The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

From 1903's Passion play, to Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic gore festival, The Passion of the Christ (2004), the story of Jesus as written in the new testament has been a cinematic staple since the start, and whilst there are many variations and interpretations, they have largely been produced by absolute believers. However, after a visit to Pope John XXII, who in the early 1960's was reaching out to non-Catholic artists, and a reading of the gospels, the Italian film maker, Pier Paolo Pasolini - vocal atheist, homosexual, and Marxist, - undertook a quite direct, and literal interpretation of the story of Christ. But unlike the usual productions of this narrative, Pasolini's film has none of the dramatic inventions of a more "mystical" interpretation such as The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), which was produced a year after this with a huge budget, starring Charlton Heston, and made under the machinations of the Hollywood system.

At this stage in Pasolini's career, he was still working within the neo- realist trend that had perpetuated in Italy in the post-war years. He brings this more loose style of film making to this "great" story. What he also brings is another trend of this movement, which was the use of non-actors. But fundamental to the directors work, and particularly this film, is his political views. His depiction of Jesus is that of a political thinker, and an advocate of social justice. The choice to watch this film at this time was purely coincidental, but it dawned upon me the significance of the message. In a week in politics in the United Kingdom where our current government's budget revealed heavy cuts to the taxes of the very rich, whilst the poor of the country are told to live in austerity, there is a very simple line spoken by Jesus (Enrique Irazoqui) - which should have been utilised by the occupy camp that was moved away from St Paul's Cathedral in central London, he states: "It would be easier for a camel to get in the kingdom of heaven, than it would be for a rich man."

Whilst I consider myself an Atheist, the message of these gospels are very clear, and yet we still live in a world where the rich get richer, and the catholic church gets sickeningly richer. To use a very tired, and over used statement in popular culture: What would Jesus do? If there were to be a second coming, surely he would not be pleased. Anyway, I digress. I believe that some of this may be Pasolini's point. If the story of Jesus were true, then his message was clear, and even if he never even lived, the fact of the matter is that his message is clear, and yet the people who follow his teachings largely simply ignore this and interpret to whatever means they feel is right.

As previously stated the film is shot in the cinema verite style and this helps give the story not only realism, but a gravitas that is lost in the more lavish productions. The film looks absolutely beautiful, and this is helped by the incredible southern Italian setting, which adds a seeming reality. Without question, this is the greatest film of the story of Christ, and clearly influenced the later Martin Scorsese film The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Even if you (as I am) are not a believer, this film is more about the crimes of social injustice, and the division caused by wealth. Essential film making.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Fmovies: Amazingly it took a Communist to make the most powerful and certainly the greatest film on Christ. Passolini shows miracles, but without the Hollywood special effects. The music is outstanding and captivating. By noticing the very high average score by voters in your survey this is not a unique position. I remember thinking that this comes closer to Jesus as a revolutionary than any other film I've seen, but wasn't that the message? Perhaps Jesus seemed too angry at times, or was it simply impatience or a sense of urgency. Controversial but thoughtful and powerful.

"Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is, to put it simply, a masterpiece of unrivalled monumental beauty. I recommend this movie to anyone, religious and not religious alike, but particularly to the latter since this movie may actually provide them with a glimpse of what is so superb about the gospel, however one looks at it. I think that in order to fully appreciate this magnificent creation by Pasolini, one has to have an understanding of what earthly monumental beauty is about - in other words, one has to have a full understanding of what the 1500 and 1600 meant to Italian culture and Italian aesthetics. During the deposition, Mary is a mother, and Jesus is a son, earthly characters depicted in the way Caravaggio may have depicted them. Pasolini presents the Gospel in all its natural beauty, an earthly and heavenly masterpiece at the same time, like Michelangelo's Genesis in the Sistine Chapel. It is impossible to understand Pasolini's aesthetics in this movie (as well as in Accattone) without an understanding of the achievements brought about by Italian figurative arts of the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

As far as the comparison with Zeffirelli's life of Jesus Christ goes, I will say that I do not think Pasolini can be put on the same level as Zeffirelli, not even with regard to his worst movies, which are nevertheless far above anything Zeffirelli has ever produced.

Pasolini's account of the Gospel is a revolutionary experience. In terms of its religious insight, it stands at least on the same level as Dreyer's "Ordet", or Bresson's "Diary of a country priest".

The Gospel According to St. Matthew fmovies. Each time I see that movie I'm barely able to speak right after that. Nor would I write extensive review. Open yourself and be prepared for the most unique voyage in the world of Pasolini; if the words "cinema of poetry" doesn't make sense after that film then nothing would. Bach and Prokofiev music add extreme intensity in simple, yet beautiful, screenplay. Forget about scene cutting and poor effects: just breath this film,treasuries lie here, right in front of you.

"Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is probably the best film ever made about Jesus. The very sparseness of visual effects is evocative and highly suggestive: the supernatural is attained by showing very natural, even lowly people. Such an effect is emphasized by the use of non-professional actors: Pasolini probably owes something to the medieval Italian tradition of "rappresentazione sacra" (a representation of important moments of Jesus's life offered by everyday people), which is still practised nowadays. The powerful effect of Jesus's preaching is very well rendered by Pasolini, and this helps to forgive some poetical licenses on his part. In the end, anyway, this is not a movie you remain indifferent to: either you love it or you hate it. And this, maybe, is what contributes to making it a faithful representation of Jesus's life.

Three ingredients make this movie truly remarkable and honest:

First - it contains perhaps the most powerful piece of MUSIC I ever experienced in a movie. I've never forgotten my utmost impression from that music when I saw the movie for the first time in a film-club some twenty-five years ago. From a total silence of the first titles, a music like an avalanche of a heavenly army hitting the soul ...

Which music it was? MISA LUBA! An incredible polyrithmic blend of three ingredients: a high melodic church chorus of Kenyan women, plus an unbelievably improvising african singer, plus a bunch of African drummers... everything locked together by an unrepeatable moment of inspiration and chance. I could not imagine some most powerful music to underline the most exposed passages of Jesus' story. Curiously and sadly enough, this MISA LUBA is even not credited in the movie titles, in contrast to a fair (but much more standard) classic music used in most of the movie. It was just this happy usage of MISA LUBA which contributes most to the soul and mood of the Pasolini film. It is also well understandable why Pasolini used an eclectic mixture of music from various continents, -- in an obvious intention to make the universal story yet more UNIVERSAL, across the nations and cultures.

Second happy aspect of Pasolini's interpretation is his cast of characters, his choice of believable and interesting types ... for Jesus, for Maria, and most other characters. These are believable and convincing types of people from the middle-east. How superior and fair is here Pasolini in comparison with all those funny blue-eyed and polished Hollywood casts of those pseudo-biblic stories ...

And third - Pasolini did very well to make the movie in black-and-white. It contributes to a mystical, spiritual and abstract atmosphere of the opus. In my opinion, it would be hardly possible to make this movie well in color.

And yes, I agree with those who say that practically all other movies about Jesus and those biblic stories are fundamentally wrong, and in cases of those (in)famous Hollywood versions - even funny to tears.

This Pasolini's opus is very honest and might be the 'very best film interpretation of Jesus' story.