Journey To Bethlehem dates the Bible…but doesn’t marry it.

Article by Jubilee

Forgive the title, but I wasn’t sure how else to summarize the issues and feelings I had with the film in one go. This was one of the few Christian movies out and upon seeing the trailer I was skeptical, but I thought if it was created by Christians then the intention was good and should be supported. How many companies are making movies about the birth of Christ today or anything Bible related which dares to call Jesus Christ the son of God—Lord, Savior, and King? I’ll spoil it for you, not many. So, this movie was doing that—and I wanted to support. I also love musicals and while the trailer looked lighthearted my hope was that the delicate issues would be treated as such and so would the matters which were pulled specifically from scripture. Did I expect it to be a little cheesy? Yes, but that didn’t have to ruin it for me. It’s not my intention to be unkind or unnecessarily harsh with this film since as I said, it was made by Christians and I’ll say out the gate I think their heart was in the right place—but I do believe when handling such material it’s important to compare Bible based content with scripture and think about portrayals we make as well as the message we may be sending.

Pure enjoyment factor as a film:

I’m going to pretend I’m not holding the movie up to scripture for this section and this section only in my review—and I’ll speak on it purely as a family film with entertainment value. I went to see it with my brother and sister, and it didn’t fail to entertain for the most part but much of that was due to our amusement and not the films quality. There was nothing offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate about the story. It followed a young Jewish girl in an arranged marriage with a young man, the characters were generally likeable people and if I were you give you an umbrella over the plot: it’s following the calling of Mary after she’s told by an angel that she will give birth to the savior of the world, Jesus Christ. Yes, that tiny detail should have been given more attention than the zany and fun aspects in the film but we’ll get to that. The historical character, King Herod-the films villain-wants to find and kill this child which is said to be a King because he wants to be the only ruler—and Mary and Joseph must flee to Bethlehem so she can have the baby safely while Roman soldiers search for the child.

There was a plot, a villain, conflict, and a story. For the most part I was entertained, but I confess part of the entertainment was in finding the creators choice of dialogue, or musical number comical (it was very much like Disney channel at times).  Saying out the gate that it wasn’t horrible, it still wasn’t sufficient.

The film tells the tale with the tone of a fairytale about a girl with a dream who God has other plans for, and two young Christians finding their way in God’s will with a fun, family musical, complete with silly comedic side characters (the three wise men), a cartoonishly evil villain (king Herod), and a quirky family that sings about Mary’s betrothal while she says she wants adventure in the great wide somewhere. If this had been a fictional story with a Christian theme about a girl and boy finding love and God’s plan for their life while avoiding an evil king, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it, they could choose to lean in the sillier direction, and it wouldn’t be particularly offensive. If it were a cartoon, intended for very small children (perhaps between the ages of 3 and 5) I would think it was mostly harmless, though I’d still prefer more scripture to be included. However, this is a film depicting the historical account of the birth of Jesus and as such it could have been handled in a more biblically accurate fashion. The story isn’t a fairytale: it’s a retelling of the birth of the Messiah, Savior of the world, King, Lord of Lords and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the prophesied second Adam and only name under heaven by which all men must be saved (Acts 4:12). I could talk about Him forever, but let’s shift to what that means regarding this movie: I should walk away remembering more in the film about Jesus’ birth than the catchy tunes, comedy, oh yes…and myrrh. I’ll get to that, believe me.

There’s creative license and areas they just went too far:

I understand the film is about the courtship/marriage of Mary and Joseph so there will be areas you have to be creative and add material—if you’re respectful and trying to stay within the realm of what’s possible for scripture, I’m okay with that. I’m even okay with trying to turn Mary and Joseph into a Swan Princess style engagement where they’re two young people who want different things but then meet and fall in love—that’s fine. If the film is intended for young audiences than that’s harmless. However—the movie takes one creative license too many and it does so at the expense of the story and even the portrayal of the characters.

·         Mary and Joseph meet before they realize they’re engaged and there’s sparks. That’s not a problem. The problem is they make it look like Joseph knew he was engaged (and he didn’t know to who), but he’s flirting with Mary when he meets her and she’s flirting back. Then they argue about this later. And it’s played for laughs but if Joseph really is the guy who’s going to flirt when he’s engaged that doesn’t speak well of him or Mary in this portrayal.

·         The angel who comes to Mary—Gabriel—doesn’t know his lines. He rehearses speaking to her, and when he does scripture isn’t quoted.

What was really said in the gospel of Luke 1:26-37:

Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the highest. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.      

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the most high will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” 

That’s what happened according to the Gospel of Luke –which was fresh in my mind during this film because my church is currently going through it verse by verse. The film, attempts to do a conversational summary of this:

Angel: Do not be afraid, I’m sorry I frightened you.

Mary: Am I dreaming?

Gabriel: You’re not dreaming.

Mary: No one’s talking to me, I’m dreaming—wake up!

Gabriel: Again—not dreaming.

Mary: Am I dead?”

Gabriel: You’re not dead.

I could continue with this scene, but, if you can already tell, much banter and comedy is added even when the angel starts talking to Mary. He tells her she’ll give birth to a son of the most high, and that anything is possible with God—and he gets the name right—he tells her the baby is Jesus, but that’s about all he tells her. Then of course they add a line where he tells Mary, “You cower before no one” just so she can sound empowered. And then the angel leaves. Mary doesn’t say, “How can this be for I am a virgin?” she just says, “This is insane, this isn’t possible…” and then the angel tells her anything is possible with God. The scene misses many pivotal points in the scripture from Mary being favored with God, the importance of the details in Christ’s lineage and coming from the house of David, the virgin birth—they breeze over it in the dialogue. And again, they omit even more scripture when the angel speaks to Joseph. Joseph is sleeping and the angel does not come to him and say what he was supposed to which is found in Mathew 1:18:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way: when His mother Mary had been betrothed with child, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the holy spirit. And her husband Jospeh, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

But as he considered these things, behold, and angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the holy spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus—for He will save His people from their sins.”

In the film, they have to fill in of course how Joseph learns of the pregnancy, what him pondering these things, like if he should divorce her or not, looks like—and they add a musical number to portray his inner conflict and maker clearer to younger viewers who might not understand the weight of the struggle in that day and age. I didn’t dislike this; it was creative, and it showed just how weighty Joseph thinking his wife was with an illegitimate child would have been back then as well as his struggle of how to address it. For all we know, Jesus was looked down upon as illegitimate. In fact, it was likely because Mary was obviously pregnant before she married Joseph and not everyone would have believed it was an act of the holy spirit. The film tries to show that a bit and it wasn’t a poor creative choice.

But when Joseph is addressed by the angel, all Gabriel says to him is: “Joseph, go to Mary…”

 Basically, God should fire Gabriel in this universe. He has one job and one message to deliver and he fails. This isn’t the actor’s fault, it’s whoever wrote the script. Why didn’t they just have the angels say scripture??? Joseph simply struggles in a nightmare, wakes up and decides to go find Mary and then take her as his wife of his own accord without instruction from the Lord. The film took lots of other creative choices like giving King Herod a son with a small redemption arc who lets Mary and Joseph get away with their child at the end, and making the three wise men completely imbecilic buffoons, it says something that when we left the theater the biggest question people were posing is, “what is myrrh?” Because one of the annoying wise men in the film won’t shut up about Myrhh even though everyone else tells him to. Movie goers were literally talking about it in the Cinemark hallway like that was the biggest impression the film made. And I can tell you right now, that’s not what people should be discussing when they leave a film based on the historical account of Christ’s birth.

Who was it for?

I struggle with this question the most, because the only saving grace for the film would be if it were for extremely young audiences. Like the age group who watches veggie tales. The veggie tales retelling of Ruth and Boaz doesn’t quote scripture, but it generally tells the story in a way that small children can understand—this movie basically does the same thing only it takes more liberties. And yes, I’m aware that veggie tales biblical account was called, “The great Pie war.” It was still roughly about as true to tale as Journey to Bethlehem was in account…maybe a little less.

Journey to Bethlehem tells a roughly accurate story about Mary and Joseph, and if it were a cartoon or intended for little children I wouldn’t fault the silly Magi, quirky romance, or even funny angel in the same way I don’t fault Veggie tales retelling of Jonah for having a choir of soul singing vegetables in the whale’s stomach who dance with flashing lights. But I’m pretty sure this film wasn’t just for children—otherwise they wouldn’t have included the number with Joseph being conflicted over considering Mary may have sinned with another man and may be adulterous. They wouldn’t use words like Blaspheme and have Herod wanting to slaughter all the infants and mothers. Mary’s one number “Mother to a Savior and King” actually felt like it belonged in a dramatic musical, but as for the rest of the numbers…they were cartoonish and catchy at best. The song we walked away having stuck in our heads was, “Mary’s getting married,” and that probably shouldn’t have been the most memorable thing in a narrative of Christ’s birth either. I wouldn’t mind the catchy showtunes about the engagement and marriage if the parts which were straight from scripture had been treated as more weighty and serious.

If it was just a movie for young Christians—then it could have relied much more heavily on scripture. Even small children can be ready for more than just spiritual milk—they need food, and this movie had a chance to give it to them. But the movie strayed from going deep into scripture and simply tried to take a casual way out of the scenes which were directly from the Bible. Young adults, those mature in the faith, and even growing children need to be reading scripture and we shouldn’t tone it down or stray away from it for fear it’s too serious or dark. Just give them the Bible. If you have to omit scenes let it be for the sake of rating: if you have to remove gruesome details from a bible story because it’s graphic, that’s fine-it’s not like you’re changing the story or pretending it didn’t happen, you just aren’t showing it. In the story of Jesus’ birth, there’s nothing you need to cut or tone down—especially not the dialogue.

What I liked:

• I was really interested in the film’s potential. I grew up on Musicals and I’ve always been sensitive to the person of Jesus Christ being portrayed on screen, but a musical about the Christmas story was a less sensitive subject. Musical’s have power to make fun moments more memorable through song and tragic momentous moments impactful in a new way through the art form of music, if it’s written by artists who know what they’re doing. So the film had potential, and I liked Mary’s solo about being mother to a Savior. The music wasn’t bad and I’ll confess I’ve found myself revisiting some of it since (though I have complaints about some of the lyrics and creative license when I gathered my thoughts). I even liked her first duet with Joseph when I heard it in the theater, “Can we make this work?”, but the context through which they put it in the film made it less enjoyable. It was kind of like Disney channel making a Christian musical and leaving out the heaviest theological elements.

• I’ll admit some of the music was good, in a purely objective sense -the engagement song was catchy and like an opener out of a Disney cartoon fitting something like the “Belle” number in beauty and the beast. It got stuck in my head (I’m not totally proud of it, but it did, I’ll be honest). Joseph’s number, “Ultimate deception,” was an interesting creative choice. Herod’s sons song-“In my blood”-was good (but again, the historical liberties had me on the fence). The music wasn’t bad, it’s just the nature of the scenes where characters spoke that were an issue. Because if I haven’t mentioned this before….scripture was MISSING. Also, even though this is the part where I mention what I liked, I’ll add that they omitted Mary’s song in the Gospel of Luke where she magnifies the Lord….and this is a musical. So what’s their excuse?

• The portrayal of Herod would have worked if the film was intended for little children, because he played a character that was so cartoonish you could get the message across to your young ones. Herod is played as a vain, arrogant, godless ruler who’s intimidated by the prospect of a new king. And the film intentionally sheds light at the fact that Herod’s power as a mere man and his title are nothing compared to the title which has been given Jesus; even though that would have been unfathomable at that day and age. Herod was a king, why was he afraid of the child of a young girl from one of the most insignificant towns in the Bible, Nazereth? Obviously, they portray him in the film having nightmares and feeling horrified because he senses the presence of the true King being born and his mortality and insignificance becomes progressively more obvious in film. I won’t attest to historical accuracy, but I appreciate what they were trying to say with this.

• They kept some specific details from scripture which I appreciated, like Mary going to Elizabeth and her husband being mute, though John the Baptist didn’t leap for joy in her stomach. I feel jilted they didn’t have the baby kick when Mary walks up pregnant with Jesus, but alas—they left out quite a few small details that I would’ve preferred remain.

• I appreciate that a movie can still be made where people state that Jesus Christ is Lord, King and Savior. In a world of perverse Hollywood movies, which I’d be all but sick to stomach watching, I’m glad some Christians are still trying to make movies.

In conclusion: Once again, I’ll conclude that the creators’ hearts were in the right place—the intention was there, but if the film was for Christians, as believers were called to strengthen and edify each other—build each other up and grow into spiritual food not just milk (1st Corinthians 3:2). Give them scripture (2nd Timothy 3:16-17). You can tell the story, there’s nothing wrong with that—but without scripture the story loses its meaning in the same way a meal loses its main course or a fire loses heat. The scripture is the meaning of the story—not the witty romance or the musical numbers.  I’m not sorry we saw it, because there are so few Christian made films out there and it was mostly other Christians who came out to the theater for it. It was nice to see a community coming out for a musical about the birth of Jesus—I just would encourage those making such work to rely on the Bible to give the story its power and not their own creative twists which made the film more acceptable to modern audiences, but also downplayed the weight of the message.