The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968)

Laudable but long

On the plus side, this film presents thoughtful characters in an understatedly epic scenario. It also has several very nice moments. However, the film is released at an epic length (with intermission provided on the disc) that doesn't necessarily add to its impact. Many details are included about the Vatican lifestyle being portrayed, and yet although these details are not without interest, I wonder whether they really needed such emphasis to be able to serve the story's themes.
(spoiler alert)
That being said, the main "solution" seen at the end of the film was very nice but was not at all surprising in light of the earlier conversation with the Chinese head of state. In light of the admonition to 'Sell all you have, give to the poor, and follow me' it seemed to make perfect sense, and yet such a consideration (of whether the church can/should follow all the guidance of its credited founder) could be applied to many more elements to make a much deeper examination of the lifestyle. There is a subtheme in which a fellow Cardinal is scrutinized for heretical statements, and that provides the supporting context for the question of possible change.

Given that this was produced in the period of Vatican II probably gave it much more force (and of course it also helps to be able to recall the historical perspective of Cold War confrontationism and brinksmanship). These should be enough to make a very strong movie, but the sheer length doesn't exactly invite me to immediately re-watch it, as is the case with so many other films. Much of the spectacle feels quite impersonal, despite being well-filmed from a technical standpoint, and thus the film might have benefited from trimming down various scenes of crowds and ceremonies and skyline in favor of the characters and their dialogues.

There's a decently strong core to this film (although, as I said, the ending failed to surprise me... someone said the key to great writing is a resolution that feels inevitable yet surprising, and this film's resolution did merely feel inevitable in the light of everything that had been said and shown.) There are probably many viewers, however, who will savor all the extra details and relish the "properness" of the ceremonial settings and demeanors of the protagonists. I appreciate the decent core, but found that it was a bit too diluted by postcard scenery, extra musical interludes, and the overall amount of distant restraint to cause a great amount of inspiration.

This is one of the big differences between film and literature - this is a literate film, but the act of reading contains a certain amount of effort and engagement automatically on the part of the reader. For the much more passive medium of film, extra care needs to be taken to add atmosphere and to add the cinematic equivalents of engaging writing. For example, in that same year was another film, "The Lion in Winter," that was highly stylized and engagingly written, but delighted in the neuroses and instability of its characters. I would take the characters of "In the Shoes of the Fisherman" anyday over the royal swine portrayed in "The Lion in Winter" but the latter film was really more successful at marshalling the techniques of cinematic narrative in the service of supporting its story. If the style of Lion were applied to the plot and characters of Shoes (if the Lion wore Shoes?) then this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it's more relegated to several inflated works of its time (e.g. Ice Station Zebra) with running times much longer than their content actually warranted.

Some might argue that the restraint and ritual in Shoes was actually well-suited to recreate the mood of its characters, but that would be to focus narrowly on particular emotions, moods, inclinations (e.g. ritualism, pomp) that do not actually encompass the most worthy content in the scenario. People should also consider that unlike a novel with an omniscient narrator, the film doesn't allow so much access to the inner thoughts that tend to interpret such rituals and settings for audiences in the relevantly meaningful ways.

Thus, a partial success that we wish had been better should receive partial credit. If we were seeing a portrayal of sitting in the desert for 40 days and nights, cinema would properly require some appropriately audio-visual means of conveying all the relevant emotion, thoughts, symbols that go along with the desert trek for its participant; it's not merely enough to have things framed and lit properly (the art of still photography) or to have accompanying music and good acting (could be done on stage just as well). Cinema should combine these separate elements effectively in the service of the work's theme.

In comparison to so many other films (at least, those since Gone With The Wind), Shoes is too distant and leisurely to produce much tension or motivation or suitably compelling moods in its viewers. Thus, despite its laudable aspects, Shoes doesn't quite utilize the cinematic medium fully to serve its themes, instead devoting too much screen time to establish some very basic aspects of its setting (e.g. the controlled disconnectedness of the Vatican) and characters (e.g. in the end there is still surprisingly little explanation of the central character's philosophy, what he learned from Siberia, what his doubts about himself were, etc.).

A comparison with the style of Tarkovsky or Herzog or Visconti or Bergman is revealing in how such scenarios could and probably should be done, but of course those are acknowledged cinematic artists... Too bad one of them wasn't at the helm of this film; it seems to also show a difference between the European style, in which all elements can become well-tied into the meanings and motivations of the characters, and an American "storytelling" style where there is a notable detachment between the elements of setting, character, theme, and plot, in which one feels fortunate when more than one of these harmonizes in support of the others. In viewing this film, I felt occasionally fortunate, but the key for my review was that unlike so many other laudable works, it didn't beg me to immediately re-watch it. I felt that I was able to absorb everything of interest in just a single, very leisurely viewing, after which there were no mysteries or challenges left to keep exploring.
August 20, 2008

Movie predicts John-Paul's election

I saw "The Shoes of the Fisherman when it first came out in 1968 / 69. It didn't receive that much acclaim at the time, and there are places in the film where the storyline stalls a little. What has renewed interest in this movie about the election of a Russian Pope is the fact that it came out just ten years before the election of Pope John-Paul II. Who could have guessed in 1968 that a bishop from a communist country would be elected the supreme pontiff of the Universal Church?
The cast reads like a who's who of the acting world: Olivier, Quinn, Werner, McKern. All gave fine perfomances. Leo McKern and Vittorio DeSica were especially effective as Cardinals of the Church. And Oscar Werner's performance as the silenced priest was outstanding.
The set designs were wonderful, and the scenes inside the Sistine Chapel were especially effective. Although the conclave is done behind locked doors, the process of the papal election in this film is said to be very accurate. The drama focuses on how Kiril Lakota, a Russian bishop who has been imprisoned in a labor camp for tweny years, reacts to his freedom and the shock of being selected as the successor of St. Peter. Anthony Quinn carries off this difficult role very well. You can see the anguish in his face as he tries to cope with everything that is happening to him in such a short time. This is one of the better movies from that era, and you are a fan of any of these actors, or have an interest in things Catholic, this is a film to have in your collection August 15, 2008

One of a Kind

This is my favorite movie. It is truly unlike anything else ever filmed, in that it does an incredible job of showing a little of what the papacy is, and its burden on the man bearing it. Also, it shows the beauty of Christianity and the Catholic Church at its core, dispelling misconceptions of the character of what sometimes is seen as a monolithic entity. The movie also treats the subject matter with a respect for the Catholic church that is all but gone from the English-speaking media today. The movie does not preach, but rather simply opens a window onto events and people whom (under changed names and circumstances in the movie) helped shape the last 30-40 years of world history.
I believe this movie can be positively entertaining and informative for anyone, whether Catholic or not. August 4, 2008

Dad's Review

This is my fathers FAVORITE movie. He says it was one of the BEST movies ever made. And that Anthony Quinn is outstanding in this role! April 6, 2008

One of my favorites

The Shoes of the Fisherman Anthony Quinn has been in a lot of movies but, for me, I would have to say this is one of my favorites, and a must see, even if you are not Catholic. One of his other really good ones has to be 'The Secret of Santa Vittoria'. March 30, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...