Je vous salue Marie, directed by Jean-Luc Godard, follows the story of a young woman named Maria who becomes pregnant despite having no sexual encounter with any man, not even her partner Jose. The premise sets up a drama that probes faith, doubt, and social judgment through an unconventional narrative lens.
Because of how the plot is developed, the film featuring a young Myriem Roussel and Thierry Rode became one of the most controversial European works ever seen. The controversy drew sharp condemnation from Catholic leaders around the world, including public criticism from Pope John Paul II and expressions of discontent that reached the media and cultural circles. The Cannes Film Festival also became a focal point for debate surrounding the film’s themes and presentation.
Catholic communities and various protest groups arranged demonstrations at cinemas where the movie was shown. Valencia joined these protests, and the demonstrations there were notably more intensified than in other cities, reflecting local tensions and the film’s provocative reception.
In the early hours of September 9, 1985, nine weeks after the film opened at the Acteón cinema, a low-power device exploded inside the lobby. Graffiti appeared on the cinema doors with messages that referenced historical and political events. Investigators quickly looked toward far-right elements active in the city, though the inquiry did not result in arrests. The incident sparked widespread concern and prompted a formal investigation into possible motives and perpetrators.
According to the report published by Upgrade-EMV, a newspaper in the Prensa Ibérica group, the device was homemade and caused minor damage, though the blast damaged glass doors and information boards. Members of the local explosive disposal team recovered shrapnel fragments at the scene as investigators collected evidence for analysis.
Authorities indicated that the device had not been left inside the lobby beforehand but was hurled through the building’s metal shutter barrier. The quick response of emergency services helped limit injuries and provided a basis for subsequent inquiries into the perpetrators and their objectives.
Two decades later, the Acteón cinema closed, leaving memories of the incident in the city’s cultural landscape. One owner, Ernesto Sebastián, recalled the episode with a lingering sense of unease yet a stubborn resolve. Upgrade-EMV quoted Sebastián noting that the fear was not overpowering and that a legal campaign had amplified attention around the case.
The legal action connected to the film involved attorney Ramón Tatay, who filed a complaint in 1985 accusing Godard of contempt and mockery. The accusations extended to the cinema’s management under Ernesto Sebastián and to the distribution guides Cartelera Turia and Qué y dónde for recommending the film. This dispute was a notable example of how art and audience reception can trigger legal disputes and public moral debates.
In August of 1985, Valencia Criminal Court No. 7, led by presiding judge Gustavo Solaz, viewed the film at the Acteón cinema as part of the case. The judge considered the charges and noted the involvement of the prosecutor Miguel Mirabet before making a determination. The proceedings underscored the tension between cinematic expression and community standards, highlighting the legal avenues used to contest artistic works.
El País later recalled that Ramón Tatay was among hundreds involved in lawsuits connected to this broader political agitation and to other cases linked with the era. The proceedings also touched on the broader cultural scene in Valencia, including the Els Joglars theater troupe and managers of venues where contemporary works were staged, illustrating how cultural productions often intersect with political and social movements of the time. The episode remains a touchstone in discussions about freedom of expression, public sensitivities, and the responsibilities of distribution channels in shaping what audiences encounter in theatres. In retrospective analyses, observers note how the film became a reference point for debates about controversy in European cinema and the limits of artistic representation in relation to religious and political sensibilities. The episode is frequently cited in studies of postneonatal European film culture, illustrating how dissent and dialogue can coexist in a vibrant, often contentious, cultural landscape. [Cited from El País and Upgrade-EMV reporting]”