The master of old Italian Pier Paolo Pasolini retells the tale of Jesus through the eyes of the Gospel of St. Matthews. A famed atheist and homosexual it was hard to envision the reasons behind making such a movie, especially one which does not ridicule Christian religion, but embraces its most famed prophet. True to the form of neorealism the story is kept as close to earth, natural and raw as possible. The whole film is casted by non-professional actors with the main character Jesus played by an unknown 19-year old Enrique Irazoqui.
In regards to a movie so deeply engraved into the history of cinema it remains hard to be without faith and awe. Pasolini is a filmmaker placed highly in all film circles - from critics to creators. Truly significant is his input into modern cinema and the evolution of film language. As such "The Gospel..." is one of his most crowning achievements. But also one of the least accessible by modern standards. For non-believers the movie will remain tiresome, dull and inconsequential. While the rest will not need to watch the movie to uphold the faith. Even more so that Pasolini may have been - in all his honesty behind making this movie - also making a sincere statement, which may not ring well with most Christians. The segments of the Bible portrayed almost unanimously show contempt to religious structures and those who wish to capture faith without rigid rules. Some well balanced cherry picking also allows to prominently front parts of scripture, which fit nicely with Pasolini's communist beliefs (albeit putting the movie into any sort of Marxist context would be severely overstepping it).
Surprisignly however Pasolini cut the movie away from emotionality and interaction, making large portion of the movie almost dry readings of the Gospel. The portrayal of Jesus can be perceived as a cold, at times ruthless or even sectarian persona, devoid of most of the warmth which permeates the Gospel itself. Even though most of the script is copy pasted from the Bible some of his lines are those of the most harsh, divisive context. I am not fully sure if this detached from feelings son of God was introduced by Pasolini on purpose, but I felt rather negative about Jesus, as someone who is more probable to invoke religious hatred than messages of love and forgiveness. The emotionless Jesus telling his sermons to a poor and destitude crowd never once instills any sort of reaction on their part, which brings to question what the hell happened to Jesus Christ the Superstar?
The whole irony is that the movies biggest strengths work against it, whilst at the same time providing it with enough class to remain a masterpiece. The cinema verite style of filmmaking, which hijacks the movie, gives it a sense of realism inherit to the imperfection of a human face and diverts it from the appalling norm of Biblical epics. Covered in dirt and grime the story of Jesus gains depth and substance, but at the same time the refusal of Pasolini to adapt the Gospel into something more like a film script forces the movie to be a seriously bumpy uneven ride. The realism of the scenery, people and situations conflicts drastically with the lack of emotion and interaction. This forced Pasolini to make a movie very lacking in casuality, while deeply interwoven in images and biblical messages.
One of the biggest payoffs in Pasolini's movie is the use of music, especial of modern gospel singing, to make an engrossing and involving atmosphere, which helps to get caught up in the action. Nonetheless the movie is slowly paced and for most viewers it may be hard to endeavour sitting 135 minutes without at least one nap in between.
The movie technically feels a bit outdated, especially in most panoramas or landscapes, where the camera remains shaky and unfocused. At the time it may have added to the neo-realism, but nowadays it detracts a bit from the overall experience.
In regards to a movie so deeply engraved into the history of cinema it remains hard to be without faith and awe. Pasolini is a filmmaker placed highly in all film circles - from critics to creators. Truly significant is his input into modern cinema and the evolution of film language. As such "The Gospel..." is one of his most crowning achievements. But also one of the least accessible by modern standards. For non-believers the movie will remain tiresome, dull and inconsequential. While the rest will not need to watch the movie to uphold the faith. Even more so that Pasolini may have been - in all his honesty behind making this movie - also making a sincere statement, which may not ring well with most Christians. The segments of the Bible portrayed almost unanimously show contempt to religious structures and those who wish to capture faith without rigid rules. Some well balanced cherry picking also allows to prominently front parts of scripture, which fit nicely with Pasolini's communist beliefs (albeit putting the movie into any sort of Marxist context would be severely overstepping it).
Surprisignly however Pasolini cut the movie away from emotionality and interaction, making large portion of the movie almost dry readings of the Gospel. The portrayal of Jesus can be perceived as a cold, at times ruthless or even sectarian persona, devoid of most of the warmth which permeates the Gospel itself. Even though most of the script is copy pasted from the Bible some of his lines are those of the most harsh, divisive context. I am not fully sure if this detached from feelings son of God was introduced by Pasolini on purpose, but I felt rather negative about Jesus, as someone who is more probable to invoke religious hatred than messages of love and forgiveness. The emotionless Jesus telling his sermons to a poor and destitude crowd never once instills any sort of reaction on their part, which brings to question what the hell happened to Jesus Christ the Superstar?
The whole irony is that the movies biggest strengths work against it, whilst at the same time providing it with enough class to remain a masterpiece. The cinema verite style of filmmaking, which hijacks the movie, gives it a sense of realism inherit to the imperfection of a human face and diverts it from the appalling norm of Biblical epics. Covered in dirt and grime the story of Jesus gains depth and substance, but at the same time the refusal of Pasolini to adapt the Gospel into something more like a film script forces the movie to be a seriously bumpy uneven ride. The realism of the scenery, people and situations conflicts drastically with the lack of emotion and interaction. This forced Pasolini to make a movie very lacking in casuality, while deeply interwoven in images and biblical messages.
One of the biggest payoffs in Pasolini's movie is the use of music, especial of modern gospel singing, to make an engrossing and involving atmosphere, which helps to get caught up in the action. Nonetheless the movie is slowly paced and for most viewers it may be hard to endeavour sitting 135 minutes without at least one nap in between.
The movie technically feels a bit outdated, especially in most panoramas or landscapes, where the camera remains shaky and unfocused. At the time it may have added to the neo-realism, but nowadays it detracts a bit from the overall experience.