You've created one of the strangest yet most memorable films about Jesus Christ!
Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is an interesting film. A film based solely on the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, filmed using ancient ruins, and featuring a cast comprised entirely of the local townspeople--e.g., non-professionals (the director's own mother even plays the older Virgin Mary). Most intriguing of all, Pasolini himself was not only Marxist but an avowed atheist whose previous films had gotten him arrested on charges of blasphemy.
But whatever he may be, Pasolini did make this film--and it is a good thing he did.
This is considered one of the most accurate and reverential portrayals of Jesus Christ on screen. Personally, I think it's one of the strangest and most bizarre. Nevertheless, it's one of the most unique, interesting, and creative Jesus films ever!
It's not hard to tell that the budget wasn't that big. This film lacks the big, elaborate sets and costumes of many other Jesus movies. But this is the film's strength. In lacking any pomp or grandiosity that often afflicts many historical epics, Pasolini's "Matthew" is able to have a gritty realism that reminds us of the harsh realities of that time. One must remember that Jesus was not a rich man in fine clothes, and neither were most of the people of his time. They did not live in fine mansions of marble. They wore worn-out clothes and lived in worn-out hovels.
That's what we're seeing in this film. The people are the real peasants of southern Italy. Their faces are not pretty and some are seen with crooked teeth. Whereas many Hollywood epics use their big budget to turn hunks and glamor girls into homely peasants, this film has no need of such because the people being portrayed are the real deal.
That is not to say that this film is authentic. Some of the costumes look medieval, and some of the buildings look more Gothic than First-Century Judea. The men's hairstyles are obviously modern, and many of them are in need of more facial hair, especially the actor playing John the Baptist. The scene in which Herod's soldiers massacre the innocents of Bethlehem is rather silly. Nonetheless, this film is able to portray something, and that is the harsh reality of those times.
It's actually good that all of the actors are non-professionals. There are no big names. The viewer won't be bothered by the sight of an all-too-recognizable face pretending to be someone else. When it's Jesus or Mary that's supposed to be on the screen, it's Jesus and Mary and not the actors playing them.
Enrique Irazoqui was the perfect choice to play Jesus. Only 19 at that time he was chosen for the role, he looks much older than that. His Jesus is so dignified, so regal even through his peasant's clothing, so commanding of a presence. This portrayal of Jesus is often described as being of a "revolutionary." This is probably closer to how Jesus may have been like compared to many other movies. This was a man, after all, who championed the poor and weak and spoke out against the authorities of that time.
When he preaches, he's not some stoic, mild-mannered philosopher, he's impassioned, fiery, and forceful. He's almost shouting when he's declaring "Blessed are the poor in spirit." This is someone who's worth giving your attention to. For the most part, though, he is solemn and calm, with a kind of a quiet majesty that exudes wisdom. When he's with children or healing the sick, he radiates with so much warmth and compassion. When denouncing the Pharisees and other religious leaders, his condemnation is fierce and unflinching. And in the garden of Gethsemane praying for his Heavenly Father to take the cup away from him, he is calm and still, yet his eyes are teary. This is a beautifully subtle way of showing Jesus's internal torment at the prospect of death. Irazoqui's performances is one worth commending! This film has probably the most authentic Mary on screen, both young and old. The young one is a humble village girl, and the old one is clear an elderly lady. They are both earthly and unadorned.
No one should forget to mention the music used in this film. It is one of the most interesting aspects. The score relies on borrowed samples from several different artists. I thought that the use of Odetta's "Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child" was strange. What really worked were Sebastian Bach's "Mass In B Minor" and "St. Matthew Passion" as well as Missa Luba's "Gloria." It was a good choice to include Bach's music in the movie soundtrack as classical music is often associated with anything religious. When it plays during the Baptism scene, it it just beautiful. In the Crucifixion scene, it brings out a sweeping, majestic grandeur. It's powerful, just powerful. Adding just as much power to the film is the "Gloria" chorus by Missa Luba. Missa Luba, a Congolese version of the Latin mass, was quite a strange choice--yet it was a pleasant surprise. Using African tribal chants, it does make one think of African American Gospel choirs. And in its use for a movie such as this with a religious theme, it not only works well, it gives it an uniquely model twist! It was right for it to play during the Resurrection scene. It's upbeat, joyful, and glorious and triumphant.
"The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is an epic movie. It lacks a big budget, giant sets, fancy costumes, and endless crowds of thousands. But what it lacks in these aspects it more than makes up for in its sweeping feel and majesty that is as genuine as it is austere.
Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is an interesting film. A film based solely on the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, filmed using ancient ruins, and featuring a cast comprised entirely of the local townspeople--e.g., non-professionals (the director's own mother even plays the older Virgin Mary). Most intriguing of all, Pasolini himself was not only Marxist but an avowed atheist whose previous films had gotten him arrested on charges of blasphemy.
But whatever he may be, Pasolini did make this film--and it is a good thing he did.
This is considered one of the most accurate and reverential portrayals of Jesus Christ on screen. Personally, I think it's one of the strangest and most bizarre. Nevertheless, it's one of the most unique, interesting, and creative Jesus films ever!
It's not hard to tell that the budget wasn't that big. This film lacks the big, elaborate sets and costumes of many other Jesus movies. But this is the film's strength. In lacking any pomp or grandiosity that often afflicts many historical epics, Pasolini's "Matthew" is able to have a gritty realism that reminds us of the harsh realities of that time. One must remember that Jesus was not a rich man in fine clothes, and neither were most of the people of his time. They did not live in fine mansions of marble. They wore worn-out clothes and lived in worn-out hovels.
That's what we're seeing in this film. The people are the real peasants of southern Italy. Their faces are not pretty and some are seen with crooked teeth. Whereas many Hollywood epics use their big budget to turn hunks and glamor girls into homely peasants, this film has no need of such because the people being portrayed are the real deal.
That is not to say that this film is authentic. Some of the costumes look medieval, and some of the buildings look more Gothic than First-Century Judea. The men's hairstyles are obviously modern, and many of them are in need of more facial hair, especially the actor playing John the Baptist. The scene in which Herod's soldiers massacre the innocents of Bethlehem is rather silly. Nonetheless, this film is able to portray something, and that is the harsh reality of those times.
It's actually good that all of the actors are non-professionals. There are no big names. The viewer won't be bothered by the sight of an all-too-recognizable face pretending to be someone else. When it's Jesus or Mary that's supposed to be on the screen, it's Jesus and Mary and not the actors playing them.
Enrique Irazoqui was the perfect choice to play Jesus. Only 19 at that time he was chosen for the role, he looks much older than that. His Jesus is so dignified, so regal even through his peasant's clothing, so commanding of a presence. This portrayal of Jesus is often described as being of a "revolutionary." This is probably closer to how Jesus may have been like compared to many other movies. This was a man, after all, who championed the poor and weak and spoke out against the authorities of that time.
When he preaches, he's not some stoic, mild-mannered philosopher, he's impassioned, fiery, and forceful. He's almost shouting when he's declaring "Blessed are the poor in spirit." This is someone who's worth giving your attention to. For the most part, though, he is solemn and calm, with a kind of a quiet majesty that exudes wisdom. When he's with children or healing the sick, he radiates with so much warmth and compassion. When denouncing the Pharisees and other religious leaders, his condemnation is fierce and unflinching. And in the garden of Gethsemane praying for his Heavenly Father to take the cup away from him, he is calm and still, yet his eyes are teary. This is a beautifully subtle way of showing Jesus's internal torment at the prospect of death. Irazoqui's performances is one worth commending! This film has probably the most authentic Mary on screen, both young and old. The young one is a humble village girl, and the old one is clear an elderly lady. They are both earthly and unadorned.
No one should forget to mention the music used in this film. It is one of the most interesting aspects. The score relies on borrowed samples from several different artists. I thought that the use of Odetta's "Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child" was strange. What really worked were Sebastian Bach's "Mass In B Minor" and "St. Matthew Passion" as well as Missa Luba's "Gloria." It was a good choice to include Bach's music in the movie soundtrack as classical music is often associated with anything religious. When it plays during the Baptism scene, it it just beautiful. In the Crucifixion scene, it brings out a sweeping, majestic grandeur. It's powerful, just powerful. Adding just as much power to the film is the "Gloria" chorus by Missa Luba. Missa Luba, a Congolese version of the Latin mass, was quite a strange choice--yet it was a pleasant surprise. Using African tribal chants, it does make one think of African American Gospel choirs. And in its use for a movie such as this with a religious theme, it not only works well, it gives it an uniquely model twist! It was right for it to play during the Resurrection scene. It's upbeat, joyful, and glorious and triumphant.
"The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is an epic movie. It lacks a big budget, giant sets, fancy costumes, and endless crowds of thousands. But what it lacks in these aspects it more than makes up for in its sweeping feel and majesty that is as genuine as it is austere.