A MAN CALLED PETER.
US, 1955, 119 minutes, Colour.
Richard Todd, Jean Peters, Marjorie Rambeau, Jill Esmond.
Directed by Henry Koster.
A Man Called Peter was very popular in the mid-1950s. It was a film about a Protestant minister while most films coming from Hollywood since the 1930s were about Catholic priests. (Another exception was Don Murray as Norman Vincent Peale in One Man’s Way, 1964.)
Richard Todd portrays Peter Marshall with great strength. He was a Scot who wanted to go to sea, felt his vocation, went to the United States and preached in churches in Georgia, eventually moving to Washington DC and becoming the chaplain to the American Senate. Jean Peters portrays his wife, Catherine Marshall, who wrote the story of her husband on which the film is based.
The film is straightforward and unashamed in its presentation of Christianity, the minister, his ministry. It has the courage of its convictions – and is persuasive in a strong sense rather than with sentiment and piety.
The film was directed by Henry Koster who directed a number of popular films from the 1930s including some of Deanna Durbin’s films. He also directed the first Cinemascope film, The Robe. A Man Called Peter was also made in the Cinemascope format. This is the kind of film that can still be recommended for devour Christians eager to see their faith presented intelligently on screen.
1. How entertaining a film was this? For all audiences? How would non-religious sophisticated audiences react? Was the film therefore made for religious people? Or did it show a basic humanity to appeal to all? How successful a film was it?
2. Could you call this film a religious film? In its appeal to denominations? In its portrayal of a professional religious person? In its insight into organized religion? Did it presuppose a belief in God and sympathy for things religious? Did it explore religious values? Or was it basically a humane film? Which gave insight into religious people?
3. What was the basic impact of Peter Marshall in his time? Why did he so impress? What good influence did he have in people's lives? The impact of his preaching, writings, life? The impact of his biography by his wife and the impact of his personality? Is it important for people like this to be living and influencing people? Why?
4. How successful was the biographical structure of the film? Catherine Marshall's story? Peter’s origins, his learning, our appreciating him as others did, identifying with his cause?
5. What made him an impressive character? The importance of his Scots background and his sense of the divine? The nature of his religious call? The importance and dedication to his training? The strange success of his early years? Was all this portrayed convincingly? Why was he a success? The reality of the criticism against him?
6. Was it important that he had greater success? Or should he have remained an ordinary minister, less in the public life? The reality of his choice to go to Washington? The importance of his impact during the war years and his effort for the war? Should he have taken the Chaplaincy to politics? Would it have made a difference had he not been in Washington and in politics? Why?
7. How convincing was the portrayal of Catherine Marshall? Her romance with Peter, her throwing herself at him, his awareness of it, their marriage? Their family life, her love and support? The importance of her illness and this trial in their lives? Her ultimate support for him for his success?
8. What had he achieved by the time of his death? How? How did the film communicate his achievement via the sermons? Were they convincing? Impressive? Satisfactorily filmed and acted?
9. Was it suitable that the film should be in colour, Cinemascope, with a famous theme song? Did this romanticise the film too much? Would it have been different with smaller scope and in black and white? Why? The film seemed to be aimed at ordinary audiences. Should it have been? Was it successful for them?
