L'Évangile selon saint Matthieu

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.

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.

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.

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.

For sure, the Christ of Il vangelo secondo Matteo is the most exceptional one ever to be depicted in cinema - a brilliant poetic fiction which brings it back to the pure level of words and gestures and displays the amazement and enthusiasm of the view of a privileged witness such as St. Matthew. A hard, implacable Christ, gentle to children and furious at salesmen, vehement against hypocrites, scribes and humbugs, unrelenting in his faith. He preaches the most difficult revolution given, the inner revolution of behaviour and its resulting decisions. The people that he is confronted with are sort of an Eisenstein'ian choir of faces in closeups with absent-minded or bright looks and ambiguous smiles of those who don't really understand. In this regard, it's actually a Pasolini'an choir of a mute mob witnessing happenings they feel subordinate to, a choir of anonymous figures, who suffer but not fight and who still dedicate themselves to a hope which becomes more and more unreachable.

Jesus and his 12 followers are a group of involved young men, who champion for revolutionary concerns. The youth and inexperience of the actors gives a fascinating sense of the fragility of the Christian movement itself in its very beginnings. The iconic-like closeups are a reminiscent of medieval, religious pictures whereas Enrique Irazoqui, who plays Jesus, seems like as if he descended right from a El Greco painting with his thin figure and slim, long face. The music from Bach and Mozart, as well as Blues recordings conveys additional meaning: The cry of revolt and the demand to be heard and received by the people and its authorities. It becomes utterly touching when the film dissolves into melancholy and passion by the power of Bach's classical music chorus and the blues.

The cinematography is remarkable and takes in many scenes the position of a third person telling the story. The intensely textual and dramaturgic reference to the biblical model, the amateurish performances of the actors and the waive of any pathos gives the film a strong naturalistic nuance. Jesus is less the son of god, but more an ideological fighter who gives radical speeches. But, Pasolini does not demystify the figure of Christ, nor does he question the set dogmas of the official church. He rather accentuates the social facets of Jesus' life and work and gives it an unforeseen political smack