BY ROGER WATSON
Why anyone would go to see Conclave, a film about the secretive proceedings behind locked doors at the Vatican – thus ‘conclave’ – in the election of a new Pope, is unclear. But they have, in their droves. It is a box office success netting $75 million worldwide and scoring 93% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and 86% on their Popcornmeter of verified ratings. At the time of writing, it has no fewer than 12 BAFTA nominations.
Your intrepid correspondent felt it his duty to go and see what the fuss was all about. I suppose I had above average interest in the film, me being a Roman Catholic. But had I not been prompted by a Protestant friend, one deeply suspicious of all ways Papal and Roman, I think my curiosity may not have been piqued.
When asked by Mrs Watson what the film was about – it’s about the election of a new Pope – her reaction, as I suspect that of many would be, was less than enthusiastic. “But it’s got an all-star cast” which I started to list. I had her at Ralph Fiennes who tops the bill.
The occasional trailer suggested a film of darkness and drama akin to the dreadful Angels & Demons which rates as Tom Hanks’s worst film second only to the other Dan Brown train wreck The Da Vinci Code in which he also starred. So, popcorn and a cup of tea in hand we sat down at one of our local cinemas to view this highly rated religious thriller.
The film, and the conclave around which it is based, begin with the death of the incumbent Pope and the declaration of sede vacante, meaning that the See of Peter remains vacant until the election of a new Pope. I am not alone among Catholics in thinking that the See of Peter may have been vacant for several years. The fictional incumbent at the time of Conclave, it transpires was a liberal theologian, much like the present non-fictional incumbent.
As a piece of cinema, frankly, Conclave isn’t too bad. The all-star cast lends it a great deal of weight as does the setting. The film is, indeed, literally dark. The action, largely ‘inaction’, takes place within the securely shuttered environment of the conclave. The cardinals, the princes of the church (think red hats), must have no outside influences and no contact with the outside world. They eat, sleep and meet in isolation.
There is much nocturnal and clandestine toing and froing as Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, played by Ralph Fiennes who oversees the conclave, reaps the opinion of his fellow cardinals. Assuring all and sundry that he has no papal ambitions he works behind the scenes to influence proceedings if candidates become non papabile due to some misdemeanour that has come to light.
The few occasions when the cardinals are released into an enclosed cloister are quite a relief for the eye. They stand in the bright sunshine in their colourful attire and the aerial shots are very effective. Some of the groups are wreathed in clouds of smoke, which is nothing Satanic, it just depicts the smoking habit (no pun intended) of many cardinals.
For a fuller review and many spoilers right up to and including the final twist, Thomas Edwards’ review of Conclave in The Catholic Herald is worth reading. It leaves few stones unturned. But, having read that review and seen the film I was left wondering why such a film was made. The author of the book on which it was based, Robert Harris, is enigmatic about his faith. He is certainly not a Catholic. But a sympathetic interview in The Catholic Herald reveals that he found the Vatican responsive and helpful when he was writing the book. He is a great admirer of Pope Francis.
I have not read the book; therefore, I cannot attest to its aims. But the film makes the Catholic Church look faintly ridiculous. Perhaps it is and must seem more than faintly ridiculous to non-Catholics. The costumery, the modes of address and the sequestered wealth of the Vatican are easy targets.
But, while the author seems to respect The Church, and the film probably portrays the proceedings of a conclave quite well (nobody other than an attendee will ever know), it does have a message. And that message is reiterated throughout: The Church must not “turn the clock back sixty years” to the pre-Vatican II era which sought to make The Church and, thereby, Catholicism more ‘relevant’ and ‘appealing’.
Thus, the progressives in Conclave are portrayed as relatively sane and unambitious whereas those who would reinforce the traditional teaching of The Church, for example on homosexuality or the conduct of The Mass, are portrayed as ambitious and unpleasant. But, by dint of the evidence, we are witnessing a church in decline as numbers going to Mass tumble. As someone who leans strongly towards the traditional elements in the teaching of The Church I would ask “if it seemed like fun to destroy the liturgy and liberalise our doctrines, then who’s laughing now?”
Roger Watson is a Registered Nurse and Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Education in Practice.