428. Il Vangelo secondo Matteo/The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

Running Time: 137 minutes
Directed By: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Written By: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Main Cast: Enrique Irazoqui, Otello Sestili, Margherita Caruso, Marcello Morante, Mario Socrate

I'M A BELIEVER

With only four films left to go before I reach my short-term goal of 400 movies watched, I revisit Pier Paolo Pasolini (director of "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom") and one of his earlier works, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew".

I think most of us are familiar with the story of Jesus Christ, so I'll try my best to keep this plot summary short. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" retells the story of Jesus' life, as it was written in the Gospel of Matthew, in the New Testament of the Bible. The film recounts Jesus' birth, Joseph's three visions of the angel, the baptism of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, the miracles that Jesus performed, the faith that Jesus possessed and of course, the crucifixion. The film casts "no name" actors in the parts, including that of Jesus. The film uses the music of Bach and Mozart, as well as some southern sounding music to intensify certain events.

You know, first things first, you really have to give credit to Pier Paolo Pasolini, a known atheist, who was commissioned by Pope John XXIII to make this film. When he read all four of the gospels in the bible, he is quoted as saying that at that time, all other ideas he had were expelled from his head. I guess when I think of the word "atheist", I think of a very harsh word. In my mind, that word is almost like a curse word, because I have always been a believer and in my head it was a "with us or against us" attitude. But maybe there are atheists who would really like to believe, but just can't bring themselves to. During a press conference in 1966, Pasolini was asked why he'd make a film about the life of Jesus, if he himself was a non-believer. His response:

"If you know that I am an unbeliever, then you know me better than I do myself. I may be an unbeliever, but I am an unbeliever who has a nostalgia for a belief."

To me, that's a man who wants to believe but, for some reason or another, cannot. Anyway, I'm rambling. It's a touchy subject. You're either a believer or a non-believer and based on that, will be the basis for whether or not you'll enjoy this film. I enjoyed it. However, I did find it a little tedious. I knew the story of Jesus and it's as if Pasolini just took everything that he knew, the "popular parts", if you will, and smashed them together into a film. We get all of Jesus' famous teachings and quotes, we get to see him walking on water and the story of the loaves and the fishes. We see the Last Supper, Judas and the thirty pieces of silver and of course, the crucifixion It's all of the things we've all been told & taught and NOTHING more. With stories about Jesus' life, it's kind of a "you've seen one, you've seen them all" kinda' deal. Sure, Pasolini lends an artistic element to his telling, but everything we'd see in any portrayal of Jesus is here.

I've often wondered if atheists could find anything at all in the story of Jesus. IF they don't believe that Jesus actually existed, walked the Earth and was the Son of God, could they at least take the Bible (and more importantly the gospels) as, at least, a good story? Would you dare find one of them saying, "Well that obviously didn't really happen, but that's a damn fine tale if I ever saw one"? I don't know - any atheists care to comment?

RATING: 7/10 I kind of got off topic there, didn't I? As for the film, yes it's good, but again it's nothing more than you'd expect from a Jesus story.

MOVIES WATCHED: 398
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 603

January 14, 2012 8:37pm

601. Salo o le 120 giornate di Sodoma/Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

Running Time: 116 minutes
Directed By: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Written By: Pier Paolo Pasolini, Roland Barthes, Maurice Blanchot, Sergio Citti, Pierre Klossowski, from the novel Salo ou les 120 Journees de Sodome by the Marquis de Sade
Main Cast: Paolo Bonacelli, Giorgio Cataldi, Umberto Paolo Quintavalle, Aldo Valletti, Caterina Boratto

THE HARDEST REVIEW I'VE EVER HAD TO WRITE

I was able to finally squeeze in "Salo" (we'll call it that for short during the course of this review) last night and when I finished watching it I immediately had it pegged as a '1', as far as a rating goes. I didn't have the time to write the review last night and had to work today, so didn't get to it until now. This movie consumed my thoughts as I worked this entire day and now, even as I write this, I'm still flip flopping on my opinion of it. But...here goes.

SPOILER ALERT!

The movie is based on the writing of the Marquis de Sade and tells the story of eighteen Italian youths who are captured during Mussolini's reign in the Republic of Salo, in Northen Italy. The youths who are captured are taken to a remote palace and it is there that they endure 120 days of torture. The men in power of the entire operation are four strong and are: The Duke, The Bishop, The Magistrate and The President. The four leaders are also accompanied by four middle aged prostitutes and guards. The story is broken up into four parts: Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit and the Circle of Blood. The first part shows the capturing of the youths, the arrival at the palace and the reading of the rules. The Circle of Manias is mostly stories told by Mrs. Vaccari (one of the prostitutes). The stories are pretty graphic and detail the escapades of the prostitute when she was just a young girl. The Circle of Shit hits the stride of disgust in the film, as the stories turn to defecation and the eating of excrement. Once the stories are told the characters go the distance and act out the stories, forcing the captives to eat the shit of the four leaders. The film ends with the final torture and eventual killing of the captives in some pretty heinous ways, including: burning their nipples, scalping, cutting out their tongues and cutting out their eyes.

I guess we'll have to break this review down into two parts, the part where I state what I hated and the part where I argue against my own hatred. Let's start with what I hated...

My initial thoughts were that I never, ever want to see this film again. I understand the fact that Pasolini had some points to get across, but honestly I think he took it a bit too far and really went over the top with some of the things that were depicted. I will never be able to erase the images from this movie from my head and I'm not really sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm not really understanding how anyone can classify this movie as artistic, because as far as I'm concerned this is the furthest thing from art that there is. But then again maybe this is art...

I realize that this movie is fiction, but can't stop thinking about how real this movie COULD be. For all we know, this very same scenario could've played out during the holocaust. I've even thought of the events that took place at Abu Ghraib, which may not have been to the extreme as the events depicted in "Salo", but certainly along the same lines. I keep thinking about those things and trying to put myself into the shoes of the victims. If I was a victim of something this heinous and horrific and they told me that they were going to make a movie about the things that I was forced to endure, I certainly would want them to tell it like it was. I wouldn't want them to "rose it up" for the sake of the emotions of the people who might see this film. I don't think that that's what Pasolini was thinking when he made this film and really I think a lot of the things in the film are symbolic, such as the eating of shit symbolizing the bullshit that they were fed by the fascist government. If the film is mostly symbolic, then I guess that puts my theory to bed and then I'll say that in making his point, Mr. Pasolini went too far and certainly there were more tame ways to get the same point across.

I also keep thinking about how graphic the film was and how terrible and telling myself that, "Hey life isn't always a bed of roses and there are graphic and terrible things happening in real life everyday". And while that is true, I, once again, think that there are more tame ways to get that point across. Look at "The Pianist" for example, a film that made it very clear how horrible the Nazi's were, yet "The Pianist" didn't contain human beings being literally treated like dogs, being forced to eat out of bowls on the floor and tied to leashes.

I don't have a problem with controversial, original film making, but did this movie go too far or was the graphic content that was depicted just a slice of life that, while we may not want to, have to swallow and realize that it happens? There are cruel and evil people that exist in the world and while we may not want to admit it, they're out there. I consider this a horror movie, as I believe Pasolini did a great job of creating an atmosphere that was almost claustrophobic and inside the walls of the palace some of the most horrific things were being played out. In fact, this was the worst type of horror film, as it depicted events that could, in reality, actually happen.

I DO NOT recommend this movie and I only watched it because it was in the pages of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", when actually it should be in the "1001 Movies To Avoid at All Costs During Your Lifetime". While I don't recommend it and don't necessarily like it, I'll give it some credit. Pasolini didn't hold back and made the film that he wanted to make. I'm sure there were people in his ear during the entire production saying things like "You can't film that!" or "There is no way we can do that!", but he went for it, and I admire that. The film creates a terribly scary atmosphere that you do not want to revisit, but that you won't be able to stop revisiting in your own mind, once you've seen it and it takes a special type of film to really make you think about things and it's a special type of film when you CANNOT stop thinking about it, no matter how hard you try.

I hope some of that made sense guys. I know it was a lot of babbling. By the way, for anyone who likes this film or finds it artistic or great, please post your comments, I'm very interested.

RATING: 5/10 I'm giving it a '5' simply because I can't decide what to give it. I could easily give it a '1' and wouldn't condemn anyone who does so. But there was something there that intrigued me and really made me think about the state of things...in the past and in the present.

MOVIES WATCHED: 165
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 836

October 17, 2010 10:58pm