Conclave

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
25,105
Reaction score
4,477
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Just got out of theater, not being Catholic I am a member of the world who has casually watched the news during papal elections.

We.watched the smoke on the news and when the announcement came awaited speeches to proclaim the changing of the guard and hints at direction of church.

There has always been rumors.and conspiracy regarding papal succession, interest from both inside and outside the church...will this be the next DaVinci code?
 
While it's uncertain if the next papal election will incite a narrative akin to a conspiracy thriller, the intersection of faith, tradition, and modernity within the Catholic Church continues to captivate and inspire both serious dialogue and casual discussion. The ongoing inquiry into the role and influence of the papacy, infused with elements of rumor and speculation, will likely remain a topic of interest for many, keeping the conversation alive in both religious and secular contexts. Your observation reflects a growing awareness of these dynamics and how they can resonate beyond the realm of dedicated followers.
 
And I thought using the title of the movie as the name of the thread in the movie forum would be a good idea.

Recalling the various conspiracies regarding popes I do not see the movie far out of line.
 
I read a Guardian review, and safe to say, if one is Catholic, one has nothing much to fear from this film.

One element struck a chord:
"If you think (the plot of Robert Harris' book) sounds surprisingly similar to the plots of several other of Harris’s novels then you’d be right. Having started out as a political journalist, he has rarely wavered from his specialist knowledge in his subsequent career as a writer of fiction: the acquiring of, the exercising of and the inevitable corrupting effects of power. In The Ghost (2007) he investigated the workings of power in contemporary British politics. In Imperium (2006), Lustrum (2009) and Dictator (2015) he did the same with ancient Rome. Now he does it with the Vatican. In a few years’ time he will surely turn his attention to the Olympics or Fifa."

So we have a basic plot model clothed in a cardinal's red robes.

Two things:
The first is, as a reader of James Clavell's Shogun, one has to admit it's 'unputdownable' (as the review says of Harris' Conclave). However, for anyone acquainted with the era of Japan in which Shogun is set (1600), its depiction of the Japanese characters are a series of stereotypes that totter between the trite and the borderline offensive. The characters in Conclave tick the boxes of a stereotypical inter-Catholic liberal v conservative context ... not to say such is not the case, however ... it's just that it's never quite so simply cut and dried.

(Eg: Pope Francis is a liberal in some ways, very conservative in others.)

(The recent tv adaptation is brilliant, but that was helmed by someone who is actually Japanese.)

Second thing:
I read a review of The Da Vinci Code which said much the same thing as the reviewer – Dan Brown writes formulaic novels (although nowhere near as well as Harris) and hit gold with DVC which although sold very, very well, is critically regarded as being very, very bad. Famously Stephen Fry, who is an outspoken critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular, was caustic in his dismissal.

(And the DVC v Holy Blood & Holy Grail spat is a matter of clever marketing, as both books are published by Random House and the very public row boosted sales all round.)

And DVC spawned a whole subculture based on total fantasy ...

+++

There's nothing wrong with any of this, of course, until the public discourse begins to reflect not the actuality of what's being discussed, but a fiction to some degree removed.

+++

The enduring attraction of the Catholic Church is, I think, that it plays into the Conspiracy Theory Playbook – and tragically, not without reason.
 
And I thought using the title of the movie as the name of the thread in the movie forum would be a good idea.
Yeah ... er ... :oops: ... the one time you were as clear as daylight, and I missed it!

Recalling the various conspiracies regarding popes I do not see the movie far out of line.
It's not so much that, it's whether the conspiracies are founded in anything substantial ... Pope Joan as a conspiracy theory appeared in the 13th century, so it's nothing new!

Both The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and Holy Grail (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln) have been thoroughly debunked by informed critiques.

In my day it was The Illuminatus! Trilogy and The Morning of the Magicians

And I learnt about seances, ouija boards, numerology and other stuff from Dennis Wheatley, notably The Devil Rides Out.
 
This movie is currently on Peacock and I have watched it twice. I find it very engrossing. There are many beautiful elements in the story and the visuals. I read a review describing the movie as a political intrigue thriller. I agree it is all about intrigue.

It is very watchable and very interesting, the way the filmmakers spliced together mundane details of daily life in the conclave (arrivals, conversations, mealtimes, printing out reports, managing personal possessions, and getting down to business, in what is easily the most important professional meeting of these cardinals' lives) alongside the devious machinations of ambitious individuals, the fraying of their tempers and relationships, then sprinkled this workplace (yes!) intrigue drama with profound ideas worthy of the fact that it is literally their job to make a world impacting decision with centuries long implications, while many times I felt the film shortchanged the logical development of all of those things.

Due to the impressionistic way they showed the daily events and the progress of the characters and their relationships, splicing together images, picking up things in mid-conversation, in some ways it was as if they made the movie from an epic poem rather than from a novel. You are left wondering what just happened and what will the consequences be, how will things work out for the characters, whether things will be triumphant, or will even be okay, or even go haywire, given everything you've learned about every one of them along the way.
 
  • Love
Reactions: wil
I read a review that called the movie "blasphemous"
I'm sure the twist at the end was part of it.
But they were also unhappy that the cardinals were portrayed as scheming.
One character at least, maybe more, came across as obnoxious and impossible.
At least two characters came off as too morally compromised to move forward.
Rather than being considered realism about the running, staffing, and leadership selection of a worldwide organization, fully staffed by humans, it was considered by one review writer as part of the "blasphemy" 🤨 🧐 :(o_O:oops:
 
My sister worked for a while as a PA to a cardinal .... she was not much enamoured of the experience.
 
Here's a conclave story ...

Pope Clement IV (pope 1265-1268), who had been driven out of Rome by Frederick, had taken shelter in France under the protection of King Louis IX and was in France when elected. He was obliged to enter Italy in disguise, but it was not deemed safe to go to Rome. He settled in Viterbo, 45 miles away.

Rome had been in conflict with Manfred, King of Sicily, the illegitimate son and designated heir of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, but whom papal loyalists, the Guelfs, called "the usurper of Naples." The Guelfs and the Ghibellines were opposing factions, the former supporting the Pope and the latter the Holy Roman Emperor, and they engaged in conflicts involving the Italian city-states during the Middle Ages.

Clement immediately allied himself with Charles of Anjou, younger brother of Louis IX, supporting his claim and funding his successful campaign to win the Neapolitan throne. Charles was willing to recognise the Pope as his feudal overlord (a bone of contention with the Emperors) and was crowned in Rome, where Clement IV himself dare not venture, since the anti-papal Ghibelline party was so firmly in control there. Charles of Anjou was successful, and now King of Naples & Sicily, succeeded in having himself elected Senator of Rome.

So when Clement IV died in November 1268, the French cardinals, under the influence of Charles, wanted their man to succeed. Their Italian opponents wanted someone independent of French interference.

Initially, the cardinals met daily in the Viterbo Cathedral, then returned to wine and dine at their respective residences. However, the factions refused any reconciliation, and during these disputes three of the 20 cardinals died, and another resigned.

For roughly a year, they met and voted every day, with no result. When it appeared that Cardinal Benizi was emerging as an acceptable compromise, he declared himself unworthy, and being ignored, he fled to avoid election.

Meanwhile, the good citizens of Viterbo were getting restless, and one Bonaventura of Bagnoregio (a Franciscan monk, contemporary and friend of Aquinas and, like him, later a saint and Doctor of the Church) suggested they might take action.

The people waited until all the cardinals were gathered in the palace, and then locked the doors, allowing no-one in or out. Windows were barricaded, although one remained accessible to pass food was passed in through a window. As time dragged on, the food supplied to the cardinals became more meagre. With no resolution forthcoming, they rationed them to bread and water.

Still no resolution, in utter desperation, they tore the roof off of the cathedral, to allow better access for the Holy Spirit, or perhaps the weather, to play its part.

Finally, the cardinals agreed in an act of supreme bureaucratic self-service to exonerate themselves from the fiasco and shift the burden onto the shoulders of a committee of six – three from each side – to settle the dispute.

That committee was instructed to negotiate a settlement (Election by Compromise). Evident to the six that they would not agree, they chose to look outside their ranks.

September, 1271, 2 years and nine months after the first gathering, They settled on an Italian, Teobaldo Visconti, the Archdeacon of Liège. Although Italian, it was called a victory by the French-leaning faction, since Teobaldo had intimate connections with France, and his nephew, Vicedomino de Vicedomini, Archbishop of Aix in Provence, had been a follower and advisor of Charles of Anjou ever since he came into Italy. (The fact that Teobaldo was not actually an ordained priest was a minor issue which could easily be overcome.)

It took just 48 hours for the six to come to an agreement that had eluded the College for 1,006 days.

A myth has grown up that since they were barricaded into the cathedral by the furious populace, they were obliged to light a fire to signal by smoke the fact that they had elected a pope – there might be something to it, but the practice of 'smoke signals' to signal the election of a pope began in the 1800s.

The news of his election found him with the Ninth Crusade at Acre in Palestine with King Edward I of England. He returned to Italy immediately, summoned by the Cardinals to accept the election at their hands.

February 1272, he reached Viterbo and assumed the papal mantle – although careful to call himself 'Episcopus-electus'.
March 1272, he entered Rome with the entire Roman Curia.
March 19 he was ordained priest.
March 27 he was simultaneously consecrated a bishop and crowned Pope at St. Peter's Basilica.
 
There is a woman on YouTube who hosts a channel called "Ordinary Catholic" and she makes a lot of commonsense commentary on any number of things Catholic, or her Catholic view on all things cultural

I was hoping to find she had made a commentary on this movie, but I do not see it yet.
I hope she will.
In any case, I think it's worth watching for, and also to have her in mind as an opinion.
I think of her as she is critical of the kinds of overly-traditionalist people who would be offended by the movie
She is also critical of what she thinks so called "woke" culture is.
She is not especially liberal or over the top conservative.
She seems to have a moderate and common sense take on things, and even from that position seems to stir up controversy (usually from Trad type Catholics, I think, though I suppose many liberals would take exception to her too)
I wonder which candidate in the movie she would have preferred as Pope?🤔
 
Back
Top