4 ms·

If anyone hasn’t seen Conclave I really recommend it. It seems so boring, but my girlfriend and I were fascinated the whole movie.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
It’s also widely considered by Catholics to be seriously inaccurate; and the subject matter has been settled for centuries. Basically, it’s about as historically and religiously accurate as Gladiator or Braveheart. Take that how you will. I say this as somebody who liked Gladiator, but know better than to take anything in it seriously (even basic things, like the “thumbs up” to allow life, is inaccurate).
- teolandon 2y ago
  It's very obviously fictional.
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    I think that most people who watched it will assume it’s well researched
    - FearNotDaniel 2y ago
      To be fair, the question of whether it’s historically accurate is irrelevant because the film obviously doesn’t depict real events with real cardinals… even to the viewer who knows nothing about who is who in the real-life Catholic hierarchy, the terrorist event that triggers a major plot twist should be a big clue that this is a fictional thriller, not a documentary. Apart from that, the setting is contemporary so history has nothing to do with it. So it’s a gossipy political thriller where the setting is the Vatican, not the White House or the House of Lords. The question remains: is it a reasonably faithful depiction of the way a real papal conclave operates, in both procedure and the negotiation/clique-forming/decision-making process? Catholic friends of mine who know much more than I do about what goes on in Rome actually have the opposite fear: that it is all too realistic and exposes too much about the power games that go on instead of earnestly seeking the good of the faith, and of the faithful. If that’s the case, then in the long run it can only be good because, as Christ Himself said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) Edit: to be fair, there are some flashbacks in the film to historical events taking place in Latin America, IIRC these are also fictionalized but yeah, I could imagine someone who knows the history of that particular situation being able to say that it's innacurately depicted; however that's not the key theme of the film's narrative, which is a contemporary papal election. By contrast the film "The Two Popes" does deserve the historically-inaccurate tag, because it depicts a meeting between two real-life people which definitely never happened and is purely the imagination of the playwright who asked himself "what if?" In that case, I do wish that the film would preface itself by making it clear that it is purely a flight of fancy in order to explore ideas around faith, theology and succession because I'm sure a lot of people really do believe that Francis did have private conversations with Benedikt and received his endorsement.
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  You sure about that? > He consulted Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as part of his research for the book. He later gave Murphy-O'Connor a copy of the novel, and to his surprise, Murphy-O'Connor sent a letter praising its accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave_(novel) The Cardinal was the Archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales so I think he would know.
sandworm101 2y ago
I've probably seen a dozen movies and TV shows about various conclaves. This movie seemed like a well-made and perfectly normal movie about the subject... with a couple lines tacked on at the very end in a grasping attempt to seem edgy. Jude Law's The Young Pope or even Jeremy Iron's The Borgias covered the subject better imho.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  I don’t think it was edgy at the end. It left it extremely morally ambiguous on behalf of the protagonist rather than making him too saintly. It was left unclear how he felt about the ending
- righthand 2y ago
  The point of Conclave isn't to demonstrate how the cardinals vote and the pope picking process. It's to analyze and dwell on how people are treated and viewed. What makes you trust and distrust someone who hasn't been entirely honest with you? The ending twist isn't to be edgy it's to bring up a topic that many Catholics need to deal with relative to the trust thesis of the movie.
  - vasco 2y ago
    The point is whatever you make of it. Movies (art in general) don't have a "point" that you need to get right.
    - righthand 2y ago
      Movies do have a point. Sure art has a “eye of the beholder” view-point but most art has intention the artist is trying to covey. People don’t just make a movie and say “hey what if we tack this wild ending on to it, that would really confuse people”.
      - vasco 2y ago
        The artist having an intention when creating the art doesn't mean the purpose of the beholder is to find out that intention, or to "get the point". You're mixing stuff up.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

It’s also widely considered by Catholics to be seriously inaccurate; and the subject matter has been settled for centuries. Basically, it’s about as historically and religiously accurate as Gladiator or Braveheart. Take that how you will. I say this as somebody who liked Gladiator, but know better than to take anything in it seriously (even basic things, like the “thumbs up” to allow life, is inaccurate).

teolandon 2y ago
It's very obviously fictional.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  I think that most people who watched it will assume it’s well researched
  - FearNotDaniel 2y ago
    To be fair, the question of whether it’s historically accurate is irrelevant because the film obviously doesn’t depict real events with real cardinals… even to the viewer who knows nothing about who is who in the real-life Catholic hierarchy, the terrorist event that triggers a major plot twist should be a big clue that this is a fictional thriller, not a documentary. Apart from that, the setting is contemporary so history has nothing to do with it. So it’s a gossipy political thriller where the setting is the Vatican, not the White House or the House of Lords. The question remains: is it a reasonably faithful depiction of the way a real papal conclave operates, in both procedure and the negotiation/clique-forming/decision-making process? Catholic friends of mine who know much more than I do about what goes on in Rome actually have the opposite fear: that it is all too realistic and exposes too much about the power games that go on instead of earnestly seeking the good of the faith, and of the faithful. If that’s the case, then in the long run it can only be good because, as Christ Himself said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) Edit: to be fair, there are some flashbacks in the film to historical events taking place in Latin America, IIRC these are also fictionalized but yeah, I could imagine someone who knows the history of that particular situation being able to say that it's innacurately depicted; however that's not the key theme of the film's narrative, which is a contemporary papal election. By contrast the film "The Two Popes" does deserve the historically-inaccurate tag, because it depicts a meeting between two real-life people which definitely never happened and is purely the imagination of the playwright who asked himself "what if?" In that case, I do wish that the film would preface itself by making it clear that it is purely a flight of fancy in order to explore ideas around faith, theology and succession because I'm sure a lot of people really do believe that Francis did have private conversations with Benedikt and received his endorsement.
Mistletoe 2y ago
You sure about that? > He consulted Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as part of his research for the book. He later gave Murphy-O'Connor a copy of the novel, and to his surprise, Murphy-O'Connor sent a letter praising its accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclave_(novel) The Cardinal was the Archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales so I think he would know.

sandworm101 2y ago

I've probably seen a dozen movies and TV shows about various conclaves. This movie seemed like a well-made and perfectly normal movie about the subject... with a couple lines tacked on at the very end in a grasping attempt to seem edgy. Jude Law's The Young Pope or even Jeremy Iron's The Borgias covered the subject better imho.

bowsamic 2y ago
I don’t think it was edgy at the end. It left it extremely morally ambiguous on behalf of the protagonist rather than making him too saintly. It was left unclear how he felt about the ending
righthand 2y ago
The point of Conclave isn't to demonstrate how the cardinals vote and the pope picking process. It's to analyze and dwell on how people are treated and viewed. What makes you trust and distrust someone who hasn't been entirely honest with you? The ending twist isn't to be edgy it's to bring up a topic that many Catholics need to deal with relative to the trust thesis of the movie.
- vasco 2y ago
  The point is whatever you make of it. Movies (art in general) don't have a "point" that you need to get right.
  - righthand 2y ago
    Movies do have a point. Sure art has a “eye of the beholder” view-point but most art has intention the artist is trying to covey. People don’t just make a movie and say “hey what if we tack this wild ending on to it, that would really confuse people”.
    - vasco 2y ago
      The artist having an intention when creating the art doesn't mean the purpose of the beholder is to find out that intention, or to "get the point". You're mixing stuff up.