenage nature of the role. I thought she was very good in the way she handles her character's thoughts, feelings and emotions. The support cast also turns in fine work. Back to the nudity, which seems to raise a lot of controversy. Mary is often challenged with the question that is the body a part of the soul or is the soul a part of the body. I think this wondering by Mary makes good use of the nudity and that the nude actress isn't just being shown to arouse male viewers or to be anywhere near pornographic. Godard's use of classical music is another nice bonus as are some great shots of the wilderness. I've read several reviews of this film, which range from four-stars to a BOMB but I'm somewhere in the middle.

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.