The Song of Bernadette (1943)

 The Song of Bernadette (1943)

Starting one’s film with a disclaimer is nothing but a gimmick, whether it be Jean Cocteau (La Belle et la Bête) or William Castle (13 Ghosts), and Song of Bernadette, a film which attempts to have it both ways, that is, to appeal both to believers and to skeptics, is no different.

In this presentation of historical events, but whose details might not be adhering even to valid historical records (the storytelling relies too much sensationalistic headlines - yeah, those can be trusted - and people about town gossiping with each other,) the movie tells the story of a young French girl who had visions (shared by no one else present) of a mysterious, ghostly lady, who for the most part went unidentified till a critical point, which could easily simply be construed as simple film fantasy except for the fact that it quickly became a matter of local faith, whether fully embraced by the larger Catholic Church or not.

The disclaimer tells us we have two options and, I suppose, if one believes, the point of the story is simply didactic (i.e. by illustrating specific event details) or to reaffirm the audience’s already existing faith; but I find not only that it is a much more important document if approached as a skeptic even when the screen shows us the protagonist’s subjective experience as something objective.
Film is funny that way; the existence of unreliable narrators allows us to doubt what we are shown, especially when the violations of some natural laws are witnessed.

The structure of the story might be familiar to contemporary viewers even if watching a film this vintage this late in the game.
Some aspects were already repeated in Rob Reiner’s Oh, God! (1977) a film which basically reprises this one up to the point where it does not and when it begins to mirror Miracle on 34th Street’s (1947) courtroom theatrics.

Not even more strangely perhaps, it also mirrors the events and purposes depicted in The Exorcist (1973), a story where a young girl experiences paranormal phenomena leading to a crisis of faith of its clerical witnesses which becomes a trip thru a dark Nietzschean tunnel with light at its other side.
The only difference in the miracles depicted in Bernadette and the one depicted in The Exorcist is that the former is light and the latter quite dark, but the intent is the same, to reaffirm faith, at least in the movie version (which presents impossible events). The Exorcist novel is a bit different in that regard; all events there may have a rational explanation there.

The main dramatic problem in Bernadette is that the leading character lacks personality and, well, character. She is a saintly cypher throughout with no dramatic arc, no growth or anything. The only revelation we are allowed is a secret suffering, revealed late in the game.

More interesting are the skeptical clerical figures who, by all rights, should have been the focus of the drama.

There are also some political characters who despite skepticism simply exploit the situation to their own benefit, but the dean, who finds a very specific reason to doubt Bernadette’s story and despite it never becoming resolved ignores his doubts for years only to bring it up at the end not quite forgotten, is infinitely more interesting.

An incidental character, a mother superior who, because of personal jealousy, forces herself to disbelieve Bernadette is an even more logical choice to center the drama around.

Ironically, it’s representatives of the Catholic Church who are skeptical, and not without reason; a recent false event which bit them already is mentioned as the reason why they are now twice shy.
Going by memory (I don’t want to do research on it right now,) it seems the Catholic Church has recognized the apparition as an official miracle, the seemingly miraculous cures, not so much.

When the film claims to be able to present photographic evidence of an instantaneous cure consisting of miraculously appearing facial muscle tissue (but does not) it seems a bit of a cheat. Do these purported historical documents exist? Why do I tend to doubt that claim?

I suppose many value the film mainly for faith-based reasons and I can already predict a negative reaction to even mild criticism of any aspect, faith related, or not.
I would not deny the films technical achievements (acting, photography, etc.) but it fails as a basic drama.

As the story developed, I began to hope it might become a story of female empowerment...
Female empowerment via faith? It certainly seemed to be heading in that direction with its simple, young girl protagonist standing up to and defeating the Church's patriarchy... But no such luck.
That potential goes nowhere fast.

It also fails as a serious examination of faith or even the Catholic Church’s approach to phenomena such as the one presented here, regardless of what their nature might be as it does to a skeptical analysis. The scriptwriters never intended to use Occam’s Razor here. That much is obvious.

Even as the story was developing, I began to feel that the 'miracle's' strategy was much too close to that of the Virgin of Guadalupe's: Whoever masterminded these two, whether of supernatural origin or not, had much the same mind and used nearly the exact same approach.

I like my religious fantasies much more when they can provide a more intellectual, Buñuel-like touch (Nazarin, Simon del Desierto, La Voie lactée, etc.) Show me miracles, I don’t mind! But then have a critical mind about what you have just presented me.
That's something I can sink my theological teeth into!

With Jennifer Jones, William Eythe, Charles Bickford, Vincent Price, Lee J. Cobb, and Gladys Cooper.