Films with Religious or Spiritual Themes or Refs

Is "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" the Pasolini's one?

A very disturbing film. 

There's quite a few titles I haven't seen or don't remember very well. 

A couple more ...

Barrabas (with Anthony Quinn)

The Devils (Ken Russell's)

All in all, a magnificent list ... but me voting on it is gonna be tough.

Of all these, I think that "Bedazzled" (the original with PC and DM) is probably the one film that I would think is the best, despite folks not appreciating some of the incredible twisted humor, specially the last 15 minutes, which is SO TRUE TODAY. George Spigott kept his promise ... he went out and created a mess!

BTW, I remember when I first saw "Jesus of Montreal" and how stunned I was ... it is an incredible film, although I think that some "Christians" won't like the hippocrisy so wide open in the film!

"Life of Bryan" also deserves some outstanding kudos for some wonderful writing, and not just clever ... 

Stunning, I tell you

I would have thrown in "¡Viva la muerte!" ("Long Live Death!") by Fernando Arrabal and "Zardoz" by John Boorman.

"Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes" and "De vierde man" (I prefer to use the original titles of movies) are two of my all time favourite movies; normally my vote would go there. But "La montaña sagrada" needs a vote.

I once saw a triple feature of "La montaña sagrada" (the original title of "The Holy Mountain"), "¡Viva la muerte!" and "Zardoz" on acid at a local cinema. Somehow the acid merged these three movies into one super long and super weird movie.

England 1979

It is not easy to review this film, specially in light that it was co-written by one of the folks that was associated to G. I. Gurdjieff, and the immediate thought is that its content is very close to the story of the man that create the writings that made this film.

I tend to think of this film as much more than just a film, although why, is harder to explain. There is a certain feeling of clarity and understanding within this film, and its dialogue, and specially the visual side of its scenery and eventual ending, which is rather stunning and different. It is not a conventional story, but its illustration is not specific to what we imagine, but at times, what we see and what/how we discern from it.

The story is that of Gurdjieff and the part of his life that is in search for some meaning. That meaning eventually comes to be seen in the film in the form of dance, and how it affects a person is my assumption. To this end, a lot of his work, has bits and pieces that are very useful in the study of acting and even directing, which Peter Brook has taken to an extensive degree and incorporated into what might be considered the experimental theater and film work that he has done over the years. It is no surprise that later, Peter Brook did a film called "THE TIGHTROPE", that is not a story, but essentially an acting exercise which is very similar to a very important part of the story and a visual stunning moment in the film when Gurdjieff has to cross a bridge. The important part of the exercise, is the attention to it and its detail, and thus the "meaning" is created. And that it gets taken even further afar, so you can see the ending part of the film with the dancers, although seeing that, you and I, will probably wonder ... that in itself is the meaning? 

And that would say ... we missed the point and failed the tightrope/bridge?

It is the process that creates the inner peace that makes it possible to move on, and add meaning to one's life, it seems like, something so basic that we do not always consider it, and how important each and every moment really is, that we take for granted. But do we know how to live with that kind of depth and detail? I don't know and the film is not telling you, and I tend to feel that the books themselves by Gurdjieff, do not exactly tell you, because it is such an individual experience all along for all of us. 

The film has very nice moments and details that are probably very close to the life of the man himself, and it also features some other bits that are unusual ... like casting Terence Stamp who has been known to quit acting in order to undertake meditation and a path of the inner side. 

It is a very spiritual film, but it does not hammer anything at you. It just shows some moments in one's life and how things progress and moves along, and in the end, it allows you to make your own call and understanding, which is the hard part that makes the film be a bit of an oddity for you ... you have to figure it out for yourself!

Beautiful film, and probably one of the most spiritual film ever made, but a film that does not push its vision and try to print it on your head. The ending is as much as a far out bit as it is a release, though dance/dancing is not shown in the earlier parts as being that important until the ending sequence. And even then, it is something that we would probably ask ... dance? ... since we are used to something that has an interpretation of our own lives a lot more than something, that has an invisible link that we can not see altogether. 

I suppose that we think that is the case in most of our lives?

Directed by Peter Brook

Written by Peter Brook, G. I. Gurdjieff and Jeanne Salzmann

Music by Thomas de Hartmann adapted by Laurence Rosenthal

Cinematography by Gilbert Taylor

With Dragan Maksimovic as Gurdjieff, Terence Stamp as Prince Lubovedsky, Mikica Dimitrijevic as the young Gurdjieff, Athol Fugard (well known playwright in the English Theater scene!) as Professor Skridlov, Warren Mitchell, Fahro Konjhodzic, David Markham, Natasha Parry