Lady of Guadalupe

Lady of Guadalupe is “based on true events”, which I suppose means that, in the first half of the 16th century, everyone in Mexico – Chichimecas, Spaniards, and even the titular Virgin – spoke English... Lady of Guadalupe is “based on true events”, which I suppose means that, in the first half of the 16th century, everyone in Mexico – Chichimecas, Spaniards, and even the titular Virgin – spoke English. Now, I can accept that the Virgin Mary, assuming she exists, speaks all languages, living and dead; in fact, according to legend, she spoke to the Chichimeca Indian Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin in Nahuatl, his native language. What does bother me, though, is a film that brings together a group of actors whose ethnicity is more or less relevant to the geographical setting of the story, only to have them recite their lines in a foreign language. John Martínez is a “young and ambitious reporter” (played by a 40-year old actor), whose latest assignment is a story about the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe. That is, THE original apparition; the one that allegedly happened almost five hundred years before this movie was released. And in other breaking news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. John interviews Father Xavier, and asks him for information that isn’t “in the books” – which sounds suspiciously close to making s--- up. The events in question, such as they may have been, are shown in flashbacks. Juan Diego is played by the same actor as John in a dual role that doesn't make much sense. John is not particularly religious, but this changes after his wife Mary and their unborn child survive a car accident (quick note: the plot would have worked better if he found faith despite losing his family). On the other hand, Juan Diego is never not a believer, even before he was baptized, and always shows a preference for the God of Abraham over those of his uncle, whom Juan Diego accuses of being full of “hate” and “fear” – I guess he hasn’t gotten around to reading the Bible quite yet.