Apparently this film was re-issued on DVD last summer by Water Bearer, a label I'd never heard of before, as part of a boxed set of Pasolini's films. Amazon.com is selling the individual disc for US$26.96 and the boxed set, which also includes Accatone and The Hawks and the Sparrows, for US$71.96; it seems the main reason to get the boxed set would be to get the complete documentary Pier Paolo Pasolini: A Filmmaker's Life, which is spread out over the three discs. Does anyone know how the Water Bearer disc compares to the long-out-of-print Image DVD? Or how it compares to any non-R1 editions of this film?

Ebert has The Gospel According to St. Matthew in his Great Movies column this Sunday.

Definitely makes me want to track this one down, though there seems to be a shortage of Jesus films at most of the video stores in Saskatoon.

Ebert has some interesting comments on the film (and Gibson's film as well). What do those of you who have seen the Pasolini film think of Ebert's take on it?

I first saw it as part of a class in undergraduate school in '69 or '70. The bad news, I slept through most of it. A couple years ago I got a copy from a library, and made it through, but it was hard. I think there is something about the black/white, and the hard to read subtitles that can lull one to sleep. But staying with it does give you what I think is the best Jesus movie ever.

It is hard to find. It is one of the few important films that isn't in the LA County Library system.

It's interesting that you say that, Darrell. My local library is very well stocked with foreign / hard to find / independent videos, and I was quite surprised to find that they also didn't have Pasolini's film, nor did any library in the system.

It's got a new DVD release and is available at Amazon, but for some reason it generally ships in 6 to 7 days instead of 1 or 2. I've been planning for a couple of weeks to review it for my Holy Week or Easter Week video picks, but didn't act soon enough to get it in time.

I happened to drop a note to Doug Cummings asking him if he had any bright ideas... and he very generously offered to GIVE me his letterboxed VHS version of the film (which his Region 2 DVD makes obsolete).

Thanks Doug!

Be looking for my review within a few weeks.

Haven't got time to read Ebert's article yet, but will eventually. For now, all I'll say is that Pasolini is perhaps the only director who has ever captured the true nature of the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded, in a fitting cinematic format.

SDG wrote:
: I happened to drop a note to Doug Cummings asking him if he had any
: bright ideas... and he very generously offered to GIVE me his letterboxed
: VHS version of the film (which his Region 2 DVD makes obsolete).

Ah yes, must get into the habit of checking out my Region 2 options more often, now that I have a player that can handle such discs ...

This is on sale in (Region 2 format) from Benson's world

http://www.bensons-world.co.uk/dvd/product...00000072604.asp

who I use fairly regularly, although the exchange rate is not in your favour at the moment.

Matt

But Matt, Benson's is currently having a World Cinema Sale, so £9.99 ain't a bad price!

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that (here)

Matt

Doug C, is this the same Region 2 disc that you have? How is it, picture quality wise etc.? The reviews of the Region 1 disc at Amazon.com are not the most encouraging. (Hmmm, £9.99 probably translates to about CDN$25 plus shipping ... and US$25.49 probably translates to about CDN$33 plus shipping ... and Amazon.ca charges $35.58 plus shipping, or would, if the disc were not listed as "out of stock".)

It is the same and it's beautiful.

http://207.136.67.23/film/dvdcompare/gospelcompare.htm

[quote="Peter T Chattaway"] For now, all I'll say is that Pasolini is perhaps the only director who has ever captured the true nature of the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded, in a fitting cinematic format.



Does this include the Life of Bryan version?

DanBuck wrote:
: Does this include the Life of Bryan version?

Ha! Yes -- though Life of Brian does expose one reason why the other movies' versions of the Sermon on the Mount are very, very implausible.

My point is that, on a textual level, the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5-7, and even the Sermon on the Plain in Luke's gospel, most likely do not record actual SERMONS -- Jesus didn't just stand there for a few hours rattling off a bunch of short stories and one-liners and hoping everyone would remember them. Instead, the sermon is a narrative device that allows the writer to gather Jesus' sayings together -- and Pasolini intuitively picks up on this, by shooting each of the sayings separately and editing them together in a montage.

I dunno, Son of Man (Ok not technically a film) does a good job as well. IMHO. This maybe partly cos they had fewer actors available (due to financial and space restrictions - no to mention it being a play), and also cos its so well written, and not the extended monologue, but also cos its not set up as some set piece. It is closer to classic sermon style, but I don't have a problem with that. I agree that Jesus may not have climbed a mountain and done a long preach, but I guess my take is that Jesus probably made the same statements a number of times, in different places (still not seen a Jesus film do THAT - oh except doesn't this happen in the Messiah?), as all good preacher's do. I mean on a human level if you've just penned the best sermon ever (the sermon on the mount) then you're bound to re-use it), and probably add new bits, edit other bits out etc.

So whilst the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5-7 presents a systematic catalogue of Jesus' best teaching moments, I think it very plausible that those were born out of a number more normal talks like we see in Son of Man, and then cobbled together later on by Mr.Q / Matthew (depending on your theory of preference).

Actually other films do kind of capture this as well by dispersing the Sermon on the Mount throughout the film IIRC.

Matt

Translation as De-canonization: Matthew's Gospel According to Pasolini.(filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini)(Critical Essay)

Quite a long article that I've not had the chance to read yet, but looks like it might be interesting.

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: I guess my take is that Jesus probably made the same statements a
: number of times, in different places . . . as all good preacher's do. I
: mean on a human level if you've just penned the best sermon ever (the
: sermon on the mount) then you're bound to re-use it . . .

Oh, absolutely. I have made this point more than once, myself (especially after hearing Marcus Borg make the point more than once ).

Oh, BTW, I think the London Times recently profiled the actor who played Jesus in this film, but you have to subscribe to read anything on their web site.

Yeah I think I read it, or something about it. Apparently he's now a world chess star or something?

In fact here's a web page all about him - with pictures!

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: In fact here's a web page all about him - with pictures!

Wow, fascinating stuff -- thanks for the link!

No probs - I'd been meaning to check this out anyway ever since I heard about the chess thing the other day.

Matt

QUOTE

Translation as De-canonization: Matthew's Gospel According to Pasolini.(filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini)(Critical Essay) Quite a long article that I've not had the chance to read yet, but looks like it might be interesting.

I gleaned some useful factual information from this article, but the author's basic angle about "de-canonization" seems quite misguided to me. A significant part of her argument revolves around the idea that "Pasolini's Matthew de-sanctifies the biblical Matthew," when Pasolini himself, speaking perhaps as a Marxist-atheist second and a poet first, deplored the trend of "deconsecrating": "That is a fashion I hate. I want to 'reconsecrate' as much as possible."

Just wondering, SDG, did you happen to get that quote from me? I know it's a quote I've brought up elsewhere, possibly on the mother board:

It's not a practising Catholic work, it seems to me an unpleasant and terrible work, at certain points outright ambiguous and disconcerting, particularly the figure of Christ. It's only externally that the film has characteristic features of a Catholic work. But internally nothing I've ever done has been more fitted to me myself than The Gospel for the reasons I talked about before -- my tendency always to see something sacred and mythic and epic in everything, even the most humdrum, simple and banal objects and events. So in this sense The Gospel was just right for me, even though I don't believe in the divinity of Christ, because my vision of the world is religious -- it's a mutilated religion because it hasn't got any of the external characteristics of religion, but it is a religious vision of the world, so making The Gospel was to reach the maximum of the mythic and the epic. Besides, the whole film is full of my own personal motifs -- e.g. all the minor characters from the agricultural and pastoral proletariat of Southern Italy are mine completely, and I only realized this when I saw it again now; and I also realized that the Christ figure is all mine, because of the terrible ambiguity there is in him.

[ snip ]

Besides, along with this method of reconstruction by analogy, there is the idea of the myth and of epicness which I have talked about so much: so when I told the story of Christ I didn't reconstruct Christ as he really was. If I had reconstructed the history of Christ as he really was I would not have produced a religious film because I am not a believer. I don't believe Christ is the son of God. I would have produced a positivist or marxist reconstruction at the most, and thus at best a life which could have been the life of any one of the five or six thousand saints there were preaching at that time in Palestine. But I did not want to do this, because I am not interested in de-consecrating: this is a fashion I hate, it is petit bourgeois. I want to re-consecrate things as much as possible, I want to re-mythicize them. I did not want to reconstruct the life of Christ as it really was, I wanted to do the story of Christ plus two thousands years of Christian translation, because it is the two thousand years of Christian history which have mythicized this biography, which would otherwise be an almost insignificant biography as such. My film is the life of Christ plus two thousand years of story-telling about the life of Christ. That was my intention.

That's from pages 77-78 and 82-82 of Faber & Faber's Pasolini on Pasolini.

Hi. I saw this Saturday -- on film, no less. Someone please explain what is so awesome about it, particularly after Jesus comes of age. Also, someone tell me if there is some meaning in The Crucificition being virtually bloodless.

PTC:

: For now, all I'll say is that Pasolini is perhaps the
: only director who has ever captured the true nature
: of the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded, in a fitting
: cinematic format.

Yes. But also it was kinda boring.

Dale

It's awesome because it's, like, so Marxist, dude.

At least that's what a lot of critics think.

I do happen to think it's an awesome film, mainly as an antidote to the wretched Hollywood "Bible" productions that preceded it. Yeah, on subsequent viewings it is boring in stretches, but the first time I watched it, I was transfixed.

Here is my best shot at answering your question, as well as discussing some of the less awesome or curious aspects of the film.
That is one of the curious aspects -- it almost plays as a depiction of a passion play rather than a depiction of the passion -- about as persuasive as the passion play at the end of Perceval.

Compare to the complete innocence of Herodias's daughter Salome (playing jacks!) and her dance for Herod -- hard to imagine that performance eliciting a promise for anything up to half the kingdom.

The only thing I can think at the moment is that perhaps Pasolini wanted to avoid absolutely anything like a spectacle? Somebody with more insight please say why this might be the case. Or offer a better theory.
Yes. But one of the things I've gained over the last few years is a very high threshold for boring. I even kind of like it sometimes; I don't know if I'd go as far as all that, but it's certainly a provocative POV.

What's the quote from Kiarostami? Oh yes. The more I think about this, the more true I realize it is:

[indent]"I prefer films that don’t hold you hostage. You can see a film that almost makes you fall asleep and it can affect you days after… and see a film that excites you, leaving you riveted in your chair… and you forget it as soon as you leave the theater. I want to be a filmmaker that causes people to think about my cinema after they have seen it."[/indent]

Well I suppose I should step up to the plate (look at me with my American sports metaphors) - although I'm hoping someone else will step up with some insights about neo-realism, which I still don't really get.

The things I like about this film probably falll into four main categories

1 - On a personal level I find this film Jesus amongst the most challenging. Before (and after) watching this for the first time I was basically fairly happy that Jesus wasn't like that, he was much more "relational" to quote a film. But on reading a number of articles / books (including one that later turned out to be by a certain Peter T Chattaway - which I quoted in a discussion with him before realising that it was his particular insight )I became aware of four important points
a - I have no idea what Jesus' expression was when he said the things he did in the gospel - its all my pre-assumptions
b - I had issues with Jesus saying things ina way that didn't fit with my pre-conceptions
c - Historical studies of Jesus have shown us that we tend to re-create Jesus into a better version of ourselves
d - If we take Jesus as the best revelation of God we have then given "c" above its very easy for us to make God in our own image. Which is obviously unhelpful

So I began to realise that films such as this that take scripture, and present it in a way that I'm unhappy with are actually vital to my faith and for not just portraying God as a sinless version of Matt Page. (This is different from a version of Jesus' life such as Last Temptation which isn't based on the gospels per se - although I still believe that can be useful)

So that's the personal level

2 - The soundtrack is amazing - really atmospheric whilst also containing and eccletic (oooh) mix of styles from different ages and cultures - find me another film where the sountrack is so effortlessly diverse

3 - The camera work is much more innovative than most Jesus films. The bobbing behind the crowd in places, the trying to keep up with Jesus as he marches around, the long takes which draw so much out of the "actors" faces (e.g. the annuciation scene is incredible). I've also heard that the chiascuro (such a big word I can't even spell it - but it means the interplay of light and shade doesn't it?) is also meant to be amazing on real film (and here I'm jealous of you Dale for seeing it on film). The black and white is great. The realism of having real peasant people playing these parts rather than Hollywood style perfect-teethed actors is top drawer too.

4 - For it's time, presenting such a political Jesus was very radical. Contrast to the previous Jesus film King of Kings - there Jesus is a bit political, but only really in being pro-"peace". Here Jesus is confrontational of authority, and yes pro the ordinary people as Jesus was

5 - The whole Neo-realism thing, which other than the few aspects I've pulled out above I still don't unerstand

Ok tht's five - but I rate it anyhow. Its defintely one that improves on further viewings. For example this Jesus despite being famously angry actually smiles more than any other pre-Visual Bible:Matthew Jesus (Someone get THAT guy a tradgedy)


: Also, someone tell me if there is some meaning in The Crucificition being virtually bloodless

Well again in the context of trhe films around it - none of them were very like The Passion. In 1961's King of Kings the crucifixion was so sanitised that they even shaved Jeffrey Hunter's armpits! That said whereas most of the other films of the time showed Jesus to be serenly having nails put through his hands Irazoqui's screams at this point were radical (in the proper sense of the word) and in some ways more powerful (IMO) than the exccessive gore of "The Passion" (in some ways). From a historical point of view although the flogging may have been as graphic as Gibson's, even his film (albeit perhaps unwittingly) suggests that it could also have been less graphic (in at least 2 ways).

Hope that helps - and anyone with any greater insight into neo-realism would be most welcome!

Matt

PS - Here's another good review from Derek Malcolm in the Guardian

I like this film a lot, but agree it is a little boring in places. Things I like about it are as follows:

The soundtrack is really well done, as already mentioned - especially Odetta's 'Sometimes I feel like a motherless child' which is the spooky mournful bluesy choral thing that keeps appearing.

I actually found the crucifixion scene was so different that it affected me. There's a shot where Jesus' arm falls down limp as they take him off the cross, which got across the simple fact of death pretty well, I thought.

All the people have interesting faces.

Jesus is very difficult to work out in this film, which at the moment I am increasingly finding to be the case in reading the gospels. I like the fact that Pasolini read through Matthew one day and then decided to make the film - and to be fair on him, you could quite easily see Jesus as he does from one reading. Like Matt says, we have no idea how Jesus said anything, so I like seeing a completely different interpretation of the same words.

The opening scene with Mary and Joseph is really really really good.

On June 19, we Vancouverites are in for a treat.

I have seen Seeking Locations in Palestine for The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964). Why, oh why, has this never been included with The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) itself as a DVD bonus feature?

BTW, does anybody know how the BCI Eclipse DVD, released last October, compares to the much pricier Water Bearer DVD mentioned at the beginning of this thread?

Hmmm, some interesting Matthew references in Pasolini's follow-up film, Hawks and Sparrows (1966).

Hmmm, just wondering what the accepted length of this film is?

Amazon.com says this new DVD is 135 minutes, but this earlier DVD is 142 minutes -- and I just picked up an el-cheapo DVD that has a 127-minute version of this film. FWIW, the Pacific Cinematheque write-up linked above says it's 135 minutes, which is in the same basic ballpark as the IMDB listing for this film.

Incidentally, while the el-cheapo disc is certainly NOT of very high quality, I am definitely holding onto it until a truly decent version of this film comes out on DVD -- especially if it is ever re-issued with that documentary on Pasolini's search for locations in Palestine.

(This next bit is mostly for MattPage, but if anyone else shares our sickly obsession with Bible movies, feel free to read it too!)

The el-cheapo disc is actually a three-disc set that has about 15 hours of old (I certainly won't say "classic"!) religious films, and even after taxes, it still cost me less than a buck an hour. Interestingly enough, the only one I already had on DVD was Martin Luther (1953). The others, arranged chronologically, are:

The Great Commandment (1939; 80 min.; John Beal, etc.)
Hill Number One (1951; 57 min.; James Dean, Roddy McDowall, Fr. Patrick Peyton, etc.)
I Beheld His Glory (1953; 53 min.; George Macready, Fr. Patrick Peyton, etc.)
Joseph and His Brethren (1960; 101 min.; Geoffrey Horne, Finlay Currie, Belinda Lee, etc.)
David and Goliath (1960; 92 min.; Orson Welles, Ivo Payer, etc.)
Esther and the King (1960; 109 min.; Joan Collins, Richard Egan, etc.)
The Power of the Resurrection (1962; 58 min.; Richard Kiley, etc.)
Saul and David (1964; 112 min.; Norman Wooland, Gianni Garko, etc.)

Wow thanks for the heads up Peter. One of them is coming my way!

FWIW I have two of them already (3 if you count Pasolini). The others are I Beheld his Glory (which I was sure I'd posted comments on when I got it earlier in the year, although it is fairly uninteresting despite being the first american film about Jesus in 25 years since The King of Kings, and the first in full colour and sound (although it only did the church rounds it didn't do as well as the follow up Day of Triumph which broke into cinemas as well it was so popular), and David and Goliath which is discussed here.

But I've wanted to see Esther and the King and Luther for a while, so I tjhink I'll go for this. The others I had been aware of on ebay, but were selling individually.

And of course the Power of the Resurrection stars Richard Kiley who went on to play Matthew in the Visual bible's Matthew. ANd it will be nice to have Pasolini's one on some form of DVD - is it widescreen?

Matt

I tried watching this last night. I say tried because I kept falling asleep. I couldn't help it! I was finding it interesting but my eyes just kept getting soooo heavy and I gave up right when he does the montage of Jesus speeches. The only other time I've been so completely unable to stay awake was in L'avventura, which might say something about me and Italian films of this era.

I loved that everyone in it was obviously Italian, even before a word came out of their mouths. Joseph, particularly. I'll have to watch it again before I comment further but I did stay awake long enough to be intrigued by his fascination with medium close ups on people's faces.

It takes a few viewings to really get it, or at least it took me a while to move from curious ambivalence to "wow I love the way he does that bit". Push on through it's worth it.

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: Wow thanks for the heads up Peter. One of them is coming my way!

Yer welcome!

Last night I checked Kinnard & Davis to see whether any of these films were mentioned in there, and if so how prominently. Turns out they had separate entries - with photos! -- for both The Great Commandment (which they date to 1942, not 1939, because that is when 20th Century Fox re-issued it) and I Beheld His Glory, neither of which I have ever seen.

: FWIW I have two of them already (3 if you count Pasolini).

FWIW, I realized after posting my earlier post that I actually have two, not one -- in addition to Martin Luther, I also have The Power of the Resurrection, on a DVD that combines it with the Pathe film The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-05). The reason I'd forgotten I had this disc is that I don't believe I have watched it yet; I got it as a review copy, and since I already had the Pathe film on another disc with From the Manger to the Cross (1912), it wasn't a high priority for me. Ordinarily, I'd say I could toss that disc now, except it has a completely different music track for the Pathe film, so I wouldn't mind holding on to this alternate version of it.

: And of course the Power of the Resurrection stars Richard Kiley who went on to
: play Matthew in the Visual bible's Matthew.

I still think of him first and foremost as Claudius in A.D. Anno Domini (1985).

: ANd it will be nice to have Pasolini's one on some form of DVD - is it widescreen?

I don't believe so. And it's the dubbed version, not the subtitled version -- which is just as well, since the only subtitled versions I have seen on video used a bright white lettering, WITHOUT borders, that all-too-easily faded into the background sometimes.

So ... got any ideas about the different lengths of the film?

Oh, and BTW, did you see my post about the Matthew references in Pasolini's NEXT film, Hawks and Sparrows?

gigi wrote:
: The only other time I've been so completely unable to stay awake was in
: L'avventura, which might say something about me and Italian films of this era.

Haven't seen that one, but as I think I note at my blog, what surprised me on seeing this film between a number of OTHER Pasolini films for the first time was how DIFFERENT it was from Pasolini's earlier films; compared to other Jesus films, this film seems more "neorealist", but compared to other Pasolini films, this film marks the thin edge of the wedge between Pasolini's earlier "neorealist" films and his later, more stagey, more fantastical adaptations of classic myth, fable and legend.

And I say this as one who only stuck with the retrospective as far as his adaptation of Oedipus Rex; no doubt things would have gotten even crazier if I'd hung around for Decameron, Canterbury Tales or Arabian Nights.

Ah, I knew off the bat that most of them were mentioned in Campbell and Pitts. On the I beheld his glory disc most of these films are advertised as well so I looked them up, and most are in there. But hadn't checked Kinnard / David



THAT will be interesting too. I can't imagine how the film would work without that voice. Is it an American voice for Jesus?


: So ... got any ideas about the different lengths of the film?
Uh, no. Having just moved my VHS copy of the film and the aforementioned text books are all at the bottom of boxes . Could take me a while.


: Oh, and BTW, did you see my post about the Matthew references in
: Pasolini's NEXT film, Hawks and Sparrows?

I'd skimmed it, but as it turned out - fairly badly. I've now read it proper. Sounds like an interesting film FWIW - strange he used the same girl. Do you think he is deliberately subverting his previous film, or does he just think she is particularly angelic? HAs anyone else been typecast as an Angel before?

FWIW your comments on the locations documentary was quoted on Mark Goodacre's NT Gateway blog.

Matt

And now a Palestinian video artist has produced a follow-up to Pasolini's documentary...

I blog La ricotta (1963), the Pasolini short film in which Orson Welles plays a director who makes a movie about the crucifixion.

I watched this film via Netflix. I loved the simple desert scenes. And those of the disciples. And the real looking people in the throng.

But I got the hideous dubbed version. Jesus' voice was harsh and he rattled off the Sermon on the Mount in catalog fasion.

I would have loved to have heard the softer Italian voice of Jesus.

Which version did you all see/hear?

Sara

Sara wrote:
: Which version did you all see/hear?

I've got the dubbed version on DVD, and I saw the subtitled version (which I taped off of TV years ago) on the big screen.

I'd love to tape it from TV with subtitles. Everyone is so gung ho about DVDs, but sometimes taping gives us something we want - not clarity, but things like subtitles.

Sara

Hi Sara,

I bought the video ages ago that was the subtitled version - and it is a wonder to behold. I recently happened to get the dubbed version on a disc with a load of other things I wanted (linked to above I believe), and put it on. It is horrendous. I think it's made worse becuase it's a very American accent for Jesus, and being british it just doesn't work (it does in say Last Temptation, or Jesus (1999) perhaps it's the accent + it being dubbed), either way once I'd had a bit of a laugh I had to turn it off before it spoilt the original for me. I will return to look at it for the bits where Jesus doesn't speak, but when the Subtitled version is available from Amazon I'm amazed that people still put up with a dubbed version. (If you have it on taped video that's a different story I suppose)

Matt

Link to a post on The Living Bible film(s)

Matt

He shot 12 films for Pasolini, according to the IMDB, and The Gospel and La ricotta were both among them ...

- - -

Italian Cinematographer Delli Colli Dies
Tonino Delli Colli, for half a century the eye behind the camera for some of Italy's best-known movies, has died at age 83, his niece said Thursday.
The renowned cinematographer was found dead in his Rome apartment Wednesday morning, Laura Delli Colli said. He had been suffering of heart problems, she said.
Delli Colli was a driving force in the birth and evolution of neo-realist cinema during the mid-1940s and 1950s. He went on to shoot over 130 movies, including such classic films as "The Name of the Rose" "Once Upon a Time in America" and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". . . .
In a career spanning six decades he worked alongside directors Sergio Leone, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Federico Fellini, retiring in 1997 after directing the photography for Roberto Benigni's Oscar-winning "Life is Beautiful."
Associated Press, August 18

Funny, I'm about 2/3 of the way thru' Once upon a Time in America

Matt

I've said on this forum somewhere in some thread that I really don't like Jesus movies. I've seen Mel Gibson's. Pasolini's. and a few others.

Well, at 5AM this morning I watched on TCM the 1927 The King of Kings (Cecil B. DeMille, silent, and black and white.) This Jesus was totally sanitized. A goody goody. Never resisted. And his crucifixion was bland as far as nails and pain.

But as passive and as overly sweet as this Jesus was, I COULD NOT QUIT WATCHING THE FILM. During the Resurrection scene I felt like laughing. I ended up crying.

All morning I have been wondering why I kept watching this old 1927 film. The music score was really good and appropriate, but that is not why I kept watching.

I'm still wondering.

Sara

FWIW, Sara, the thread for The King of Kings (1927) is here.

Thanks, Peter. Is there any way I can move my post over to that thread?

Sara

You could ask Alan nicely (and more to the point directly).

Glad you stuck with it, perhaps Peter and I are starting to get to you! Or perhaps it's just the subject matter that resonates with you. tKoK never really does much for me, other than by way of a historical artifact (of what 20s movies were like at their best)

Alan, if you're moving posts then you should probably move this one too.

Matt

For me, at least at first viewing, this one's a real mix of excellence and annoyance.

Got it through Netflix and ended up with that English-dubbed version... which is a nightmare. I've made it through, but not without a Herculean effort. I'll be interested to learn how much difference hearing the Italian and reading the subtitles make the experience.

It seemed to me that the actor playing Jesus spoke as if well aware he was supposed to bring this movie in under three hours. By contrast, the recent Gospel of John project shows the rewards of slowing down and letting Christ's messages proceed at a more natural pace. It looks especially strange when Christ delivers long, important statements while practically running through the garden during the arrest. If Jesus really spoke so fast, no wonder the crowds were confounded. (But even as I write this, I wonder if the lines would have sounded less rushed in the original Italian.)

I'm also a bit annoyed by the way that Jesus looks so well-groomed and attractive compared to the rough and rugged faces of everyone around him. If Pasolini was so intent on natural faces and non-actors, why cast a Jesus who looks like a model?

Having said that, I too am amazed at some of the camerawork, the scenery, the intricate faces, the diverse music. I'm especially fond of the opening scenes with Mary and Joseph. And the scene of the murder of the firstborn sons... that was horrifying to watch. I don't know that it's ever been filmed so effectively.

I like the quiet, non-verbal moments of the film best, when the pictures are left to speak for themselves.

I'm glad I saw it.

Hi Jeffrey - wow had you never seen this before?

The dubbed version makes a HUGE difference in my opinion. I had a VHS subtitled version, and about a year ago I happened to get a dubbed version of the film in with a 10 pack of other films. I put it on just to see, and had to turn it off becuase it was so awful. Imagine someone saying that the Mona Lisa was a nice painting, but to make it more accessible we should just photoshop out the background and put here against a garish yellow, and that should be the version people see - that's what the dubbed version is like artistic heresy. It doesn't help (me at least) that (as an someone used to English accents) it's dubbed by an actor with a cheesy American accent, who can't really put any emotion into his words (at least for the bit I saw)

By a point of comparison, I never really realised how much I had convinced myself that I really did like my horribly dubbed and foggily transferred version of Babbette's Feast until I was recently blown away by the non-dubbed clarified DVD version recently. If this makes this much difference to that film I'll bet it does to Pasolini's.

Hmm, I wonder how yo'd feel about this as you watch the dubbed version. Jesus's delivery is very deliberate IMO. Pasolini is trying to show him as a revolutionary. There's a hard, passionate edge (that IIRC the dubbed version loses totally), and an urgency to Jesus as he rushes around trying to spread his message.

It's interesting that you say "no wonder the crowds were confounded" because of couse they were - perhaps this is more realistic than we imagine? Actually one of the things I appreciate about this film is how it challenges my assumptions of how Jesus did do things. Most of the time the gospels are quiet on such things as how did Jesus Speak? Fast or slow? With a smile or not? We tend to fill int the gaps on these tings on little other than our own personal perception. What I like about this film is how much it exposes that in me. Other films will do it for others, but for me it is this film that shows how unbiblical much in my view of Jesus actually is.

As for the comparison with the Gospel of John, it's interesting because whilst they are both films using the words from just one gospel, they are two very different gospels. John's is far more wordy than Matthew's. It is far more about the long speeches Jesus gave. Matthew is more about what Jesus did, and shorter sayings and parables.

So yeah I'm glad you enjoyed the visuals - they are terrific, but if I were you I'd send it back to Netflix telling them it's an inferior product and asking for a subtitled version to watch instead. It's truly art-heresy IMHO.

Not written that very well, but I'm hoping Doug weighs in real soon to cofirm the subtitled vs dubbed issue.

Matt