The news come out during the run up to the releas of The Nativity Story that the 16-year-old actress playing Mary, Keisha Castle-Hughes, was pregnant (and not through the immaculate way) with her boyfriend of three years.
The media waited expectedly for the soon-coming Christian backlash. The pregnancy news was met with a resounding silence.
The BP article says:
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said the secular media was deprived of the juicy story they were betting on when the Vatican and Catholic and Protestant groups throughout the world did not withdraw their support of The Nativity Story based on the lead character’s personal choices.
The story also includes a telling personal example from Richard Ross, co-founder of the national abstinence movement True Love Waits:
In the early moments of True Love Waits, I was invited to appear on the ‘Jerry Springer Show. They already had enlisted three teenage girls pregnant before marriage to appear as well. One of the producers called to say, ‘Rev. Ross, I am sure you’re infuriated by these girls that have been so immoral. I’m guessing you will want to call them sluts and other things on the broadcast.’
I answered, ‘No, I would never say such things. I love those young ladies even now. I will want to be gentle with them and tell them that God loves them and is ready to walk with them through what they are facing.
The mood of the producer quickly changed and he mumbled something about having to drop me from the show. The secular world expects Christians to be mean to Keisha Castle-Hughes and all the young [people] who make grave mistakes with their lives. But to do so is to ignore the model Christ set for His followers. With gentleness and grace we are to point those who stumble toward redemption, forgiveness and a God of second chances.
This is similar to the pseudo-controversy surrounding End of the Spear, where openly gay actor Chad Allen played the role of Christian missionary and martyr Nate Saint.
Just like with “Nativity,” you had fringe groups calling for boycotts, but the whole of Christianity embraced the film. Allen even became friends with the evangelical Christian son of Nate Saint, Steve.
Allen said, “We committed to taking care of each other and getting to know each other, and before we were done with the three-month shoot in Panama, Steve and I were great friends and were crying when we said goodbye to each other, just for the love that we formed for one another.”
Just like Donahue said of the situation surrounding Castle-Hughes: “Despite what some think, Christians do not turn their backs on unwed mothers; they provide services for them.”
Wow, why did they get a 16 year old to play Mary? Well, anyway, she ought to be fairly rich now, so she won’t need any “services” or help in that way.
Although I cannot imagine being 16 and having a baby, even if I were rich. It was hard enough at 21, 23, 25 and 30!
They got a 16-year-old because Mary was most likely around that age. That was the common age in the NT time. Different time period, different norms.
Good to see such stereotype breaking going on. I hadn’t even heard about this controversy, and was only mildly interested in the TOTS controversy when it happened.
I think liberals still don’t believe that you can be vociferously against various pro-sin legislation, and actually still embrace people – they don’t understand how you can “hate the sin, love the sinner” – I mean, to them, they hear us calling them “sinner” and think it is meant pejoratively, when really, xians just mean that the person is a broken human like the rest of us.
What this may indicate is that we (I) may need to change our tone in how we address public policy issues, because liberals, and people in general, take that as our feeling and position towards individuals. For them there is no logical separation of these two. Part of this is perhaps human nature, and part of this is immaturity.
As I like to say, tolerance in personal relationships is a virtue, but in public ills, it is cowardice.
This liberal has no problem with this film. And I know a lot about film. Would Christians still like this film if it showed Mary nude though?
Then I wouldnt be able to let my kids watch it….
No, of course not. Would you watch it though? Would adult Christians have a problem with a nude Mary? My point is, is that image sacrilegious?
Welllll…. she had to be nude sometimes! :-p
I think much nudity can be left out of films, personally. I mean we do have imaginations. :-p
I think much nudity can be left out of films, personally.
Yes, I agree. Though, I think the female body is the most beautiful thing on Earth. But my question remains; is a nude Mary sacrilegious?
Interesting question Cineaste.
I'm thinking a lot of people would find a nude Mary sacrilegious. Though I've heard of much worse sacrilege re: Mary. I suppose the question is "What makes something sacred"? The idea of sacredness is dimming in our culture. I wonder what the Renaissance sculptors asked themselves back when they were carving the Madonna (breast showing) and child.
I don't think it is sacrilegious. Well, not any more than any other woman's (or man's for that matter) body plastered on the big screen for people to ogle. :-p
Excuse me, excuse me. All of this talk about nudity is quite enough. Quite enough.
Also Seeker, riding on your high horse yet again, believing that you are the decent one here while the rest of us wallow in the mud. Sometimes I wonder if you understand how positively ridiculous you are. We call you hateful because you ARE hateful. You call for legislation to outlaw that which neither affects, nor harms, you. You call for laws to restrict the freedoms of others, not for any actual reason, but because you hate gays, and those too-close-for-comfort gay experiences you've talked about on occaison. We call you hateful because at every opportunity you are presented with to be decent, you aren't.
Meanwhile, none of us care about this woman's pregnancy, except to say that it is both sad and unfortunate. If she'd known about birth control, perhaps this wouldn't have occurred. Or maybe the condom broke and she wasn't able to get Plan B over the counter because idiots in the Bush Administration held it up. Who knows. But suggesting that we don't care for her, and better yet, that you DO care for her, is ridiculous.
I wonder what the Renaissance sculptors asked themselves back when they were carving the Madonna (breast showing) and child.
I would appeal to what Aaron explained to Lawanda on this point. To quote Aaron,
That was the common age in the NT time. Different time period, different norms.
The mores of Christians have changed since then. A bare breasted Mary may not have been sacrilegious when it was painted but it may be today on film. What if they showed her taking a bath in the movie presumably fully nude, would that be sacrilege? You know what the funny thing is? I bet a fully nude Joseph wouldn't raise an eyebrow because Christians view Mary as the more "holy" of the two. I absolutely know this to be true of Catholics. Anyway, I want to know what Aaron and Seeker think as well. Would a fully nude Mary make this film sacrilegious? Would it no longer be art?
I bet a fully nude Joseph wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
Correction, maybe Lawanda's :)
I have a question: How would Mary's nudity help this film or its story? (As a consumer, that makes me buy-curious… haha).
How would Mary's nudity help this film or its story?
It could illustrate that she was human and imperfect if the director wanted to drive home that point. If the director wanted to portray her as divine then he would need to find an actress with the body of Helen of Troy. In either case, nudity would advance the story with just an image and not unnecessary dialog. In movies, a rule of thumb is, it's better to show don't tell (explain).
Would Christians still like this film if it showed Mary nude though?
They would not mind if it was central to the story – I mean sure, the AFA might not like it, but most of us who actually like the human body and art, and appreciate more than just the modern fundamentalist utilitarian view of art (see Frankie Schaeffer's book Addicted to Mediocrity) would not care much, but we might not bring our smaller children.
But nudity is not really the problem these days, it's sexually suggestive and outright graphic, voyeuristic scenes that only appeal to our debased and sinful approach to sex that are the problem in movies.
You call for legislation to outlaw that which neither affects, nor harms, you. You call for laws to restrict the freedoms of others, not for any actual reason, but because you hate gays, and those too-close-for-comfort gay experiences you've talked about on occaison. We call you hateful because at every opportunity you are presented with to be decent, you aren't.
Abortion doesn't harm me either. Capital punishment doesn't harm you. Does that mean we can't crusade to protect others?
Unlike your libertarian utopia, I don't think we live in a world with unlimited freedom. We ALL have limited freedoms. We just disagree about which items to control. You want to control my right to own a gun, or my state's right to make gay marriage or abortion illegal.
I think YOU are hateful because you constantly purposely misunderstand the conservative position, and accuse people of motives that you have little real knowledge of or right to judge (what ever happened to the liberal habit of throwing around 'thou shalt not judge'?). And your judgments, imo, are based on your faulty, twisted interpretation of what you read and hear, twisted to match the negative caricature you would like your "religious enemies" to conform to because it makes your own positions seem more reasonable.
Furthermore, the real truth, again, imo, is that you HATE what is righteous and moral, raging against the light because your own heart and works are evil – YOU want to be told it is ok to reject God's ownership of your life, to covet, to steal, to have promiscuous sex, to lie, or whatever other sins you want to do and teach others to do. You should be ashamed and repent of your own sins and opposition to the truth. I can only hope you have a Damascus road experience, because otherwise, you may end up stuck in unbelief forever.
The higher view of Mary is a Catholic thing, I guess. I have no higher view of Mary than Joseph or Peter or Paul or my pastor. She was someone who God chose to use. God is the important one. Mary is the willing vessel. There's something to be said for that and it should be valued, but not any more in one person than another.
I would probably depend on the purpose behind the nudity. In virtually every film it seems to be superflous at best, there for shock value at worst. What purpose could a full nude shot of Mary serve, but to anger people?
I also think there is a difference between a painting/sculpture and a live person nude on the screen. There is not the voyeuristic feel to an art museum with a nude David, but seeing that same live in action on a movie takes a completely different feel.
From what I have heard the movie does a good job of portraying the humanity of Joseph and Mary, removing the years of fairy tale gloss built over them. It shows they were real people who didn't have all the answers and didn't know "how the story ends." They had to make tough decisions to follow what God asked them to do. You don't need to show anyone nude to make that point.
Sam, I find it so odd that you call out seeker for "riding on [his] high horse yet again," while you use this to attack Christians and the Bush administration. You would do well to learn the facts of a situation before you use it as a bludgeon.
The young lady is Australian, so it would be hard for Bush to have anything to do with the situation. It is also a case where she wants the baby. She has said in numerous places how happy she is about it. It is not a pregnancy that she wanted to end. I don't know if she planned it, but she has never expressed anything but joy about it.
It's so funny that the Bush administration holds so much power than their very election prevents people worldwide from hearing about birth control, since teenagers across the globe learn about sex and condoms from the government. Even still how odd is it that sex education classes in American still talk about birth control and condoms, but some how Bush is blinding teenagers to the truth.
You constantly talk about how the Christian position is naive in terms of what teenagers know about sex. You say it is silly for Christians to preach "wait until marriage" because teenagers will do what they want, yet somehow teenagers would be completely ignorant of condoms unless Bush demonstrates it on national TV. He can talk about using a dual approach like seeker says, but that's not enough because we all know he has some crazy Christian motive.
Aaron,
I was kidding about the Bush Administration. Also, you misrepresent my position on what Christians teach: I have no problem with preaching "wait until marriage." I object when "wait until marriage" is all that is taught or preached, because we know that the message does not get through to some teenagers. There is no reason that a total approach can't be effective, although to hear (Some) Christians discuss it, the mere telling of a child about sexual activity forces them to immediately have unprotected sex.
Furthermore, the real truth, again, imo, is that you HATE what is righteous and moral, raging against the light because your own heart and works are evil
Got any evidence, at all, to back this claim up Seeker, this claim of evil? Or at this point are you so dellusional as to believe that simply disagreeing with the light and awesomeness of you is akin to evil? It's like you've confused your own opinions with those of your God.
– YOU want to be told it is ok to reject God's ownership of your life, to covet, to steal, to have promiscuous sex, to lie, or whatever other sins you want to do and teach others to do.
You're like Don Quixote charging a windmill. I am a good father, a tax-paying citizen, a former social worker, and a proud son. If you believe that I am coveting, stealing, lying and whatever else, that's your business. I suppose like everything else in your life, you don't need evidence to believe these alleged "facts" about me.
You should be ashamed and repent of your own sins and opposition to the truth. I can only hope you have a Damascus road experience, because otherwise, you may end up stuck in unbelief forever.
I will not be "stuck" in "unbelief." I will remain free to think as I want, to make my own decisions, and to treat my fellow man fairly and gently and lovingly, as opposed to how your Christians do it. Also, fuck off. I have called you stupid (as you have me) and I have called you dellusional (as you have me) and I have called you insane (as you have me). To suggest that my very personhood, because I disagree with you, is somehow rotten? Fuck. Off. If this is how you Christians believe you'll bring nonbelievers into your fold, it is no wonder that you're such miserable failures.
Got any evidence, at all, to back this claim up Seeker, this claim of evil?
Not any more than you are human, and resist the gospel vociferously. Since I once met those same requirements (and because I am still human and know that I myself have deep pockets of resistance to God), I believe I can safely make this assumption.
To suggest that my very personhood, because I disagree with you, is somehow rotten? Fuck. Off. If this is how you Christians believe you'll bring nonbelievers into your fold, it is no wonder that you're such miserable failures.
Yes, that is part of the gospel. You are made in the image of God, but fatally flawed. And I am not trying to win you to the gospel at all. Your often troll-like behavior has moved me to rebuke rather than reasoning. Like you, I am tired of your repeated nonsensical hateful blatherings.
Seeker,
Calling me troll-like doesn't change the fact that you hate gay people. You can lie about that fact all you want, because you know admitting it will lose you support, but those of us here arguing with you know that the reason you oppose gay citizens quest for equality is your hatred of them. Anything else immaterial. The fact that you can't argue with me, that you're only capable of writing off my very existence, suggests to me that you understand how pitiful your arguments truly are.
Nice rationalization, but untrue.