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.

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."

Technically, this is not a great film, but I'm still a sucker for Shoes of the Fisherman. I love its idealism. As a Catholic, I love the vision of courage that this film holds out for the Church -- it is the way I wish it really were. This film has an epic quality to it, with expansive, lavish settings and a rich texture. This is one of the few films I can watch again and again and enjoy every time.

This movie is not without its flaws. The editing is awkward and the film could have been tightened a bit (okay, a lot!). One of the things that bugs me is how the character of Cardinal Rinaldi (the Vatican Secretary of State played by Vittorio De Sica, who is pivotal in the early part of the movie) disappears in the second half without any explanation.

Also, the sub-plot with David Janssen as a philandering television reporter is annoying and superfluous. His only redeeming contribution is in how, during his reports, he provides good exposition about the traditions involved in burying one pope and electing the next.

But these things pale next to Oskar Werner's wonderful, understated perfomance as a philosopher/archeologist/priest who becomes friends with the soon-to-be Pope Kiril. (This character, Fr. David Telemond, is clearly based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.) The relationship of suspicion and affection between these two men is very engaging.

Werner has one of the best lines in the film when, after his character is censored by a pontifical commission, he says, "The Church. I hate her, still I cannot leave her. I love her, still I cannot live in her in peace." I think that line is beautiful and sums up the way many Catholics feel!

Finally, I have to say that I am not a big Anthony Quinn fan. I usually found him to be hammy. (I think he got a little too much mileage out of his Zorba schtick!) But in this film, he is wonderfully restrained. He gives a soulful performance as a reluctant hero who has suffered much and now only wants to be left in peace, but who also feels the call of his God and his fellow human beings. In my opinion, even though it is largely ignored by the critics, Quinn gave his best performance in Shoes of the Fisherman.

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.

I think this film is absolutely wonderful and a very noble piece of film. The film shows the details of the Catholic conclave with an accuracy rarely seen in novels let alone films. The ceremonial elements are very well observed and very nicely shot, the transfer on the DVD is also very good. Apart from that the story is also very intelligent and touching. I like the fact that the faith of Father Tallymond and Pope Kiryl are discussed in such detail and I finished the film feeling very moved. However I would give the film 8 out of 10 because of two caveats. Firstly the story of the American TV reporter's love triangle which is already a bit underdeveloped in the book is rendered completely pointless here as he has virtually no impact on the rest of the story. This might be excusable if it were well done but it is very stilted and in my opinion is the only bit that seriously dates the film. Also the film is a little long and could probably be pruned of this storyline without much difficulty. My only other caveat is that if you aren't interested in religion, theology or philosophy there isn't really a lot going on in the film. this is not a criticism for me but just a warning.