I finally made my acquaintance with Pasolini with this film the other night and only wish I had encountered him sooner. I also wish I had encountered a subtitled version of The Gospel According to Saint Matthew rather than the English dubbed version. So please, take these comments with a grain of salt--I turned the sound off half way through because it was impossible to take the movie seriously when the solemness of the visuals are juxtaposed with over-emoting, ham-bone voice talent.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew is as close to a brilliant cinematic adaptation of the New Testament's opening book as you're likely to find. The eloquence and beauty captured here are amazing, as are the performances by citizens leaving near the filming site--their faces carry more weight and emotion than those of top-flight actors--they're simply beautiful.
So is the photography and camera-work. The film has very languorous cinematography that likes to dwell upon the landscape, allowing you to take it in. The camera wants you to see all around, which is a striking aesthetic choice. Moreover, the camera-work has a spontaneity to it that makes the film feel more natural. At one point, the camera pans over the faces of a group of young men, then backtracks to show the face of one originally out of the frame. It's a brief moment, but I think it's entirely indicative of the placid, natural style to the film. It feels very organic.
The actors add to this sense of naturalism. Their faces are so expressive and so beatific that it's impossible to not be enthralled by them. This goes for everyone from Mary to Judas--and it especially goes for Irazoqui's Christ. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I have read the New Testament numerous times, and I can say that no performance of Jesus has ever approximated the man captured in the Bible's pages as well as Irazoqui's. He looks so calm, compassionate, and strong--it's the perfect combination. Moreover, his eyes beckon you and his demeanor comforts you. When he tells his future disciples to come follow him, "to learn how to catch men," toward the film's beginning, their immediate departure from their boats and netting makes perfect sense--you too would follow this man, as he exudes the sense of the Holy Spirit.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthew really is the best Biblical adaptation ever made. The Last Temptation of Christ represents an interesting take on the gospels and is a fairly strong film, and there's something admirable in the brutality of The Passion, but neither of those films come close to matching the beauty, artistry, and spirituality of this film. It's odd, then, that such a good, religious movie should have been made by a Marxist. I think, though, that Pasolini's atheism helped him create a very spiritual film: He respects Jesus for his ideals and for his revolutionary demeanor, but he refuses to avoid the contradictions inherent within the gospels. I've still never reconciled Jesus imploring you to love your neighbor/turn the other cheek with him describing himself as "coming with the sword" rather than with peace--and Pasolini doesn't change a thing. He lets Jesus, as he does in the New Testament, say all of this. This film is a major achievement by a director for whom I now have profound respect.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew is as close to a brilliant cinematic adaptation of the New Testament's opening book as you're likely to find. The eloquence and beauty captured here are amazing, as are the performances by citizens leaving near the filming site--their faces carry more weight and emotion than those of top-flight actors--they're simply beautiful.
So is the photography and camera-work. The film has very languorous cinematography that likes to dwell upon the landscape, allowing you to take it in. The camera wants you to see all around, which is a striking aesthetic choice. Moreover, the camera-work has a spontaneity to it that makes the film feel more natural. At one point, the camera pans over the faces of a group of young men, then backtracks to show the face of one originally out of the frame. It's a brief moment, but I think it's entirely indicative of the placid, natural style to the film. It feels very organic.
The actors add to this sense of naturalism. Their faces are so expressive and so beatific that it's impossible to not be enthralled by them. This goes for everyone from Mary to Judas--and it especially goes for Irazoqui's Christ. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I have read the New Testament numerous times, and I can say that no performance of Jesus has ever approximated the man captured in the Bible's pages as well as Irazoqui's. He looks so calm, compassionate, and strong--it's the perfect combination. Moreover, his eyes beckon you and his demeanor comforts you. When he tells his future disciples to come follow him, "to learn how to catch men," toward the film's beginning, their immediate departure from their boats and netting makes perfect sense--you too would follow this man, as he exudes the sense of the Holy Spirit.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthew really is the best Biblical adaptation ever made. The Last Temptation of Christ represents an interesting take on the gospels and is a fairly strong film, and there's something admirable in the brutality of The Passion, but neither of those films come close to matching the beauty, artistry, and spirituality of this film. It's odd, then, that such a good, religious movie should have been made by a Marxist. I think, though, that Pasolini's atheism helped him create a very spiritual film: He respects Jesus for his ideals and for his revolutionary demeanor, but he refuses to avoid the contradictions inherent within the gospels. I've still never reconciled Jesus imploring you to love your neighbor/turn the other cheek with him describing himself as "coming with the sword" rather than with peace--and Pasolini doesn't change a thing. He lets Jesus, as he does in the New Testament, say all of this. This film is a major achievement by a director for whom I now have profound respect.