Il vangelo secondo Matteo / The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) – 3/5

The story of Jesus in a nutshell

„Il vangelo secondo Matteo“ or „The Gospel According to St. Matthew“ is a co-production between Italy and France from 1964, so this film has its 60th anniversary soon. The focus is definitely on Italy though. The language is Italian from beginning to end and the cast is mostly Italian and also the writer and director is of course Italian. That would be Pier Paolo Pasolini. He had an incredibly prolific career, even if he did not even reach the age of 55 because of the tragic murder that took his life in such an untimely fashion and the exact circumstances are still unknown. If it had to do with his craft, with his political views or with something else. We will never know. This one here is among his most known career efforts. It is a black-and-white film, which should not surprise anybody given the year when it was made. It was the before the 1970s that color became more frequent and dominant, even if there were early exceptions. Pasolini would have had his 100th birthday this year and on this occasion some movie theaters, also in my city, show the majority of his movies once again. Or the majority of his more famous movies I should say maybe. I guess Italian movie theaters do not really need a big anniversary to still give viewers the chance to see the man’s films on a big screen.

This is a really long film at comfortably over two hours from beginning to end. I cannot say too much about the cast because I am not familiar with the actors here. The lead is Enrique Irazoqui and they cast a Spanish actor to play the biggest character in human history. Good choice I’d say and a bit sad that Irazoqui did not have a truly prolific acting career before or especially after this film. He returned to acting very late though, a little while before his relatively recent death. One other actress I must mention is Margherita Caruso. Perfect casting to play Christ’s mother Maria here. The young version of course. Really innocent beauty and you can see why God picked her. The bigger riddle is why he would pick who he picked for Giuseppe. A man abouth thrice as old as Maria. Then again, the plan was that he would relentlessly support and serve her, so maybe that’s why they went for somebody this basic and it could also explain the age. Rossana Di Rocco was also a good choice and a scene stealer in her several brief inclusions. Paola Tedesco had even less screen time than her. Oh and we also see Maria as an old woman on one occasion, even if the age factor was surely a bit confusing. If you look at the lead actor’s age, not even 20 years had passed between then and now, but if we are generous and go with 30 years, then Maria still would not be remotely as old as she is depicted there in this scene towards the end when they are all sitting at the table and one character gets really mad. He is the one who ends up being Christ’s demise. And who cannot live with the guilt immediately afterwards and we see him hanging there dead as he decided to take his own life as a consequence and he also threw away all the coins before that. This was Giuda of course and he was played by Otello Sestili, another actor from this film who was not prolific at all and according to imdb actually never acted again after this film. I wonder where they all ended up. Of course, most are not alive anymore, but Caruso for example is and with her I wonder the most what happened. She probably led a fulfilling life away from the limelight. Not the worst choice. I liked her slightly smirky grin (okay, that sounds a bit too harsh) when everybody holds her baby and she sure is proud that it is her kid that is the chosen one.

One thing I recognized here was that on many occasions we have camera shots showing us nothing but the faces of the nearby people. Characters that have no impact on the story. They do not say a word, they just stand there watching. On other occasions, you see people barking orders at each other. It happens a lot and it is not just Christ. Oh and donkeys are included too. Just very briefly, but donkeys are such amazing creatures that I must always mention them if included. Depending on how much you know about Christ, (not) a lot will surprise you here. I am definitely not an expert on religion and the subject, so some aspects were also new to me like the collapsing building in the end or the coins of betrayal that were basically blood money (okay, that memory did come back just like the vote between who should life, Christ or another character?) or the journey from where he was born to Egypt and back to his home. This is when this angel of prophecy came into play that was portrayed by one of the female actors I mentioned earlier. It almost had a comedic touch how she was pushing them around with those huge distances. Of course, it was all for the greater good and Jesus‘ safety because he is ordered to return the moment the ones that want to see him dead are dead themselves. However, new enemies arise and blasphemy is a crucial component in here. It was not about the idea that many would have today that the character was maybe simply delusional, but everybody believed in the Lord and they just saw Christ as one trying to increase his popularity in an unlawful manner by pretending he was the son of the Almighty. Many scenes show us that it is the truth and he was not a fraud. Take the scene in which he heals the man with the deformed face. A leper it was I think? Not Elephant Man. Or when he heals the one who could not walk properly. Those were miracles. I think making a blind man see is also talked about once, but no graphic example seen on the screen. Surprised me a bit that they did not go with a third inclusion there. Or maybe the third slightly different inclusion of his powers is when we see him walk over water towards a boat full of people and one of them has doubts and not 100% belief which Jesus is not too happy about.

Of course, at the very end, we also see the crucifixion. With the crown of thorns. That had to be included. It is not super graphic, but still quite a bit for 1960s. Not Mel Gibson level obviously. I should not say „at the very end“ because that would rather describe the scene in which the people come to the protagonist’s grave and realize he is gone. That he has risen. This was basically closure and the film was over a little later. This movie was nominated for three Academy Awards, one reason why I got curious to watch it tonight. The biggest reason maybe, even if the rating here on imdb is pretty good too. Two categories it lost to Virginia Woolf and the third to another film with a connection to Italy. Just like this one here. I have a feeling though that if this had been an American movie, it maybe would have even had a shot at winning Best Picture and not just being nominated in some visual categories. I do agree though. It was a nice film visually. I needed a little longer to really start appreciating it and I’d still say it is closer to a forgettable film than to a great one, but „okay“, maybe even „good“ here and there would be an accurate description for the outcome. Nonetheless not a film that really got me curious to check out Pasolini’s other stuff right away. For now, this will stay the only movie from him for me. Maybe my loss. What else can I add? The lead actor was pretty good really and a strong casting choice. In terms of the cast, they really did nothing wrong at all. I am fairly curious how the Vatican liked this film back then and also how Christians think about it today. If they watch it or even know it exists. I myself as a non-religious man would say that I am glad this film got made because it can show you pretty much the entire story and you do not have to read the Bible and that is useful if you are also not a big reader like myself and it does not come easy for you. Really nice summary.

Of course you need to be fluent in Italian or find a good set of subtitles. I found it a bit of a pity that especially Maria, but also Giuseppe, was out for the entire rest of the film (even if it makes sense because that is just how it is in the Bible) with the exception of Maria’s brief comeback that I talked about earlier. There I also liked what the older actress did with her eyes and how it resembled what the young actress did early on. Again, quite good casting. Oh yeah, one scene that left me a bit confused was the beheading of a supporting character. To understand this, you maybe actually have to read the bible. To me, this scene seemed completely loose from Christ’s story. Or „these scenes“ I can say too as we see the prison guy on earlier occasions as well. Also in terms of who gave the order and just what it was all about felt like a real mystery. Christ here is also not really an easy character. I mean look at how he demands that people must love him more than their own children. I am sure many did not like the idea at all and not everybody saw him perform those miracles and become a follower. There are several mentions of how he is about to go somewhere else and pray. Pray to his dad you could say pretty much. This was supposed to inspire those around him to pray as well. By the way, don’t you think that the idea of before Christ or after is still so much of a factor in terms of us counting the years? I almost forgot about that. Definitely not the only one. Okay, this is all then. I needed a little while to feel the film, but when I managed to, I liked it and there was absolutely nothing wrong. I still think the rating here on imdb is a bit too high, but it is an alright film and I give it a thumbs-up overall. Go see it if you have the chance, maybe also on the big screen.