I've just finished watching this film... in four sittings. It was hard to watch. The camera work made me dizzy and the actors stare at you, a lot! I don't really like to surrender a few hours of my focussed attention to a film in one go anyway unless it is humourous and has Colin Firth in it.
Being ignorant (this is not a film review or teaching, but a diaristic comment), I watched the film with the entirely wrong preconception that the director was a catholic monk! I saw the name 'Pier' and wrongly interpreted this as Italian for 'Father' (actually 'Padre' in Italian)... doh! On this wrong understanding, I formed some general 'first watch' criticisms of the film (made in 1964 before I was born) from a bible following point of view.
Of the New Testament gospel accounts I find Matthew, (also the longest to read) the most difficult and challenging, in a good way. It has caused me to have to follow up its teaching with action. Usually the favourite choice of study by Christian friends I look up to in their maturity.
1. Mixed up empathy! Pasolini seemed to want me to form empathy with the baddies and dislike the goodies. Jesus didn't come across very personable at all, and stared at me with terrible communication skills most of the time. It seemed unbelievable when the children started following him and waving palm branches, but more noteworthy because it seemed so unnatural... creating an unhelpful feel of 'mystery'. Herodias' daughter however (who later requests and is granted John the Baptists murder) seemed positively lovable when I was introduced to her as a more believable child playing innocently with a stone, dressed in white. And her mother also looked like an iconic saint. I even found Satan to be quite a likable and friendly tempter, not an entirely unhelpful comsideration.
2. Baptism or christening? My biblical understanding of the baptism Jesus taught about in John 3:5, and would have recieved himself, would have been one where the whole body is immersed in water, symbolising death to an old self, going under the water and new life as you rise up out of it. Matthew 3:16 'he went up out of the water' Acts 8 :39 'When they came up out of the water'.
If Pasolini had been a Roman Catholic or a Christian of an other denomination following some watered down (haha) tradition of baptism I'd have a reason why his portrayal of baptism is a little touch of water, as in traditional, still practiced, arguably non-biblical Christenings on the head. Also there is a small child portrayed as recieving this 'baptism' at an age where the boy would probably not be ready to choose to receive it. Maybe Pasoloni didn't want to annoy his Roman Catholic critics too much. I clearly need more research as to why this was, but is it even worth the time?
3. I did understand some a part of scripture I think more clearly as a result of watching the film... about the parable of the Tenants Matthew 21:33-46. Seeing actors recreate the scene of Jesus being direct with the Pharisees in this Parable really makes clear what Jesus was saying to them about their extreme mishandling of God given responsibility.
4. Too much staring and 'Icon' like imagery creating a false sense of mystery.
5. I did enjoy the earthiness of some of the camera work, where it seems Paolini tries to give us the viewpoint of a person in the crowd (when Jesus is questioned about whether he is claims to be the son of God).
In conclusion, I like the film more somehow now that I know it is directed by an atheist, perhaps handling scripture in such a way to try to honestly find some truth behind it in the film-making process. Except that the baptism scene and staring disproves this being achieved by the director fully.
Overall I feel the film does more harm than good to the viewer, if only because of the persistant eerie staring of a not very human Jesus. I wont watch it again or reccomend it be viewed in one sitting, but might revisit the clip about the parable of the tenants.
Being ignorant (this is not a film review or teaching, but a diaristic comment), I watched the film with the entirely wrong preconception that the director was a catholic monk! I saw the name 'Pier' and wrongly interpreted this as Italian for 'Father' (actually 'Padre' in Italian)... doh! On this wrong understanding, I formed some general 'first watch' criticisms of the film (made in 1964 before I was born) from a bible following point of view.
Of the New Testament gospel accounts I find Matthew, (also the longest to read) the most difficult and challenging, in a good way. It has caused me to have to follow up its teaching with action. Usually the favourite choice of study by Christian friends I look up to in their maturity.
1. Mixed up empathy! Pasolini seemed to want me to form empathy with the baddies and dislike the goodies. Jesus didn't come across very personable at all, and stared at me with terrible communication skills most of the time. It seemed unbelievable when the children started following him and waving palm branches, but more noteworthy because it seemed so unnatural... creating an unhelpful feel of 'mystery'. Herodias' daughter however (who later requests and is granted John the Baptists murder) seemed positively lovable when I was introduced to her as a more believable child playing innocently with a stone, dressed in white. And her mother also looked like an iconic saint. I even found Satan to be quite a likable and friendly tempter, not an entirely unhelpful comsideration.
2. Baptism or christening? My biblical understanding of the baptism Jesus taught about in John 3:5, and would have recieved himself, would have been one where the whole body is immersed in water, symbolising death to an old self, going under the water and new life as you rise up out of it. Matthew 3:16 'he went up out of the water' Acts 8 :39 'When they came up out of the water'.
If Pasolini had been a Roman Catholic or a Christian of an other denomination following some watered down (haha) tradition of baptism I'd have a reason why his portrayal of baptism is a little touch of water, as in traditional, still practiced, arguably non-biblical Christenings on the head. Also there is a small child portrayed as recieving this 'baptism' at an age where the boy would probably not be ready to choose to receive it. Maybe Pasoloni didn't want to annoy his Roman Catholic critics too much. I clearly need more research as to why this was, but is it even worth the time?
3. I did understand some a part of scripture I think more clearly as a result of watching the film... about the parable of the Tenants Matthew 21:33-46. Seeing actors recreate the scene of Jesus being direct with the Pharisees in this Parable really makes clear what Jesus was saying to them about their extreme mishandling of God given responsibility.
4. Too much staring and 'Icon' like imagery creating a false sense of mystery.
5. I did enjoy the earthiness of some of the camera work, where it seems Paolini tries to give us the viewpoint of a person in the crowd (when Jesus is questioned about whether he is claims to be the son of God).
In conclusion, I like the film more somehow now that I know it is directed by an atheist, perhaps handling scripture in such a way to try to honestly find some truth behind it in the film-making process. Except that the baptism scene and staring disproves this being achieved by the director fully.
Overall I feel the film does more harm than good to the viewer, if only because of the persistant eerie staring of a not very human Jesus. I wont watch it again or reccomend it be viewed in one sitting, but might revisit the clip about the parable of the tenants.
No comments:
Post a Comment