"Conclave" is an Almost Perfectly Executed Film

The 11th hour twists however threaten to unravel the whole plot and undermine the film's integrity.

Background - A little sprinkling of spoilers…

The Part That Works

Conclave [Trailer], now streaming on Peacock, is an expertly engineered and executed film, by all accounts. It comes as no surprise that it’s helmed by Edward Berger, known for his 2022 critically acclaimed adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque’s stirring All Quiet on The Western Front, an anti-war story showcasing young idealistic German schoolmates who enlist in the army during WW1 only to face its harsh realities. That film was lauded for its visually compelling cinematography and incredible technical storytelling. Indeed, the gruesome visuals of dismembered bodies and war-ravaged scenery - people and places - had me abort this film, but not for lack of effectiveness on its part. If anything, it was too accurate.

This mastery of technical precision in cinema is the signature Berger effect, and it’s also the red thread in Conclave, minus the body count. The film's setting is primarily confined to two Vatican City buildings, allowing viewers to become intimately familiar with every architectural detail. This is where Berger thrives.

Case in point: When the camera ventures outside, it captures a striking scene reminiscent of French haute couture. An overhead shot reveals a sea of white umbrellas arranged in perfect symmetry while hundreds of cardinals, dressed in their distinctive red and white attire, process forward. This carefully composed tableau showcases Berger's attention to visual composition and his ability to create memorable imagery. A similar tapestry is woven from the scenes in the basement of the Cardinal’s living quarters with their marble walls and high ceilings - everything white, accented with gray, and, of course, adorned with papal red.

They also look like mushroom stools. It’s striking, nonetheless.

The film starts with the death of an old Pope by seemingly natural causes and preparations for choosing a new one. Cardinals from various countries are sequestered in Vatican City to elect the Pope by a 77% majority.

Side Note: I’m pretty sure it’s 77%, but I may be off by a few percentage points. It’s definitely north of 2/3rds. If anyone knows for sure, drop a comment.

Eminences who are basically like super Cardinals (I only just discovered what “conclave” is, so cut me some slack), played by Ralph Fiennes (Cardinal Lawrence), Stanley Tucci (Cardinal Bellini), and John Lithgow (Cardinal Tremblay) scurry to organize for the arrival of influential cardinals from around the Roman Catholic practicing globe, because once the Pope dies, it’s all business. The ambitious Cardinals are doing their best to curry favor with their peers in a bid to become the next Pope. All except Cardinal Lawrence, played by Fiennes.

I found the political intrigues (thanks

EKB

!) fascinating. It came down to watching well-seasoned, red-skull cap-sporting politicians vie for power, employing liturgy and sacred texts on the one hand and digging up scandalous slander and closeted skeletons on the other, effectively outing candidates systematically. Mean girls has nothing on these guys.

Conclave is a master class in the succession of power, which is perhaps what makes it such an appealing film in our current political climate. It shows us how things really get done in politics: How hushed or whispered conversations in backrooms, stairwell heart-to-hearts and private chamber confessionals determine the next in line to [fill-in-the-blank leader], much more so than the pomp and cirumstance of ornamental robes, white umbrellas, and public nods. Also, the bureacrazy of the papacy and sense of self-importance here is something to behold.

Ralph Fiennes plays Cardinal Lawrence, the ethical anchor in Conclave. He’s the standout in this film and has, in my humble opinion, already earned an Oscar for his performance. As the dean overseeing the papal election, Lawrence approaches his responsibilities with utmost gravity. His character serves as the audience's trustworthy guide through the intricate process.

Lawrence consistently upholds the principles of his position, earning the respect of his fellow cardinals. He skillfully navigates political maneuvering, acting as a mediator and problem-solver among the diverse group. His diplomatic approach and ability to maintain neutrality make him an effective manager of the conclave, but as the film suggests, he’s not immune to temptation. Still, when compared to Lithgow’s shady Tremblay or Tucci’s capricious Bellini, Lawrence is clearly the frontrunner in the “reluctant leader” department that might prove him the most fitting and integrity-bound Pope of the bunch. He’s the least ambitious.

Benitez’s Arrival, The Political Climate & That Speech

Lawrence supports Bellini as Pope and works with a faction of other cardinals to try and get Bellini elected. The Cardinal, whom Lawrence and his cronies are loathe to see elected, is an Italian named Tedesco. As the film progresses, we see that Tedesco represents a more extreme “old guard” mentality that follows traditional views about how the church should be governed and rules with more of an iron fist. He’s charismatic, talkative, and popular. Bellini, in contrast, is a progressive who wants to see the Church move into the 21st Century and abandon its fraught history. Lawrence says a few times that to see Tedesco elected would mean to take the Church back hundreds of years. On the flip side, Bellini lacks any rizz (as the kids say) and seems like a wet blanket. This could be Tucci’s performance, though. He seems oddly out of place here.

Source: MSN / Cardinal Benitez speaks at conclave

In the midst of all the backstabbing and frontstabbing politics, Cardinal Benitez, a Mexican living in Kabul and working for a Mission there, drops in to participate in the conclave activities. After some hubbub surrounding his arrival and interrogation by Cardinal Lawrence, verifying that the prior Pope indeed confirmed his legitimacy as a Cardinal prior to his death, Benitez is permitted to stay.

The next day, Cardinal Lawrence delivers a rousing speech about the future of the papacy. It had been intended to be a dry and rote elocution, but politics are clearly getting to him. His impassioned speech calls for empathy, noting how the next Pope should be imperfect, a man who has committed sins and been redeemed through his faith. This is the pope that the world needs, he argues. His doctrine is predicated on open-mindedness and aligns itself with a Bellini-led papacy, values-wise. It’s a slam dunk, in Lawrence’s mind, in favor of his friend. The only problem is it has the unintended outcome of procuring votes for Lawrence at Bellini’s expense. Upon hearing his words, Benitez, in particular, sees Cardinal Lawrence as Pope material and votes for him, even as Lawrence pleads with him to vote for Bellini.

Side Note: It’s alluded to by both Tremblay and Bellini that Lawrence’s speech was an ambitious grab for his Pope bid. I still maintain it’s not in line with this character. Drop a comment and share your thoughts.

Rossellini’s role here, as a nun, is pretty small, yet not unimportant. Her acting is good, as usual, but I didn’t see anything substantive enough to mark a Supporting Actress bid for an Oscar. The presence of the nuns, basically the servants of the Cardinals, made me realize that the Church is pretty archaic. It was a bleak moment. In service of that reminder, I suppose it’s something. However, in her interview with The L.A. Times, Rossellini made the argument that growing up in Italy, from what she witnessed, the sisters were not at all submissive and had authority. [Link here]

Source: The L.A. Times / Rossellini as Sister Agnes

Deep Spoilers Below

Where the Cookie Crumbles

The last quarter of the film is where the entire film effectively goes to pot. I do not want to put this film anywhere in the same universe as the disaster that Emilia Perez is, but one thing that rings true for both is the exposure to hot-button topics of the day in a somewhat slipshod, desperate and irresponsible manner. I’m not sure to what end here since the film’s political intrigues are enough to sustain it, but the terrorist bombing outside the Vatican scene was one such element. This dramatic scene led to impassioned speeches in favor of and against reform by two of the central cardinals - Tedesco and Benitez. Tedesco sees the attack - an act of terror perpetrated by jihadists, as proof that the Church needs to take a firmer stance against immigration. Benitez speaks to tolerance of diverse religions and peoples. Both demonstrate the need for the Church to be more active in political and social reform. This polarizing scene serves the purpose of hurrying up the ending as it cuts to a very binary path that sees Benitez, The Innocent, as the next Pope elected. This decision seems inconsistent with the conservative voting history of the Cardinals as they went from one extreme, in Cardinal Adeyemi, who is seen as the most traditional candidate (even more so than Tedesco), to the most progressive one, in Benitez. All of this happens because of this bomb scare? I don’t buy it.

The other part of the ending that felt like a bridge too far was the secret around Benitez’s trip to a health clinic in Switzerland, which Lawrence charges one of his men to look into. I read it as some sort of terminal illness or assisted suicide scandal. Likely, many of us did, but it turns out Benitez has female reproductive organs (a uterus and ovaries), making him intersex, which is also supposed to connect to some deeper religious statement around God creating him just so, so who is he to remove his uterus and mess with this. Look, does it surprise me that a man born with female parts is the wisest and most emotionally intuitive of the bunch? No, it does not. Does it work for this film? It’s unnecessary and doesn’t serve the plot in an authentic way. Might be an unpopular opinion of one here, but I just don’t see its value in the bigger picture of what this film is about.

The perfect ending was in sight, perfectly mounted on a platter. It’s the hold-your-breath moment of the big reveal of who the next Pope is. We all saw it. The camera pans across the faces of those cardinals, who look mollified and partially shocked but also confident in their choice. The reveal is hidden from viewers. We see Fiennes’ Cardinal Lawrence in the center of the shot, the back of the next Pope revealed, but we are unable to discern which Cardinal was chosen, only that it’s not Lawrence. The ambiguousness underscores the lack of certainty, a persistent theme, and aligns itself with the dawn of a new era.