The "Notice how everyone gravitates to their fellow countrymen" speech is when I started to hate the movie. For a brief moment the movie allows its conservative strawman to make a compelling argument, but then, just so we have no doubt that conservatives are pure evil and everything they say can be disregarded, it has him make a crude racist comment on the African cardinals. At every point the movie sacrifices being a compelling drama to be a liberal morality play. The costume and set design are very pretty though.
If they are letting him make a compelling argument, as you say, why do you call it a liberal morality play? It IS a good point. What ARE the ramifications of having achieved spreading the Gospel to every inch of the world? Is the world of diversity we find ourselves in truly a strength? How can we look inward to make it so it is? These are fair questions that I felt were raised with integrity. Also, to make a crude comment on the African cardinals makes sense! Unfortunately, the African cardinals that the Church majority has elevated are often less charitable about the most sensitive issues of our time. I loved this movie because it DID feel like hellfire Inferno, Dante's specifically. We have Lawrence like Dante condemning the Simonist Liberal Tremblay, Wrathful Conservative Tedesco, Schismatic Liberal Bellini, denying himself, and turning ultimately towards the radically loving, apolitical, Christ-like figure. I call Benitez Christ-like, not an anti-Christ, because I see the movie using the frightening discovery of his confusing intersex anatomy (lived as a man, has the body of a man, but discovers he has some of the internal sex organs of a woman) as a metaphor maybe for Christ being unexplainably both man and God. I felt the movie is just asking how we can exist as contemporary Catholics when we ARE under attack in Europe and the world, we ARE too focused on internal politics, we ARE wrestling with theology, and Christ tells us to just love Him through it all. Are we sure we're doing that? I see that as the question the movie posits. I see Lawrence going outside as finally praying, something we know he has struggled with the entire movie.
This sounds like a discarded draft from the “Left Behind” series. Many of the Protestants I grew up amongst already thought the Pope was the AntiChrist.
I thought “Conclave” was too kind to the Catholic Church. I see a bunch of commenters blaming the Church’s decline on the fading of the Latin Mass. Perhaps the systematic cover up of mass child rape may also have impacted this institution’s reputation?
Compassion rightfully should be shown to the victims. However, the self-flagellation you demand is not compassion, but emotional blackmail. An appropriate amount of guilt is appropriate in the correct measure, but to throw out the many goods of an institution for the evils committed by its flawed human members is a recipe for an inevitably narrow and cynical worldview
I demand nothing of the Church. I merely point out to its defenders that these abuse scandals have done more damage than you are willing to acknowledge.
Good question. I was being a little flippant but I don't think Conclave was made by people who view the Church as "the enemy". They portray it as a fallible institution made up of flawed people participating in something larger than themselves. There are darker stories to be told about the Church (e.g. the deliberate suppression of abuse). So while I get the antipathy of some Catholics to the movie, I think some of their ire would be more productively directed elsewhere.
I did find the final resolution a little too neat from a dramatic perspective. It's a flawed film but absolutely compelling.
I thought the film was made by reddit atheists - clever and talented, yet utterly not self aware, existing in a tight bubble. It purposefully sh*ts on religion, especially conservative versions like Tedesco.
I assumed Benitez would be Pope pretty much after his egalitarian grace early on - and was sure after the first round where he received a vote. There was only a slight bit of narrative tension in that it was technically possible they would conclude as you posit with Lawrence.
The bombings came across as Macguffin - they theoretically play a large role in the conclusion yet their background unrealistically not explored or given any weight
Good article. Interesting as I have wondered what to make of the ending. I agree with you that Lawrence being elevated was what I expected and would have made for a grim and cynical but enjoyable commentary on the Church and man’s ambition. As it was I was baffled by the ending—is it just some libtard crap or is there something deeper?
Also I agree Tedesco is the hero of the movie but only myself and one other from our group thought that!
Perhaps I’m restating your thesis but I suspect the shallow interpretation is what Hollywood intended as they are not routinely capable of producing narratives without propaganda or themes beyond the obvious. And a good jab at the Christian base is always a money maker.
Interesting story about Papal election dynamics. Terrorism? Hmm, odd. But it seems to shake up the story. Maybe give us a bit of a lesson on what we ought to be about.
.
Mr. Saul, a Jewish guy: ...No way. You're seeing this, right? The sort of character they just made way for? I don't think "Vicar of Christ" will be the title you'd want to give this guy, is all I'm saying.
Haven't seen the film ... Only heard it was bad. Might have a look now - this was a brilliant piece. I read solovievs short story of the antichrist recently, online and it was great. And peter thiel's recent talks are going on about the antichrist. The babel point was not one I've ever heard TLM types make, but it is a very good one. Watching a clip of jpii in Chicago lead the Lord's prayer and command the huge gathering of religious to sing "in Latina" is just something that couldnt happen now
I thought the film was saying the new pope is christ if he were alive today. Radical. Revolutionary. Rebellious. Yet kind. Caring. Loving and peaceful.
But Jesus wasn’t radical or revolutionary. He was a firm, ardent, religious traditionalist whose primary attack on the Pharisees was that they had used the word of the law to create exemptions for themselves from the actual meaning of the texts in ways that were never intended. Jesus was an *arch-reactionary* by any reasonable modern analogue.
I get where this is coming from, but Jesus also disregarded traditional rules by healing on the Sabbath, declaring all foods clean, and speaking out against stoning.
Like most successful movement leaders, Jesus preached a synthesis of enough old ideas to claim credibility in a certain cultural context with enough new ideas to be interesting and inspiring.
I can see how the ending can be construed as "woke", but I actually liked it. At the beginning, Lawrence is said to have been questioning his faith, and by the end he seems to have regained his faith after the events of the film and Cardinal Benitez's rise. Taleb also agrees that the Church's switch from traditionalism ( i.e. Mass in Latin, etc.) led to its decline, but I don't see from a story perspective how Tedesco could've won out. The case for Lawrence could've been made, as you did quite well, but then he would've been just a common man overwhelmed by ambition, while instead he was actually a man of honest faith( mostly).
I was genuinely intrigued when I saw this film advertised. I couldn't work out why such a film would be made and where the drama might drawn from. Then I watched it and realised what I should have known from the start. Pure propaganda.
I regard Conclave as the updated CIA-Hollywood propaganda operation that began with The Two Popes. Both projects HAD to have all-star casts and Oscar nominations to be effective. Both films were cover stories for the CIA installation of Pope Francis. One month after The Two Popes, which featured a benevolent view of Pope Francis, had its star turn at the 2020 Oscars, Pope Francis amplified the world’s terror over a mysterious virus by shutting down all Catholic Church masses for several weeks. No Pope had done that since the Black Death in the late-1500s and early 1600s. Don’t forget Sweden never shut down. But the rest of the world did—with Pope Francis’s blessing, as it were. Now we have Conclave getting its star turn at the Oscars as Pope Francis, we are told, is battling a grave illness. Is it all just a CIA plot that Conclave, which begins with the death of a pope, is celebrated at the Oscars as their company pope fades to black? There are no conspiracies, but there are no coincidences. I pray for Pope Francis to recover his health, resign his fake papacy, publicly confess his many sins. One of which, most certainly, is that he helped the CIA infiltrate Jesus’s Church. That would, indeed, be miraculous.
The "Notice how everyone gravitates to their fellow countrymen" speech is when I started to hate the movie. For a brief moment the movie allows its conservative strawman to make a compelling argument, but then, just so we have no doubt that conservatives are pure evil and everything they say can be disregarded, it has him make a crude racist comment on the African cardinals. At every point the movie sacrifices being a compelling drama to be a liberal morality play. The costume and set design are very pretty though.
I liked it. i understand it was meant to make him look bad and reveal the liberal tendency of the film. But I thought it was clever and felt real
If they are letting him make a compelling argument, as you say, why do you call it a liberal morality play? It IS a good point. What ARE the ramifications of having achieved spreading the Gospel to every inch of the world? Is the world of diversity we find ourselves in truly a strength? How can we look inward to make it so it is? These are fair questions that I felt were raised with integrity. Also, to make a crude comment on the African cardinals makes sense! Unfortunately, the African cardinals that the Church majority has elevated are often less charitable about the most sensitive issues of our time. I loved this movie because it DID feel like hellfire Inferno, Dante's specifically. We have Lawrence like Dante condemning the Simonist Liberal Tremblay, Wrathful Conservative Tedesco, Schismatic Liberal Bellini, denying himself, and turning ultimately towards the radically loving, apolitical, Christ-like figure. I call Benitez Christ-like, not an anti-Christ, because I see the movie using the frightening discovery of his confusing intersex anatomy (lived as a man, has the body of a man, but discovers he has some of the internal sex organs of a woman) as a metaphor maybe for Christ being unexplainably both man and God. I felt the movie is just asking how we can exist as contemporary Catholics when we ARE under attack in Europe and the world, we ARE too focused on internal politics, we ARE wrestling with theology, and Christ tells us to just love Him through it all. Are we sure we're doing that? I see that as the question the movie posits. I see Lawrence going outside as finally praying, something we know he has struggled with the entire movie.
i’d like to follow this up by saying one cannot be both just and merciful. Christ time and again chooses the latter, as should we aim to
This sounds like a discarded draft from the “Left Behind” series. Many of the Protestants I grew up amongst already thought the Pope was the AntiChrist.
I thought “Conclave” was too kind to the Catholic Church. I see a bunch of commenters blaming the Church’s decline on the fading of the Latin Mass. Perhaps the systematic cover up of mass child rape may also have impacted this institution’s reputation?
yawn, get some new material
With that level of compassion, have you thought about doing crisis PR for the Church?
Compassion rightfully should be shown to the victims. However, the self-flagellation you demand is not compassion, but emotional blackmail. An appropriate amount of guilt is appropriate in the correct measure, but to throw out the many goods of an institution for the evils committed by its flawed human members is a recipe for an inevitably narrow and cynical worldview
I demand nothing of the Church. I merely point out to its defenders that these abuse scandals have done more damage than you are willing to acknowledge.
Maybe in an effort to clarify our points, what did you mean when you said "I thought Conclave was too kind to the Catholic Church"?
Good question. I was being a little flippant but I don't think Conclave was made by people who view the Church as "the enemy". They portray it as a fallible institution made up of flawed people participating in something larger than themselves. There are darker stories to be told about the Church (e.g. the deliberate suppression of abuse). So while I get the antipathy of some Catholics to the movie, I think some of their ire would be more productively directed elsewhere.
I did find the final resolution a little too neat from a dramatic perspective. It's a flawed film but absolutely compelling.
I thought the film was made by reddit atheists - clever and talented, yet utterly not self aware, existing in a tight bubble. It purposefully sh*ts on religion, especially conservative versions like Tedesco.
I assumed Benitez would be Pope pretty much after his egalitarian grace early on - and was sure after the first round where he received a vote. There was only a slight bit of narrative tension in that it was technically possible they would conclude as you posit with Lawrence.
The bombings came across as Macguffin - they theoretically play a large role in the conclusion yet their background unrealistically not explored or given any weight
Good article. Interesting as I have wondered what to make of the ending. I agree with you that Lawrence being elevated was what I expected and would have made for a grim and cynical but enjoyable commentary on the Church and man’s ambition. As it was I was baffled by the ending—is it just some libtard crap or is there something deeper?
Also I agree Tedesco is the hero of the movie but only myself and one other from our group thought that!
Thankyou an excellent reading of the film. I had it down as yet more thinly veiled transgender propaganda but you've made me reconsider.
Perhaps I’m restating your thesis but I suspect the shallow interpretation is what Hollywood intended as they are not routinely capable of producing narratives without propaganda or themes beyond the obvious. And a good jab at the Christian base is always a money maker.
Everyone else and Catholics:
Interesting story about Papal election dynamics. Terrorism? Hmm, odd. But it seems to shake up the story. Maybe give us a bit of a lesson on what we ought to be about.
.
Mr. Saul, a Jewish guy: ...No way. You're seeing this, right? The sort of character they just made way for? I don't think "Vicar of Christ" will be the title you'd want to give this guy, is all I'm saying.
Haven't seen the film ... Only heard it was bad. Might have a look now - this was a brilliant piece. I read solovievs short story of the antichrist recently, online and it was great. And peter thiel's recent talks are going on about the antichrist. The babel point was not one I've ever heard TLM types make, but it is a very good one. Watching a clip of jpii in Chicago lead the Lord's prayer and command the huge gathering of religious to sing "in Latina" is just something that couldnt happen now
I thought the film was saying the new pope is christ if he were alive today. Radical. Revolutionary. Rebellious. Yet kind. Caring. Loving and peaceful.
What do I know im just a jew
But Jesus wasn’t radical or revolutionary. He was a firm, ardent, religious traditionalist whose primary attack on the Pharisees was that they had used the word of the law to create exemptions for themselves from the actual meaning of the texts in ways that were never intended. Jesus was an *arch-reactionary* by any reasonable modern analogue.
I get where this is coming from, but Jesus also disregarded traditional rules by healing on the Sabbath, declaring all foods clean, and speaking out against stoning.
Like most successful movement leaders, Jesus preached a synthesis of enough old ideas to claim credibility in a certain cultural context with enough new ideas to be interesting and inspiring.
Correct! But that had been going on for decades...thus making him radical and revolutionary...
And pro-mass immigration into the white homelands. <gasp>
Vote in the Ursulas, for which Oscar nominee has the best political chance on winning the Oscar.
https://craignelsen.substack.com/p/the-ursulas
I can see how the ending can be construed as "woke", but I actually liked it. At the beginning, Lawrence is said to have been questioning his faith, and by the end he seems to have regained his faith after the events of the film and Cardinal Benitez's rise. Taleb also agrees that the Church's switch from traditionalism ( i.e. Mass in Latin, etc.) led to its decline, but I don't see from a story perspective how Tedesco could've won out. The case for Lawrence could've been made, as you did quite well, but then he would've been just a common man overwhelmed by ambition, while instead he was actually a man of honest faith( mostly).
Traditional?
What Tradition. He created Christianity? That's revolutionary!
I was genuinely intrigued when I saw this film advertised. I couldn't work out why such a film would be made and where the drama might drawn from. Then I watched it and realised what I should have known from the start. Pure propaganda.
I regard Conclave as the updated CIA-Hollywood propaganda operation that began with The Two Popes. Both projects HAD to have all-star casts and Oscar nominations to be effective. Both films were cover stories for the CIA installation of Pope Francis. One month after The Two Popes, which featured a benevolent view of Pope Francis, had its star turn at the 2020 Oscars, Pope Francis amplified the world’s terror over a mysterious virus by shutting down all Catholic Church masses for several weeks. No Pope had done that since the Black Death in the late-1500s and early 1600s. Don’t forget Sweden never shut down. But the rest of the world did—with Pope Francis’s blessing, as it were. Now we have Conclave getting its star turn at the Oscars as Pope Francis, we are told, is battling a grave illness. Is it all just a CIA plot that Conclave, which begins with the death of a pope, is celebrated at the Oscars as their company pope fades to black? There are no conspiracies, but there are no coincidences. I pray for Pope Francis to recover his health, resign his fake papacy, publicly confess his many sins. One of which, most certainly, is that he helped the CIA infiltrate Jesus’s Church. That would, indeed, be miraculous.
Someone's been reading too much Taylor Marshall...
He’s scared to read me … you are too