Conclave (2024)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

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.