Conclave 2024

Conclave is trying to be two things at once: a thriller with politicking, schemes, conspiracies, and examinations of ambition, as well as a movie that is offering up sociopolitical commentary through the lens of religion. Because it doesn't fully commit to one or the other, I think it ends up feeling underbaked in both areas. To start, the trailers make this movie out to be a taut political thriller with plenty of tension. In practice, that is not the case at all. It's a methodical movie that feels slow, especially in its first hour. The schemes, alliances, and downfalls all feel very rudimentary to be honest. The scandals are pretty much the first things you would think of, the way they are discovered is basic, and alliance forging is nonexistent. Papal Game of Thrones this is not. And maybe that's an unfair criticism because a lot of that is driven by marketing, but I feel like my issue isn't exactly the pace (slow burn) but moreso how simplistic this aspect of the movie actually is. Also, the movie has this habit of Lawrence discovering some "shocking" secret, but it cuts away before the viewer can learn what it is, only to have him then confront/tell someone about said secret. This is the exact opposite of "show, don't tell" and is why I feel like the unravelling of the secrets is also not particularly compelling.

Instead of focusing on building up the complexities of the Conclave, the movie does a surface level exploration of sociopolitical commentary. There are mentions of the Catholic Church's history, of trying to be progressive, of the role of nuns and women, of the diversity of people belonging to the Church, of the tolerance of other religions. That all sounds great, and I would have loved to see a movie that really put these under the microscope from the perspective of the people behind the Church. The problem is that it all feels very underbaked and cursory. The movie doesn't try to grapple with these questions, instead using the scandals discussed above as its main levers of power. At one point, a character gets up and gives a cheesy, cliche-ridden speech that is maybe a minute long, and the movie wants us to believe that answers everything. Sociopolitical commentary is used as a prop, the type of thing that helps define who the "good" and "bad" guys are, but nothing more. At one point, it is literally only used as a plot mechanism even though the real world events and context would have significant ramifications. This is most easily reflected in the ending of the movie, which offers up some sort of attempt at a larger message but absolutely bungles it because no one in the actual movie has, at any other point in the movie, actually thought about the questions it raises. It's simply something that is circumstance, and it happens, and the movie ends.

Where the movie does succeed are the technicals as well as the character work of Lawrence and Bellini. The movie has the type of thunderous score that constantly asserts its presence that Edward Berger became famous for in his All Quiet on the Western Front adaptation. The setting is stately and lush, creating an operatic atmosphere. The acting of Ralph Fiennes in particular is excellent. I also did really like how the movie focused on his religious doubts, discussed the humanity of people trying to be perfect and idealistic and the realistic compromises that come with it, and the questioning if these characters were motivated by trying to do the right thing or just ambition. This is easily where the movie is the strongest, and I feel like had it sharpened one of the other two elements I mentioned earlier, it would have paired really well with this character focus. Unfortunately, it does not, and I ended up leaving feeling disappointed.

I’m not a Catholic nor a serious movie buff; my perspective is that of a book fan who was excited to see its adaptation to film. Of course, it is expected that any book-to-movie adaptation will have some sacrifices; that is the nature of the medium. One desires a very different experience watching a film than reading a book; I’m sure none of us went to see this film to see 6 hours of ballots being cast while cardinals doodle in their rulebooks or Lawrence/Lomeli has multiple internal crises. As we do not fault the film adaptations of Dune for leaving out Paul Atreides’s vital inner monologue, so I do not fault Berger for making this film a bit more concise while still attempting to convey its major themes and ideas.

Regarding the themes – yes, of course they are more prominent in the book, as it is easier to see their progression and relation to the plot’s focus on factions and schemes. Yet, I hope viewers will be willing enough to engage with the hints of the themes given here themselves. This is one of the reasons I’m sure this film will be a joy to discuss after seeing, just as I am experiencing now. But rather than turn this comment into a novel, I will simply direct you to my replies to others for more in-depth discussion of the themes: 1) here and 2) here. Beware, there lie spoilers. In brief, Conclave is an examination not simply of the Catholic faith so much as the Catholic Church as an institution as well as the Pope’s role of a shepherd guiding its flock. (Forgive me for any dogmatic errors; as I said, I am not Catholic.) Add to this mix political intrigue and human foibles, and well, you’ve got an incredibly compelling narrative.

A few words on the technical aspects of the film – first of all, the casting was stunning; I was delighted that they truly brought these characters to life. I was dismayed at first about the changing of Lomeli to Lawrence, as well as the fact that he is no longer Italian (ditto for Bellini); it makes a certain theme a bit more confusing. But Fiennes and Tucci knocked their roles out of the park, and I have to give kudos, even with my reservations. The soundtrack was phenomenal – a few recurring motifs made a strong impression. Volker Bertelmann is a favorite; I loved his work in The Name of the Rose miniseries, and I am glad that he will see wider recognition here. Even as a non-movie critic, I can confirm that the cinematography is incredible. It is easy to forget that this was shot in Cinecittà and not in the Vatican itself, whether from the detailed rooms or the vestments (which may be real?).

This is a movie to see with your full faculties: heart, mind, and soul. It definitely will not be an easy one to forget. I am reminded of Sean Baker’s comment in a recent interview for his new film Anora, in which he laments the lack of modern ‘mature’ films for adult audiences that are not filled with superheroes or car chases. This is such a movie – thoughtful and impressive not merely from superficial or technical qualities but also from its ability to engross viewers and stimulate passionate discussion. I can only hope movie executives take note and realize that these types of movies can also be successful.

(I rarely write movie reviews on here, and in fact, accidentally erased my comment twice before writing it a third time, if that is any indication.)

P.S. I'm including a delightful reply that Robert Harris received from an actual Cardinal, as mentioned in an AP review by Jake Coyle:

As Harris neared publication, he received a letter from the then British cardinal, the late Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. Having recently rummaged through his office, Harris digs out the letter and reads it. (In the book, the main character is called Cardinal Lomeli.)

“Before the reviews come flooding forth, I wanted to write and say how much I enjoyed ‘Conclave,’” Harris reads. “You certainly did your homework. I particularly admired your depiction of Cardinal Lomeli as a cardinal the likes of which all we cardinals would wish to be: holy, subject to doubts, intelligent, humane and totally loyal to the church. Well done.”

He concluded: “As to the startling ending, I said to myself: After all, it’s only a novel.”

Conclave - a great movie. I was ready to give this a 9, if not for the ridiculous twist at the end, so settling for an 8.

I love a good political drama, and this movie was masterful at pacing, developing tension, and revealing plotlines at opportune moments. I liked the themes of technology versus tradition that were very apparent at the start of the movie. There were also a lot of themes about diversity versus tradition and ultimately conservatism versus liberalism, which I also really enjoyed.

I was expecting this to have a darker plot and was pleasantly surprised it was more of a thriller slow burn mystery, even comedy at times. Very well done. But I just have to come out and say it - the ending was completely ridiculous. After they voted for Benitez, I had a premonition that some sort of twist was happening, and given the undertones of liberalism vs. conservatism throughout the movie, I thought "wouldn't it be hilarious if they made Benitez a transexual?". Immediately when he said "treatment," I was like, "They're not really going to have the twist as this guy being a transsexual?" and then lo and behold that's exactly what they did. I think it would be interesting to see the politics of the director who made this movie and what he was trying to say with this movie. Is this a woke movie that's just bashing religion? My guess is that's probably what it was, but I'd love to understand more the point that the director was trying to get across.

I thought that the sermon that Ralph Fiennes (Lawrence) gave at the start, where he was talking about certainty, about doubt being a part of faith, and faith being rooted in uncertainty, was a very powerful speech. I was very convinced at the end of the movie that the twist was going to be Benitez somehow forcing Lawrence to become the pope. I think that payoff would have been the obvious way to steer the plot, rather than Benitez being a transsexual. The idea that after all the investigating that they did with all the different Popes and all their different moral failings, they didn't vet the transsexual Pope doesn't really make sense to me.

Perhaps the point being made is that being transsexual is not a moral failing, which is a fair point to make - but one could also argue it is dishonest to omit this major part of your identity to a religion that is opposed to it. And this is my main qualm about the movie, I know you are supposed to suspend your disbelief, but I thought the twist was ridiculous, totally unrealistic. The church would never allow this to happen, and so it's a head scratcher, especially, you would think they would do extra vetting on this guy, you know, given the fact that he was from Kabul and just kind of showed up out of nowhere at the start.

When Tedesco made that very classic conservative speech (which would likely be very persuasive to several members of a Roman Catholic church) saying that the church shouldn't tolerate Muslims because they will destroy us, and yet in Rome, the church allows Muslims to live amongst them, which will ultimately lead to the church's demise, unless the church is to fight back.. And then Benitez comes in with the progressive counterargument, and seemingly won the entire church over with a heartfelt speech. This is a completely ridiculous situation, a brand new Cardinal would never come in and just win over the entire supermajority with some lackluster speech without being vetted. It just didn't make sense to me.

If anything, a better and more obvious payoff would have been to have Lawrence make some sort of persuasive argument vs. Tedesco to win the Popehood, or have Benitez pass over the speech to Lawrence to say something. These would have been "safe" ways to steer the plot, which may have made the movie "boring" but ultimately way better than what we got. The movie was SO good until this point and so if they took a safe ending, I'd be singing this movies praises.

A great ending for the movie would have been Lawrence becoming Pope, despite his uncertainty in his own faith. Him overcoming his resistance to wanting to become Pope and being called to the Popehood because he is a natural leader and a good man. It would have been poignant and an excellent character arc for him to become Pope, because he is a good man trying to do rise to being thrust in the spotlight, doing a job he does not want, despite the corruption in his church, and him not having the ambition or ego to become Pope. I think that would have been a good social commentary on religion. Instead, we got this ridiculous twist of a dishonest transsexual who nobody really trusts, nobody knows, running the entire show with barely any experience. Perhaps, in a roundabout way, this is a commentary on the weakness of diversity & compassion?

There was definitely some symbolism at the end of the movie that went over my head with Ralph Fiennes waking up and placing the turtle back in the water and the blinds opening and him watching the nuns come out of the door and then the door shut (cut to credits) - need to think about that symbolism more. I need to also think more about the terrorism plotline and why it was included. I guess it also was mainly used as a device to introduce a twist - and it also allowed Tedesco to make that argument about the Roman Catholic Church being the only true religion.

Despite the ridiculous ending, I would highly recommend this movie! Cinematography was amazing. The attention to detail around the voting process and various traditions of the Roman Catholic church felt true to form. It felt very authentic. Very strong performances by all actors involved. A great political thriller, which I was not expecting. Unfortunately, the twist at the end stopped this movie from being a classic. Go see it and share what you think with me here, I'm curious to hear your take.

Although I am not religious myself and the importance of the Catholic Church has greatly diminished in recent decades, I have always been fascinated by the whole procedure surrounding the papal election. There is simply so much that is not known, but of course it is clear that there are a lot of rituals involved. The decision to turn this into a political thriller couldn't be more fitting.

Director Edward Berger succeeds in building up tension right from the start, with Volker Bertelmann's fantastic score certainly playing a vital role. Furthermore, leading man Ralph Fiennes is, as expected, more than up to his task of guiding the viewer through the entire procedure. The film also boasts an excellent cast in the numerous supporting roles.

The plot naturally focuses on the actual conclave, with the film not being short on surprising twists and turns. In the end it is perhaps one twist too many; at least the ending seems to divide people's opinions. Personally, I'm ambivalent about it—the movie certainly didn't need the final twist, but it also doesn't really hurt it too much.

Ultimately, “Conclave” is a thoroughly gripping thriller that never gets boring for a single second and is also a visual feast thanks to the excellent cinematography. It is therefore quite rightly included in the Oscar debate.

Too reserved and Oscar baity to work as a fun mystery thriller, but also way too middlebrow and simplistic to work as a proper political drama. From the beginning I thought there was a lack of emotion, as the characters feel more like chess pieces on a board or plot devices rather than three dimensional human beings. The main character is definitely an exception to that rule, however the arc that’s set up for him gets suddenly dropped by the third act. Instead, it throws in a couple of major twists that I still don’t know what to make of, or how it connects to the movie preceding it for that matter. The acting’s fine from the entire cast, but the material prevents anyone from being truly exceptional. Visually it’s fine, there are a couple of memorable shots (really liked how it constantly draws attention to the contrast between this outdated institution and modern technology), but it’s nowhere near as striking as some of the stuff in Berger’s previous film All Quiet on the Western Front. Given the genres its working with, it could’ve emphasized shadows and contrast more instead of just presenting a dim image where only the colour red is allowed to stand out. On top of that, the score is also slightly too overbearing for my taste. Overall, this is quite a disappointing film that didn’t leave that much an impression, despite keeping me mildly intrigued throughout.

5/10