To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.
Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).
Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.
So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.
Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.
By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.