Illustrated Daily; 6105; Hail Mary

In the first program, peer far into the distance, and back into... Bailey is made possible in part by grants from Southwest Mortgage Company, Albuquerque... It's not vulgar, and it's not offensive in the sense that, for example,

Porquies is vulgar, or Rambo is offensive to human sensibilities, and as far as human sensibilities are concerned, I find those films to be much more offensive and much more dangerous than Hail Mary, certainly. The Illustrated Daily, Managing Editor Hal Roads. Good evening. The movie Hail Mary will be screened on the campus of the University of New Mexico this

Thursday and Friday evenings. The work of French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, Hail Mary, has provoked a wave of controversy both in this country and in Europe, and made big headlines here in New Mexico when the University of New Mexico Board of Regents banned its presentation on the University campus. A band subsequently lifted. Members of the Roman Catholic Church, both locally and elsewhere, have criticized the film as blasphemous. Ironically, many of the film's critics, as well as many of those who have defended the right to show the movie, have not actually seen Hail Mary. Tonight about Hail Mary, and everyone on this program has seen the film myself included. Our guests tonight are Ira Jaffy, Associate Professor of Theater at the University of New Mexico where he teaches courses in film. James Houghton Roth, a Roman Catholic parishioner in Albuquerque, and Peter Walsh, director of the University of New Mexico's Art Museum.

First, Sandy Garotano has this background report. In a career extending over 25 years, Jean-Luc Godard has earned a place in film history as one of the world's most challenging and controversial film directors. His narratives are often disjointed in full of contradictions. Of his own work, he once wrote. Beauty and truth have two poles, documentary and fiction. You can start with either one. My starting point is documentary, to which I try to give the truth of fiction. Godard's combination of fiction and documentary and his most recent film, Hail Mary, has resulted in what will probably be remembered as the controversy of his career. The film is a modernized version of the incarnation and virgin birth. Mary is a beautiful but otherwise unremarkable daughter of a gas station attendant who likes to play basketball and becomes pregnant even though she is a virgin. Her boyfriend, Joseph, is a taxi driver who has a difficult time accepting Mary's predicament. The film portrays the couple's coming to terms with the divine mission entrusted to them.

Hello. Do you want me to come back? I want to come back. Last Friday, Archbishop Robert Sanchez issued a statement echoing the Catholic Church's worldwide opposition to Godard's film, which is scheduled to be shown at UNM sub-theater later this week. This film, which has few redeeming art qualities, is an essence and insult to Roman Catholics. It is little wonder that Pope John Paul II called this vulgar parody blasphemous. The movie simply degrades and ridicules the fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. While recognizing the need for academic freedom at the university level of education, it seems that this does not entail freedom without restraints. Send a sensitivity to the common good and or the picture. According to ASU and M. President Marty Eskivell, there are other overriding concerns. People are insensitive to a lot of things, you know. I think people were insensitive to the movie Rambo, but I think there's more at stake

here than the sensibilities of those viewing the film, you know. I think we're dealing with a lot of heavy issues, one being censorship, one being the first amendment of one's right to freedom of speech, and we've got to look at those things, you know. I'm not going to promote the film and I'm not going to defend the film's merits. I just want to defend the student's rights to individually choose whether or not they want to see that film. When I came out of the film at the New York Film Festival, I was with several critics, and there were about 50 people with placards walking back and forth saying this is an anti-Catholic film and it's an outrage and no one should see it. And we stopped and talked with probably 20 or 30 of them and asked them why they were there and whether or not they'd seen the film and of course none of them had seen the film, which was surprising to me and of course it's been surprising in view of what's been happening here in the last couple of weeks that the people who have been most outraged have not seen the film.

Davidson Cherry, drafter of the petition to the UNM Regents requesting that they ban the film, explains his objections to the film's content. As a Roman Catholic, I have not seen the film and I do not particularly wish to see the film, the fact that the Pope and most of the bishops who are my spiritual superiors in this matter have spoken against the film and said that it is blasphemy. I trust their judgment on the matter and I submit to their authority. I personally have no objection to the modernization of a biblical story. I don't believe that most of my associates have any objection to the modernization of such a story. What we object to however is the trivialization of it and we object to the alterations to the basic character of the people in question. Joseph in the Bible is a humble and obedient servant of God.

In this movie he has a grubby little taxi driver who uses foul and vulgar language. Mary in the Bible is a modest and decent and virtuous righteous woman and in this movie she uses foul language, allows herself to be seen in the nude, allows the baby Jesus to explore her body under her dress and objects to God's choosing her for the role for which she has been chosen. It is not the modernization we object to, it is the vulgarization. When I saw the film last fall at the New York Film Festival I had read a lot about it. It made quite a sensation in Europe and certainly in Rome and the Pope had been very angry about it. So I expected it to be quite irreverent and blasphemous and I went with my eyes wide open hoping to understand what it was everyone was so upset about and I was quite disappointed in terms of the blasphemy of the film because I did not find it blasphemous or irreverent

at all. I found it to be a very touching, interesting film. Greg Erlinson, news editor for the National Catholic Register, offered a similar view. Godard does not mean to ridicule Catholic reverence of Mary. At the showing I attended, a disgruntled ex-Catholic sitting behind me seem disappointed by this fact. In an irreverent world, Godard's clumsy handling of Catholic beliefs may be maddening, but the prayers of those demonstrators outside the movie theaters are needed for much more serious crimes against God in nature than an experimental film by an idiosyncratic Swiss artist. So a nice background report on the movie Hail Mary by Sandy Garotano, our producer tonight, and Professor Ira Jaffe, before we turn to the religious issues in controversy here, I'd like your reaction if you don't mind to Hail Mary in terms of artistic merit. Some critics have praised it as a work of art, others say they find it disappointing. What is your assessment as one well versed on film in the subject of film to this work

by Jean-Luc Godard? I liked the film. I should add, or preface this by saying that I've been a fan of Godard as a student of his films for many years, about 20 years, and probably the first, one of the first published articles I did was on a Godard film in 1965. This film, I think perhaps, is not his greatest film, but clearly has strong artistic merit. Incidentally, it's, in my opinion, also an example of the in-look and feel of a more serene and tranquil Godard than I can remember seeing in any previous film by him. I was going to ask you, just based upon the amount of controversy it has engendered, I went to the screening of that film on Saturday that was arranged for us in order that we

might all be prepared here this evening, expecting a much more provocative film than the one I saw. But in any case, Godard's treatment of his subject, the virgin birth set in contemporary times, what was your impression? Did he handle it in your opinion irreverently or respectfully? Each of us comes from a separate background, of course, given my background, I did not find irreverence or blasphemy. But I almost hesitate to answer the question because I realize it depends so much on one's background, one's language, one's familiarity with film in general, and specifically one's familiarity with Godard's work. What does knowing Godard's work, how does knowing Godard's work affect and answer to the question that sort I just posed of you?

Did he treat it his subject with respect or with a lack of reverence? In other words, what does knowing Godard's work tell us that would help us answer this question? Well, I consider this particular film not only in terms of the little I know about the Bible, but also in terms of the little I know about Godard, perhaps more the latter. Godard, for instance, has before dealt with the question of, let's say, the definition of a person's consciousness, specifically of a woman's consciousness, her growing confidence, her growing, her increased relating of herself to the world. This is an example of such a work, but they are much earlier ones. For instance, in 1964 and 1965, there were the films my life to live and a married woman, and both, at least broadly considered, were about that, let's say, self-definition of a woman. In the sense I saw this occurring in this film as well, I saw this matter being dealt with seriously and respectfully in those earlier films, and I do so now again.

In addition, what nudity appears in this film, I see to be, if anything, much more gentle, restrained, respectful than in Godard's previous work, though, of course, in the previous work I'm thinking of, you know, his characters were not biblical ones. I see. I was going to ask you, what do you think he was trying to do? What do you think he was trying to accomplish when he decided to explore this story of the virgin birth in a modern context? I'm sorry, it's an important, obvious question, but I really don't know what his intention was, except to say something, again, fairly obvious, that Godard, perhaps like any of us, and certainly like any artist, is interested in the sheer sensation of wonder, in the mystery of how we maintain the wonder in our lives, and I think that he would be drawn,

partly for that reason, to such a story, which is one of the sort of original stories, the main stories of wonder, of a sense of renewal, of the miraculous. In addition, he was drawn, he has been drawn to the work of other filmmakers who have dealt with some such theme. For instance, a great filmmaker for him is called Dryer, who made a film in 1928 called the Passion of Joan of Arc, and it was about a woman's struggle for faith, for truth, for beauty, and at the same time the demand she felt of sensuality of the flesh of earth. You may have touched upon this, but I'd just like to go back to it. Some leaders of the Roman Catholic Church characterized the film as blasphemous, others have objected to the nudity in the film. Is it blasphemous?

Was nudity handled in this film in bad taste? I did not find the film blasphemous. I did not find the nudity in bad taste. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Houghton Roth, you are one of the lay Catholic Roman Catholics in Albuquerque, who is also objected to the film. Now that you have seen it, do you still find it offensive? I surely do. Could you explain that for us? Well, first of all, let me summarize my thoughts. I consider it to be like toxic waste of the mind, beautifully packaged with music and artistic effects, but fit for nothing but the incinerator. I think it is impossible to set the incarnation in a modern scene, and it's completely contradictory. I'd like to, if I may, contrast the biblical characters, portrayed by God's immortal, and inspired word, as contrast with the characters in Godar's film.

First of all, with regard to Mary's parents, Mary's parents in the Bible were the saintly husband and wife, Jorkem and Mary, and they were devoted to God and to spiritual things. In Godar's film, on the other hand, Mary's parents were a very worldly couple preparing to get divorced. Joseph. Joseph in the Bible, the true Joseph, was a virgin guardian of Mary and of the child Jesus. Mary was a mortal and solicitous. In Godar's film, on the other hand, Joseph desired marital relations with Mary and accused her of sleeping around. Mary herself, Mary of the Bible, accepted humbly, completely, willingly and irrevocably the role of divine motherhood. She obtained complete fulfillment by giving herself over to God's will. On the other hand, in the film, Mary rebelled against God, called him a creep, a coward,

an vampire who profited from my pain, and she was reluctant to give up her sexuality. Or let me ask you, do you question the right of a filmmaker to explore this subject? Do you question the right of individuals if that is their decision to see the film? I think that there should be certain limits of good taste, certain limits of restraint, exercised by a filmmaker, and I think that God is a creator of the universe. God made us all. When we put ourselves in conformance with His laws, everything goes well. When, as in the decay of the Roman Empire, we set ourselves up on lifestyles for your contrary to God's laws, then everything goes wrong. Then is the answer to my question? Do you question the right of the filmmaker to make such a film, yes or no?

I think it's fine if you'd like to make it an unfolded garbage can. Do you question the right of people to see it? No. All right. I want to double check a fact here. The preamble to the film, Hail Mary, was an other film. I think that it ought to be clarified, but I want to double check. The film he was speaking about where Mary's parents were in the process of divorce, was not by Jean-Luc Goudard, was it? Correct, no. And it was not a part of the film. No, it was a separate film. It's a short film. Yeah, but I believe it was meant to be shown with Hail Mary. I understand that. Was that meant as a preamble to Hail Mary as it were? That's how I took it. That's how I took it as well. That would not be Jean-Luc Goudard's responsibility. I just want to get everybody straightened on this so that we're not accused by others who know the film story of having this represented it. One of the issues which has surface, Mr. Houghton Roth, here in elsewhere, concerns the

consequences of all the controversy. Some have said that religious leaders, by virtue of their very vocal opposition to the film, have raised the level of interest in the movie to such an extent that it's probably caused a lot of people to be apt to see the film who otherwise would not, would not have in the case had just come and gone. I'd like to ask your opinion about how the controversy itself about the film is affecting people's decision to see it or not to see it. You think more people are going to see it as a consequence of all this and otherwise would have been the case? I would rather not speculate on that. I think it is possible. I'm aware that the two views have been expressed. I think that the film, for reasons which haven't yet had a chance to explain, clearly blasphemous. I feel it, would you? Let me, if I may run through just a little bit more with regard to the contrast, between the characters of the Bible and the characters of Gunnar and Film. In the Bible, Mary and Joseph are models of chastity, modesty, and dignity.

On the other hand, the displays of nudity between Mary and Joseph and the gutter language. Now, the gutter language may have cropped up in the English subtitles. I don't know. But they're completely unsuitable for any even common people and to attribute these to God's chosen mother and guardian is refolding. Finally, in Jesus' childhood, the Holy Family was a model for all human families. However, in the God of Film, the conduct of Mary with Jesus as a child of four to five I think was unspeakably debased. She took the child Jesus for five, I would imagine, and raised her dressing gown and invited him to probe around, touch her private parts, and then she told him what their names were. And that's why you think it's blasphemous? Is that why you... These entire, all of these, I think, take an inner entirety, mean that these are certainly examples which fulfill the definition of blasphemy, which is irreverence toward or

maligning of something or someone's sacred, or libelous, defamation, defamation of a person by written or representational means. All right, so I think it's clearly blasphemous. Thank you very much, Mr. Hutton. Roth Peter was one of the questions which needs to be addressed here is how university facilities are used in presenting works of art which some might find offensive. You know what you have? I'm sure to deal with this as director of an art museum. How does one go about balancing this sort of thing out? With great trepidation, hopefully with some grace, and that's all I can say. I think the function of any university facility to be as universal as possible, to show his art, to present to students as many viewpoints as possible. And I think that goes for a library, for an art museum, for student film society. I should say, by the way, that I think this film society is doing a wonderful job of

doing that. And I think they should be commended. We're focusing upon one film out of a series this year, one hour, about 80 films, so shown over the year. And the diversity of films which they've brought to the campus, old films, new films, foreign directors, Japanese directors. These films, not available in commercial theaters, has been really, I think, splendid diversity, Catholic with a small sea, you could say, has been the motto of their film program. Granted film is probably different than other art forms. But throughout the ages, artists have occasionally gotten crosswise with the church, everyone from Michelangelo to Carvaggio. Does the fact that we are here talking about film make this, as it were, historical tension any more difficult?

I don't think it's any different than it was with, say, the nudity in the Sistine Chapel in the 16th century. It just happens that film is the most popularly accessible art form now, so it touches more people more vitally than do the sister arts of painting or sculpture. So it's replaced so it's just a later day version of all that. I know you're not a film critic, but I also know you're a film buff and that you are familiar with the work of Godar. I know as well that you went to that special screening with an open mind that we might be prepared here this evening if you don't mind your reaction to the movie. Is it blasphemous? Is it vulgar? Is it art? Certainly art. It's not for me vulgar. Blasphemous, to me, is a term probably best reserved for theologians to discuss and I'm not prepared to call myself that.

All right. Mr. Honton-Rothman, I get you back on this. You've heard what Mr. Walch has had to say about the film Hail Mary. He thinks it's art. He does not find it vulgar and he would reserve the decision whether it's blasphemous to those who control church doctrine. Well I'm not skilled in the arts so I would have no comment as to whether it was art. I think it was very skillfully done, skillfully packaged. I didn't understand many of the peculiar views, visions and so forth, the moon, the symbolism of that. I think it was vulgar and as I've explained and I can go on further, I think it was blasphemous. All right. And I don't think that blasphemous is limited to theologians. All right. Let me ask Ira Jaffe. I think everyone on this program wants to be respectful of other people's deeply held views and beliefs to the ordinary individual trying to decide whether or not they want to see this film, whether or not they ought to see this film.

What kind of advice would you give them in coming to their decision? What ought they consider? Well I suppose one thing they need to consider, we've touched on that there are various reasons for going to see a film. One valid one it seems to me is to see what a society is talking about or a local community. Another is to see an example of a film art and he's always had a goadar that is, he's always had a very distinctive approach to film. And I suppose a third reason would be to see how a particular religious theme is dealt with. But I would add that one looks to a film, let's say, for all certain possibilities of what can go on between people, certain delicateness of feelings, et cetera.

And I think that one could find it in that film. All right, let me ask you, Mr. Houghton, about the same question, trying to respect other people's views, goadar is supposed to have said upon being asked to respond to all this controversy, notably for leaders of your church, that it was not his impression that the Roman Catholic Church had a copyright on the story of the Virgin birth and that it was therefore opened to others who would look at it. With that in mind, trying to understand there are a lot of diversity of views here, what advice would you give those to, in making a decision do they want to see this film? Well, frankly, I would advise everybody not to go. I found it to be repugnant and I won't say that it made me sick to the point of being ready to slow up, but I would like very much to be able to get these thoughts out of my mind. All right, let me give you the same opportunity.

What would you say to people who are trying to decide whether they want to see this film or not? We only have about 45 seconds. To me, it was a very faithful evocation of the essential mystery of the Virgin birth. And I think it was treated both with art and sensitivity and I would recommend people to see it. Well, by golly, we just came up with the difference of opinion here, but I think we started with the difference of being gentleman. Thank you very much. I'm afraid our time is up. We're going to have to leave it at that. That is it for tonight. Tomorrow, I'll look at some of the problems which confronted candidates in the June primary election here in New Mexico when it came time this year to get signatures on their petitions. Meanwhile, thank you for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night.