A new Netflix biopic on the life of Mary, the mother of Jesus, has stirred significant controversy since its release on December 6. Directed by DJ Caruso, the film offers a dramatic retelling of Mary’s life, from her childhood in ancient Israel to her role as the mother of Jesus, one of the most pivotal figures in Christianity. The movie aims to provide a humanized, emotional portrayal of Mary, exploring her struggles, doubts, and immense responsibility in the face of divine expectations.
However, the casting of Noa Cohen, a 22-year-old Israeli actress and model, in the titular role has sparked a fierce debate. The decision to cast an Israeli actress to play Mary has raised eyebrows, especially given the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Critics, particularly on social media platforms like X, have expressed strong disapproval. One user wrote, "There is something profoundly offensive about having an Israeli actor play Mary, the mother of Jesus, while Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, killing some of the oldest Christian communities in the world and erasing their heritage sites." This criticism highlights the political sensitivity surrounding the film, with some viewing the casting choice as politically charged given the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Director DJ Caruso has responded to the backlash, defending the casting decision in an interview with The Telegraph. He explained that the film’s vision was centered on creating a portrayal of “the real, human Mary.” According to Caruso, the casting of Cohen, along with other Israeli actors in the primary cast, was a deliberate choice to stay true to the film’s authenticity. Caruso's explanation underscores his intention to depict Mary in a grounded, relatable way, focused on her emotional depth rather than solely her religious significance.
Noa Cohen, for her part, has spoken out about the responsibility of portraying such an iconic figure. In response to the criticism, Cohen remarked, “Mary was a young woman likely filled with her own fears and uncertainties, suddenly asked to carry an immense responsibility. We aimed to convey the emotional weight and inner strength she must have had.” Cohen’s interpretation of Mary emphasizes the human aspect of the character, portraying her as a young woman grappling with the monumental task of becoming the mother of the Messiah.
In addition to Cohen, the film features Ido Tako as Joseph, Mary’s husband, and Anthony Hopkins as King Herod, whose role adds an element of political tension to the narrative. Herod’s portrayal in the film is a dramatic contrast to Mary’s innocence, emphasizing the political and religious turmoil surrounding the birth of Jesus. Hopkins, an Oscar-winning actor, brings his signature gravitas to the role, adding depth to the story’s exploration of power, fear, and faith.
The film’s plot centers on Mary’s journey, focusing not just on her role as the mother of Jesus but also on her personal growth and emotional struggles. Caruso has emphasized the humanizing of this revered figure, aiming to show her as a young woman, frightened and uncertain, who was suddenly thrust into a divine purpose. This focus on her emotional journey has resonated with some audiences, who appreciate the film’s nuanced approach to a figure traditionally seen only through a religious lens.
However, the controversy surrounding the casting choice has led to larger debates about the intersection of politics, religion, and film. Critics argue that in the current geopolitical climate, casting decisions must be handled with greater sensitivity, as they can unintentionally perpetuate divisions. While the film’s intent is clearly to tell a human story, its timing and the casting choices have raised questions about the role of entertainment in shaping public discourse, especially in such a politically volatile context.
In the wake of the backlash, some argue that the film’s focus should remain on its artistic merit rather than on the political implications of its casting choices. Supporters of the film point out that Caruso’s vision for portraying Mary as a human figure, dealing with real fears and challenges, is an important step in breaking away from traditional portrayals of religious figures as distant and unapproachable.
At the same time, others maintain that casting choices, especially in films about religious figures, can never be entirely divorced from the political realities in which they are made. For these critics, the film’s decision to cast an Israeli actress as Mary raises valid concerns about representation, cultural sensitivity, and the potential for the portrayal of religious figures to serve as a reflection of contemporary political struggles.
The ongoing debate around the film highlights the broader challenges faced by filmmakers when dealing with historically and religiously significant figures. The reception of the film will likely continue to spark conversations about representation, political sensitivity, and the role of cinema in shaping societal narratives. As the film’s story unfolds, it has undeniably become a focal point for discussions not only about the life of Mary but also about the complex intersections between culture, religion, and politics in today’s world.
The biopic’s reception is a reminder of the power of film to reflect and influence public discourse, as well as the responsibility filmmakers bear when telling stories that resonate with such deep cultural and political significance. The ongoing controversy surrounding the casting of Noa Cohen as Mary highlights the fine line between creative expression and the potential for unintended political ramifications. The dialogue around this film underscores the evolving role of cinema in addressing both timeless themes and contemporary concerns, making it a highly relevant and divisive subject of discussion.
