The Shoes of the Fisherman

With respect to those viewers who evaluate this film as entertainment, to fully appreciate and understand the many sub-plots, a viewer would have to understand something about Roman Catholic theology, the currents of 1968, and the popular philosophy of the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin with some people such as the author of the book, Morris L. West. The Oskar Werner character of Father David Telemond is a good surrogate and advocate for Chardin but he is not Chardin. Chardin is mentioned by Werner during the inquiry of the Papal Commission into Father Telemond's writings. The real Chardin believed in what Telemond calls "The Cosmic Christ" "the point to which all of human evolution is advancing." Telemond and Chardin would explain that a good God still allows man to use free will to chose the wrong things, to commit crimes, even mass crimes such as war, because those things are part of the natural breakage that always happens in any production process. But they would also argue that faith would ultimately bring mankind closer to God on a very long but not infinite timetable. Pope Kiril thinks there is beauty and power in Telemond's writings but cannot understand Telemond's views on theology. "There is little of the Catholic faith as I know it in your writing." The Pope tells him that faith alone saved him from insanity in the Gulag of Siberia in the USSR. In his background, fundamental toughness, and simple faith, the fictional Pope Kiril (1968) is an amazing precursor to the real Pope John Paul II (1978). Tellemond protests, "God is there but by a different name." Telemond is finally accused by Cardinal Leone of heresy because he says that if his faith were taken away he would still believe in the world and its goodness--an idealistic but still secular world view. Pope Kiril is willing to sell off the wealth of the Church to help starving Chinese people because he understands that is the only way to prove to Chairman Peng and the world that the church believes in what it preaches. The loneliness of his decision is framed by terror when Cardinal Leone tells him, "This is Calvary, Holiness, and you have just begun to climb." That is the most profound line of a great many profound lines in the movie. One does not have to be an intellectual to appreciate the film which succeeds on its own terms as entertainment. But people who think it is boring just have no concept of what the film is really about. For acting and content, this is one of the best films of the last 50 years.

Rome and Papal Rome, the ceremonies associated with both, chant including the Gregorian type are lavishly displayed in this beautiful film. However, all of that would just be decorative were it not for the interesting personages: Father David Telemond's poetically flawed theology pitted against Lakota's "simple" faith that saved him from despair in Siberia. The extraordinary character (played with great beauty and humanity by Leo McKern) of Cardinal Leone whose encyclopedic catechism finally gives way to utter humanity and forgiveness in his final encounter with Quinn now Pope. The scattered negative comments form mostly laudatory reviews, I think, stem from people who can't "get into" the less than obvious moments of dialog which require some patience but also a modicum of background into Rome and its history. Sometimes I fear that Americans (and I'm one) can't sit still for anything that isn't an action picture. For me, and I've seen the film countless times, its beauty both in the evocation of Rome and the extraordinary exchanges between the characters makes it a unique cinematic experience.

This film, directed by Michael Anderson and based on the book by Morris L. West, was made in 1968 and seemed far ahead of its time but it is remarkably accurate in predicting the trends we would come to witness with subsequent popes. No longer are popes crowned with a tiara. We have seen a pope from the Communist bloc and three non-Italian men have served as pope. Francis, the current pope, mirrors many of the traits of Pope Kiril with his emphasis on social justice and the stories of his secret forays into Rome. Anthony Quinn offers up a pope who is humble but also wise. Despite the shock of his election, he knows who is the boss. One scene outside the Vatican is very moving as he visits a dying man, who happens to be Jewish. We also see a pope who is comfortable amid the hurly-burly of city life.

The film draws the viewer into the movie with scenes we have often witnessed from St. Peter's Square of huge crowds at the time of a pope's death and the subsequent election of his successor. David Jansen is the erudite broadcaster talking to American audiences about the workings of the Vatican and the progress of events. There are the processions through the square, close-ups of statues around the square, puffs of black and white smoke telling onlookers the status of the balloting, and the tolling of bells. The movie goes behind the scenes and takes the viewer back to the square with the throngs waiting in anticipation until the drama is over. In this film, it reaches a finale with the coronation and in particular, the words of the new pope.

I found the pomp and pageantry and the sacred traditions surrounding the death of a pope and the election of a successor to be well described and displayed. The inquisitorial nature of the pontifical commission grilling the Oscar Werner character is what we are given to believe about the Vatican's treatment of theologians. Werner was outstanding in his role as an avant grade theologian breathing new life into church dogma against the rather staid and anti-intellectual Vatican insiders. Vittorio de Sica was excellent as the urbane Secretary of State. Leo McKern, as the conservative Cardinal Leone, was shown to be a man with some foresight and compassion. John Gielgud had a brief but impressive role as the aging pope welcoming Kiril Lakota to the Vatican. A large-scale movie with an excellent cast, I would gladly see the it again.

Morris West's novel carries an element of prophecy but the film is far too heavy in every department to, ultimately, be taken seriously and yet you do. I did. Anthony Quinn is a credible Kiril, the priest who survived years in a Siberian prison to become Pope. There is enough humanity in Quinn to make that leap in our hearts and minds - that is a massive plus in favor of this huge super production - Laurence Olivier tries a new accent as the Russian premiere and okay but when the Chinese Chairman is played by Burt Kwouk - you know Kato in the Pink Panther movies - I had to readjust myself and start from scratch. Oskar Werner belongs to another movie altogether but he's wonderful as the priest questioning his faith. Vittorio de Sica and Leo McKern play two Cardinal/Politicians with saintly ambivalence but it is the soap opera outside the Vatican that drags the movie out of everywhere. David Janssen, famous then because TV's "The Fugitive" looks really uncomfortable. Alex North provides a respectful and resounding score. The long sequences about Vatican procedure are priceless and I will recommend it because here I am, weeks after I've seen it, thinking about it which means I've enjoyed it more than I should have. What a ridiculous thing to say, right? Right.

This movie makes the Catholic Church look good; I wish that it was true. After twenty years in a Russian prison camp, Kiril Lakota is released and taken to the Vatican. He was asked, "What have you learned after twenty years of confinement?" "I have learned that without some kind of loving, a man withers like a grape on a dying vine."

Soon after his arriving, the pope died. None of the 'favorites' were chosen for his successor. On the seventh vote Kiril was elected to be the new pope. He brought a different perspective to the Vatican than his colleagues were used to seeing. He didn't let his position go to his head, but rather wanted to get out of his confines and feel the pulse of the community. "We're all in prison one way or another." "What do you think of Christ?"

This movie did however make one point to me. Even though the Catholic Church is a system far from perfect, there are people in it who God is leading, who 'walk in the shoes of the Fisherman,' and who live unselfishly to help their fellow men in need. 'How does a man ever know if his actions are for himself or for God?" "You don't know. You have a duty to act, but you have no right to expect approval, or even a successful outcome."