THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN

US, 1968, 157 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Quinn, Laurence Olivier, Oskar Werner, David Janssen, Vittorio de Sica, Leo McKern?, John Gielgud, Burt Kwouk.
Directed by Michael Anderson.

Morris West's novel was strikingly topical in 1963 with the death of John XXIII, the election of Paul VI and the progress of Vatican 11. It had some good plot elements but many readers and reviewers objected to the sensational treatment, not only of the Papal story, but of the Italian social and, government background as well; some took exception to the pages and pages of sermons on renewal, freedom of research and the reflections of Teilhard de Telemond; many were offended by West's satiric barbs at ecclesiastical conventions and behaviour and at Church structures. In contrast the film of 'The Shoes of the Fisherman' seems remarkably straightforward: some good stories a bit sensational with sermons playing a secondary role. The satire has been practically eliminated. The result is a film of interest and entertainment for all, without being taxing.

For a Catholic, the background, the events, the style of the film are familiar and most authentically reproduced. This is Rome and the Vatican. For the outsider to Catholicism? The surface treatment would appear more readily because the viewer would not supply mentally and emotionally the necessary background. This seems especially true of many of the 'big' scenes and climaxes: the conversations which lead Cardinal Rinaldi to proclaim Kiril, the reconciliation of Kiril and Leone, the advice of Kiril for Ruth's marriage, the proposal to sell the wealth of the Church. The words and the shortness of each episode are not nearly strong enough to support the ideals and solutions they are supposed to. And Fr. Telemond's doctrine. There is talk of the 'cosmic Christ' and 'faith in the world', but how telling and intelligible is this to the audience?

The answer to this lies in the acting. Anthony Quinn seems so natural in the part of Pope Kiril; we like him, understand him, with the result that whatever he does, however incredible it might seem, we accept because of him. In this, way, his outing in Rome is, much more easy to take in the film than in the novel.

Again Oscar Werner is so good as Telemond and seems so, convincingly a priest, that we become involved in his anxiety over the investigation Of his work, that it does not seem to matter if we cannot understand his profession of faith. Leo, McKern? is outstanding as Cardinal Leone and Vittorio de Sica is a natural as Cardinal Rinaldi. Laurence Olivier, looking more himself and relying on an accent for variation, makes the Russian Premier believable and a strong counterpart to, Kiril. The Faber plot and the acting there were very ordinary and not of really great interest. Audiences will like the film on the whole. It is meant to be popular and spectacular rather than deep and reflective. With the help of fine actors, the beauty also of Rome and the Vatican, it fairly succeeds.

When Morris West's novel first appeared in 1963, it was regarded as prophetic about changes which had just begun in the Catholic Church as the Second Vatican Council opened in October 1962. Pope John XXIII died in early June 1963. While Paul VI was elected (and continued to work for detente with Soviet bloc countries), it was on the death of his short-lived successor, John Paul I, that the Slavic Pope was elected. John Paul II is considered to have been one of the chief influences in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Morris West was even more prophetic than people realised.

The film is a big-budget spectacular with a starry cast. Anthony Quinn gives a credible performance as the Pope while Laurence Olivier looks severe as the Soviet premier. The journalist sub-plot seems somewhat trite. Oskar Werner's character is based on Teilhard de Chardin. Leo McKern? and others enjoy themselves as Vatican cardinals.

The film does raise issues that are often discussed, especially about the wealth of the church and the plight of the poor. Selling Vatican treasures to galleries or millionaires is a temporary solution that seems simplistic, but the issue is raised in the film as a symbolic one.

1. The popularity of this film? For what audience was it made? A religious product of the 'Sixties? Big budget Hollywood
religion?
2. The film had a Catholic atmosphere and reflected Catholic attitudes. How well were these presented and communicated? How important were they? The impact on non-Catholic audiences?
3. The background of the Papacy, its presentation in terms of the Vatican, its look and pomp, its tradition, the personalities involved? The film's treatment of the mystique of the Church, the Vatican, the Papacy and the status of the Pope? His influence in world affairs?
4. How plausible was the plot» the role of the Papacy in a future world, the influence of the cardinals, the international situation for Russia and China, the influence of the Papacy? How much of the plausibility was based on the experience of the 'Sixties? Morris West's insight into topical situations and his understanding of the 'Sixties? The issues of the wealth of the Church and the
poverty of China? The plausibility of the ending as regards\the Church's wealth?
5. What was the picture of the international situation! Russia and its ambitions, relationship with China, fears of Chinese aggression, nuclear fears? How did the Russians see the Church as a mediator in this kind of world? The attitudes of both Russians and Chinese? Was this credible for the 'sixties? For later?

6. The strength of the film in the portrayal of Pope Kiril? The skill of Anthony Quinn in his performance? The importance of the opening and seeing him as a prisoner in Siberia, the background of his imprisonment, the previous career in the Church and as a leader? The impact of his release? His interview with Kamenev? The personal characteristics? His going to Rome and its impact on him? His encounter with various cardinals, with Father Telemond? With George Faber? His attitude towards the reigning Pope? His human ideals? His response to his election? His attitude towards protocol, his wanting to experience ordinary human contacts? His decisions as regards diplomacy? His final decision at his coronation? What insight into the role of the Pope did this portrayal give?
7. How did the Pope contrast with Kamenev? His character, as a
Russian ruler, as a gentleman, diplomat? His relationship with his advisers? With the Chinese? His expectations from the Pope?
8. The portrayal of the state of the Church in the film in the person of the elder Pope, his councilors, the cardinals, the transition from one-.Pope to the other?
9. The portrayal of the Vatican officials? The various cardinals and their attitudes, Cardinal Rinaldi and his forcefulness, Cardinal Leoni and his ruling of the Vatican and his expectations of being Pope? The clashes? The visiting cardinals and their response to the election? The Conclave and the Indian cardinal proclaiming Kiril as Pope, the applause?

10. The hopes of the Church in the new election?10. How credible was the China sub-plot and the presentation of the Chinese and their expectations?

11. What did the Faber sub-plot contribute to the film? The personality of Faber and his work as an interviewer, his relationship with his wife, mistress, the Vatican?

12. The importance of the Ruth Faber sub-plot? Her relationship with her husband, her antagonism towards him, her role as a doctor? The chance encounter with the Pope, the visit to the dying man,
the advice she received? Did this contribute to the impact of the whole film?13. The importance of the character of David Telemond? The parallel with Teilhard de Chardin? His philosophy, as a Jesuit, science? His illness? The importance of the Inquisition scenes and the personalities of his interrogators? His defence of himself and his insights? The Pope's friendship with him and reliance on him? The impact of his death in the Pope's arms and its influence on him?

14. How reverential towards religion was the film? The Catholic emphases, the Pope comforting a dying Jew, the ecumenical outlook and contact with the modern world? Was it really a religious film, or religious in the Hollywood style?