“The Throne Is Vacant” | Conclave

Watch at home now.
Cardinal Lawrence is tasked with one of the world's most secretive and ancient events -- participating in the selection of a new pope. Surrounded by powerful religious leaders in the halls of the Vatican, he soon uncovers a trail of deep secrets that could shake the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sign-up to receive updates, sneak peeks and offers here: uni.pictures/em...
The Universal Pictures All-Access channel is the place to be for all things about movies and behind-the-scenes. Subscribe to our channel to keep up on all the latest videos. Also, access hundreds of movies instantly. No planning, no waiting, no schedules. Buy or Rent hundreds of movies right now - right here on KZbin!
Subscribe to Our Channel: uni.pictures/yt...
#MovieClips #conclave #religion

[@kennyj43]

I have not seen the movie, yet, but I have read the book, which is brilliantly written, with a twist at the end that is guaranteed to have your hair stand on end. If the movie does justice to the book at all, it is explosive. What a fabulous cast! Fiennes, Tucci, Lithgow, and that just for starters. I like this preview and I'm really looking forward to seeing the film, and, of course, comparing it to the book.

[@힐만94]

just watched this movie last week... you must see it... it's beautifully made, the cinematography is top notch... those veterans are giving their best acting, especially rossellini's performance reminds me a lot of her mother in murder on the orient express that gave her oscar for best supporting actress... she didn't have much of screen time, yet it's so impactful... i believe she'd be nominated for oscar next year..

[@kennyj43]

@@힐만94 With such a glowing review, coupled with my own experience of reading the book, I will most definitely be watching the film! Top class cast and a riveting story, what more can one ask for?

[@andyo3637]

​@@kennyj43 let us know what you think when you watch it! i'll be ordering the book soon to compare and contrast.

[@AnnaBellaChannel]

"He was always 8 moves ahead" 100% very true.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

Absolutely.

[@anterionan4731]

Yup, he wouldn't have become the Pope otherwise

[@crazyman8472]

Best movie about a conclave since “The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968). 😎

[@rr7firefly]

You can live in Rome for a year... or for your entire life... and you will never have a grasp of what goes on behind the doors of the Vatican. It is a separate reality that is closed to the prying eyes of the world outside. When I was a student living near Piazza Navona I used to walk to the Square and into the Basilica several times a week. (It was less than a mile away.) During that time I was completely oblivious to the serious business of the Catholic Church.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

Historically, they have generally fought - not always in a coherent, successful or kind fashion - for their independence from external powers. This marks their difference from the Orthodox, in which the Constantinople Patriarch was basically the chaplain of the Byzantine Emperor. And even today, the Moscow Patriarch basically does/says what Putin tells him to do/say. The secrecy of the Conclave is to avoid any interference from any foreign State into one of the most delicate moment of the life of the Church, i.e. the election of a new supreme Pontiff. However, as this film (and the novel by Robert Harris from which it is derived) shows, in Rome they have dialed up this secrecy to a level that could be seen as a suffocating paranoia.

[@ChalNjurshEp]

Vatican City is not part of Rome, so that makes sense 😊 it is its own nation-state.

[@rr7firefly]

@@ChalNjurshEp When I was a student in Rome we would mail letters from the Vatican post office, and not use the Italian postal service (it was known to be highly inefficient, sometimes losing thousands of letters).

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@rr7firefly Thanks...

[@jamesvoss3482]

Loved this film great acting great cinematography and a great twist at the end !

[@_TheComedian_]

Lord Voldemort organizing the papal election - what could possibly go wrong?

[@robertlevine2827]

Not to mention Chef Julian Slowik.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

It's OK, M will ensure Bond is elected Pope

[@rr7firefly]

On an even more ominous level -- SS officer Amon Göth, commandant of the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp in "Schindler's List."

[@bakabaka98573]

I would trust no one else then Monsieur Gustave H. to coordinate the election of a new pope.

[@olivegreenpants7153]

And did you notice his name is Thomas?

[@DavidS5118]

Just went to Conclave today - amazing acting, great twist.... Should win it's way to the top of the award list.

[@afiaakos6937]

WHERE CAN I FIND IT?

[@DavidS5118]

@@afiaakos6937 In the US it is still only in the movie theaters but I am sure it will come to streaming services later in 2025

[@desir82022]

I saw Conclave. It has an amazing story and great acting, keeping you wanting more. I hope it will be nominated during the Awards.

[@afiaakos6937]

WHERE CAN I WATCH IT''?

[@patrickbarrett5650]

Fantastic book. I hope they do it justice.

[@avi2125]

Ralph Fiennes - Pope, Voldemort, M - unstoppable

[@J.Marrs76]

Ahem....Moses !!!!

[@desertvalleyfilms9136]

Gustave

[@ChalNjurshEp]

@@J.Marrs76yes!

[@HolaKylie]

Duke of Devonshire, Amon Göth, Hades

[@anterionan4731]

When did he play the Pope?

[@D.u.d.e.r]

Excellent movie and performances, must see for everybody and definitely deserves all the rewards it can get!

[@elisabettatesti1442]

Meraviglioso! Visto ierisera...ti incolla alla poltrona dall'inizio alla fine...ralph finnies straordinario, da oscar, colonna sonora da oscar. Il finale mi ha un po scioccato...senza parole( non ho letto il romanzo)non me lo aspettavo... Sicuramente un film imperdibile!

[@SisterUnity]

Applause to the cinematographer. A painter and a poet!

[@michaelmontagu3979]

Anything with Stanley Tucci can't be anything but brilliant.

[@kathleenmurray3065]

And Ralph Fiennes

[@mr.angelosonassis3069]

Visually gorgeous. Superb performances. Remember it's only a play, not reality. It's a thought-stimulating what-if.

[@kennyj43]

Helluva what if, though, you have to admit, right? Stranger things have happened :)

[@maxdepasquale2351]

You are right, it's only a play, not reality. I hope, though, that people always remember this difference. These days, a few ones take Hollywood films as their sources of information... As for me, I disagree with some things that happen in this film, yet I note that some people get to the point of bearing hatred... this is too much, I tend to say.

[@mr.angelosonassis3069]

@@maxdepasquale2351 How can people hate characters in a mere story? Are they stoopid? The film was made on MOVIE SETS at Cinecita, not in the Vatican ... it's fake. "The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. "

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@mr.angelosonassis3069 How this can happen, beats me. But it does happen. There are vitriolic comments about this film, if you look around. Just search for a few mins. As for my other point... do you remember when that stupid "Da Vinci code" was very popular, and lots of people started thinking that indeed the apostle John was a woman, Jesus produced a genealogy, light-years far from what the Gospel said?

[@maxdepasquale2351]

​@mr.angelosonassis3069 Not the characters, but the plot . Look around you.

[@paulmararias9666]

In a movie filled with superb actors, I couldn't help but think that the best performance was turned in by the actor who played the dead Pope. I never doubted for a second that he was indeed very much dead, not even a little bit. LOL!!!

[@cht2162]

Great movie! Superb acting on the part of the whole cast....especially Ralph Fiennes

[@donna25871]

Reading the book again before I see the film. Still have a couple more weeks before it’s released in Australia.

[@Vince1303]

An astonishing movie.

[@keeleybee18]

I’m going to have to look up who the film’s composer was, because…wow. 👏🏼

[@withlovefromrussia]

LOVED the newbie Carlos Diehz in this movie Hope to see him more often in the future.

[@filmfreak21]

Its a great film. I loved it

[@babajinde]

A beautiful picture! Not quite the shoes of the fishermen, but beautiful cinematography and scenes.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

Nobody can beat the Shoes of the Fisherman 🙂Rest In Peace, Anthony Queen!

[@HolaKylie]

​@@maxdepasquale2351 Yup, +Anthony Quinn, one of the great actors of the classic film era. I also remember him well in the film Barrabas.

[@andrewandjoanhart7882]

I really enjoyed this movie. Great acting, a real script with a good plot. Recommended viewing from me

[@afiaakos6937]

I WANT TO WATCH IT. WHERE CAN I FIND IT?

[@J.Marrs76]

Fantastic film. I'm not even Catholic but it's so fitting for the current state of Christanity.

[@lwaysstartinsomethin]

The music always sounds like the opening of "Evil"

[@adriennefoster8613]

Excellent movie!

[@arthurmartinson4370]

"The papacy is a huge burden, especially for an older man." They could always try another Benedict 9th, that might work.

[@py8554]

Sede Vacante!

[@laghezza190]

Great movie, I've actually seen it yesterday, one of the best I've ever had the pleasure to enjoy ! Tucci is absolutely incredible ! 👍 G

[@afiaakos6937]

WHERE CAN I FIND IT?

[@28sunshine218]

My favourite actor in amazing movie!!!

[@andrewharris1837]

So many great actors with magnificent Roman noses❤😅

[@dmwm771]

A superbly crafted movie with fantastic actors and fabulous images. A treat for the eyes and ears. If it weren't for the ending. Of course, a “modern” theme has to be addressed, which in reality would be unthinkable in the church. A reason not to see the movie? No.

[@smhorse]

The film sticks quite closely to the original novel, including the ending.

[@Hartley_Hare]

@@smhorse An ending which is ridiculous.

[@smhorse]

@@Hartley_Hare : is it ridiculous, though? If you can't accept that kind of scenario, blame Richard Harris, who wrote the original book. All the new film does is interpret what he wrote, and doesn't try to be too clever by half.

[@Hartley_Hare]

@@smhorseThey're all to blame. The premise is foolish, so from a foolish book they made a foolish film.

[@smhorse]

@Hartley_Hare : so, presumably for you, the idea of fiction and using your own imagination is anathema.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

SPOILER As I said, the novel - which I read - deals with this final twist in a slightly different way (and it's not that articulated). Benitez has external female genitalia, which "he" thought were malformed but still male genitalia. The rest seems to be the same as the film, as far as I can see, but here I wonder more if Benitez could safely be assumed to be intrinsically male. Certainly, Benitez had genuinely believed to be a male all his life till the surgery, and acted as a male. But the case seems to be even less clearly cut than in the film.

[@heliotropezzz333]

The assumption in the film is that he has external male genitalia and the rest was a surprise but why give away spoilers?

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@heliotropezzz333 I apologize. I usually write "SPOILERS", but I got caught in an argument and I forgot to do it.

[@ChalNjurshEp]

You spoiled !!!!😢😢😢😢😮😮😮😮😮

[@heliotropezzz333]

He only mentions internal organs. He didn't know until he had an operation so I doubt there was anything external visible. To all intents and purposes he had believed he was a normal male until then.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@ChalNjurshEp I apologize for what happened - again. But I suggest that, next time we discuss a film in depth, you do not look at the comments.

[@dietcokepapi]

This movie went from an interesting drama to a silly comedy is two seconds.😂

[@BioHazardCL4]

why is this in the cinemas for such a short time?

[@pov3363]

I can't wait, why October?

[@Rosiedelaroux]

A great film. A must see.

[@hauntedhaunter6148]

It’s really not a woke ending. The guy himself says something like, “why would I mutilate a body that God made”. That is most definitely not in line with woke beliefs.

[@ChalNjurshEp]

SPOILERS, AHAT!

[@rumblefish9]

They wouldn't call it a "throne". It's not a monarchy. It would be referred to as "sede vacante" which translates to "the chair is vacant". By chair they are referring to The Chair of St. Peter. Also, the lack of any Latin in this makes me think the writers have no idea what they're writing about. It's Hollywood but it's so far removed from what real conclaves are and how they are done. Firstly, you would not be able to influence another cardinal's vote as campaigning was strictly prohibited. The rest of it is just Hollywood reimagining and taking creative liberties. Yes, there is a bit of political in these things but its not the center of it. If you think this is close to reality, it is not. It's thrilling and a good couple of hours to waste but accuracy is nearly non existent.

[@ChalNjurshEp]

The Seat of Pope Saint Peter is vacant!

[@ChalNjurshEp]

Thank you 😊

[@giovannipanzeri6431]

It is, actually, considered a monarchy.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

What you say is meaningful I think, however the film is based on a novel by Robert Harris, it's not an invention by Hollywood. It's a shame that they did non represent a Conclave more faithfully. However, there are some beautiful spiritual moments on this work as well, despite its flaws. For example, how the broken and tearful Adeyemi asks Lawrence if he can pray with him, which then happens.

[@JoshSweetvale]

The cardinal who said that is the bad guy. His state of mind is power dynamics.

[@martinssalmanis966]

0:12,8:31,8:35

[@andrewvelonis5940]

You have posted a series of time stamps

[@emilyfisher6478]

is this what the Vatican looks like from inside??

[@airplanetowardsthesky3265]

Yes. They’re in the Sistine chapel

[@battlionyoutube6306]

So many people who’ve never read the book

[@maxdepasquale2351]

Their miss (no offense meant, of course). Harris is a talented writer.

[@glishev]

0:59 - 1:06: "Sede vacante. The Throne *of the Holy See* is vacant". This line doesn't make sense at all. "Sede vacante" is in ablative case, it means literally: "while the throne is vacant" or "during the throne being vacant", so it does not mean just "The throne is vacant". You want to use Latin in order to say "The Throne is vacant", you say: "Sedis vacans", in nominative case. Then the English text: "The Throne OF the Holy See" is absurd because the throne and the see are one and the same thing. The Holy See (or the Holy Throne) is what is vacant. Not the Throne of the See because this is a pointless tautology, a useless and ugly repetition. The Vatican is all about ceremony and pomp. When you want to make a film about that place and the people working under that system, you must make it impeccably.

[@benjamMin2780]

You’re right. But perhaps this is some kind of bastardized Italian|Latin fusion of an expression? Roman Catholic Priests in Rome where Latin is a living language would know better than to use the Vulgate in formal parlance. Unless there is perhaps another reason for this form which is more literary in point of reference? But good catch nonetheless! Ablative in Latin mimics the passive voice in Italian I believe like in Dante’s Divine Comedy. 🧐

[@maxdepasquale2351]

I agree that the Latin of Cardinal Tremblay is quite... iffy. However, from what I've heard in other parts of the film, they have been more correct.

[@fractureman9719]

SEDE VACANTE = WITH THE CHAIR EMPTY

[@sarahgeiger4729]

I've just seen this preview. Do they screw up the rest of the Latin like this?

[@fractureman9719]

@sarahgeiger4729 You don't really deserve an answer, SEDE VACANTE is the term used whenever a bishop or in the case of this film a pope dies; the seat or chair of office bocomes empty.

[@heliotropezzz333]

@@sarahgeiger4729 Church Latin is not the same as classical Latin.

[@sarahgeiger4729]

@ Does it translate differently? "Sedes" is still "seat" or "chair," not "throne." I am just railing against Hollywood's overused trope of portraying the Catholic Church as big, scary, secretive, and maniacal every time they need to make a buck.

[@fractureman9719]

@sarahgeiger4729 Hollywood has been knocking the RC Church for years, because the Church refuses to get involved; giving credibility to the Sceptics.

[@ritawing1064]

I wish they'd all stop publicising this film, it makes me go read "Hadrian VII" again and then I have to read "The Quest for Corvo" and on and on.

[@rivenoak]

0:50 the ring is to be destroyed

[@maxdepasquale2351]

... and then melted. With the melted gold, a new ring for the new Pope will be forged.

[@a.t.c.3862]

Cassocks and crosiers.

[@augustsonseventy42]

Yes I’m sure that’s exactly what it’s like. Also walking on the moon, I’m sure.

[@rinkujoka232]

Voldemort became a pope ..

[@maxdepasquale2351]

"I mean, what could go wrong?" (cit.)

[@kiimmaritz2827]

And he's just a man.

[@dennisbartlett6263]

Fiennes and Tucci made better SS officers. This movie despite the splendor/good acting is so silly in terms of Catholic theology and the nature of the priesthood that it's impossible to suspend one's disbelief.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

It is undeniable that they make mistakes. From this point of view, the novel by Robert Harris is better. He did a good deal of homework, and explored in depth the personalities of the characters, especially Lomeli (Lawrence in the film). Still, this film is way better than Dan Brown's nonsense!

[@CuriousCrow-mp4cx]

Silly? No; I disagree. Accessible? Yes. It's core content is theologically sound.

[@prebensvensson3078]

What a Circus....

[@grandeurglory7777]

i wonder how the red little hat wont slide off?

[@CuriousCrow-mp4cx]

Two things: 1) the cut, i.e. the shaping and fit, and 2) the lining material. Whilst the outside must be watered silk, the lining could be a more grippy material. This is why there specialist tailoring houses that specialise in constructing the tailored clothing of the Pope and the Bishops and cardinals. It takes money to look that good.

[@grandeurglory7777]

@CuriousCrow-mp4cx wonder how sure are you? Are you clergyman or their tailor?

[@wieslawsobocinski8260]

CONCLAVE nowy film

[@gamelot12093]

White smoke?

[@michaelmontagu3979]

Created using specific chemicals.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@michaelmontagu3979 Just to make sure.

[@sandranlembosantamarina6227]

Propagandism against the Catholic Church cannot be more gross and more ridiculous and evidente these days . I mean ther were times where Hollywood would make a movie hidings these ridiculous portraits in a carácter that confuses people or believers now it’s like a joke . What a misery of these actors producers , everyone involved .what a petty that this actually is being portrait try to impose to the believers the worst of themselves .

[@sandranlembosantamarina6227]

What about a movie about Netanyahu .try that . Yeah exactly not one of your own , never .right?

[@yucol5661]

Against? This movie is FOR the church. The main character is a godly man who fought and kept bribery and scandal at bay. They literally overcame the conspiracy and picked the good kind charitable humble option for pope. Stop being so hard of heart and set in your ideology.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@yucol5661 Indeed, and the novel by Robert Harris is even more respectful of Lomeli (Lawrence in the film) and the Catholic Church, without hiding its hard failings though. I think Harris is on the record for saying "I have a lot of time for the cardinals", meaning that he acknowledges that they have huge responsibilities. And he is not even Catholic nor Christian, as far as I can remember. Still, while the harsh criticism is unwarranted in my mind, there are some issues about whether Benitez could have been ordained validly in the Church. I think they can be overcome, and I think that Benitez was a wonderful person, but I am not an expert of certain matters. Harris did his homework and it shows throughout the novel and the film, but he might have missed this bit as well.

[@hauntedhaunter6148]

This isn’t an attack on the Catholic Church. If you think it is, you might have some inside insecurities you need to address. This movie, outside of the setting, isn’t about religion at all. It’s not a religious commentary. It’s a social commentary about greed, power, and the kinds of people who play social politics. Swap the setting to a company electing a CEO and the movie still works.

[@maxdepasquale2351]

​@@hauntedhaunter6148 Allow me, this is a limit of the film. If the film is about the election of new Pope, it is expected to have some religious and spiritual content.

[@bernadettegaudin2235]

This movie wouldn’t have the same zing if it portraid the election of the next arch bishop of Canterbury, would it?

[@farzadamirhosseini5100]

dark film

[@golwol]

早い話、「根比べ」の映画化だろ？！

[@maxdepasquale2351]

No, it is not.

[@golwol]

@ m 日本語ネイティブしかわからないから。 それ以外はコメントしなくてよろしい。

[@maxdepasquale2351]

@@golwol 決して不快な思いをさせるつもりはありませんでした。もしそうなら申し訳ありません。私はただあなたの質問に答えたかっただけです。 I did not mean to be offensive in any way; I am sorry if I have. I simply meant to answer your question.

[@golwol]

@@maxdepasquale2351 そもそも質問などしていない。

[@denniscoffey1247]

It's still vacant (since Pius XII)

[@JoshSweetvale]

Protestant

[@oldpossum57]

Ah, the “sedevscantist” conspiracy! To rational people, this is like an argument between the younger two Christs of Ypsilanti*: you are all quite deluded. Your god is as fictional as the other gods. (*If you recall, the eldest Christ dropped out of contention, and decided he was the Holy Spirit.

[@diddums86]

Lawrence and Bellini have worked together with and for the pope, and Bellini has to TELL Lawrence that he and the pope used to play chess and he always lost?? That kind of shoddy exposition irritates me no end.

[@CuriousCrow-mp4cx]

But Lawrence was not that intimate with the Pope. He was too busy with his duties as Dean. Bellini may have spent more time with the Pope than Lomelli/Lawrence. And the scene you refer to is exactly as written in the book. To say Lawrence was an intimate of the Pope is a stretch. Indeed, so far the only conversation Lomelli refers to is when the Pope - like a very good boss, BTW - tell him that some people are shepherds, and some people are managers, and Lomelli is an excellent manager, and the Pope needs him to do that job. It is never stated that this conversation was the seed of Lawrence/Lomelli crisis of faith, but it certainly influenced him, because he loved the Church. And it may have led him to vote for himself later in the Conclave. He may have felt certain that he should put himself forward because the unity of the church leaders was fracturing because of their ambitions. But, the Pope - who as Bellini says was "always 8 moves ahead" - had already told him he was not a Shepherd before his death, and Benitez's qualities in bringing the Cardinals back together in unity in the midst of chaos and dissent proved he was a Shepherd. The twist at the end, well, was a courageous choice. Due to the culture war grand inquisitors forgetting that God doesn't make mistakes. To him, the Thornless Rose is still a Rose. It's just some humans have, for their own reasons, difficulty believing that. Benitez spiritual authority, rather than worldly authority as a man, meant he was a Shepherd, and deserving of the papacy.

[@robertscown9218]

Another religious movie made by atheists no doubt

[@exempligratia101]

And that’s a problem because???

[@fabiansaah6482]

I doubt everybody involved is atheist, could be a mixture. Did you even see the movie?

[@TheRealLaughingGravy]

So? Would you scoff at a movie about atheists made by religious people?

[@robertscown9218]

@ yes, because they’re not going to be honest about the subject, they would put the subject of the movie in the worst possible way.

[@humbleherald2163]

@@robertscown9218D’you actually watch it, my guy? They handled it with incredible respect, and brought forth some very important topics and themes for any audience member to consider, regardless of their dogma. I would challenge you to at least know what you choose to hate, then concoct some manner of coherent argument, rather than fling your opinions around with the abandon of a one-note one-year-old.

[@RedWolfenstein]

More trash from hollywoke

[@CuriousCrow-mp4cx]

More silliness from the culture warriors, who don't want to look at real life, and prefer the darkness of the Cave. No wonder Vitamin D deficiency is endemic in the developed nations of the West. The emptiest vessels make much noise about nothing, because they prefer the darkness of The Cave. Plato knew you too well. You need to get out more.

[@ad70preterist]

Just finished watching this. Huge end disappointment obviously after the entire movie had an 🏳️‍🌈 agenda. So sad could have been a good movie.

[@lourdeheru9603]

The Movie was great. Definitely not that type of agenda either.

[@hauntedhaunter6148]

There was not really an agenda. The guy says himself that “mutilating my body is not God’s wish”. That goes against many of the beliefs held by LGBTQ+ people.

[@CuriousCrow-mp4cx]

GIGO. If "I am as God made me," isn't Christian enough for you, then perhaps nothing Christianity teaches will be good enough for you either. And BTW, being born Intersex has nothing to do with LGBTQ matters, except the knee-jerk prejudices directed at them. You just want everyone to share the mental cave you choose to live in. Plato wrote about people like you.

[@briscoedarling3237]

The woke ending ruined this otherwise fantastic movie.

[@hauntedhaunter6148]

It’s really not woke. The man even says he chose not to mutilate his body as it’s how God made him. That’s pretty anti-woke.

[@randywatts6969]

This film was a huge yawn. (I fell asleep halfway through)

[@DraculaTheImpalerPhD]

Mexico literally has Italian or Roman-looking cities like Guanajuato, Guanajuato yet the U.S. has nothing of the kind. Then the actual Pope of today is from Argentina which also has nothing of the kind, just watch the intro to the movie Sidewalls. It looks like a wannabe South Korea.

[@philmcdonald6088]

just wondering: what does all this have to do with the gospel of jesus? no question it makes an awesome story like "game of thrones" or "the fellowship of the ring" or "dune". revelation 17. book recommend: THE HEART SUTRA by red pine. (prajnaparamita means present awareness).

[@nfzed]

Good question what does the gospel has to do with church hierarchy?

[@cht2162]

The Roman Empire never died and continues today as The Roman Catholic Church.

[@cometneowise6036]

@@cht2162 this is true

[@jeanjennings5712]

The Vatican is political in its own right as it is also political. In the world.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

It's not a film about the gospel, it's a film about the election of a pope. A bit like "in the shoes of the fisherman". Or, Zorba the Pope, with Anthony Quinn.

[@petegeoffrey4939]

The Vatican holds the wealth of the world in it's hands...and in the near future we'll witness just how wealthy they are.

[@a.t.c.3862]

😂

[@williamcallaghan2023]

and there is no way the body of the deceased Pope is removed in a body bag, it is taken to his private chapel and then to the Clementine Hall and to St Peter''s to be publicly exposed for the veneration of the people

[@DavidHicks-c4x]

Another indoctrination movie. Don’t waste your time folks.

[@humbleherald2163]

One might argue you and your lot are simply jealous that your own indoctrination movies are all utterly terrible in comparison. However, I would still hope to know what about it to you characterized itself as a shameless propaganda piece. Does the mere existence of people like Benitez make you squirm, or is it more of a fearful jerking motion that triggers in you?

[@heliotropezzz333]

There's no indoctrination. No one is forced to believe anything in it.

[@grsafran]

You do know that movies aren't real. It's all made up, and the people in it are just actors reading a script.

[@oldpossum57]

Great actors, compelling script.

[@remnant-hearts]

lol Pope Pronouns

[@MacRebo]

benitez will be pope, chooses Inocencius as "his/her" name

[@heliotropezzz333]

Stop the spoilers.

[@hauntedhaunter6148]

It’s not “his/her”. We don’t know his exact condition, but it’s most likely that he has XXY chromosomes. XXY = Male

[@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co]

All that work to create verisimilitude, and they mispronounce Tremblay.

[@williamcallaghan2023]

the ring and seal is not destroyed immediately after the Pope's death but several days after in front of all the cardinals, film isn't as good as the book

[@Particus]

Where did the pope die? in a gothic hotel?

[@johnrichards3394]

Papal Apartments are not elaborate

[@autoguy57]

Historically nothing but a Hollyweird movie. Should be nominated for best fiction.

[@humbleherald2163]

Can you point to where in the film’s description or any of the promotional materials that claimed it was anything but fiction? And as far as fiction goes, it at least surpasses in its quality as a narrative and thematic essay whatever pittance you claim as your rhetorical ability.

[@Hartley_Hare]

@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.

[@Hartley_Hare]

@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.

[@autoguy57]

@ You must be a Muslim or nonbeliever: The movie makes misleading statements, for instance about a former pope being part of the Hitler Youth, The two cardinals’ speeches in this movie were about doubt, and embracing other faiths, no one can tell you who to vote for. No one has the right to say who the other should vote for or who they have voted for,” he reports. But the cardinals in the movie Conclave talk of little else. It tries to create confusion where there is none; it tries to demonize certainty, but only certainty it disagrees with; and it is missing what actually makes its Roman settings significant: Their place in the continuing mission of Jesus Christ on earth.

[@heliotropezzz333]

It's based on a novel by Richard Harris, a British novelist. It's not from a Hollywood source who loves to write novels with a mix of politics, history and detective elements. .

[@themarquis336]

There was no need for this after Angels and Demons. This was overkill. 🥱

[@humbleherald2163]

No idea how this equivalence took root in your mind. If you need to have inflammatory opinions in order to justify your persisting tenancy among artistic souls ten or a hundred times your own worth, just speak them into a dark, echoing cave: you’ll find the same value has been yielded unto humanity as a whole.

[@Hartley_Hare]

@@humbleherald2163 I've tried to reply to your erudite response above, but it has, disappointingly, been deleted. Wrongthink, presumably. The Church finds itself at the messy and conflicted intersection of the divine with the human. Its job, insofar as it can be considered to have something as prosaic as a job, is to make the former intelligible to the latter in a way that is readily understandable and accessible but which also keeps its central tenets as pure as they can be. And the film makers' job is to construct a plausible universe in which the action they depict takes place, to use their actors' talents to their fullest, and to sell tickets to a sufficiently large cohort of people as to render it economically viable. It can be seen, therefore, that they have competing agendas. The Church is concerned with our souls, and the film makers with much less eternal concerns. My point is that this has led them to a denouement which is not, to adopt your phraseology, logically plausible. For all that some may see it as poignant and others as 'human,' a rather contentious term, paying excess attention to these uncertain ideas would lead the Church from its narrow path. The reality, quite apart from what Hollywood insists it is, is that the Pope is not going to be who they suggest it could any more than it would be a woman. That might be at odds with modern sensibilities and those of the audience, who are increasingly inclined to accept all manner of things that seem to be counter-intuitive, but I see no bigotry or spite here - only a recognition that the essence of the Church, its teachings and the way it is constituted makes it impossible. Your loquacity comfortably exceeds my own and it may also be that you are an accomplished theologian with many years' experience in studying the workings of the Catholic Church, in which case I must defer to you. In the meantime, however, I contend that the people who made this admittedly beautiful and well-acted film are perhaps understandably more interested in the old concern of putting 'bums on seats' than in plausibility. This is fine. Just don't conflate it with anything like the institution that is being depicted.