WHEN IN ROME

US, 1952, 78 minutes, Black and white.
Van Johnson, Paul Douglas, Joseph Calleia.
Directed by Clarence Brown.

When in Rome is a very pleasant film about a priest in Rome for the Holy Year of 1950. He is played genially by Van Johnson. In Rome he encounters a criminal played by Paul Douglas. The criminal takes the priest’s clothes and disguises himself as a priest – with the police in pursuit.

The film offers an opportunity to see the scenic sights of Rome as well as a pleasant opportunity for a humane drama with some twists.

It is not as if this is not a familiar theme. Humphrey Bogart disguised himself as a priest in The Left Hand of God. Robert de Niro and Sean Penn disguised themselves as priests in We’re No Angels. As regards nuns, Shirley Mac Laine was in Two Mules for Sister Sara and, of course, Whoopi Goldberg in the Sister Act films. The same idea was used in Iran for The Lizard where the criminal disguised himself in the clothes of an Imam.

The film was directed by Clarence Brown who had a long career at MGM, with a number of Greta Garbo vehicles as well as such pleasing family films as National Velvet and The Yearling.

1. How enjoyable a comedy was this? Why? Made in 1950, does it now seem dated? Why? Or can it still amuse?

2. How did the film give a picture of Hollywood piety? How would the film be made now? Was it genuine good humoured piety or was it too coy?

3. How interesting was the picture of the Catholic Church? Is this picture now dated? How has the Church changed from this view of it? What were the ingredients of the film?

4. How strong was it in dialogue? In humorous lines, especially Joe Brewster? In its picture of human warmth?

5. The film proposed its moral at the beginning. Was it moralistic? Did it illustrate its moral well? Was it a moral fable? If so, how successful in its lesson?.,

6 How attractive a character was Father Halligan? Was he too much the Hollywood romantic figure? Too much Van Johnson? Did he seem a good priest? A good friend? Did he betray his ideals at any time?

7. How attractive a crook was Joe Brewster? Was he too much of a goody-goody crook? Did he seem genuine?
(If he did not, did this matter for the film?) Why was he an attractive figure? his change of heart? In his good humour? His naivety?

8. How did the pilgrimage change them both? The significance of their change in clothes? The fact that Joe appeared generally in a cassock? How much was this the effect of the pilgrimage and the Holy Year?

9. How humorous was the picture of the Italian police? Did this help the film? Thr chief with his mixture of Italian and Texan? The Commissioner with his history, his family, and his luck?

10. What was your reaction to the silent order? Did this give a good picture of religion? Was it credible that Joe would go back, there? What did he discover there? Was he fulfilling his life imprisonment? How?

11. The film was full of optimism. Was it justified?

12 How successful a film was this? Do audiences need this kind of film? To cheer them up? To edify? Or -are these films more or less a soft sell for the Church and a sentimentalising of religion? Really poor entertainment? If not why?