O Evangelho Segundo São Mateus

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.

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.

After reading all of the reviews listed prior to my entry I find it hard to agree with how Pier Paolo Pasolini's sexuality or political views are even worth mentioning. What is worth mentioning is the wonderfully dramatic portrayal of the story of Jesus by amateur actors. The lack of so-called special effects is not something that even crossed my mind when viewing this movie. The artistic mixture of poetic verse from the New Testament combined with beautiful vistas and believable characters bring the story of Jesus to life on a personal level.

Pasolini's Biblical adaptation of the Gospel of Matthew far surpasses present day movies of this genre in its overall effect on the viewer. The real substance of the film, the story of Jesus, is not glossed over with big budget extras, professional actors, and special effects which only seem to overshadow the awe inspiring wisdom of the words spoken by Jesus in the New Testament.

The fact that the actors are of Mediterranean decent only serves to make the film more believable. The costumes and settings appear to be more realistic than the Hollywood versions that I have seen in other Biblical films. The Jewish Church leaders with their alien looking hats show how detached and imposing these figures must have appeared to the common people of the time of Jesus. When Jesus threatens their positions of power by bringing God directly to the people without need of a temple or an interpreter it sheds light on how these leaders felt threatened by a "poor son of a carpenter".

Most films of this genre focus more on the Romans oppression of Jesus without showing the betrayal by the Jewish leaders that led to the unjust crucifixion of Jesus.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who has become bored with seeing the story of Jesus on film. If you think that you have seen it all and do not want to sit through yet another trumped up version of the story of Jesus then I suggest that you view this movie, for it succeeds where all others have failed.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

This is such a stately, respectful, yet contemporary (and dare I say, Italian) production, in quiet black and white, it's hard to find fault with it. In some ways, I think it does exactly what it intends. It mixes long shots with close ups. It moves with clarity and sharp (no dissolve) cuts from face to face. It uses African-American gospel and Bach. It depends on solemnity, and it uses actors that have the faces, and demeanors, to be utterly solemn and strong.

All the actors are amateurs. Pasolini was an atheist. The triumph at the end is a matter of record. It's all here.

The question might be (for some) whether it is nevertheless a movie you want to watch. And I say, absolutely. You do have to like, or learn to like, movies that are about quiet ambiance, about passive expressions that say more than intense extroverted acting. The black and white photography, something of a throwback during this early 1960s production, gives it even more of the timeless, almost melancholy depth that keeps it going, owing something to the Dreyer's Joan of Arc, I think.

It's important to know this is not really an interpretation of the gospel, but a reading of it. The filming of course required actors, but it tries to be factually straight forward. That's incredibly hard to pull off without arrogance or religiosity. But Pasolini does it. The down side to this is that it's slow, or even (no sacrilege here), boring. I mean, I read the book.

For me, what makes it terrific is not only how it is filmed (the camera-work and editing) and the faces (all those faces, with the camera still and focused on them), but the sense of reality here. The holiness is removed, but not the sacred seriousness. It makes it seem possible in a very real way. The people, the places, all of it is not historic, not in particular, but the effect, the mood, the force of it all is profound. Even for a non-believer. It's quite something to get swept into.