.png)
In this, the year of our election, 2024, it would seem that every awards contender is interested in engaging some political or electoral discourse. Edward Berger’s new papal thriller is no exception. Focusing on what may truly be one of the most mysterious political systems in our modern age, Conclave inhabits the Catholic Church’s papal electoral process as a backdrop to engage in ideas of faith, power, and farce. The film occasionally plays like a soap-opera in the way conflict is built through a sort of “he-said, she-said” (well, really only he in this case) drama. Of course, being billed as soapy is by no means a dig at quality. In fact, the pettiness and schoolyard drama of Conclave is its greatest appeal.
And schoolyard drama it is: as the world’s cardinals come together for the rather surprising election of a new pope, it is left to Ralph Fiennes’ Cardinal Lawrence, the dean of the college of cardinals, to organize the conclave which will decide the future of the Catholic Church. Lawrence, responsible as he may be, is completely unprepared for the storm that awaits as the rest of Cardinals arrive. Suddenly being thrust into the most important election of one of the largest world religions is no simple task. Being asked to organize it is far from a stress-free endeavor.
It is in spite of the constant and alluring gossip that the film shines in its stillest moments. Rarely does Cardinal Lawrence have a moment of quiet, and never does he have a moment of peace. It is in secluded locations: be it an empty stairwell, communal space, or most notably at his bathroom sink, that moments of still solitude quickly morph into exasperated, cathartic exorcisms of stress and responsibility. For a film positioning itself to comment more specifically on the idea of understanding/finding yourself while being advanced in years, its most effective moments are found where Ralph Fiennes’ Lawerence, knowing full-well of his responsibilities, must silence his anxiety and panic in the face of others who trust he is the right person to organize the conclave.
Even so, the theme of self-exploration and understanding stands as the most consistent throughline in all the characters. Lucian Msamati’s Cardinal Adeyemi is haunted by his past sexual exploits, and must come to terms with the fact that he is not meant to be pope. Stanley Tucci’s Bellini, while adamantly denying any desire to hold the “burden” of papal responsibility becomes rather upset when Lawrence’s name begins to crop up, stealing presumed votes that would go to him. Lawrence, suffering from a crisis of faith, is adamant about retirement and disillusioned by the idea of becoming pope. This is complicated when it is revealed that he has a papal name already picked out in the case he is elected. Outwardly, nobody wants the burden, and yet, everyone is vying for it. It is true that the only people who have a heightened understanding of who they are and the purpose of their ministry are Isabella Rossllini’s Sister Agnes, a stone-faced woman with a firm understanding of her responsibility within the conclave and for her fellow sisters, and Carlos Diehz’s mysterious Cardinal Benitez, who’s internal clarity is made clear in the final act of the film: both in his more liberal understanding of his ministry and the direction the Church must go politically upon the appointment of a new pope, and in his personal identity, which is revealed in the final moments of the film in one of the more baffling narrative decisions of 2024.
It is the trichotomy of personalities: between Benitez, in his quiet, but idealistic embodiment of a liberalized and ideologically open Catholic Church; Lawrence and Bellini, in their open desire for a liberalized church, along with a healthy amount of skepticism in what is realistic; and, Sergio Castellitto’s Cardinal Tedesco who embodies a boisterous, militant, and aggressively conservative stance in regards to the direction he would like to see The Church go, that may be the most accessible reading of the film for most audiences. Afterall, (and as if commenting on political endeavors perhaps occurring outside the sequestered Vatican) Bellini, in discussing the potential candidates for papal appointment does utter the sentiment: ‘are we really forced to choose the better of two terrible options?’
This is likely the largest failing of Berger’s otherwise beautiful shot and acted papal gossip session. It’s naïveté is entirely too tangible. There is no such thing as a perfect pope just as there is no such thing as a perfect president. The idea of electing a pope who can balance the importance of the faith while measuring the importance of a more progressive outlook for The Church sounds fairytale in nature. On that note, Benetiz fits this ideal figure perfectly. Unfortunately for the film, audiences are all too aware of the absurdity of the idea of finding the perfect political candidate. It may not be right; but, as Cardinal Bellini fears, outside of Berger’s Conclave we have grown accustomed (and rather tired of) choosing between two ill-fit candidates.
Verdict:
Beautifully acted and shot with the same amount of precision and poetry as his previous film All Quiet On The Western Front, there is no amount of priestly gossip or last minute twists that can save Edward Berger’s Conclave from playing like a naïve aspiration for political elections of the present and future. This is not to say that the very human depiction of the priests inhabiting the conclave is not refreshing or that the themes of self-definition/exploration are not cogent or competent in crafting an exciting political thriller. It is to say that with just days until one of America’s most exhausting elections, the universal contentedness of the rise of this new pope feels a bit trite.
Comments