The Gospel According to St.Matthew Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Gospel According to St.Matthew
Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Year: 1964
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

As we have seen with Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, religious films, especially those specifically depicting the Christian messiah Jesus Christ, are often hit with heavy controversy and definitely not favored among the religious. Therefore it is no surprise that one of the most controversial directors in film history, Pier Paolo Pasolini, would choose to do a religious film. I was introduced to his work with Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom. It shocked me yet made a profound political statement. I was then in awe of his take on Arabian Nights. The Gospel According to St.Matthew was the third film of his I decided to see, and it did not disappoint.

Pasolini's film shows the life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus begins teaching, primarily using parables. He attracts disciples; he's stern, brusque, and demanding. He comes to bring a sword, not peace. His parables often take on the powers that be. Then he is conspired against, arrested and crucified, just as he had prophesied.

Coming from an atheist Marxist homosexual, I was quite impressed with Pasolini's vision of Jesus Christ. He was more like the Christ shown in Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ than Gibson's Passion of the Christ. A strong and powerful man unlike the peaceful hippy he is portrayed as in many other films and religious services. It is quite interesting that Pasolini chose to make this film without a screenplay or any additional dialogue of his own. He followed the Gospel of Matthew page by page, using only the necessary amount to make his film. This makes, at least the dialogue, more truthful to the bible than any other religious film. It's pretty interesting that Jesus' appearance is different from most biblical adaptations. He has short hair, no beard and a dark hooded robe that makes his face look often in shadow.

Through listening to much of Jesus' speeches it seems understandable to why a man like Pasolini, who had no religious views of his own, made a religious film: Christ had many marxist-like views. He hated the rich and powerful and favored the poor. He hated society's materialism and profit over people way of life. Jesus was a radical who wanted everybody to be equal and everyone to love one another. Pasolini's views were similar and it is clear that he made this the central point due to Christ's empowering, emotional, righteous and angry speeches throughout the film that almost make him seem like a Union organizer.

In conclusion,  Pasolini's vision is quite brilliant and technically well made. Christ's crucifixion in the film is not over-dramatized like any Hollywood epics are, nor is it as brutally violent as Mel Gibson's version. It is incredibly cold and harsh, though it is not at all the focus of the film. It's funny, during the Obama/Romney presidential race there were many people saying "Christ is a Republican", "Christ is a democrat" or "Christ loves both parties!" Meanwhile I was thinking "Would Christ even be a capitalist?" this film answers my question with a resounding "No". Praise it! 4.5/5