"Conclave" (movie) is getting very good reviews.

No smooches please!

Is a Movie About Electing a Pope Allowed to Be This Entertaining?

- Vulture

Ralph Fiennes takes charge of tense papal election thriller

- The Guardian

and more

[quote]OP/Della: I like Vatican intrigue, whether in real life or a movie.

Oh?

In your opinion, how do you think JPI died, Della?

I've placed my bet on it for the Vulture Movie League. Good buzz for Ralph Finnes.

I read the book, do you want the spoiler?

Didn't we already do this with HBO's "The Young Pope" and then "The Two Popes" film? I'm all Poped out....

The cast is amazing. Looking forward to this.

Saw Joker 2 and I’m still pondering wtf I saw.

Is it like Watergate?

R5, I’ve read the book too.

Who is playing *that* character?

The book was an inch deep and mile wide. It read like a film pitch.

r3 PoisonedDragon, I'll go with heart attack.

I do see from the Wikipedia entry that there exist conspiracy questions, but just as most times a cigar is just a cigar, most times death by heart attack is death by heart attack.

The short reign of 33 days certainly is unusual.

Now, the truly extraordinary instance of Pope Benedict resigning? What? Why?

According to that excellent PBS Frontline "Secrets of the Vatican" he was ganged-up on and felt overwhelmed by what he was finding out about Vatican finances....

Hmmm...

R5 The cardinals pick a woman?

I'm torn.

I want spoilers posted here and I don't want spoilers posted here. I haven't read the book.

Easily remedied, Della.

Grātiās tibi agō, r14

It's a quick read.

It’s spoiled on goodreads.

[quote]how do you think JPI died, Della?

Am not Della but I think he was bumped off. The college of cardinals wouldn't have elected him if he was known to be in poor health.

It's too bad because he sounded like a good guy. Far better than his successor.

The only way I want to watch a movie about the Vatican is if there’s a demon nun killing all the priests. Except those hot young ones you see - send those ones to men.com.

The Two Popes was a good movie.

What I like about movies about the papacy is that ostensibly you can imagine the process in any way you want. The conduct of the conclaves have been hermetically sealed for centuries. When nothing is know, anything is possible. But, yes, I'll be going to see my first move in a traditional theater for the first time since 2022.

Count me IN.

The subject has been done to death. Basta!

Does it have full frontal shower room hijinks?

Can't wait, I'll watch the shit out of the cam version when it comes out.

How was the book R5? Was it boring or interesting?

[quote] But, yes, I'll be going to see my first move in a traditional theater for the first time since 2022.

Yes, r21. I've been in movie theatres since they opened up again after the pandemic, but I understand why people have their reasons for avoiding them.

"Conclave" will draw a mature audience to the theatre, I hope. It's been a while since I've watched a movie at the theatre that isn't fantastical, but just a melodrama with an intriguing setting, set direction, costumes.

R26 I'm not R5 but I thought the book was interesting and a quick read.

Carlos Diehz is playing Benitez, and was discovered after a long casting search.

I presume then the actor is intersex?

I’m still eager to go the theatre to watch this although I couldn’t resist the temptation ( how lapsed Catholic of me) to, yesterday, watch a YouTube spoiler review.

The story makes it sound like Angels & Demons...Which is not a good thing! And based on the photos they're even using the same palace as a stand in for Vatican.

Della, I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it!

I am going to a preview this afternoon and I cannot wait to see that dishy Ralph Fiennes, ex-Voldemort, play the lead. So far, it has gotten great reviews (even Oscar buzz) and I am so glad.

USA Today said: "Having a bunch of ambitious religious dudes stuck in one place gives “Conclave” a hostile and explosive energy, which contrasts with the wonder and awe of the papal votes unfolding in the Sistine Chapel. (They didn’t film in the actual place but, holy cow, does Berger immerse you in the splendor anyway.)"

I will let you know what I think later on!

Looking forward to your post, Tallulah.

Smoooches, Doll.

I'm going to a preview screening tonight. I'm a member of our local art cinema house. It offered free tickets to members

Cool, r34.

Please post a review.

Just saw it. It’s about the politicking and intrigue when Cardinals gather to elect a new Pope.

Slowly building but interesting movie. Ralph Fiennes and Isabella Rossellini are standouts.

The ending seems a little gimmicky at first but, upon reflection, it totally makes sense for the story.

R36 here— meant to add- with all the impressive Vatican buildings and fancy outfits, the Catholic Church behaves more like a rich empire than a religion that’s supposed to care about the poor and disenfranchised. I can’t believe, in this modern day, people this follow this utter bullshit

I really enjoyed this movie. I thought about it all night. I read the book before, as sometimes they leave things out of the movie that were important. However, not in this film. They did a wonderful job!

Right off the bat, I think Ralph Fiennes and Isabella Rossellini are definite Oscar nominations, especially Isabella for Supporting Actress. She doesn't have much to say, but every time your see her she is mesmerizing.

I found the story fascinating. Not since watching 'Shoes of the Fisherman' have I enjoyed a conclave movie as much as this. The movies carries the suspense well and the photography is amazing. One would never have though they were not in Vatican City.

The ending was a bit different from the book, but only because it was easier to understand and, basically, made no difference in the outcome.

I loved this suspense drama and was grateful to see it in a megaplex theater where the rest of the theaters were full of horror or cartoons.

Dearest Della, I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did. Much love, Darlin'. Ha!

PS: I hope someone can explain the symbolism in the scene with all the white umbrellas.

I'm going tomorrow, I hope!

[quote]all the impressive Vatican buildings and fancy outfits, the Catholic Church behaves more like a rich empire than a religion

But those are the very Gothic Grand Guignol elements that make for such appealing films and stories! Who wants a movie about bland boring Protestants?

Sylvia, sweetie! I do hope you enjoy it and have a large popcorn, as well! Please tell us your thoughts, after!

I also found the book fascinating and can't wait to see the movie. Thanks for the reviews.

I thought it was a great old fashioned movie. I found the dialog a little too on-the-nose at times, but that dialog was delivered impeccably by a first-rate bunch of actors. The visuals and limited color palette were gorgeous. I did groan a bit at the final big reveal at the end, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It reminded me of a 50s or 60s prestige picture. I can easily imagine it shot in Cinemascope, starring James Mason, Richard Burton, and John Gielgud.

Critics expect Isabella Rossellini to get an Oscar nom for her performance.

Does conclave mean the thing is curved toward you, or away from you??? I always mix that up!!!

When I was young, I toyed with the priesthood .

Enough with the critiques.

Do the cardinals wear gorgeous frocks?

[Quote] When I was young, I toyed with the priesthood .

I did too — some of the priests were very large 🤍

[quote]r43 = Critics expect Isabella Rossellini to get an Oscar nom for her performance.

I congratulated her mother for her Orient Express nomination.

The acting was great but the story was stupid.

It’s based on a book.

[quote] Do the cardinals wear gorgeous frocks?

R46 In the movie Conclave, the cardinals are dressed in vivid red robes. The director, Edward Berger, chose this color to create a rich look and contrast with the more muted settings of the film, such as the Sistine Chapel and marble architecture. The red robes in the movie are redder than the actual cardinal costumes, which are more orangey in real life

But the lace! Tell me about the lace!

There is no vivid anything in that movie. I felt like I needed a flashlight to watch it.

where is it streaming?

In the end, it’s a mostly silly story depending on predictable “bombshell” soap opera plot devices. I read in the reviews it is based on an airport paperback type novel and that is exactly what the movie is. It feels weirdly old-fashioned, like something from the 70s or 80s, and is pro-Catholic (the “good” Catholics win via fluke).

R43 I’d be happy to see Rossellini recognized for La Chimera or Conclave. What a year she’s having.

Just watched a (very high quality) cam version and holy shit, I was gripped from start to finish! That ending though... I get now why some book readers were apprehensive about this getting adapted. It's... a lot. Wonder how it'll go down on DL.

I did enjoy the cinematography, although some of the shots looked documentary-ish (staring straight into the camera) and there were one too many long scenes of Fiennes praying. Also, Fiennes looked permanently on the verge of crying, which made me roll my eyes towards the end.

R10 I felt that way about the Da Vinci Code

This is a lot more grounded than Dan Brown's bullshit, even though there wasn't much depth to it. I mean, everything you see in this movie could actually exist in our reality, for starters.

I was listening to Isabella in an interview discussing how Italians like Jews are more culturally religious than devout. It was an interesting conversation. I think it was for Canadian radio this week.

About the umbrellas.

Any orgies? You know these happen whenever two or more clergy are gathered in his name.

[quote]Critics expect Isabella Rossellini to get an Oscar nom for her performance.

She just did alot of standing, staring and grimacing

^^^^ But, she did it well!

I too, loved and was mesmerized by the color palette. Beautiful reds and purples. You could almost feel the fabrics thru the screen, wonderfully rich and thick and textured.

I enjoyed the movie very much. Especially because it was an “adult” film. No explosions, or vulgarities or any kind of action.

That surprise was surprising as well. I thought he would have been an addict of some kind when they mentioned a clinic. This was an interesting twist.

I was also under the impression that once a conclave was established, they literally couldn’t leave the Sistine Chapel where they were voting until a new Santo Padre was chosen.

Good stuff.

Me and my son just watched it a few hours ago. It's a very good thought provoking movie.

I saw this film last night. Outstanding cast all around. Rossellini captivated in every scene. She was all the more striking because there was no attempt to make her beautiful. It may have been a small role, but she proved she is no small actor. I could see several acting noms for this -really no weak performances. I haven't read the novel, but film was thoroughly engaging.

Visually stunning. A tad contrived.

As almost everyone has said, Finnes and Rosellini are Oscar worthy standouts. Lithgow, like much of the cast, is good, but only just so; and Tucci, while fun to watch, doesn’t have the “gravitas” one would expect for the role he’s been assigned.

I saw Tucci on Colbert last week and he looked so, so different.

Obviously he had had a nip and tuck recently. I was disappointed about that.

Maybe the problem is that he looks too young to be a Cardinal 😛

The Atlantic's reviewer is not impressed:

Who were the worst popes of the last 100 years please?

[Quote] an Oscar nom

John Paul II. Nazi collaborator, one of Gehlen's people after the war. Possibly involved with Wolf Szmuness and the spread of HIV. Probably had John Paul I murdered. Created so many saints it appears he was selling beatification. Picked right-wing nutjob pedophile as his successor.

Also pretended to speak like a hundred languages. Big fraud.

Double agent for Soviets and the West.

R73 R74 thanks

[Quote] Having now lost his mother, brother, and father all before the age of 21, Wojtyla now began to consider joining the priesthood. With the war still raging, in October 1942 he approached the Arch Bishop of Krakow and soon began clandestine study in the underground seminary. He survived numerous physical accidents during the war, and in August 1944 narrowly missed being rounded up in a Gestapo sweep by hiding in his uncle’s basement while the house was searched. Wojtyla had grown up in Wadowice amidst a large Jewish population, and there are multiple accounts where he attempted to help and protect Jews during the war years. However, presumably due to the extraordinary threat and circumstances of the Nazi occupation, he consistently refused to baptize Jewish children into the Catholic faith at this time, believing that they should be raised in the Jewish faith they were born into. Later there would be proposals that Wojtyla be given recognition as one of the Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem, and below is a photograph of an exhibit dedicated to Karol Wojtyla in the Oskar Schindler museum in Krakow.

Didn't Pius XII essentially carte blanche Hitler saying he was fine as long as the church could continue to operate in Germany?

Saw it. Loved it although the ending, as most have said, is a tad contrived but is making a point. Definitely deserves Oscars.

And if you believe that I have some slightly wet land in Florida to sell you R77

Wojtyla was allowed to travel under communism, spending a whole year in Chicago in the fifties. 'Splain' that, apologists.

In the book, I didn’t necessarily think the person elected as pope had particular skills or virtues above anyone else.

Was this more apparent in the film?

It's out on streaming now. The usual suspects are going crazy over the ending, saying it's problematic.

r82 Yes, A LOT more apparent. I thought he was presented as a living saint, honestly.

"nutjob" you'd know R73

Thanks for posting that, R70.

I thought I was the only one who found this film B-O-R-I-N-G. Buncha men getting together with drama, intrigue, and craziness, plotting and planning over shit that actually means nothing at all. It seems patently ridiculous when you know there is no "God."

Of course, in my experience, that's what groups of men do. They place a lot of importance (and $, don't forget that) on bullshit that ultimately means nothing to anyone. The world is burning up, we're swimming in garbage, and eating plastic with every meal, and these guys are talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And as soon as I heard about "a clinic in Switzerland," I pretty much knew what was going to happen.

A real disappointment.

Boring and a dumb ending.

[quote]It seems patently ridiculous when you know there is no "God."

Yes, but it's very important to the 1.3 billion Catholics. As a former Catholic, nothing was as intriguing as a papal conclave back when I was still in this shit, and this movie more than delivers on that front. Someone on a podcast I listen to compared it to an Agatha Christie novel where you keep getting new clues in each new scene. So that aspect of it was pretty satisfying.

[quote]And as soon as I heard about "a clinic in Switzerland," I pretty much knew what was going to happen.

I didn't get it at all, I thought it was alcoholism related, lol.

My first impression of the Latino archbishop is that he has such a gay face, almost woman-like features. If you don't hear him speak, you'd think she's a woman. What is he irl?

Atlantic Review is on the $. The politics of the film were very annoying. Lots of smug liberals and gender silliness. When I left the theatre I felt like voting for Trump (I didn’t)

r88 Couldn't find any info about him being trans or intersex in real life. I think he's just a regular guy who happens to have soft facial features.

r89 I think that was very much intentional. It's asking the libs "Okay, so how far are you willing to push this liberal (pope) thing, then? Just halfway there or all the way through?"

Because let's face it, most people who saw this movie were libs, the trads would never watch it anyway. So the movie knows who its audience is.

The twist makes it sound like a tranny remake of Pope Joan.

Watched it yesterday on Prime. It is suspenseful, surprising, and of the moment. But it wasn't THAT great, and, being fiction, doesn't carry the profundity of, say, "A Man For All Seasons" or "Oppenheimer," its predecessor in the "Very Thoughtful and Morally Challenged Best Actor" Oscar category.

Ralph Fiennes is fine, haha. I don't think the role challenged him too much (I saw him in "Hamlet," so.....). Stanley Tucci is always great, but he is always Stanley Tucci. John Lithgow is, IMO, miscast. Isabella Rosselini's role could have been acted by many.

Still, nominations will be had by the movie.

But

It could have been so much better but it didn't have the gravitas it needed. Stanley Tucci was just too "modern." The ending was stupid

R79, Which Oscars?

Cinematography? Maybe. Some overhead shots are stunning. Acting? Yeah, no. Supporting? Hardly. Costume design? Nope: "Wicked."

Costume design might have won in a different year.

Stanley Tucci was miscast. Who played Tedesco? I thought that was a delicious performance.

Has anyone seen Bonhoeffer? I hadn’t even realized that it had come out and now it’s already gone.

Lutherans might not have the beautifully brocaded frocks of the Catholic Church, but we’ve got a feygala martyr and wanna be Hitler assassin and isn’t that better?

[quote]these guys are talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

How was the choreography?

That’s a cool thought to have, R85.

I saw (on a tv show) where angels are the size of the Chrysler Building, so… whom to believe. 🤔

Steakhouse onion Funyons are delicious.

I saw this film the second it came to my art house cinema down the street. I loved it. Saw it with friend who also loved it. I really didn't come to critique it so much as to experience the film on it's own terms. I don't need to dissect and nit pick every fucking film. I will say, I was moved, it was a lush, gorgeous film, the acting was stellar, and I was invested the entire film.

I loved the message, which beyond the intersex aspect is really much broader, and it's this: Just because we you are a bunch of fancy-pants berobed Cardinals in the blessed Church, doesn't mean you aren't also human men. With egos, insecurities, flaws, hang-ups, skeletons in the closet, addictions (lots of scenes of them drinking and smoking, close-ups of piles of butts on the pavement outside of the chapel, etc). So who the FUCK are you to think you have what it takes to be the Pope, or a righteous person in general?"

And Fiennes' character gives a speech to that effect, or rather, he says "Do you want a Pop who pretends to be perfect, with no secrets, a supposed stainless past? Or a Pope who has made mistakes, gotten back up, and kept moving forward?" Awesome.

The line Tucci's character says about "We don't want to elect anyone who actually wants to be the Pope" was a standout line for me. Sums up the central problem of positions of power, i.e. those that seek power in the first place have already shown their hands, they possess narcissistic ego driven traits. It is the humble, the meek, the gentle, the nongrasping, that you can truly trust.

And THAT is the Pope that ended up being elected at the conclave. The intersex thing really serves more to show how progressive the previous pope was, that he KNEW about Benitez' secret and was okay with it, and also willing to help him, and was also okay that Benitez chose not to alter "God's creation." The Pope was looking forward, and most of those asshole Cardinals had no idea where the Pope even stood on such matters. They'd been playing checkers while the Pope was playing chess.

TL/DR I loved the film and I am rooting for Fiennes for Best Actor xo

I don't know why some here decided to spoil the presumably what was intended as a surprise if not outright shock ending of a recent film. I'm glad I didn't know before I saw it.

“I know all there is to know about the praying game”

I was hoping there would be enough for Isabella Rossellini to warrant an Oscar nomination. There isn’t.

I liked the Atlantic Article better than I liked the movie.

The score is beautiful.

[quote]I was hoping there would be enough for Isabella Rossellini to warrant an Oscar nomination. There isn’t.

It's not shaping up to be a strong year for Supporting Actress. I think she'll get in.

I hope so R104.

I hated this. But I knew I would. The music was doing a lot of heavy lifting in this film, that and arranging 50 - 60 cardinals all the time, shooting them over head and giving them umbrellas to make pretty pictures.

The ending was ludicrous and I saw it coming as soon as the character was introduced. It was not subtle.

I’m anti-Catholic anyway, as far as the pope goes, so I don’t know why I watched it. It wasn’t for me.

R106 “The music was doing a lot of heavy lifting in this film”

Ugh, not the sweeping emotional loud music that tells you when you’re meant to be concerned, uplifted or sad. That’s irritating to the point of distraction. It’s often too loud because it’s recorded on a separate track.

Why do that? It feels so manipulative. You could start a thread of films with cloying, irritating “emotional training wheel” musical scores. It’s like neon signage for your ears.

R107, I didn't see it but I heard people say the same thing about Berger's All Quiet... remake, that it was the same bombastic interval of the score every other minute, all the way through it, so I guess it didn't surprise me.

For me, film is a visual medium. When I'm looking at the images and there's nothing going on but the score is intruding with all kinds of drama, it's like...maybe you should've located some of that in the screenplay. Because if I turned the sound down, this would look like uninteresting CCTV footage.

I don't recommend it at all but I recently watched Gia Coppola's The Last Showgirl with Pamela Anderson. She's a very inexperienced film maker with really none of the talent of her grandfather or aunt, but... She does the same thing. These long takes of Pamela Anderson sitting in her car with, I don't know, Vivaldi on the soundtrack and it's like, what does this have to do with anything? This is an image of a person looking for a parking space.

Just back from seeing it on the big screen, and it was solidly enjoyable. All the merits of an old-fashioned melodrama to hold one's attention, painted with the palette of Vatican grandeur.

The dialogue sometimes being slightly too on-the-nose, the music sometimes being too coercive, didn't matter: this added to the old-fashioned comfort-zone feeling. The liberalism of Fiennes's big speech, and the reveal, nicely offset the film's retro aura. I'll give it good word-of-mouth!

R106, Maybe I wasn't paying full attention, but I didn't "see" what you discerned and so was shocked by the ending!

But upon reflection, IMO the ending is "ludicrous" in positing that Fiennes' Cardinal would, once enlightened, countenance the election.

Tiny glitch. Nuns in Italian are not "sorelle" but "suore"

Isabella went to a convent school. One would think she would have had that corrected.

I think people are getting the wrong idea about the ending. Part of the piece is a statement about women’s roles in the church. It’s not some transgender story.

It can be both or even more, r112.

I have a nit to pick with the final image. IMO it should be the smoke.

The plot twist is a bit overwrought, but as melodrama it all works great. Fine accingo all around.

acting*

Bunny Ratzinger's asshole was as red as his ruby slippers.

Not about the surprise uterus but about Benitez speech which points them in the right direction.

An intersex person raised as and continuing to as a male is neither transgender nor a woman.

People with DSDs are still either male or female. Although he had been observed as male at birth and raised as one, he was in fact female. No-one, even those termed "intersex", has ever been neither male or female. "Intersex" is not a third sex.

R119 why is a person born with external male genitalia, raised male and identifying as a man, in fact a woman? Is this like the one drop rule, but for misogyny rather than racism?

And why is a person born with a mix of male and female biological characteristics only one sex? (And which one is the deciding biological factor external genitalia which could be ambiguous or mixed, internal genitalia which also could be mixed or DNA which might be something like XXY)

R120 It's a developmental disorder. It's not the case that they're neither male or female. Every cell in their body will tell you they're male or female. You have to be a certain biological sex for some disorders to even present themselves.

Please tell me the name of the Nobel prize winning biologist who discovered the existence of any sex other than male or female, and I'll happily buy you dinner.

Name any Nobel prize winners in biology who have specifically addressed what sex XXY intersex individuals or XY androgen insensitive individuals are and I’ll buy you the Empire State Building.

R122 that's a bit lame, ElderLez.

The very fact we know that XXY and XY exist means those developmental disorders have been both addressed and researched. At no point did anyone decide that meant they were some kind of third sex. Intersex conditions mean something has gone wrong in development, hence why they're more commonly known as DSDs.

No-one ever won the Nobel prize for discovering XXY or XY androgen insensitivity because they're rare medical conditions, not the groundbreaking example of something outside of male or female that you seem to believe.

Do their cells scream that they are men (only) or women (only) R123?

And why is a person with a uterus and a penis a woman and not a man?

Help me understand your reasoning R123.

Christ.

I have known "intersex" people, and the term is a catch-all for the various ways in which [italic]physical[/italic] characteristics of can reflect hormonal, genetic, or other influences.

The call for a "Nobel Prize winning biologist" is a lazy straw man argument (if you'll excuse the term) behind some good points.

How about the abstract of a study of chimeras, "Natural human chimeras: A review" from the [italic]European Journal of Medical Genetics[/italic] in 2020 to cleanse the palate?

[quote]The term chimera has been borrowed from Greek mythology and has a long history of use in biology and genetics. A chimera is an organism whose cells are derived from two or more zygotes. Recipients of tissue and organ transplants are artificial chimeras. This review concerns natural human chimeras. The first human chimera was reported in 1953. Natural chimeras can arise in various ways. Fetal and maternal cells can cross the placental barrier so that both mother and child may become microchimeras. Two zygotes can fuse together during an early embryonic stage to form a fusion chimera. Most chimeras remain undetected, especially if both zygotes are of the same genetic sex. Many are discovered accidently, for example, during a routine blood group test. Even sex-discordant chimeras can have a normal male or female phenotype. Only 28 of the 50 individuals with a 46,XX/46,XY karyotype were either true hermaphrodites or had ambiguous genitalia. Blood chimeras are formed by blood transfusion between dizygotic twins via the shared placenta and are more common than was once assumed. In marmoset monkey twins the exchange via the placenta is not limited to blood but can involve other tissues, including germ cells. To date there are no examples in humans of twin chimeras involving germ cells. If human chimeras are more common than hitherto thought there could be many medical, social, forensic, and legal implications. More multidisciplinary research is required for a better understanding of this fascinating subject.

Chimeras are fascinating. Thanks R125.

Here’s one of the very few researchers in the field of intersex health.

Every other system---digestive, respiratory, nervous, skeletal, autonomous, etc.---is or has been abnormal in somebody in human history, so why not the chromosomal arrangement? These are all the province of medicine and biology.

But how society acknowledges, identifies, defines, accepts, accommodates, and/or legally protects humans is the province of politics and law.