Arts & Faith #7: The Gospel According to St Matthew

Scott's introductory comments on the Arts and Faith Top 100 Films List
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
Arts and Faith Top 100:  #7


The Gospel According to St. Matthew was released in 1964.  It's an Italian film, directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini. According to Roger Ebert's review, Pasolini was a Marxist and an Atheist who was inspired to film the gospel narrative word-for-word after reading from a Bible in his hotel room.  Consequently, some have criticized him for portraying a proto-Marxist Jesus.

Of further interest was the fact that all of the dialogue in the film was lifted directly from the gospel text itself.  Pasolini did not need a script.  He simply directed the action of the scene, while actors quoted Matthew's text.  For that reason alone this is a remarkable cinematic achievement.  How does one judge this film on Adapted Screenplay? 

My own interest in the film was sparked by Philip Yancey's mention of it in his book The Jesus I Never Knew.  Yancey recalls that it had a revolutionary effect on college kids in the 1970s, whose image of a blue-eyed American suburban Jesus was shattered.  The Jesus in Matthew is not a passive, nice guy who simply talks in prophetic platitudes.  He is confrontational with the religious leaders of his day.  He flashes anger in the Temple with those who sell religious goods. And he teaches by way of stories and parables whose meanings are unclear.  In other words, following this Jesus leads one onto a hard journey that provokes more questions than answers. 

It is a fascinating fact that The Gospel According to Matthew was directed by an atheist, and yet it challenges believers and non-believers alike to see the gospel account through a fresh lens. If you are of the opinion that Christianity's distinguishing feature was that it made nicer people of its followers than other religions, this movie will challenge that assumption.  However, if you are of the opinion that Christianity's distinguishing feature is that Jesus came to save us sinners, this movie will also challenge that assumption. And maybe that is why Pasolini was accused of creating a Marxist Jesus:  for most of the movie, he is more interested in demonstrating compassion for the poor and downtrodden, while confronting the religious leaders, than in anything else. But even if that is one of the main lessons of the film, is that such a bad thing?