MovieChat Forums > The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968) Discussion > The state of marriage in the film.

The state of marriage in the film.

posted 18 years ago by dgranger
8 replies | jump to latest

In this film, as in the book, It tries to present as many topics as possible that would face a leader in any religion. Many of the topics of marriage were compressed into the marriage of the Fabers in the film.

Here we are presented with a couple who both have successful carreers. Mr. George Faber is TV journalist and Mrs Ruth Faber is a Doctor. Both carreers place demands on each other's individual time and therefore stresses the marriage. Both are approaching middle age. She is feels that she is plain and old which adds to her insecurity and jealousy. He cheats and has an Adulterous affair with a younger woman. He stills something for his wife and wants to end the affair. He feels guilt. She feels guilty in the sense that she feels her carreer is a part of the problem. Now enters Fr. Kiril Lakota.
Instead going ultra conservative and telling her 1) that she should quite her carreer and go take care of her husband and 2) that her husband's adultery may have given her a case for annulment, He tells her that her profession is a noble profession and she go and try find the love again in her marriage. In a sense, to go back and work at the marriage. This is part of the position that the Church has always had taken. Do everything to save the marriage. The vows are sacred and should not be broken. The film seems to say that Marriage takes work. And with the rise of woman in the workforce, that even more pressure is placed on marriages and requires work by both partners to keep it running. Marriage has never been easy.

I feel that Ruth should not have felt guilt at her having a carreer. After all, George was the one who had cheated. Didn't Jesus saying something to the affect that with the case of adultery, in the eyes of God, both the man and his lover are guilty qually?

However, in today's world, this doesn't play well. While many strive to work their marriage, many others enter into it thinking that they will have it all their own way and will change the other. And if it doesn't work out, they think have an easy way out in divorce despite the Church's views on it. When there is a wealthy couple, as the Fabers seem to be, and adultery is a factor, it race to the court. When a couple is set on divorce, court required marriage counceling often seems to be given lip service only.

This film reminds me that marriage in today's world faces serious challenges and requires serious effort by both parties to make it work. it should never entered into lightly. (No Duh.)

"Its easy to win when you throw out the rules." from Hitchcock's "Saboteur."

[–] laxchief 18 years ago

But, the Pope DOESN'T say to the doctor "Do everything to save the marriage. The vows are sacred and should not be broken."

What he said was to remember where she last saw their love. If she can't find it, maybe it never existed. She then emotionally replies that it DID exist, leading him to again tell her to seek it out.

This approach leaves some room for the marriage to END. Not surprisingly, as the Pope is an Eastern Rite Catholic, with views very similar to the Orthodox Church, where it is sometimes held that to continue in a loveless, sham marriage may be a worse sin than ending it.

[–] mgp0385 18 years ago

I origionally posted a message that was incorrect and has been deleted. About marriage, what he said, though, was perfect and what so many today miss. That marriage is not a selfish, all for one act, but an act of mutual love, a very serious one, and you must find that love and make it work. I happen to disagree, though, when he tells her to leave her career. No, just make it work. Nothing in life is easy, but you have to try, have faith, and do the best you can.

[–] laxchief 18 years ago

Well, my turn to pick, but the "rite stuff" can be complicated.

The Catholoc Church has a number of "rites." "Roman Catholic" is one. But, there are also "Greek Catholic," "Ukrainian Catholic," "Melkite Catholic" and many others.

"Eastern Rite" Catholics are not to be confused with "Eastern Orthodox." They are separate and do not recognize the primacy of the papacy. Even more confusing is that Eastern Rite Catholic bishops and priests dress almost identically as their Eastern Orthodox counterparts. Also, their liturgical practices are virtually the same - one significant difference being that the Pope is commemorated in Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies but not in Eastern Orthodox liturgies.

Eastern Rite Catholic bishops most definitely ARE invited to the conclave, if they hold the concurrent rank of Cardinal, as did Kyrill Lakota in the movie. Eastern Orthodox bishops most definitely would not be invited.

Even easier - Stand a Western Rite (Roman Catholic) bishop next to an Eastern Rite bishop and an Eastern Orthodox bishop. Two are "Catholic" and in line with Rome. Identifying the Western one would be easy based on dress. Identifying the other would only give you 50/50 odds - he would look more like his Orthodox counterpart than he would his Western Rite counterpart.

Back to the movie - there are a number of Eastern Rite Cardinals in attendance at the conclave, in addition to Lakota. You have to look fast to see them in their Eastern Rite vestments. But, at the conclave, when all, Western and Eastern Rite are clothed alike, there is still a way to tell them apart. Eastern Rite Catholic bishops (and thus, Cardinals) wear the "Panagia" around their necks rather than a cross. Easy way to tell is look for the ones with a round emblem hanging from their neck, rather than the cross. They are Eastern Rite. (Orthodox bishops also wear the Panagia, which is a depiction of the Theotokos, or Mother of God (Mary). A cross is added when in liturgical vestments, but when in "street clothes" (black robes) they wear just the Panagia.

[–] mgp0385 18 years ago

My mistake. Thank you for clearing that up for me (Seriously). I honestly should have read the origional post more carefully, lol. I honestly thought it was posted that he was Eastern Orthodox.

[–] dgranger 18 years ago

laxchief, Thank you for bringing up the many points that you had brought up and correcting me in many areas. But, I think, in a way, you were kind of misinterpreting what I was saying.

I tried to point out what an ultra conservative western Roman Catholic Preist would have told her if her job was causing stress upon the marriage. But then I was trying to piont out that Latoka did not say that. He even call her profession noble. He did not tell her to quit her career. I was pointing out his difference from the Ultra conservative western Roman Catholics viewpoint that I had known at the time this story takes place. In my view, he acted as the counselor and when she told him that love definitely did exist in the marriage, he had advised her to try to seek out that love, so "In a sense, to go back and work at the marriage." Don't give up on it, yet. I never said that he told her to quit her job.

Then I had try to refer to a point that I had thought the story was trying to make that both members of the union having careers places stress on many marriages and that the marriage takes extra work to face that challenge along with the usual temptations on marriage. Especially at the time when the book was written when the rise of the woman in the workforce in America was happening(the book was written by an American).

As for ending a marriage, the Church does provide a means for that. It is called "Annulment" which I believe that I did mentioned in my post. Annulment is different from Divorce and the two should not be confused. And in many cases, divorce is still not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church while Annulment is.

Yes, I did say some dumb things in my post like "The vows are sacred and should not be broken" when I should have said "The marriage vows are sacred and should not be easily or lightly taken or easily or lightly be dissolved." For that, I apologize.

As for Kiril's dress, it is mentioned in the book as a cause some distress because he was wearing "Icons" - as the book called it. The distress was mainly between Cardinal Rinaldi and Cardinal Leone who were playing power politics with the election of the Pope. The film doesn't go into this as much as the book does (the election politics, I mean). But the issue did make me notice this in the film.

And to slatbrad, whose post is below this, yes, in the book, she does cheat. And it does make a difference in many ways because people are more sympathic to the wronged woman than a wronged guy.

"Sure, Its easy to win when you forget about the rules." from Hitchcock's "Saboteur."

[–] slatbrad 18 years ago

It's been years since I read it, but in the book it's the wife who strays. Does anyone think this would have made a difference in the story if it had been filmed this way, instead of the husband having the affair?

--slatbrad--

[–] dgranger 18 years ago

my reply to you is in the one above you on this thread.

"Sure, Its easy to win when you forget about the rules." from Hitchcock's "Saboteur."

[–] torquemama2002 15 years ago

The Hollywood side of it, back in his day, David Jansen was basically the alpha male, stud in the corral actor. His roles were that of the stud and it fit in well with this character.

The New York Rangers suck. And Sidney Crosby is a cry baby!