This Easter came to theaters the story of the most polemic woman in the Christian religion. Mary Magdalene has been a film as controversial as the reputation of the person herself, and paradoxically, more realistic than the church´s old depictions of this character. With a truthful tone, a feminist core and humble philosophical debate about the last words of Jesus, this film is the must-watch of the season.

What should we know before watching the film, or after…? The key to understand the film is the historical background. Like many other individuals, through the time Mary Magdalene has been defamed as a third layer character in the bible and displayed as a prostitute by the Church, while the fact is that she was another active apostle reinforcing Jesus Christ dogmas.

The origin of this huge misunderstanding started by mistaking Mary Magdalene in the canonic Gospels with other females sharing the same name, and an apparently sinful past, during the times of early Christianity by the Pope Magno (6th century BC).
The myth of Mary being a prostitute or a woman of loose sexuality was long echoed in art from Caravaggio to Mel Gibson and deeply stuck in society´s beliefs.

In addition to the tergiversation in the middle age, the recent blunders of the Church also took place in this picture seeing that at the end of the 19th century Mary Magdalene´s Gospel was found. With missing fragments, this text contains the testimony of Magdalena´s journey beside Jesus Christ. ''The Vatican finally accepted this document after decades of revision** by different institutions and petitions as an apocryphal Gospel in 2016, which opened a timely path to the creation of the film.

The goal of the film is to portray Mary Magdalene closer to the real subject, a Jewish woman from an authoritarian family who revealed herself as a follower of a highly controversial movement in an age where oppression against women was undefeatable. The costume design, art production, and performances by Roony Mara and Joaquin Phoenix make you travel back to the ancient age, which turns the movie into a total positive experience.

On the other hand, why was it so badly received by the critics? Maybe those expecting a Dan Brown-all the past is a lie- type of story should have a different expectation since Mary Magdalena´s participation in Jesus life did not alter the course of the events and the purpose of the film is not to unfold a new historical standpoint but a different theological approach. The script retells the passion of Christ from Magdalene´s perspective but also restates the past mistakes of the church and open a philosophical debate about the original message of Christ, which apparently, was another topic quite misunderstood.

All in all many enquires remain open after the film. How did Mary´s life end? Why the Vatican never accepted her Gospel before? Moreover, how could she never have been credited by her testimony the same way the rest of the apostles did during two thousand years?
Apparently, a woman being paid less than a man for doing the same job is not exactly a new thing.