newcomer said:...that specific kind of artistic license where they attempt to grasp the essence of Jesus—assuming such a thing exists—by placing his life in entirely different circumstances, attributing to him certain vulnerabilities that make him feel human, and therefore, relatable to us...
EXACTLY. And this is precisely where the narrow-mindedness of the Church becomes apparent; they failed to see the merit in it, viewing any departure from their scripted fairy tale about Jesus as nothing short of heresy.
After watching the film, I spent quite some time wondering what the Church’s actual grievance was, because to me, it felt like a profound sort of apologetics regarding Jesus' suffering; even when presented with the chance to lead a completely different life, everything inevitably drew him back to the cross... one could almost argue that his sacrifice and agony are so intrinsic to his destiny that even the Father, despite pulling him from the cross, wouldn't protect him from it. In the film, his sacrifice is essentially part of his identity, his very fulfillment as the Son.
But, hey, the masses don't care about that nuance; they're too busy being scandalized by Mary Magdalene.
P.S.
And let’s be honest, Jesus would have been just another one of those many lunatics claiming to be the Messiah if she hadn't sponsored his travels... but the Church conveniently forgets to mention that part.