☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Conclave (2024) – E. Berger
I watched Conclave
for Easter but it barely triggered a memory of my Catholic high school past
(apart from the fancy dress, there’s little to no religious content here). Instead, I was reminded of Advise and Consent
(1962) where liberal Henry Fonda’s nomination to be Secretary of State is
subjected to game-playing and deceit by both sides of politics, in an effort to
block or confirm his appointment. Here,
there are more than a few rivals for the Popedom, including liberal Stanley
Tucci, conservative Sergio Castellitto, ambitious John Lithgow, and the first viable
African candidate Lucian Msamati. Ralph
Fiennes is the Dean of the Cardinals whose job it is to organise a conclave to
elect the next pope when the old one suddenly passes away. He’s ready to leave
the Vatican due to a spiritual crisis but commits to managing the conclave as a
sort of final act, even as he is drawn into the political intrigue, with
candidates jockeying for position and their dirty laundry aired by their
opponents (or uncovered via investigation by Fiennes). Although the film feels
grim at times (since this is “serious” business), as it proceeds and the tension
and speculation grow (with vote after vote unsuccessful – only grey, not white,
smoke sent up the Vatican’s chimney), it suddenly exploded for me into something
a bit more berserk. The director, Edward
Berger, plays the audience, letting the melodrama erupt into something more
absurd (unless you are willing to believe that God has sent a message to
Fiennes). To top things off, after the pope is chosen, there’s a surprise coda at
the end of the film, like the last chocolate egg discovered once the hunt has
concluded. This final offering reverberates beyond the final credits, a
remarkable curveball to strike out the last batter and leave the other team and
most spectators speechless. You can see why Peter Straughan’s screenplay
(adapted from the book by Robert Harris) won the Oscar, even though the acting
prowess on display did garner noms for Fiennes and for Isabella Rossellini as a
nun who intervenes at a key moment. The only question that remains is whether
the film’s contribution to political discourse could be read as
less-than-serious (given all that’s preceded it) when in fact it’s worth
genuinely absorbing.