El Evangelio según san Mateo

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.

I must say, as a new IMDb user I find this place to express one views a rather welcome find. Cathartic to say the least. Certain films haunt me. "The Gospel According to St Matthew" is one of them. The only possible explanation is the passion of its maker. Everything about it is so real that I remember the first time I saw it, I felt I had met Jesus. My relationship with Jesus had been torturous at best. Raised catholic by very catholic pre- Vatican Council parents. So, part of my rebellion had always been underlined by moving away from that pathology as far away as possible. Pasolini however, a Marxist homosexual, showed me a human side of the man I was suppose to follow that made sense, that touched me. Enrique Irazoqui plays Jesus in a way that may explain everything. He is just a guy but in his eyes, in his eyes there is something I've never seen before. Compassion without fake undertones. It chilled me. I loved him. I wanted to follow him. Pasolini wasn't trying to sell me anything, he wasn't trying to convert anyone he was doing what an artist, a real artist does. He was sharing his vision with me, with us. When people talk about movie experiences, this is the film that comes to my mind first. I'm glad to have to opportunity to share this with you.

Rendering Bible stories into film is a difficult task, but Pasolini's account of Matthew's Gospel is among the most successful. The narration of events in the Bible is generally quite sparse, with only the most salient details given; as a result, events are fraught with hidden depths and profundity. Medieval art gives a similar effect, using completely different techniques. Filmmakers of the Bible generally attempt to flesh out the stories to make them more "real," but the result is inevitably banal and overwrought at the same time. Pasolini uses a different approach. First of all, he adds almost nothing to the text of Matthew's Gospel, and all the dialogue and events are directly from Matthew. Next, it's filmed in black & white, and the acting, especially Jesus, is consistently understated. Many quiet shots of faces watching, reacting, or, in the case of Jesus, talking. In these ways, Pasolini succeeds, to some degree, in reproducing the effect of depth and transcendence found in the Bible. The music (from Bach, Blind Willie Johnson, and others) adds considerably to the power of the movie.

Pasolini's minimalist Jesus has an air of both humility and loftiness (as befitting one able to walk on water), but he is conspicuously lacking in emotion and expression. One might reply that Jesus (as God) doesn't share all our roller coaster emotions, but I see the New Testament Jesus as more of a Hamlet character, full of contradictory emotions. Pasolini's Jesus character's foreboding presentation could almost be seen as that of a young, conceited, dour, nihilistic Sophomore Philosophy student. A few quibbles: the Bible text describes large crowds of people following Jesus, but the movie only allows for a couple of dozen in most scenes. Also, in the movie, Jesus is often represented as preaching while he is walking, with his back turned away from his followers, who walk behind him. Finally, Mary the mother of Jesus is at most 20 when he is born, but she somehow becomes 70 years old during his ministry, when in fact she would have been only 50. With these reservations, then, I consider this the most successful Bible film I've seen.

After "La Ricotta", Pasolini was indicted by the church for blasphemy. The film apparently contained references to Homosexuality (it does). He was convicted and given a suspended sentence. So when it was announced that his next feature was "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," you can guess what the church's response was. Pasolini made the film anyway. The result is one of the most exciting examples of Pasolini's "Cinema of Poetry". I have read many comments about this film that criticize it for its elipses, bad acting and apparent lack of visual prowness. I will attest to you, though, that this film not only creates an honest 20th century portrait of Jesus but also dives deeply into Pasolini's masterful art of filmmaking. Pasolini was way ahead of his time like many other Italian filmmakers of the sixites. The supposed bad acting, elipses and visuals in the film were all done on purpose. They aren't bad. In fact, thay force a patient viewer to look deeply into the minds and thoughts of the characters surrounding Jesus. The Gospel has been told many ways, but no one ever dared to tell the story on a personal level. Pasolini invites the viewer to experience the Gospel in a differnt way. With a wonderful mix of religious music (American, Brazilian, etc.), the film reaches out to the entire Christian world. I can go on and on about the other wonders this film has to offer, but instead I'll just recommend you watch it. When you do, don't pay attention to what's missing, but to what is there on screen. The film will make a lot more sense. Even for non-believers (myself included), this is an exciting film.

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.