I read the book a long time ago, before watching the movie. I liked so much the book and I had made a mental picture of Pope Kiril Lakota. When I saw the movie I was so much impressed --- Antony Quinn personified so well the character and he fit perfectly in my mental picture. He was a tremendous actor! I really enjoyed the depth he conveyed to Pope Kiril.
Yes, and Sir Laurence Olivier portrayed the Russian primer well also.
shareI both read the book and watched the movie too and was totally enamored by Anthony Quinn. Of course, I read the book in the 1960's when I was nearing age twenty and nobody in the movie really "got" to me as much as the young, blond Oskar Werner who played Pope Kiril's secretary.
I really don't get how Anthony Quinn could be so "unsaintly" in real life, especially regarding women, and be able to portray a holy man in "Shoes of the Fisherman," but there you go...
Flanagan
I agree with you... that is why he was such a good actor. He could play a role completely different from himself and still be convincing. I was much impressed by Oskar Werner, too.
I´ve recently read something interesting about the book: Oskar Werner's character, father David Telemond, was inspired on a living person, Teillard de Chardin. To those who don't know him, he was a jesuit priest and also a philosopher and a paleontologist. He wasn't understood by the Church either and could not publish his work as he wanted to.
tibetansoul
There are some physical differences between Kiril of the book, and Kiril of the movie. In the book, he was a shorter man, whereas Anthony Quinn was quite tall, particularly in comparison with most of the other actors in this picture. Also, in the book, Kiril wore a heavy beard, both because it is the custom of Ukranian Catholic clergy, and because his face was badly scarred from the beatings he had suffered in the gulag. Physical difference aside, however, I completely agree that Quinn captured the character of the man, and gave a performance exemplary of how we would like to see any high-ranking bishop act (I'm not Roman Catholic, and my feelings on the institution of the papacy are mixed). Kiril is truly a man of God, and cares first and foremost about caring for his flock. I think that is what we see most powerfully in Quinn's performance. His Kiril often doesn't feel up to the job, but he is too loyal a servant of God and the Church to refuse it or later to step aside (his threat to abdicate I think was a calculated political move to force his cardinals on board, not a genuine feeling that he must step down).
shareI had forgotten the fact that Kiril had a beard in the book. Anyway, the mental picture I had of Kiril was not so much defined in the physical plane, but in the character and attitude. In this sense I think Mr. Quinn fulfilled what was required for the role. Kiril had a dignified and ethical character, based on his firm spiritual beliefs, difficult and subjetive aspects to convey in a movie role.
tibetansoul