A superbly crafted movie with fantastic actors and fabulous images. A treat for the eyes and ears. If it weren't for the ending. Of course, a “modern” theme has to be addressed, which in reality would be unthinkable in the church. A reason not to see the movie? No.
@@Hartley_Hare : is it ridiculous, though? If you can't accept that kind of scenario, blame Richard Harris, who wrote the original book. All the new film does is interpret what he wrote, and doesn't try to be too clever by half.
Now, in the film Benitez, who came from a poor and not educated background, had always thought that he was a male (he has external male genitalia) grown up and was brought up as such, and did unmitigated good in difficult and dangerous areas of the world by protecting persecuted people. When "he" discovered that he had internal female organs as well, he did not celebrate, flaunted this around, went to prides, etc, but was shocked and thought that his life as a priest had been a terrible mistake. About which, he changed opinion. I wonder, at this point, whether one could basically assume that he's basically a male, validly ordained, and that's it.
As I said, the novel - which I read - deals with this final twist in a slightly different way (and it's not that articulated). Benitez has external female genitalia, which "he" thought were malformed but still male genitalia. The rest seems to be the same as the film, as far as I can see, but here I wonder more if Benitez could safely be assumed to be intrinsically male. Certainly, Benitez had genuinely believed to be a male all his life till the surgery, and acted as a male. But the case seems to be even less clearly cut than in the film.
@sarahgeiger4729 You don't really deserve an answer, SEDE VACANTE is the term used whenever a bishop or in the case of this film a pope dies; the seat or chair of office bocomes empty.
just wondering: what does all this have to do with the gospel of jesus? no question it makes an awesome story like "game of thrones" or "the fellowship of the ring" or "dune". revelation 17. book recommend: THE HEART SUTRA by red pine. (prajnaparamita means present awareness).
It's not a film about the gospel, it's a film about the election of a pope. A bit like "in the shoes of the fisherman". Or, Zorba the Pope, with Anthony Quinn.
Mexico literally has Italian or Roman-looking cities like Guanajuato, Guanajuato yet the U.S. has nothing of the kind. Then the actual Pope of today is from Argentina which also has nothing of the kind, just watch the intro to the movie Sidewalls. It looks like a wannabe South Korea.
@@robertscown9218D’you actually watch it, my guy? They handled it with incredible respect, and brought forth some very important topics and themes for any audience member to consider, regardless of their dogma. I would challenge you to at least know what you choose to hate, then concoct some manner of coherent argument, rather than fling your opinions around with the abandon of a one-note one-year-old.
One might argue you and your lot are simply jealous that your own indoctrination movies are all utterly terrible in comparison. However, I would still hope to know what about it to you characterized itself as a shameless propaganda piece. Does the mere existence of people like Benitez make you squirm, or is it more of a fearful jerking motion that triggers in you?
Can you point to where in the film’s description or any of the promotional materials that claimed it was anything but fiction? And as far as fiction goes, it at least surpasses in its quality as a narrative and thematic essay whatever pittance you claim as your rhetorical ability.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.
@ You must be a Muslim or nonbeliever: The movie makes misleading statements, for instance about a former pope being part of the Hitler Youth, The two cardinals’ speeches in this movie were about doubt, and embracing other faiths, no one can tell you who to vote for. No one has the right to say who the other should vote for or who they have voted for,” he reports. But the cardinals in the movie Conclave talk of little else. It tries to create confusion where there is none; it tries to demonize certainty, but only certainty it disagrees with; and it is missing what actually makes its Roman settings significant: Their place in the continuing mission of Jesus Christ on earth.
No idea how this equivalence took root in your mind. If you need to have inflammatory opinions in order to justify your persisting tenancy among artistic souls ten or a hundred times your own worth, just speak them into a dark, echoing cave: you’ll find the same value has been yielded unto humanity as a whole.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.
Just went to Conclave today - amazing acting, great twist.... Should win it's way to the top of the award list.
Anything with Stanley Tucci can't be anything but brilliant.
I saw Conclave. It has an amazing story and great acting, keeping you wanting more. I hope it will be nominated during the Awards.
Visually gorgeous. Superb performances. Remember it's only a play, not reality. It's a thought-stimulating what-if.
Lord Voldemort organizing the papal election - what could possibly go wrong?
Not to mention Chef Julian Slowik.
It's OK, M will ensure Bond is elected Pope
A superbly crafted movie with fantastic actors and fabulous images. A treat for the eyes and ears. If it weren't for the ending. Of course, a “modern” theme has to be addressed, which in reality would be unthinkable in the church. A reason not to see the movie? No.
The film sticks quite closely to the original novel, including the ending.
@@smhorse An ending which is ridiculous.
@@Hartley_Hare : is it ridiculous, though? If you can't accept that kind of scenario, blame Richard Harris, who wrote the original book. All the new film does is interpret what he wrote, and doesn't try to be too clever by half.
@@smhorseThey're all to blame. The premise is foolish, so from a foolish book they made a foolish film.
@Hartley_Hare : so, presumably for you, the idea of fiction and using your own imagination is anathema.
I really enjoyed this movie. Great acting, a real script with a good plot. Recommended viewing from me
Ralph Fiennes - Pope, Voldemort, M - unstoppable
I wish they'd all stop publicising this film, it makes me go read "Hadrian VII" again and then I have to read "The Quest for Corvo" and on and on.
"The papacy is a huge burden, especially for an older man." They could always try another Benedict 9th, that might work.
Now, in the film Benitez, who came from a poor and not educated background, had always thought that he was a male (he has external male genitalia) grown up and was brought up as such, and did unmitigated good in difficult and dangerous areas of the world by protecting persecuted people. When "he" discovered that he had internal female organs as well, he did not celebrate, flaunted this around, went to prides, etc, but was shocked and thought that his life as a priest had been a terrible mistake. About which, he changed opinion. I wonder, at this point, whether one could basically assume that he's basically a male, validly ordained, and that's it.
A beautiful picture! Not quite the shoes of the fishermen, but beautiful cinematography and scenes.
Nobody can beat the Shoes of the Fisherman 🙂Rest In Peace, Anthony Queen!
Nothing i n this trailer makes me want to see anymore of this movie…..what am i missing????
Excellent movie!
As I said, the novel - which I read - deals with this final twist in a slightly different way (and it's not that articulated). Benitez has external female genitalia, which "he" thought were malformed but still male genitalia. The rest seems to be the same as the film, as far as I can see, but here I wonder more if Benitez could safely be assumed to be intrinsically male. Certainly, Benitez had genuinely believed to be a male all his life till the surgery, and acted as a male. But the case seems to be even less clearly cut than in the film.
Great movie! Superb acting on the part of the whole cast....especially Ralph Fiennes
SEDE VACANTE = WITH THE CHAIR EMPTY
I've just seen this preview. Do they screw up the rest of the Latin like this?
@sarahgeiger4729
You don't really deserve an answer,
SEDE VACANTE is the term used whenever a bishop or in the case of this film a pope dies;
the seat or chair of office bocomes empty.
0:50 the ring is to be destroyed
Cassocks and crosiers.
And he's just a man.
just wondering: what does all this have to do with the gospel of jesus? no question it makes an awesome story like "game of thrones" or "the fellowship of the ring" or "dune". revelation 17. book recommend: THE HEART SUTRA by red pine. (prajnaparamita means present awareness).
Good question what does the gospel has to do with church hierarchy?
The Roman Empire never died and continues today as The Roman Catholic Church.
@@cht2162 this is true
The Vatican is political in its own right as it is also political. In the world.
It's not a film about the gospel, it's a film about the election of a pope.
A bit like "in the shoes of the fisherman". Or, Zorba the Pope, with Anthony Quinn.
All that work to create verisimilitude, and they mispronounce Tremblay.
White smoke?
Created using specific chemicals.
@@michaelmontagu3979 Just to make sure.
Mexico literally has Italian or Roman-looking cities like Guanajuato, Guanajuato yet the U.S. has nothing of the kind. Then the actual Pope of today is from Argentina which also has nothing of the kind, just watch the intro to the movie Sidewalls. It looks like a wannabe South Korea.
dark film
This film was a huge yawn. (I fell asleep halfway through)
benitez will be pope, chooses Inocencius as "his/her" name
Another religious movie made by atheists no doubt
And that’s a problem because???
I doubt everybody involved is atheist, could be a mixture. Did you even see the movie?
So? Would you scoff at a movie about atheists made by religious people?
@ yes, because they’re not going to be honest about the subject, they would put the subject of the movie in the worst possible way.
@@robertscown9218D’you actually watch it, my guy? They handled it with incredible respect, and brought forth some very important topics and themes for any audience member to consider, regardless of their dogma. I would challenge you to at least know what you choose to hate, then concoct some manner of coherent argument, rather than fling your opinions around with the abandon of a one-note one-year-old.
The Vatican holds the wealth of the world in it's hands...and in the near future we'll witness just how wealthy they are.
😂
Another indoctrination movie. Don’t waste your time folks.
One might argue you and your lot are simply jealous that your own indoctrination movies are all utterly terrible in comparison. However, I would still hope to know what about it to you characterized itself as a shameless propaganda piece. Does the mere existence of people like Benitez make you squirm, or is it more of a fearful jerking motion that triggers in you?
Where did the pope die? in a gothic hotel?
Papal Apartments are not elaborate
Historically nothing but a Hollyweird movie. Should be nominated for best fiction.
Can you point to where in the film’s description or any of the promotional materials that claimed it was anything but fiction? And as far as fiction goes, it at least surpasses in its quality as a narrative and thematic essay whatever pittance you claim as your rhetorical ability.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably.
The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be.
And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns.
My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible.
Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably.
The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be.
And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns.
My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible.
Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.
@ You must be a Muslim or nonbeliever: The movie makes misleading statements, for instance about a former pope being part of the Hitler Youth, The two cardinals’ speeches in this movie were about doubt, and embracing other faiths, no one can tell you who to vote for. No one has the right to say who the other should vote for or who they have voted for,” he reports. But the cardinals in the movie Conclave talk of little else. It tries to create confusion where there is none; it tries to demonize certainty, but only certainty it disagrees with; and it is missing what actually makes its Roman settings significant: Their place in the continuing mission of Jesus Christ on earth.
There was no need for this after Angels and Demons. This was overkill. 🥱
No idea how this equivalence took root in your mind. If you need to have inflammatory opinions in order to justify your persisting tenancy among artistic souls ten or a hundred times your own worth, just speak them into a dark, echoing cave: you’ll find the same value has been yielded unto humanity as a whole.
@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably.
The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be.
And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns.
My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible.
Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.