CINEMA COMFORT FOOD PT 2: Conclave (2024, dir by Edward Berger, 120mns, Digital, UK/USA)

Like our review of Jason Reitman's SATURDAY NIGHT, Edward Berger's meticulous, engrossing CONCLAVE, about a fictitious election of a new pope beset by mystery, scandal, and intrigue, is a kind of cinematic comfort food.

And again, that's not a bad thing. CONCLAVE is an excellent movie that smuggles in intriguing ideas under the cloak of a 70's style Alan J Pakula (ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, KLUTE) thriller.

It's also an engaging parable for how humility is a needed pre-requisite for a spiritually fulfilling existence. 

At the same time, with some distance from the impeccable craft of the movie, one feels the limitations of the movie's thriller strictures and its philosophical conclusions as excellent as the movie is.

CONCLAVE, based on the 2016 Robert Harris novel of the same name, centers on the mysterious process of electing a new Catholic pope. Here, the former Pope dies and immediately Cardinal Lawrence (an anguished, precise Ralph Fiennes), beset by spiritual doubts himself, must oversee the "conclave" to elect the new pope. 

Hate the game, not the player Cardinal Lawrence…

There are several clear "seekers" to the throne even if they pretend not to be including liberal Cardinal Bellini (a great intense Stanley Tucci), reactionary Italian Cardinal Tedesco (a deliciously entitled Sergio Castellito), African Cardinal Ayedami (an emotional human Lucien Msamati), and calculating Cardinal Tremblay (an always there to deliver John Lithgow). Add to this the last minute appearance of a previously unknown Cardinal of Kabul Afghanistan (Carlos Diehz), an intensely silent but all-seeing Sister Agnes (Isabella Rossellini) and revelations about the now dead pope's final maneuvers and you get a nifty taut firecracker of a movie.

Cardinal Lawrence acts as a kind of detective from the start, trying to figure out what's really going on as signs immediately point to a conspiracy of cardinals lying, buying votes, maneuvering for advantage.

For any who aren't familiar with the arcane process of electing the new pope, the college of cardinals are sequestered and kept from outside news or interaction in the Vatican until a candidate passes the majority threshold to win election as new pope. 

This allows for numerous complications to Cardinal Lawrence's investigation as he tries to honor the isolation while trying to get facts from the outside world. Further as voting goes round after round, Lawrence finds himself getting more and more votes and thus throwing a light of suspicion on him that all his "I'm just trying to protect/honor the process" protestations are really secret maneuvers to get himself elected. And the movie wisely mines this ambiguity. 

The ultimate reveals, twists, and turns lead to a conclusion that clearly points to the need for reform, evolution, progression in the church if the church is to stay vital, relevant into the future.

Sister Agnes has some answers. If only you damn men would listen…

This audience member found himself in love with the craft of the movie. From the brittle naked string-driven staccato musical score to the Cinecitta constructed sets of the Vatican and Sistine chapel to the all-star catfight fest nature of the cast, CONCLAVE is meant to be a work of craft. And it is. 

On top of that, the ending, intentionally shocking and provocative in its way, makes an inarguably salient point.

This writer is himself a practicing Catholic. And strangely found himself thinking about what changes he would make in the church early on in the movie only to find it was these changes the movie itself was concerned with.

Further, the movie, through Fiennes' and Co's performances, is also a commendable examination of how the competition for earthly power clouds the path to spiritual growth. 

And yet when the movie cuts to final credits, this writer found himself satisfied and impressed if not blown away. 

All this red…

The movie has more than a twinge of the self-satisfaction of author(s) who think they have the answer for a decaying institution. And unfortunately that is also a kind of pride, egotism, and lack of humility. The prescription feels guaranteed to enrage conservatives and please liberals. And therefore, the prescription feels ultimately...simplistic.

One wonders...do movies about spiritual and political themes need to be fairly broad/simple to be commercial? The answer of course is no. Just look at Alfonso Cuaron's 2006 CHILDREN OF MEN. Though not a hit by any means (it grossed $70M on a $75M budget on initial release), it still made $70M ($35M more than CONCLAVE's current but growing $35M haul) and succeeded as both an entertainment and spiritual piece that was anything but one note or broad. And even though CHILDREN OF MEN was clearly politically progressive, it was even more complexly humanistic. The trait that saved it from ever feeling preachy or obvious.

But of course, CHILDREN OF MEN Is the exception that proves the point. Movies about the pursuit of a spiritual life in the material world are hard to pull off. Very few movie goers want to be preached at. Fewer still want a navel gazing picture where the moviemaker thinks their thoughts are deeper and more worthy than they really are. 

So CONCLAVE is right and smart to smuggle in its own conclusions in the guise of a consummate hybrid popcorn/art house thriller.

It is interesting, provocative, entertaining, and worth multiple watches. And if a movie achieves that, it has succeeded. Even if we, lacking humility, want more from it. 

Craig Hammill is the founder.programmer of Secret Movie Club.