Spoilers below.

---

Tyler: Norman, here’s a pull-quote for you.  Conclave: after all these years, the Catholic Church has still got it!

Norman: If this is what a real Papal conclave looks like, they should build a stadium and sell tickets!

Tyler: Hard to top the spectacle when your lead is the grand Ralph Fiennes.

Norman: It doesn’t hurt to have John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci as Papal candidates either!

But, seriously, I have no idea what a real conclave is like. Do they take minutes? Is it really that secretive? Is the intrigue always this thick? I’m sure real conclaves don’t have as many plot twists, but this movie made me want to research the actual process a bit. Alas, I’m too lazy to do said research and so next time there’s a new pope I’m just going to assume the selection process was this movie.

Tyler: The smoke, man!  It’s all about the smoke!

In seriousness, the film certainly feels authentic, down to the gesture of sealing a late pope’s sleeping quarters.  Not sure if that’s the real deal, but the seal breaks with such a satisfying crack!

Norman: Yes! Catholic ASMR over here! Few movies give you a sense of place as unique and palpable as this one. That was half the fun of watching. But, my heavens, they could have given those sleeping quarters a little color.

Tyler: It was clearly filmed on a smart budget—no shots of teeming crowds waiting for that white smoke—and thus we can revel in little asides, like a collection of cigarette butts on the ground of a plaza.

Norman: That tight budget was a real pleasure. It made me think of other similarly confined movies. Conclave isn’t 12 Angry Men, but the vibe was similar in some ways.

Tyler: They’re eating pretty good for being sequestered.

Norman: I wouldn’t mind sampling that cafeteria food.

Tyler: You ain’t kidding!  Handmade pasta up in this conclave!

Norman: Okay, let’s dig in a bit. You are a lapsed Catholic and I’m an assistant pastor in a Protestant church. This movie is not a spiritual movie, though. It is political to the core. How did you process that aspect?

Tyler: I was comforted that the “heroes”—Fiennes, Tucci, Carlos Diehz as Cardinal Benitez—share my views on issues the Church faces in reality.  When you’ve got a pre-Vatican II lout bellowing about the need for a Latin mass, well, I’m going with the crew that’s cool with more women in service.

Norman: I want to take a moment to acknowledge that the political rifts in this movie aren’t just Catholic rifts. They are felt across the church. Not every issue is the same (Thank God I don’t have to fight anyone on the prospect of having a Latin church service), but this movie’s authenticity goes beyond the decore.

That said, Conclave doesn’t spend too much time on the respective arguments of the liberal and conservative factions. This is about intrigue and power politics. For me, the crucial revelation is that John Lithgow, also a part of the liberal wing, has to be thrown out for Simony. That moment was powerful because it flies in the face of real world politics where we overlook all kinds of offenses because we need to win!

Tyler: See, I think it’s got a fairly liberal agenda in the balance.  The conservative Cardinal Adeyemi seeks to criminalize queer sexuality, but is cut down by a sexual scandal that betrays actual transgressions against God’s word.

Lithgow’s cardinal, meantime, strikes me less as liberal than a middling placeholder for real change one way or the other.  Tucci and his champion Fiennes are given the heft of the film’s heart, at least in the early goings.

Norman: Yes, but most of the calculations are about what kind of pope would be acceptable. We never completely agree with the politicians we support. We make concessions. We reason that imperfect options are always on the table and we take that over the very bad, unacceptable option all the time. The movie certainly privileges the liberal wing (especially in the ending), but I found myself mostly engrossed in the political process of getting what you want.

Tyler: There is wheeling-and-dealing like you’d get from a presidential election convention back in, like, 1876.  Who will throw their lot in with whom??

Norman: And that brings us to the film’s climax. Dear reader, excuse yourself if you want to experience this for yourself.

Tyler: It’s a bold, bold move.

Norman: I found myself both frustrated and fascinated with the narrative choices here. There is a significant departure from the novel on which the movie is based.

Tyler: I just don’t buy it.  I want to, and I admire the aim.  But, as a cinematic turn, it’s so on the nose.

Norman: Guy gives one decent speech. “YES! Let’s make him Pope!!!” 

Up to that point, I found the movie at least plausible. But to think that these guys are going to hand the Church’s highest position to a complete unknown…the movie lost me in that moment.

I really thought we were heading for a Fiennes papacy.

Tyler: See, that didn’t bother me so much as the final threat to Diehz’s candidacy.  It is revealed, in a last-moment turn, that Cardinal Benitez, the one who gave one decent speech and was elected pope, possesses a uterus and ovaries.

Norman: Oh, interesting! That’s where the movie breaks from the source material. Robert Harris’s novel has Benitez as transgender, not intersex.

I was by far more annoyed that this conclave would choose some bozo from Kabul that they barely knew!

Tyler: It’s not out of nowhere.  The film lays the groundwork of a secretive medical operation.  Perhaps I’m being sensitive to creative choices that might further turn horrid transphobes against their fellow humans.  “That Conclave movie was woke.”  I know that’s no reason to dismiss something artistic, the possible reaction of cruel nitwits.  I dunno.  It just didn’t work for me.

Norman: I agree they laid the groundwork for Diehz to be intersex. And I can see how the movie could be written off as woke. But I think the change from transgender to intersex was a clever workaround. Intersex is a more obviously biological condition, harder to argue against in the world of ideas. This makes Diehz more palatable on that front. At least that’s what I assume they were trying to do.

Tyler: They went for it, alright.

Norman: Would you have prefered to see Diehz pope, but without the medical procedure bit?

Or Fiennes pope?

Tyler: That’s tough.  I think a movie exists as is—like Diehz as Benitez!—and it can be foolhardy to rewrite the story.  I was prepared to be satisfied when Fiennes was about to be chosen, but found myself sold by that speech from Diehz.  It could be the Jesuit in my Catholic education coming out.  Social justice, son!

Norman: I love narrative structure, so coming up with alternate possibilities is a fun exercise for me. 

There are two options I would have liked.

1. The movie as is, but with at least 2 scenes that show the conclave getting to know Diehz better so that the switch from guy who makes good speech to pope is more believable. I really thought they jumped the shark. 

2. Fiennes pope.

Tyler: This is kind of a bummer!  We seem to agree that the film has a whole lot going for it, but we can’t quite stomach the final sequences.

Norman: I’ll still be recommending it to others, though! The journey to the end was well worth my time. I had a blast!

Tyler: I too will be encouraging others to see it.  This one’s worth discussing.

Norman: Indeed. It’s nice to see palace intrigue in the Vatican. Mashing up these serious institutions with genre conventions is a fruitful route for filmmakers. Think Alfred Hitchcock’s I Confess.

Long live movies made for adults!

---