I have not seen the movie, yet, but I have read the book, which is brilliantly written, with a twist at the end that is guaranteed to have your hair stand on end. If the movie does justice to the book at all, it is explosive. What a fabulous cast! Fiennes, Tucci, Lithgow, and that just for starters. I like this preview and I'm really looking forward to seeing the film, and, of course, comparing it to the book.
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.
I think God’s work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it, sometimes. Like here. Benitez was absolutely not a woman any way you cut it. But does that mean he HAD to be a man by lack of any other category? Do we value his manly looks and manly upbringing and manly social role and education? Do we serve God better if we pick the obvious clear choice in such cases and work with what we got for a body? Do we better go about it by ignoring it and letting each person talk it over with God? Can’t really blame earlier religious teachings for having such holes since they did not have as many people or knowledge as we did today. It’s like asking the apostles if building a church without a cross is okay when they didn’t even have the understanding or traditions to understand the question.
I think God’s work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it, sometimes. Like here. Benitez was absolutely not a woman any way you cut it. But does that mean he HAD to be a man by lack of any other category? Do we value his manly looks and manly upbringing and manly social role and education? Do we serve God better if we pick the obvious clear choice in such cases and work with what we got for a body? Do we better go about it by ignoring it and letting each person talk it over with God?
@@yucol5661 "I think God's work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it". This sentence summarizes well the final twist of the film, and goes by Cardinal Lawrence's speech about doubt and certainty. Perhaps - I genuinely wonder - we should just let God do His work and not interfere. On the other hand, it's not man that wanted male priests, it's the Almighty Himself. A father figure. I really do not know what I would I have done, if I had been in Lawrence's position.
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.
@ Does it translate differently? "Sedes" is still "seat" or "chair," not "throne." I am just railing against Hollywood's overused trope of portraying the Catholic Church as big, scary, secretive, and maniacal every time they need to make a buck.
Fiennes and Tucci made better SS officers. This movie despite the splendor/good acting is so silly in terms of Catholic theology and the nature of the priesthood that it's impossible to suspend one's disbelief.
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.
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.
@@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.
Lawrence and Bellini have worked together with and for the pope, and Bellini has to TELL Lawrence that he and the pope used to play chess and he always lost?? That kind of shoddy exposition irritates me no end.
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?
Propagandism against the Catholic Church cannot be more gross and more ridiculous and evidente these days . I mean ther were times where Hollywood would make a movie hidings these ridiculous portraits in a carácter that confuses people or believers now it’s like a joke . What a misery of these actors producers , everyone involved .what a petty that this actually is being portrait try to impose to the believers the worst of themselves .
Against? This movie is FOR the church. The main character is a godly man who fought and kept bribery and scandal at bay. They literally overcame the conspiracy and picked the good kind charitable humble option for pope. Stop being so hard of heart and set in your ideology.
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.
It's based on a novel by Richard Harris, a British novelist. It's not from a Hollywood source who loves to write novels with a mix of politics, history and detective elements. .
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.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
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 have not seen the movie, yet, but I have read the book, which is brilliantly written, with a twist at the end that is guaranteed to have your hair stand on end. If the movie does justice to the book at all, it is explosive. What a fabulous cast! Fiennes, Tucci, Lithgow, and that just for starters. I like this preview and I'm really looking forward to seeing the film, and, of course, comparing it to the book.
I saw Conclave. It has an amazing story and great acting, keeping you wanting more. I hope it will be nominated during the Awards.
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.
Visually gorgeous. Superb performances. Remember it's only a play, not reality. It's a thought-stimulating what-if.
I really enjoyed this movie. Great acting, a real script with a good plot. Recommended viewing from me
Ralph Fiennes - Pope, Voldemort, M - unstoppable
Ahem....Moses !!!!
Gustave
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.
I think God’s work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it, sometimes. Like here. Benitez was absolutely not a woman any way you cut it. But does that mean he HAD to be a man by lack of any other category? Do we value his manly looks and manly upbringing and manly social role and education? Do we serve God better if we pick the obvious clear choice in such cases and work with what we got for a body? Do we better go about it by ignoring it and letting each person talk it over with God?
Can’t really blame earlier religious teachings for having such holes since they did not have as many people or knowledge as we did today. It’s like asking the apostles if building a church without a cross is okay when they didn’t even have the understanding or traditions to understand the question.
I think God’s work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it, sometimes. Like here. Benitez was absolutely not a woman any way you cut it. But does that mean he HAD to be a man by lack of any other category? Do we value his manly looks and manly upbringing and manly social role and education? Do we serve God better if we pick the obvious clear choice in such cases and work with what we got for a body? Do we better go about it by ignoring it and letting each person talk it over with God?
@@yucol5661 "I think God's work just refuses
@@yucol5661 "I think God's work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it". This sentence summarizes well the final twist of the film, and goes by Cardinal Lawrence's speech about doubt and certainty. Perhaps - I genuinely wonder - we should just let God do His work and not interfere. On the other hand, it's not man that wanted male priests, it's the Almighty Himself. A father figure. I really do not know what I would I have done, if I had been in Lawrence's position.
@@yucol5661 "I think God’s work just refuses to fit with our rules and best attempts to understand it, sometimes. "
I find this quite right.
LOVED thd newbie Carlos Diehz in this movie Hope to see him more often in the future.
Fantastic film. I'm not even Catholic but it's so fitting for the current state of Christanity.
Fantastic book. I hope they do it justice.
Reading the book again before I see the film. Still have a couple more weeks before it’s released in Australia.
So many people who’ve never read the book
Great movie, I've actually seen it yesterday, one of the best I've ever had the pleasure to enjoy ! Tucci is absolutely incredible ! 👍 G
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!
Its a great film. I loved it
Great movie! Superb acting on the part of the whole cast....especially Ralph Fiennes
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.
The assumption in the film is that he has external male genitalia and the rest was a surprise but why give away spoilers?
0:12,8:31,8:35
"The papacy is a huge burden, especially for an older man." They could always try another Benedict 9th, that might work.
Excellent movie!
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.
0:50 the ring is to be destroyed
"He was always 8 moves ahead" 100% very true.
Voldemort became a pope ..
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.
@@sarahgeiger4729 Church Latin is not the same as classical Latin.
@ Does it translate differently? "Sedes" is still "seat" or "chair," not "throne." I am just railing against Hollywood's overused trope of portraying the Catholic Church as big, scary, secretive, and maniacal every time they need to make a buck.
@sarahgeiger4729
Hollywood has been knocking the RC Church for years,
because the Church refuses to get involved;
giving credibility to the Sceptics.
Cassocks and crosiers.
And he's just a man.
White smoke?
Created using specific chemicals.
@@michaelmontagu3979 Just to make sure.
Fiennes and Tucci made better SS officers. This movie despite the splendor/good acting is so silly in terms of Catholic theology and the nature of the priesthood that it's impossible to suspend one's disbelief.
Just finished watching this. Huge end disappointment obviously after the entire movie had an 🏳️🌈 agenda. So sad could have been a good movie.
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.
This movie wouldn’t have the same zing if it portraid the election of the next arch bishop of Canterbury, would it?
dark film
This film was a huge yawn. (I fell asleep halfway through)
More trash from hollywoke
benitez will be pope, chooses Inocencius as "his/her" name
Stop the spoilers.
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.
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.
Lawrence and Bellini have worked together with and for the pope, and Bellini has to TELL Lawrence that he and the pope used to play chess and he always lost??
That kind of shoddy exposition irritates me no end.
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?
There's no indoctrination. No one is forced to believe anything in it.
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.
😂
Propagandism against the Catholic Church cannot be more gross and more ridiculous and evidente these days .
I mean ther were times where Hollywood would make a movie hidings these ridiculous portraits in a carácter that confuses people or believers now it’s like a joke .
What a misery of these actors producers , everyone involved .what a petty that this actually is being portrait try to impose to the believers the worst of themselves .
What about a movie about Netanyahu .try that .
Yeah exactly not one of your own , never .right?
Against? This movie is FOR the church. The main character is a godly man who fought and kept bribery and scandal at bay. They literally overcame the conspiracy and picked the good kind charitable humble option for pope. Stop being so hard of heart and set in your ideology.
All that work to create verisimilitude, and they mispronounce Tremblay.
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.
It's based on a novel by Richard Harris, a British novelist. It's not from a Hollywood source who loves to write novels with a mix of politics, history and detective elements. .
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.