|
| . |
|
The Gospel According to St. Matthew 1964 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini
NR, 137 min. |
 |
Starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Margherita Caruso, Susanna Pasolini, Marcello Morante, Mario Socrate, Settimio Di Porto, Alfonso Gatto, Luigi Barbini, Giacomo Morante, Giorgio Agamben, Ferruccio Nuzzo, Otello Sestili, Rossana Di Rocco
Producers: Alfredo Bini
Screenplay: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Cinematography: Tonino Delli Colli
Distributor: Continental
Released: 2.17.66 |
Rating:
 (out of ) |
Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew is the antithesis to every bombastic Hollywood film about the life
and times of Jesus Christ. Films like The Greatest Story Ever Told and Kings of Kings pidgeon-hole Christ's life in a surreal
picturesque white man's fantasy world where ad-libbing becomes an art form. Here, Pasolini has made unquestionably the
most realistic, frank look at the world that Christ inhabited - it couldn't be any more rough, dirty, and common as portrayed
in this film. His characters are unattractive, poor, and relative non-actors who shared a desire to make a film about how
people actually lived at the time. The film is shot in stark black and white with dialogue dubbed into English (from Italian), has
scratches, jump-cuts, and other anomalies that only add to the documentary-style feel that Pasolini employs in this
picture. What his relatively straightforward directorial style has accomplished is quite simply the best film ever made about
the life of Christ.
Pasolini's own belief system, he was a Marxist, helped to shape the film's staunchly adherent structure - it is completely
taken from the book of Matthew without exception. This is arguably the film's biggest strength and weakness - it's choppy,
unedited style gives power to Christ's words during the film's middle section, while a lack of chronological storytelling can
become frustrating for the more traditional viewer. Pasolini was also a staunch atheist and homosexual, but made the film in honor of his
mother's own beliefs and actually dedicated the film to Pope John Paul XXIII in the credits. It's to his credit as a director that
he was able to separate his own beliefs from an otherwise compelling take on Christ's life. At the time, many of his Marxist
friends were outraged at his perceived betrayal of their cause, but Pasolini was merely showing the merits of a higher belief
system to help connect them to a higher power.
Its seems appropriate that Pasolini's film would use commomers and even family members to make his picture. In fact, the
film's authentic feel comes solely from his decision to make the visuals as accurate to the time as possible. His choice of
a Spanish college student, Enrique Irazoqui, to play Jesus was a curious one. Here, Irazoqui is a slenderly built, oval-faced
man conducive to serenity and is at odds in terms of his look compared to that of his disciples, who are roughly drawn
figures covered in dirt and dishelved appearances. Smaller details such as crooked teeth, tattered clothes, and humble
buildings (the film was shot in southern Italy) surrounded by rocky landscape eschew a feeling of simplicity that
Pasolini craved. To most, the film will seem compelling because of its entirely scaled-down look, absent of the luxurious
surroundings seen in most other accounts of Jesus' life.
The film's storyline assembles the highlights of Christ's life as depicted in the gospel of Matthew, from Joseph and Mary's
escape from King Herod to Christ's teachings and healings to His final days in Jerusalem and his eventual death and
resurrection. There is little humor in Christ's life, instead a serious tone that dominates His barrage of attacks on the
hypocrisy of the ruling elite pharisees of the time. Many times He is seen teaching and admonishing His disciples with
his back turned to them, seemingly lost in thought. Pasolini's biggest mistake may have been to show a distance between
Jesus, the disciples, and the masses. In reality, Jesus was probably very close to his disciples and confided in them
regularly.
For Christians, the film was widely accepted as accurate and fair, and escaped the wrath of criticism that Martin Scorsese's
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) endured, mainly because of Pasolini's strict adherence to what was actually written in the
book of Matthew. Scorsese took a work of fiction and personalized it, depicting Christ as a deeply troubled, confused man
who seemed lost in personal vs. spiritual desires. Many critics praised his work as bold and revealing, but Christians were
apalled at his liberal study of Christ's life. Pasolini detemined that the words in the gospels were more powerful in themselves
than anything he could muster in the way of subplots or personal characterizations, and this approach proves more
consistent as a whole when compared with Scorsese's work.
Although lengthy and at times plodding, The Gospel According to St. Matthew is an honest look and true pictorial depiction
of the life and times of Christ. Certainly it's more interesting and thought-provoking than any other film about Christ,
and regardless of one's own beliefs it's a competent study piece that can be discussed and evaluated. The film was
nominated for three Academy Awards in 1967, including Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Music. It's
surprising take on Christ's life is considered by many critics as one of the finest films ever made. Clearly Pasolini's best
film, The Gospel According to St. Matthew gives the viewer much to think about in terms of reality vs. fiction.
© 2002 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
 | Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
