After all there's been more adaptations of the biblical stories than just about anything else. Even Shakespeare is dwindled at this point.
Well let's look at the film for what it is and how well it adopts the story (and possibly even improves on it.). On the one hand it cuts a lot of the fluff out from the actual book and the apostles come off a slightly more educated.
One of the problems with the apostles in the Book of Matthew is their perceived stupidity. They asked questions of Christ several times over, even though they should know the answers and constantly question his miracles even when he's done them more than once.
On two separate occasions he'll multiply bread and the apostles are bewildered each time.
Now the real life reason for why this was happening is simple. It's clear that the Church fathers or other scribes who had been writing the Book of Matthew* (alongside the other Gospels) all heard variants of the same story. Instead of choosing one predominant version, they decided to stick each one in.
It could be that they did this out of a sign of respect, not wanting to abandon anyone's particular style of work and as much as I admire the modesty of the original writers**, it does make for a slightly confusing story.
The editing can be a bit problematic too. Particularly if you're not aware of how the original gospel is structured.
Oh God forbid you don't actually know the story. The time lines can seem a bit confused. One minute Jesus is a small child living in Exile out of Egypt with his parents the next minute he's walking up to John the Baptist in a river as an adult where it's clear that some 15 to 20 years of past. But the film makes no indication of this.
It's a bit strange that the editing should cut so quickly from one scene to another when other scenes can linger for a good couple of minutes with nothing but simple facial expression to determine how the mood is going. Or a simple music ballad over and Atmospheric shot of the Holy Land. A few minutes of exposition on the Ageing of Christ might have helped this film to feel a little bit more cohesive. At least in the beginning anyways, as time goes on and we start to focus on very particular years this problem becomes less and less apparent.
One of the strongest aspects of the film is the acting.
The Voice work and general movement are both minimal yet powerful. There's a lot of emphasis on facial expression. And it creates some wonderfully beautiful and intense scenes.
Combined all that with the Italian language used to its greatest extent and you have a film comprised of very subtle emotion.
Now it is true that there might be a biased on my part. I've always had a soft spot for Roman Catholicism and this film is certainly has its influence. The Book of Matthew in particular is the favourite amongst most Christian Catholics of the world. It speaks of Jesus and a very sensual and uplifting light, it's less harsh on the Jews compared to at least two of the other Gospels.
It simplifies and almost demotes John the Baptist a man who in other gospels is perceived as a mighty and proper character performing Miracles before Christ, born of a virgin miraculous birth and seen by some as more influential and important than Christ himself. Even in the historical realm some people foresee that John the Baptist and Christ may have been the same person or that Christ was a pupil under John in the same way as Plato under Socrates. But in the Book of Matthew he's character is shown as secondary to Christ. Claiming that he is but a mere mortal compared to the glory of The Lord the son on Earth. He even finds the act of baptising Jesus to be well beyond him and that he should not be worthy of such a task.
I can hear the Mandaeans shuddering at the thought of their Messiah being silver metaled next to Christ.
However it's also stated by Jesus himself that John the Baptist is a man above most and that he is worthy of all places in heaven and should be seen as a martyr for his treatment in prison. So in away even though it doesn't praise John the Baptist like the other books it still looks upon him as a very important man.
I do recommend the film, admittedly you may get more out of it as a Christian believer or at least one who loves the faith. But as a filmgoer it is still captivating and it is strangely fascinating to watch. Despite it slower pace and simplistic story structure you want to keep watching, to see what's going to happen next. Even though it's one of the most told stories in history and it would be almost impossible to spoil anything that happens in this story. You are mesmerized all the same.
*Now I know some people out there might take issue with me claiming that the Book of Matthew was written by a group of men as opposed to Matthew himself. And as much as I don't wish to disrespect anyone's particular belief I do have say that we have pretty solid evidence for the gospels being written by several people. Besides the multitude of stories we also have accounts in the gospel that couldn't have possibly been known to Matthew himself. It could have been possible that there was a man named Matthew who travelled with Jesus and picked up some of his knowledge but it's still unlikely that he himself would have ever written any of it down. Especially given that the first accounts even by the biblical writings is supposed to have been anywhere from 20 to 50 years after the fact. And some of the account still go later. and that's the same nothing of the more realistic accounts written by The Scribe some 200 to 400 years after the entire event.
then there's the entire idea that there may have never been a Matthew at all. But that idea belongs in a different discussion.
**There's also the idea that originally there was only one story and as the books were translated thou-out the ages other stories have been added to it. Probable all of this would have happened before The ecumenical councils that canonised the Bible and made what we see today the main staple of literature within the original Christian denominations.
Comments
Post a Comment