CANON OF FILM: "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW"

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (1964)

Director/Screenplay: Pier Paolo Pasolini

 

Around a year ago, I happen to catch "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" on TCM late at night, and watched it again for the first time in years. It might've been around Easter, I think; I'm sure there was some reason they were airing it as even the stations that don't have to go out of their way for the holidays also tend to at least find something to air. I remembered watching it the first time a couple decades earlier and being startled at how intriguing it actually was. I've rarely been influenced by the Bible or even religious works at all, especially film. Part of it is that most of them just aren't that interesting or even watchable if I'm being completely honest. (I don't even think "The Ten Commandments" is that great, at least the one they replay all the time; Demille's original  I'm sure I read Matthew at some point during my brief time in elementary school where I got talked into going to catechism and eventually getting my Holy Communion, but by the time I had seen the film that sort of childlike wonder at the idea of a heavenly father had long-, well, to paraphrase the great philosopher George Carlin, I was Catholic before I reached the age of reason.  

And yet, I couldn't turn off "The Gospel According to St. Matthew". I become transfixed by it every time I happen to come across it, and after watching it again, I've had it in the back of my mind, no matter what I was doing at that particular moment that at some point, and some point soon, if my life would ever calm down enough for me to have the time again to do so, that I had to watch it again and add it to this way-too-long abandoned Canon of Film of mine. Which is funny, 'cause it was out of a similar inspiration that the film even exists at all. 

Another reason that's been my thought process is that, while I like this Canon I've put together so far, I clearly have a lot of films and filmmakers that it's missing and need to be put in, and I can make a pretty good argument that one of the big filmmakers I haven't added yet, is Pier Paolo Pasolini. I've only seen a couple Pasolini films, "The Gospel..." and his operatic interpretation of the twisted Greek tragedy "Madea" , two films that probably are among his least representative of his work, but- that's also,- like, it's one thing to say that a particular film doesn't typically represents his mileau, but that's also presuming his main artistic medium was film, and while he directed quite a lot of films, and even wrote the screenplay for many other, including a couple of Fellini's best, "Nights of Cabiria" and "La Dolce Vita", he was a renaissance man who did a little bit of everything, and he thought of himself as a poet first. Actually, renaissance man, might not be right,- the term I see used to describe him is that he was a "Public Intellectual"; you know, the kind of guy who would be acting, writing plays, debating major politics on the news, in-between publishing a lot of essays and novels in his spare time. Yeah, Pasolini was a very controversial figure in his day. He was openly homosexual, had affairs with young men, many of whom were probably not of legal age at the time, at least not in America. He was also a communist, whose father was aristocratic Lieutenant who became a fascist under Mussolini's regime, and he became extremely critical of even a lot of Italy's more left-leaning political parties for eradication much of the lower-caste cultures of the nation, and becoming too westernized in their economic and cultural interests. People on all sides had some issues with him, and, in this particular case, regarding his choice to adapt "...Matthew", he was also a staunch atheist. One who had quite a lot of conflict with the church; I mean this guy co-wrote "La Dolce Vita" and that movie opens up with a statue of Jesus being taken by helicopter, and then being followed by a news helicopter that's trying to get phone numbers from bikini girls on top of a roof. 

Yet, he read the gospels one day while awaiting a meeting with Pope John XXIII, who was seeking out non-Catholic artists for an open discussion, and it apparently enraptured him, and decided to, simply film it. He didn't even write a script for it, he literally just kept the Gospel as close to intact as possible, and shot the film in black & white, in one of the poorest and most ancient areas of the nation. He didn't use traditional actors a lot to begin with, and here, his Jesus is a Spanish student he knew, Enrique Irozaqui, and he casted the film with mostly locals and other people he knew; even his mother plays an older version of Mary watching as Jesus, or Christo as he's credited is crucified. Pasolini, did come out of the 2nd Wave of Italian Neorealism, and he's trying to actually depict, life as it would've been during the time of Jesus, and-, it's an odd mix. Like, the fact that he's only documenting the Gospel, basically verbatim, means that, all the flaws of the storytelling aspects of the Gospel are there visually as well. There's often several cuts to black to and from Jesus saying something, mostly in closeup, not necessarily to or from someone or something, in particular, just words he said, words that may have been taken with meaning beforehand. Sometimes conflicts come and then Jesus says something, and then, nothing. The others, I guess, backed down, or were converted? Scenes start and end, like half-forgotten memories, which, yeah, the Gospel is a collection of scenes from Jesus's life, purportedly spoken by an eyewitness, although there's a lot of debate about that even among Christian Biblical scholars on who exactly wrote that gospel, and either way, it was most likely written long after Jesus's death, so it makes sense that the movie can seem random and fragmented like recalling memories out of time and order and context a bit, because the Gospel itself is a bit of a conflicted state like that. 

Oddly, it also makes the story more spiritually inspiring, by being so accurate that this is most definitely the least deified Jesus ever put on screen, that humanity of the conflict helps make his actual words, more enlightening spiritually. Jesus, the person, has always been way more interesting than Jesus, the son of God, or God himself. In that respects, it does become apparent that Pasolini and Jesus had a lot in common. They were both philosophers, political activists, both hated the petit bourgeoisie and were very critical of capitalistism and it's role in government. Both had artistic outlets, where Pasolini was a poet, playwright, filmmaker,... Jesus was a teacher, a carpenter, a magician.... 

Oh, and they were also both gruesomely killed. Yeah, after what became his last film, the infamous, "Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom," he was,- killed on the street in Ostia, Italy. Actually "Killed" is really understating this 'cause he was just randomly killed; he was kidnapped, beaten, tortured, had his testicales crushed, had several bruises and broken bones, before his body was then, run over by his own car, several times, and then, partially covered in petrol and set on fire, burning much of his body. Yeah, and it's still a mystery who actually were the perpetrators, although it's clear several people were definitely involved and it was definitely a contract killing. One teenager was sentenced for playing a part in his death for nine years in prison, but he has recanted his testimony since, claiming to being forced to take blame from people with a "Southern Accent", and some DNA evidence and witness statements now seem to link the death to a far-right terrorist group called Banda Della Magliana, which was involved or suspected of being involved in several gruesome incidents over the years in Italy, everything from the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II to the Bologna Massacre to several assassinations of politicians and journalists-, the Years of Lead were pretty brutal on all sides....  It's hard to even say how or why Pasolini got caught in the middle of it, although on some level, it's easy to see how, and from his perspective, this kind of ending for him might've seemed inevitable. Perhaps that's why he must've felt a kinship with Jesus, and why Matthew effected him enough to make such a singular biblical film. One that's not an overblown epic or glofification of Jesus or even of Christianity or faith, but one that's as straight-forward a telling of the Bible as one can, faults and all. 

And yet, some still try to make it more cinematic; in order to watch this, I highly recommend streaming on the Criterion Channel or getting the Criterion DVD. You can find a version of the film, most anywhere, but years ago, somebody made a colorised and edited version of "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" that's available most everywhere on the internet. It's not watchable, and frankly insulting. Apparently the Weinsteins were behind that version, which cuts about forty minutes from the film. I've seen some have claimed that it was originally supposed to be in color and that they're bringing it to it's original version, that's not true at all; it was shot in glorious black and white by Tonino Delli Colli, one of Italy's greatest cinematographers; he shot films for everybody from Federico Fellini to Roberto Benigni, but he's probably most famous for his work with Sergio Leone, including "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", "Once Upon a Time in the West," and "Once Upon a Time in America",- the guy could shoot in color if he wanted to, and it would look a ton better than it does in any colorized version of "The Gospel..." Also, Pasolini tried to tell the entire Gospel without anything taken out, so why edit out forty minutes, unless you were trying to give it a more traditional narrative. That kind of tainting might be worst than getting run over and burned to death honestly. Just avoid that version at all costs, it's literal blasphemy. 

In terms of being inspired by Jesus, this is the one film that I most recommend. And it's definitely proof that we should probably look to non-believers more often in trying to find the truth of our faith and spiritualness. Perhaps everybody can find more in Jesus that way.