Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)

What do you get when you do a film on Christ's life using the principles of italian neo-realism, amateur actors, south Italy landscapes and a sweeping score using Bach, Mozart, Prokofiev and some african-like-jazz-rhythms by Luis Bacalov? Well, Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Gospel According to Matthew" is almost a paradox. It is as simple as they come but yet has an extreme depth and meaning that arises from its directness and striking composition. Controversial and political, Pasolini's career had ups and downs, and his later films (in the 70s) explored fantasy depths of a human and erotic nature. But in the 60s, he was more down to earth and more striking in his political message, yet that does not fail to make this movie one of the most real and powerful tales of Christ, second only in my opinion to Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 effort "Jesus of Nazareth" staring Robert Powell. So, as there is no use dwelling on the story, the dialogues are known to all, what makes this movie so distinguishable? First, like, for example, Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" of 1966, the shots of the movie are very much based on medieval paintings, with an incredible black and white composition. Jesus, played by Enrique Irazoqui, appears on close up most of the shots, half turned, and only occupying half of the frame. The rest is occupied by a beautiful italian landscape. When Christ speaks, the camera is right in his face, and he says his usual lines, parables and prayers at an incredible speed, almost as if he is just saying something that he memorised, with cold emotion. But the real treat is that all this is tied up together with the longer shots, the transitions, the beauty of the images. The speeches of Christ are entwined with showings of life in the mountains, the people following Christ, walks, processions, etc, etc, at the sound of choirs and classic music geniuses. This is what distinguishes this movie from the american efforts, for example, Nicholas Ray's "King of Kings" (1961), one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. How can you make Christ's life boring? Simply by passing from one speech to another, from the multiplying of the breads to the marriage in Canaa, without any tie in, just a series of portraits taken from the scriptures, static, and without rhythm. Pasolini, with his small budget, improper locations and amateur actors, passed over that, simply because he dwelled on the beauty that can be created with music and images, and because he was not afraid to shoot faces and emotions, to which the usual dubbed and crystal clear sound of 60s italian movies helped to give some ethereal and profound quality to the speeches of Christ, absorbing all else whilst they are being delivered. Raw and real, Pasolini's film is a more down to earth approach without resorting to any spectacular climax or hiatus in the dialogue. Christ just appeared and delivered his message, and walked among the poor regions and the mountains fulfilling his destiny. And that is what is shown. Everything is fast in the dialogue, everything is beautiful in the rest. The score excels, the acting does not. The directing is the best of all. Serves both publics, the fans of italian neo-realism and the fans of christian cinema. The political undertones of the tale are, off course, more than visible, as Pasolini, controversial as ever, considered Christ as the greatest revolutionary of all time. Many times Christ raises his voice, the double meaning cannot fail to be noticed....