Editor’s Note: This is part one of the third article in a series of three critical reviews which The Fatima Center is posting regarding the new Fatima movie released earlier this year. A round-table discussion video, with Fr. Rodríguez, will also be posted at our website and YouTube channel.
PART ONE: A CHANGE IN MY PERSPECTIVE
We have received a number of questions at The Fatima Center regarding the new movie titled Fatima (2020), directed by Marco Pontecorvo. I had previewed this movie earlier in the spring and was terribly disappointed with its presentation of the greatest Marian apparition in history. Nevertheless, in preparation for writing this article, I watched it a second time. This second viewing was in the company of fellow Catholics, including Father Michael Rodríguez. Following our screening, we recorded a video providing our critique. In this article, I will provide further details which elaborate upon the perspectives we succinctly voiced in that video, part of our round-table “Bunker Talk” series.
After my first viewing of the movie, I thought that despite all its shortcomings, perhaps the movie could serve a beneficial purpose for a particular audience. In my opinion, the cinematography was good, the wardrobes well done, the acting compelling, and the dramatic tension of the story line engaging. I could sympathize with the opinion “Here is an entertaining story with a positive message amidst so many terrible movies, so why not recommend it” – albeit with a truckload of provisos and only for an audience with a certain understanding. Yet, following my second viewing, I realized I could not in good conscience recommend it to anyone.
THREE POSSIBLE AUDIENCE GROUPS
First, for a Catholic who knows and wants to live the Fatima Message, the movie is filled with so many inaccuracies and inspires so little piety and faith that it will most likely upset the viewer. This happened to me and to numerous people I know. In fact, one gentleman who was participating in our ‘screening’ got up half-way through the movie and left. In his words, he simply refused to watch any more of this “modernist psychoanalysis that simply projects our contemporary issues back onto history.” He said he has to deal with this everyday as a university professor and didn’t want to subject himself to any more of it during his weekend.
Second, for a non-Catholic who is unaware of the beauty and glory of our Catholic Faith, of the stuff that saints are made of, of the urgency of the Message of Fatima for our time, or of the great love that God and our Blessed Mother have for souls; this movie is unlikely to introduce any of these concepts or inflame a desire to learn more about them. Granted, it is very hard for a movie to achieve this, but I think it is possible. (Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ comes to mind.) If a non-believer were to watch this movie, I don’t think he would be much affected by it for the movie itself provides too many outs – that is, rationalizations and justifications against faith.
Third, for a Catholic who has little or no knowledge of the authentic Message of Fatima, I believe this film is potentially disastrous and can actually be detrimental to their faith.[1] It is with regard to this group that my perspective changed the most following the second viewing. Why? Because I asked myself: “Who is the target audience?” and “What is the purpose of this movie?”
THE TARGET AUDIENCE
It makes sense that this third group would in fact be the “target audience” for this type of movie. Those who truly know and love the Message of Fatima will not learn anything new or true from this movie. Those who care not one whit about God and reject a priori everything having to do with faith, will have little reason to spend their time watching what is patently a movie about religious matters. That leaves a middle third group: people who have a nominal interest and want to learn more about what really happened at Fatima and the truth about the Message Our Lady brought. Yet, on account of its inaccuracies, omissions, and chosen mode for narrating the story, this movie can easily serve as a hindrance to the people in this target audience.
Despite knowing that directors customarily employ creative license and that “historical” movies are only tangentially based on real fact, many people’s historical understanding is formed – or at least strongly influenced – by the ‘historical movies’ they watch. (Think: How many times have you fallen prey to this error? I know I certainly have, almost always without even realizing it.) This is understandable because man largely comes to know history through the narration (story telling) of past events. In today’s culture, oral narration and the written book have been supplanted by video (movies) as the primary means of handing down stories. Therefore, it stands to reason that people who view this movie will come away thinking they have acquired a basic understanding of Fatima. Such a perspective can easily “inoculate” them to the real Message of Fatima because they would mistakenly be convinced that, since they watched the ‘religious movie approved by the Fatima Shrine authorities,’ they have a good understanding of what Fatima was about.
A FLOOD OF DEBILITATING INACCURACIES
The movie is plagued with inaccuracies that deal with important matters. Here are five of the more prominent ones which hit me in the face like a bucket of ice-cold water.
[1] The Angel of Portugal is completely misrepresented. According to the subtitles it is a “woman” even though we know this angel is St. Michael himself![2] The prayer he teaches is completely wrong, and the ‘prophetic vision’ he shows Lucia in the movie is not something he did.[3] His prostrations, emphasis on reparation, and miraculous bringing of the Blessed Sacrament to the children are not touched upon. Instead, the movie has him appear at different times that never occurred so as to “strengthen” young Lucia, but also leaves the viewer wondering if the ‘angelic vision’ only appeared in Lucia’s mind.
[2] Much of the dramatic story line revolves around a fictitious Professor Nichols, who is writing a book about those who see religious apparitions. He is an avowed atheist and the movie narrates fictitious conversations between him and Sister Lucia. These take place at the Carmelite convent in Coimbra in 1989! Yet, this is an utter impossibility because Sister Lucia was formally and severely silenced by the Vatican in 1960. She was never permitted to give any such interviews.[4] Her silencing is an extremely important part of what has transpired with regard to the Message of Fatima, and the viewer of the movie will never know this essential part of her life or the terrible ordeal she suffered from these unjust ecclesiastical sanctions.
[3] Another major element that moves the cinematic drama along is the concern of the dos Santos family, especially of the mother, for a son named Manuel who is off fighting in World War One. This is a complete fabrication! The family did not have a son fighting in World War One. Thus, all the tension and drama that revolves around this issue – and there is plenty – is nothing but a red herring. I find it particularly dangerous because it changes the entire context of the Fatima Message. The viewer comes away thinking that this Marian apparition is primarily about World War One, the troubles of a small town, and of one family in particular. It is as if the Fatima Message – focused on a past historical war and the struggles of faith for a provincial community and small family – is all over and done with today.
[4] There is a regrettable lack of reverence for authority. For example, Lucia talks back to, argues with, and disobeys her mother. I am convinced that this holy seer, chosen by God and Our Lady, would have been more faithful to the Fourth Commandment. This is based not just on supernatural grace but even on nature – for in that culture in that time, respect for parents was far more common than it is today. The director also chose to portray a bishop harshly questioning young Lucia. That never happened. During the six months of the apparitions, the children were never thus interrogated by a bishop. The local church is closed on account of Lucia, and this too never happened in real life. I did not think these fabrications added anything to the story line, and a better product would have resulted had they been left out.
More offensive is the lack of reverence shown towards that which is sacred. For example, Lucia enters a church unveiled. That is utterly anachronistic. The priest converses, even somewhat vehemently, with Lucia and her mother inside the church – that is, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. This is not how pious Catholics act, but it is how so many modern Catholics act today. Even worse, while the Blessed Virgin Mary is appearing and speaking to the children, they actually turn their back to Her to engage the crowd. How could anyone gazing upon God’s masterpiece, a creation more beautiful than all the rest of creation together, turn their gaze away? No one to whom the Mother of God has ever appeared has reacted thus. The makers of this movie thus failed in presenting the proper piety and reverence which all Catholics should have, and which the saintly seers surely had, for God and those legitimately placed in positions of authority.
[5] The Blessed Virgin Mary always chooses Her words carefully and perfectly. We should thus do our best to remain as faithful to them as possible. Yet, in nearly every instance, the movie departed from the actual words of Our Lady and chose instead to go with what contemporary writers drummed up. There is simply no comparison between the two; and, I would argue, no excuse for this decision. Why would anyone want to change that which is already perfect? Do we really think, in our hubris, that we can improve upon the words that God and His Mother have provided for all of mankind? Sadly, a careful examination of these deliberate changes reveals that they nearly all dealt with removing distinctively Catholic elements which are opposed by the Protestant or Modernist heresies.[5]
There are countless other inaccuracies. What I don’t understand is why the director could not have remained more faithful to the actual historical facts when, I would argue, these form the most compelling and fascinating story of the 20th century! His creative license actually detracts from what really happened and presents a less compelling, less supernatural, less urgent story, which will inevitably have far less of an impact upon the viewer than the true Message of Fatima.
GLARING OMISSIONS WEAKEN AND MITIGATE THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
An even greater offense committed by the director against the truth of Fatima is found in the realm of omissions. If I were to summarize, as briefly as possible, the Message of Fatima, I would make the following points. [1] God wishes to save souls but will only do so through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [2] The Church must foster worldwide devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially through the proper Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. [3] Men must offer reparation to God, Who is already too much offended. We must pray the Rosary daily, wear the Brown Scapular, follow God’s commands and fulfill our daily duty – and do all this for the love of God and Our Lady, Who love us so much! [4] The Holy Eucharist, the Catholic Mass, and true Catholic dogma are all absolutely central to the Message of Fatima. [5] If mankind does not heed this Message then God will punish the world for its sins. The Church will undergo a terrible crisis, including apostasy and moral depravity at the highest levels. The errors of Russia will spread throughout the world. There will be many severe natural and supernatural chastisements. Many souls will be damned to hell for all eternity – which is the worst of all disasters.
None of these essential points are brought up in the movie. So I simply don’t see how one can think that the true Message of Fatima will be promoted by this movie. Perhaps the only essential point that receives some airtime is the praying of the Rosary. Yet, its effects are couched in rather flowery “love and peace” lingo so common in the hippie era. One never gets the sense that the prayer of the Rosary has been given the greatest efficacy in these times and can overcome any problem if we but pray it faithfully, daily, and with adequate reverence and attention.
The beauty and supernatural dimension of reparatory suffering is never addressed, yet this lies at the heart of the Message. In fact, The Fatima Center’s theme for this coming year is “Reparation to Console Our Mother.” Instead, when Lucia does begin to embrace suffering in the film (e.g., the cord around her waist), she does so in anger, frustration and confusion, almost as a last desperate resort. There was nothing about this portrayal that made me want to offer reparatory sacrifice, nothing like the inspiration I receive when I read about the profound, small, and continual sacrifices that Francisco, Jacinta and Lucia willingly endured for the salvation of so many souls – including yours and mine!
This aspect of the movie is so tragic, precisely because reparation and suffering are concepts which remain so misunderstood, certainly by the world, but even by most Catholics brought up in the modernized atmosphere of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II.’ I was left with the sinking impression that the makers of this movie likewise misunderstand this essential aspect of the spiritual life.
THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA
When it comes to the Message of Fatima, we know that Our Lady requested the Consecration of Russia by the Pope in union with all the world’s Catholic bishops in a public ceremony. Until this happens, the situation in the world will only worsen. We are seeing this today more clearly as we hasten towards a New World Order ushered in by a “Great Reset” on a global scale. We heard of the effort to “build back better” a one-world government and one-world church wherein every facet of one’s life is tyrannically controlled by Big Brother. The Message of Fatima is today more urgent than ever! We know that the entirety of the Third Secret, not just the Vision (which the movie did attempt to portray), was to be made public in 1960 by order of the Mother of God – and it is still being concealed by Vatican authorities. We know that Our Lady spoke of a terrible supernatural crisis in the world and the loss of Catholic faith. Yet, none of these things are even hinted at in the film![6]
Why even make a movie about Fatima in the 21st century if one is going to omit all that is most relevant about the Message of Fatima for our times? What could be its purpose?
I’ll address this issue as well as the greatest problems I saw in the movie in Part Two of this article tomorrow.
READ OUR OTHER CRITICAL REVIEWS OF THIS MOVIE:
– An Expensive Step Backward by James Hanisch
– Exposé of the Apparitions Depicted in the Movie, “Fatima” by Andrew Cesanek
– A Modernist Movie About Fatima (Part 2) by David Rodríguez
[1] To be thorough, I should mention that there is surely a fourth audience group. This consists of those people who will personally testify that after watching the movie they were inspired to pray the Rosary more or to find out more about the Message of Fatima. Yes, I agree this can happen. But I argue this is on account of God’s grace and happens despite the movie’s shortcomings, not because of the movie’s supposed fidelity. Well do we know that God’s grace can overcome any obstacle and that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. So this in itself is not a sufficient reason to recommend the movie. Moreover, such a grace lies within the mysterious providence of God. I do not know who would receive this grace and respond to it – and who would not. None of us know this. Hence, I still can’t recommend this movie to people in this evanescent fourth group because I have no way of knowing who might belong to it. And as I demonstrate in this two-part article, it is far more likely that the movie – with its many inaccuracies, omissions, and modernist bent – will hinder one’s understanding of the full Message of Fatima than promote it.
[2] It is true that angels are pure spirit and not male or female the way we humans are. Nevertheless, we do have traditional modes of representing angels (especially St. Michael) and I found the novel androgynous representation selected by the director repulsive.
[3] See Mr. Andrew Cesanek’s article for more details, under the section “The Apparition of the Angel of Portugal.”
[4] Supposedly there were some interviews of Sister Lucia in 1992 and 1993. In the Fatima literature, these are often referred to as the “Evaristo Interviews.” They take their name from Carlos Evaristo, a Portuguese-Canadian journalist and historian who served as translator for various high-ranking churchmen. There are many problems with these interviews. For brevity sake, I will merely cite a passage from Christopher Ferrara’s book, False Friends of Fatima, on this topic:
“What sort of ‘Sister Lucy’ was it, then, who could look upon the awful developments in Russia and the world since 1984 and see in them the fulfillment of the promises of Our Lady of Fatima? It was a Sister Lucy we had never known; a Modernist Sister Lucy whose strange new words made a mockery of everything she had said before. It was a Sister Lucy sent to give us a New Fatima for the New Church the Modernists would have us believe emerged like a butterfly from a chrysalis at the Second Vatican Council” (p. 78).
[5] Mr. Andrew Cesanek provides such an analysis in his article, Exposé of the Apparitions Depicted in the Movie, “Fatima”.
[6] According to the movie’s story line, Professor Nichols is interviewing Sister Lucia in 1989. It is preposterous to think that any such interviewer would not have asked Sister Lucia about the Consecration of Russia, given its great controversy. How many of us wish we could have spoken with Sister Lucia and asked her about this? This controversy only increased after John Paul II’s ‘consecration of the world’ in 1984, so any interviewer would have brought this up. I find the movie grossly negligent for intentionally omitting any mention of this most important issue.