Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)

Directed by: Pier Paolo Pasolini | 132 minutes | drama, biography, fantasy, history | Actors: Enrique Irazoqui, Margherita Caruso, Susanna Pasolini, Marcello Morante, Mario Socrate, Settimio Di Porto, Alfonso Gatto, Luigi Barbini, Giacomo Morante, Giorgio Agamben, Guido Cerretani, Rosario Migale, Ferruccio Nuzzo, Marcello Galdini, Elio Spaziani

Mel Gibson caused quite a stir with his interpretation of the agony of Jesus Christ in ‘The Passion of the Christ’. The film is said to be anti-Semitic, based on a radical vision, and, the most frequently heard criticism, is in fact little more than so-called “torture porn”, a “genre” – with the prominent examples being ‘Saw’ and ‘Hostel’. – which is characterized by images of excessive and explicit violence and as many battered and bloody bodies as possible. “This couldn’t be a respectful account of a Bible story, could it? Should people be inspired by this?” was the general tenor of the criticism. Now, Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ‘Il Vangelo secondo Matteo’, his film version of the same story, has caused quite a stir for his interpretation of Jesus as a humanist rebel, but today many critics of Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ would probably murmur for Pasolini’s ignorance. choose a more subdued, serene film.

Yet Pasolini’s interpretation is not necessarily superior to Gibson’s. And although they are very different films in approach, they actually complement each other perfectly. Precisely because they are so opposite and cannot (or cannot) highlight everything equally strongly in their independent approach, the films actually form two interesting sides of the same coin. What was largely lacking in Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’, namely the teachings and explicit ideas of Christ, is frequently addressed in Pasolini’s ‘Il vangelo secondo Matteo’. An argument for its inclusion may see that the suffering and death of Christ have less meaning when the viewer has little knowledge of his life. Why was there to do so much for this man? How did he win over so many people and antagonize so many people? Pasolini spends much longer on the march towards Jesus’ final death sentence. How is he discovered by the population and accepted into their midst? What words does he speak that so touch the population? How exactly does he go about finding the apostles, helping the people with his miracles, and instructing the people?

It sounds like a very satisfying approach, which will get the viewer more involved with Jesus, the people, and his ideas in general. but this is only partly true. Pasolini stays very close to Matthew and this authenticity is commendable, but the way all the great events and teachings or discourses of Christ are chained together feels a bit like watching a cinematic excerpt of his biography. In the first hour the images follow one another at breakneck speed of a teaching, oratory Jesus, with a calm but slightly stern expression on his face. These moments are occasionally interrupted when he has to heal a leper, multiply a set of loaves of bread or walk on water. The theses of Jesus, sometimes in response to questions, come so quickly, without going into details or explaining them, and without much context, that only a small fraction will stick with people who have not received a Bible education. And that is a missed opportunity if a film spends about half its running time on these kinds of scenes.

Although the last hour becomes more and more oppressive and emotional – partly because as a viewer you know how it will end – there is still a lack of involvement and it seems to be too much of a summary of facts. It was indeed Pasolini’s intention to show Jesus as seen from the people’s perspective. To show how they recognize Him and follow His words. However, this only partially succeeds. A lot of use is made of (extreme) close-ups on faces and eyes, so some impact is noticeable, and the documentary-like style of filming, in which Pasolini places the viewer among the population, as it were, gives the whole a certain sense of realism, but secondary characters hardly get any background or context and motivations therefore remain sketchy. In the end, it must be assumed that Jesus had such great aura and persuasive words that he was able to gather followers almost immediately. Fortunately, this is facilitated by the excellent casting of Jesus himself, played here – according to the best neo-realistic traditions – by an amateur, Enrique Irazoqui. He has it all: the Che Guevara-esque appearance of a revolutionary who stands up for the poor – not an incomprehensible angle for a Marxist like Pasolini –, a serene expression, a convincing, dominating air, and a calm but purposeful way of moving. His interpretation is supported by beautiful music by Bach and Prokofiev, but also by deviant African and jazzy sounds. Strange combinations, at first, but it often works surprisingly well, depending on the spiritual or more earthly quality of the feelings and atmosphere that the film evokes.

Unlike Mel Gibson’s film, ‘Il Vangelo secondo Matteo’ works its way through the section of Christ’s walk to the cross quickly, which suits the tone of the film. The crucifixion itself is also disgusting to watch here, and sometimes you, as a viewer, tend to look away, while hardly anything is shown, demonstrating the power of suggestion once again. Yet there is something to be said for Gibson’s approach. Yes, it is an ordeal to watch ‘The Passion of the Christ’, but you really have the feeling that you were actually there yourself, and experienced what the spectators experienced. You almost feel every whiplash on your own back and this physical experience, strangely enough, also has an intellectual repercussion. On the one hand, there is of course a lack of understanding about the reason for this torture. Why on earth did he deserve such a thing? All this because of a different opinion, which one does not want to hear? It will always remain a topical theme. Then there is once again the realization that people can do terrible things to each other, and that there is really no justification for this. The other cheek is not always easy, but it is important that we remain human. ‘Il Vangelo secondo Matteo’ communicates all this, and has chosen a beautiful form for it – the images of southern Italy, the beautiful music -, but it could have been more effective both intellectually and emotionally.