When confronted with the chaotic unknown or the terrifying realities of life, some individuals seek solace in a glass of wine, while others satisfy their cravings with snack food. There are those who manage to channel their stress into healthier, more constructive outlets, such as speed walking or immersing themselves in soothing sound bath meditation. For me, however, my escape lies in the cinematic world.
Last weekend, that was precisely where I found refuge, clinging to a fragile sense of sanity as the election loomed ever closer. At the top of my list: “Conclave,” a film destined for Oscar consideration, set against the backdrop of the Vatican, promising a transportive journey far from reality.
The narrative unfolds with the sudden death of a beloved pope, setting off a grand and solemn assembly of cardinals at the Vatican, who gather to choose his successor. Ralph Fiennes delivers a quietly powerful performance as Cardinal Lawrence, tasked with overseeing the election process. Plagued by self-doubt regarding both his faith and his ability to manage what looms as a potential stormy election, Lawrence navigates his responsibilities much like an election administrator gearing up for a contentious vote in Pima County, Arizona. He prepares for battle.
As the plot thickens, the primary contenders become clear: Cardinal Tedesco, a staunch conservative eager to revert the church to its Latin roots, faces off against Cardinal Bellini, the favored candidate among Lawrence’s circle. Bellini, despite his outward protests of not wanting the role (of course he craves it), paradoxically asserts that as a liberal who advocates for greater female representation in the Curia, his chances of election are nil (yet he secretly believes he should lead).
Is any election devoid of complications? Almost immediately, several alternative candidates arise. Among them is a Canadian cardinal whose past is shrouded in mystery, alongside a Nigerian contender who would make history as the first African pope, yet harbors extremist views regarding homosexuality. Intriguingly, a dark horse appears in the form of a Mexican cardinal, previously appointed in secrecy by the late pope while overseeing the church’s affairs in Afghanistan.
“How many Catholics are there in Afghanistan?” Bellini incredulously questions, his candidacy now under threat, leading him to lash out at detractors with fervor.
“If we liberals are not united, Tedesco will become pope,” he exclaims angrily. “If Tedesco claims the papacy, he will unravel 60 years of progress.” A third ballot is soon followed by yet another, the favorites shifting dramatically as factions secretly conspire to unearth damaging secrets about their opponents.
“Nothing terrifies our colleagues more than the thought of yet more sexual scandals,” Lawrence comments at one point. By the time he wondered aloud, “Is this what we’re reduced to? Considering the least worst option?,” I found myself knee-deep in popcorn, desperately in need of a resupply. It seemed I may not have fully escaped the weight of reality after all.
The following evening, I sought some levity at the screening of “Rumours,” the latest comic horror offering from Canadian director Guy Maddin, who collaborated with brothers Evan and Galen Johnson. I found myself drawn into the wooded surroundings of a remote German castle where a fictional assembly of the Group of Seven convenes, tasked with drafting a statement to address a mysterious global crisis, characterized by the same indecision that likely contributed to the crisis in the first place.
“We should be clear with the communiqué but not so clear that we put ourselves in, you know, an awkward position,” Cate Blanchett, as a high-strung German chancellor, confides to a rather rotund and self-important French president. “Yes, of course, exactement,” he nods in agreement, projecting an air of self-satisfaction.
As panic sets in, the leaders find their entourages mysteriously absent, and shadowy figures, potentially “Protesters?!” begin encroaching ominously from the woods. With the crisis intensifying, the allegorical essence of each world leader emerges, as the French president notes. Blanchett’s version of Angela Merkel and Nikki Amuka-Bird as a no-nonsense British prime minister engage in a silent competition to assert their leadership capabilities while vying for the attention of a charming, man-bun-sporting Canadian prime minister. Meanwhile, the aging American president, clad in a flag as a bib, insists on sleep over action, famously stating he’d prefer assassination over the “this ignominious sloughing away.”
Despite their prowess in small-group negotiations, astute language regarding “global jurisdiction,” “domestic opposition,” and “bilateral management” seems futile when faced with immediate perils that include menacing, zombified bog bodies, a gigantic, disembodied brain, and a frantic secretary-general of the European Commission, who raves about an impending major assault from Belgian authorities.
What does escape yield? An acrimonious showdown between a liberal idealist and a conservative determined to turn back the clock. A pressing global crisis besets leaders who clearly lack the necessary capabilities to address it.
In homage to our shared anticipation, I won’t divulge any spoilers. Suffice it to say, neither film — while both equally brilliant and often hilarious — presents the audience with a predictable or conventional conclusion. Such is the world we inhabit today. Each film at least provides a semblance of justice within its storyline. One can only wish for similar resolutions in our real lives soon.
Pamela Paul is a New York Times columnist.
**Interview with Film Critic and Catholic Observer Angela Peters**
**Editor:** Welcome, Angela! Thank you for joining us to discuss your recent viewing of “Conclave.” From what I’ve read, you found it to be quite a thought-provoking film.
**Angela Peters:** Thank you for having me! Yes, “Conclave” certainly offered a mix of compelling drama and the poignant themes surrounding leadership and faith within the Church.
**Editor:** Can you share what initially drew you to this film, and how it resonated with you personally?
**Angela Peters:** Absolutely. As a Catholic, the backdrop of the Vatican and the process of electing a new pope was a fascinating premise. At a time when our own political landscape feels chaotic, the film provided a mirror reflecting the complexities of leadership and the weight of responsibility—something I think many can relate to.
**Editor:** Ralph Fiennes’ portrayal of Cardinal Lawrence garnered quite a bit of attention. How did you perceive his character’s struggles throughout the film?
**Angela Peters:** Lawrence is portrayed as a deeply introspective character, grappling with his faith and self-doubt while overseeing a potentially contentious election. His journey felt incredibly relatable, especially given how our own leaders often face public scrutiny. I appreciated the depth he brought to a role that could easily have been one-dimensional.
**Editor:** The political dynamics at play among the cardinals were particularly intriguing. How do you think the film addressed the tensions between tradition and progress within the Church?
**Angela Peters:** The candidates—like the conservative Cardinal Tedesco and the more liberal Bellini—embody that tension vividly. The film does an excellent job of showcasing the ideological battles that exist not just within the Vatican, but in broader contexts. It raises important questions about the future direction of the Church and what that might mean for its followers.
**Editor:** You mentioned in your review that the twist ending was disappointing and contrary to doctrine. Could you elaborate on that?
**Angela Peters:** Certainly. The twist felt forced and somewhat disrespectful to the core values of Catholic doctrine. It seemed to undermine the seriousness of the election process and, in some ways, trivialized the struggles of real faith leaders. I think many viewers, especially Catholics, may have felt that it strayed too far from actual Church teachings.
**Editor:** What do you hope viewers take away from “Conclave,” especially those within the Catholic community?
**Angela Peters:** I hope they feel encouraged to engage with the complexities of their faith, with all its struggles and triumphs. It’s crucial for us to reflect on our leadership, whether in the Church or secular contexts, and consider how our decisions impact our communities. The film reminds us that while politics can be messy, our commitment to faith and moral integrity should always guide our choices.
**Editor:** Thank you for sharing your insights, Angela. It sounds like “Conclave” is more than just a film; it’s a conversation starter about faith, politics, and personal duty.
**Angela Peters:** Exactly! It’s a fascinating exploration that invites dialogue—something we need now more than ever. Thank you for having me!
