Sign In
Register
Help
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?
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Pasolini)
MultiQuote
#2
Posted 14 March 2004 - 03:06 PM
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?
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?
#3
Posted 14 March 2004 - 04:24 PM
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 is hard to find. It is one of the few important films that isn't in the LA County Library system.
#4
Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:11 PM
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.
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.
#5
Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:14 PM
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 ...
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 post has been edited by Peter T Chattaway: 27 May 2004 - 09:00 AM
#6
Posted 22 March 2004 - 01:48 PM
This is on sale in (Region 2 format) from Benson's world
http://www.bensons-w...00000072604.asp
who I use fairly regularly, although the exchange rate is not in your favour at the moment.
Matt
http://www.bensons-w...00000072604.asp
who I use fairly regularly, although the exchange rate is not in your favour at the moment.
Matt
#7
Posted 22 March 2004 - 04:07 PM
But Matt, Benson's is currently having a World Cinema Sale, so £9.99 ain't a bad price!
#9
Posted 23 March 2004 - 11:41 AM
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".)
#10
Posted 23 March 2004 - 02:25 PM
#12
Posted 23 March 2004 - 02:38 PM
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.
: 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.
#13
Posted 24 March 2004 - 03:53 AM
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
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
#14
Posted 24 March 2004 - 04:21 AM
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
Quite a long article that I've not had the chance to read yet, but looks like it might be interesting.
Matt
#15
Posted 24 March 2004 - 03:24 PM
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.
: 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.
#16
Posted 24 March 2004 - 04:46 PM
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
In fact here's a web page all about him - with pictures!
Matt
#17
Posted 24 March 2004 - 05:28 PM
MattPage wrote:
: In fact here's a web page all about him - with pictures!
Wow, fascinating stuff -- thanks for the link!
: In fact here's a web page all about him - with pictures!
Wow, fascinating stuff -- thanks for the link!
#19
Posted 27 March 2004 - 02:53 PM
| 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."
#20
Posted 27 March 2004 - 08:46 PM
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.That's from pages 77-78 and 82-82 of Faber & Faber's Pasolini on Pasolini.
[ 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.
