Marxist?

No, this film is not marxist (except as, as yu say, the gospels are to be considered marxists)

PP Pasolini was a controversial character, and critics mixed his work with his definitely left politic opinions. But he is here faithful to the gospel text, and his scenery seems more oriented on mysticism than on politics.

Though Mattew is traditionnaly depicted as the poorest of Jesus followers. This choice of text is not plain neutral.

This movie was a source for many controversies that may seem hard to get today, but Pasolini decided to shot it with italian peasants and workers, and no professionnal actors. This was interpreted by the church officials as a kind of insult to the christ (it seems that bishops then prefered and hollywood/blonde beard version of Jesus).

Pasolini wanted spontaneity to the play, thought these people would be much closer to the actual characters of the gospels, who are mostly peasants or crafters. And avoid identification of the Christ and others with famous actors and other movies.

Another polemic was raised by the appearance of Jesus as a child playing with brothers and sisters, which is and was at the time a controversial point, linked with the virginity of Mary, but one of the gospels talks about brothers & sisters for Jesus.

These and some other polemics was raised by people who despise art, movies, and probably never saw it, but are keen to engage on sterile polemics and on political rigteousness.

Pasolini himself was a controversial character and was brutally murdered in the Italy of the late seventies/early eighties by far right activists. I find it dommageable that their point of view that the movie is marxist is taken as a fact, even on a neutral comment such as Imbd's.

This movie is to me not only one of the greatest movie ever made, but as one of the greatest work of art ever made. Pasolini, whoever he was and his politcal opinions were, was a genius in the true meaning of the word.

I wonder if the ones who said this film is marxist would have said the same thing without knowing who Pasolini was. I mean that if they had read or known he was (for example) a fervent christian, they would have probably said this film shows the real essence of the christian message.
Try to watch this beautiful film without preconceived ideas and enjoy!

Pasolini was a Marxist, one of Marx's ideas being that only human action enters into the equation of history, that there is no God that influences events. It is possible to think of that when watching the movie, considering that Pasolini keeps things unglorified and it focuses more on the specific actions that took place rather than any divine rule.

I don't know the man (and wiki may not always be accurate) but the Wiki page on the director says he was a political leftist, and an atheist with homosexual tendencies (not really explained in detail). The poor man was also murdered for unknown reasons.

He was a very challenging filmmaker. One quote from him via the same page:

"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." (1966)

The same page says the Catholic Church supported his creation of the Gospel According to St. Matthew which he intended to be made from the point of view of a believer, but saw also his own ideas coming out in the film.

I just watched it the other day and greatly enjoyed it. You can tell it's very low budget, but I can see how it gained its reputation. This is another view of Jesus to go with the pantheon (pardon the term) of excellent Christ movies out there. Not the best, but one of the best. His Jesus is not a demystified Jesus, but a charismatic leader who does miracles and rises from the dead. He has real power. Surely the marxist in the director sees parts of Jesus he identifies with, like the power he asserts in uplifting the poor and suffering, and challenging those in authority. Angels and the Devil appear (though they are not identified as such) with the Devil appear as a tall man in a black coat, and the angel as a young woman in white. The voice of God speaks from heaven to a crowd, and Joseph is spoken to in dreams. He doesn't attempt to whitewash Jesus' message, all of the text appearing to come from the King James Bible (which I think is a bit harder to read for modern ears, but has a certain character all its own in this movie, I wonder what it sounds like to an Italian speaker?).

Marxist thought is definately atheist, although some have tried to take Marxism and meld it with Christianity (hence where you start to get Liberation Theology, though some would object to the notion that it is Marxist, and would point out instead to the similarities of the two philosophies in certain aspects, but which are coincidental). Some read socialism in the New Testament (such as some communities sharing everything in common, denouncing wealth and riches and the evil social order, etc). For whatever reason, he created this movie and I think it can give a profound vision of Jesus, definately worth a viewing.

[deleted]

Very upset by the mention of the word "Marxist"? Why? Of course it's important if Pasolini was Marxist if we are to interpret the film and any messages it might have beyond Matthew's literal account.

Mary was probably sixteen or thereabouts when she gave birth to Jesus Christ. This was a normal age for marriage and childbirth at the time. So the actress was young enough. "Only a period of about 33 years" would mean that Mary would be almost fifty at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Maybe the actress was a bit too old, but not by that much.

In the easiest, quickest sense, yes.

One only needs to really understand the Sermon on the Mount which is essentially contained wholly in The Gospel According to St. Matthew and probably why Pasolini singled that gospel out over all others (since yes, he was a Marxist in his daily life). Read that, and then a quick understanding of Marx's core beliefs and you'll see obvious similarities.

When the supernatural is stripped from the Jesus' tale (as Pasolini believed, and I feel he was correct in doing so), he could be read as a revolutionary on class terms.

I have no idea why this film is considered Marxist. Jesus's preaching mocks those whose belief is maintained and bolstered by material trappings and power. He is scathing of religious hypocrisy. For me this film showed how much Jesus threatened the religious structures and orthodoxy of the Jewish people. It is about challenging and rocking the establishment but why does this have to be labelled Marxist?

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues