Directed by Edward Berger | Written by Peter Straughan based on a book by Robert Harris | 120 min | ▲▲▲△△
A capsule review of this film appeared on FITI in September during #TIFF24
Conclave is a handsome production where the expansive budget is all there on the screen in the locations, costumes, sets and props — the director of the recent German version of All Quiet On The Western Front brings his considerable visual panache to bear. It’s about a group of cardinals who assemble when a pope dies — one in particular who has been designated a manager. He gathers and sequesters his fellow men of the cloth at the Vatican. They’ll vote on who will get to be the next supreme pontiff.
It’s also very much a portrait of that manager, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes). He doesn’t want to be pope himself but may be forced into the gig as the cardinals shuffle the deck. The episodic structure predominates as each international candidate presents themselves and jockeys for position, calling in favours and making a play to be the man in the funny hat. Invariably, dark secrets bubble to the surface.
Also starring are John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci, and Isabella Rossellini as a nun and the only woman in the movie with a line of dialogue.
Through the first couple of acts my impression was of over-familiarity — this is something we’ve seen before. It feels like a prestige TV miniseries, the bombastic score upping the drama, artificially.
Yes, it’s a political thriller, structurally, but how much are we invested? Will this interest anyone not personally engaged in the patriarchal peculiarities of the Holy See — anyone who doesn’t have a direct connection to the Catholic Church? Aside from the fact a lot of old men in this world crave power, I questioned this picture’s relevance beyond its well-appointed cloisters. I was left a bit cold by its machinations.
However, as Conclave rolls into its third act, a dark horse presents itself in the papal race and we get a twist I did not see coming. I’ve read a few reactions to this, some saying it’s so out of left field it does the film a disservice. On the contrary, it’s plausible enough that it enriches the picture that went before it, adding depth and nuance after the fact. I may need to watch it again.
