JohnHowardReid
Producer: Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Copyright 14 December 1944 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York release at the Rivoli: 29 December 1944. U.S. release: January 1945. U.K. release: 23 April 1945. Australian release: 17 January 1946. Sydney release at the Century, 11 January 1946. U.S. length: 12,375 feet. 137½ minutes. Australian length: 12,408 feet. 138 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Catholic priest ministers in China in the early years of the 19th century.NOTES: Mankiewicz's first film assignment for Fox (after leaving MGM). The script had already been prepared by Nunnally Johnson, but Mankiewicz considerably changed and re-wrote it. Gregory Peck was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor (losing to Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend); Arthur Miller was nominated for Best Cinematography, but the award went to Harry Stradling for The Picture of Dorian Gray; Best Art Direction and Sets were also nominated but lost to A. Roland Fields for Blood on the Sun; while Alfred Newman was passed over for the award for Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture in favor of Spellbound composed by Miklos Rosza.COMMENT: 19th century Hollywood rarely had the guts to stand up to the vested interests of organized religion - particularly that represented by the Roman Catholic Church. The Keys of the Kingdom is an excellent case in point. Doctor Cronin's novel is an outspoken, powerfully-crafted polemic against organized religion in general, the Catholic brand in particular - but none of Cronin's points, not a single one of his arguments or effects, is allowed to find even a shadow of an expression in this screen version. In typical Hollywood fashion, not to be defeated by this considerably watered-down, milksop version of the book, Fox's publicity department hailed the novel as "one of the most excitingly discussed books of our times" - thereby implying that the exact same qualities were to be found on the screen. Not so.
What we actually have instead is the usual Hollywood impression of sanctity. The Hollywood saint is a humanitarian, first, last and foremost. He is always humble, always soft-spoken and never pushy - except when his humanitarian principles are threatened. With this proviso, he always respects and kowtows to Authority - whether religious or civil. The Hollywood clergyman is also remarkably ignorant of the dogma and doctrines of his particular church. This enables him to mix ecumenically with both adherents and ministers of different faiths - or even no faith at all (atheists) - without the slightest qualms of conscience. He is in fact a simpleton. He doesn't deny, he is simply completely unaware of the intellectualism of all religions. He has such a vague - even nonexistent - understanding of God that he is sustained through all adversities solely by a peculiar inward faith in the Rightness of all his own actions. Under the guise of humility, he is actually an ignorant, obstinate egotist who believes implicitly that his own amorphous faith in a God he neither understands nor appreciates, will either eventually right all wrongs or transcend all adverse conditions.In fact, he shows such little commitment to those precepts that are peculiar to his particular religion, it is extremely doubtful that he even knows them. As a Catholic, he will light candles regularly, but he will never speak of Indulgences or Transubstantiation or Limbo and Original Sin. If he is aware of these doctrines, he keeps them a secret. His aim is to avoid religious controversy at all costs. For this reason, he will rarely quote from the New Testament, preferring instead a Psalm or some other non-contentious verse from the Old.Such is the Hollywood priest. Within these limits, The Keys of the Kingdom is undoubtedly one of the more compelling films of a very blighted group. Pitched on a note of low intensity - and all the more effective for that - it tells of a missionary in China: his work, his struggle against apathy, his determination to live up to an ideal.Although it is often stylishly (and occasionally even powerfully) directed by John Stahl, Gregory Peck's performance in the pivotal and central role is no more than adequate at best. This was only his second film. Why he was cast in such a plum and difficult role - an untried and inexperienced actor whose debut in RKO's Days of Glory the year before was inauspicious to say the least - is another Hollywood mystery. Fortunately, he was surrounded by a fine supporting cast including Rosa Stradner (Mankiewicz's wife), playing the mother superior of the nuns at the mission, and Vincent Price, slightly out of character as the local bishop.The film is produced in Fox's usual grand epic style, with marvelous sets, beautiful camerawork and lighting - lavish production values all around.Viewed as a Hollywood venture into religion, The Keys of the Kingdom is more entertaining than most (e.g. Joan of Arc, Miracle of the Bells, The Bells of St. Mary's, Come to the Stable), less offensive than many (Jeffrey Hunter's The King of Kings; Change of Habit; A Man For All Seasons).
HotToastyRag
In Gregory Peck's second film, he earned an Oscar nod for his role as a devoted but struggling priest. He's sent to China to convert/educate the natives, but he encounters a number of obstacles and has to find inner strength to guide him through.If it wasn't for Gregory Peck, The Keys of the Kingdom would probably be forgotten about. There have been many movies with a similar theme, and there really isn't much to distinguish its plot from its competitors, but there is Gregory Peck. He was twenty-eight at the time, and in this role, he aged decades more than his years. It really is a remarkable breakthrough performance.If you like Greg (really, who doesn't?) then you'll want to check this movie out. And if you like these kinds of stories where a strong, likable, pious person has a variety of friends and challenges throughout his life, you'll probably like it.
esteban1747
This is an interesting story about a priest Father Francis Chisholm(Gregory Peck), who went to China to establish a parish. He never wanted to get money easily, for him was much more important to get more people really devoted to catholicism than to get funds from any people, and for this he made all efforts serving even as a doctor in the community. Another important aspect shown although not deep, was the difference among the priests. Some are humble like the hero of the film but others are arrogant and look more for the wealth of the church instead of looking for the wealth of poor people. Catholicism have lost many areas because of the lack of sacrifice of many of its priests otherwise it would reign nearly everywhere in the world. Priests like Father Chisholm would have been the salvation.
fritzgray
I've always loved this movie. My mother introduced me to it and its remained one of my favorites over the years. I find the character of Father Chisholm to be my ideal of what a priest should be. Kind, loving, humble and unpretentious. I don't think Peck ever surpassed himself. He is tremendous in the part. Ably written and directed, I think it is a superb film
