Basically, the title is self-explanatory: the gospel according to the Scriptures, about Jesus, in the book of St. Matthew. This was Pasolini's first major production - Accatone was his debut. St. Matthew utilizes a throng of unknown Italian actors that acquired recognition after the film was released. However, amid this interesting quality there seems to be a clashing between the Latin physiognomy in a Biblical Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the film appears to exhibit many anachronisms: A Blues singer humming incidental music, traffic sounds in the distance, street settings resembling 1960 Rome, etc. Likewise, the actor playing the Son of Man looks like a cross between Andy Garcia and Al Pacino ---get a load of the heavy brows.
Despite these minor traits, altogether, the film stands as another great retelling of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Messiah himself. In addition, the film presents a more profound examination of the gospels. Is Pasolini offering a straight-faced story of the Lord or is he telling it with biting scorn? These questions are brought up and the viewer can look at it as either "the greatest story ever told" or as a satirical metaphor on Christ and dogma. To my knowledge, Pasolini had always questioned theology. Be it his famously controversial (some say blasphemous) lament for the near-death Pope or his subsequent film Theorem: these both revealed Pasolini's steadfast philosophy.
Having some knowledge of the Scriptures would definitely help getting through St Matthew. Although, after seeing the film, one may want to go back and reread parts of the New Testament and then re-watch the film. My only complaint about St Matthew is that the subtitles are barely readable, although the re-mastered version may have remedied this flaw - beats me, I only own the original edition. Above all, St. Matthew works as both a creative adaptations for art-house film lovers (or Pasolini fans) and as a family film.
Despite these minor traits, altogether, the film stands as another great retelling of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Messiah himself. In addition, the film presents a more profound examination of the gospels. Is Pasolini offering a straight-faced story of the Lord or is he telling it with biting scorn? These questions are brought up and the viewer can look at it as either "the greatest story ever told" or as a satirical metaphor on Christ and dogma. To my knowledge, Pasolini had always questioned theology. Be it his famously controversial (some say blasphemous) lament for the near-death Pope or his subsequent film Theorem: these both revealed Pasolini's steadfast philosophy.
Having some knowledge of the Scriptures would definitely help getting through St Matthew. Although, after seeing the film, one may want to go back and reread parts of the New Testament and then re-watch the film. My only complaint about St Matthew is that the subtitles are barely readable, although the re-mastered version may have remedied this flaw - beats me, I only own the original edition. Above all, St. Matthew works as both a creative adaptations for art-house film lovers (or Pasolini fans) and as a family film.