When Stupid Tries to Play Smart

[@uchil3916]

"this conclave could have been an e-mail"

[@Moviewise]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@VileJackie]

Most oscar nominated films this year are like parodies of oscar nominated films.

[@RHR1991]

I know right?

[@jakedesnake97]

The day they get Timothée Chalamet to do a 3 hour long period drama (preferably about the film industry), it's over, that thing is sweeping all the categories

[@RHR1991]

@jakedesnake97 I see it, a biopic of Buster Keaton.

[@Tyler12905]

6 of the 10 nominees are pretty amazing imo

[@victoriafelix5932]

yet, when the oscars the parodies of oscar-nominated films are nominated for are parodies of the oscars the non-parodic oscar-nominated films are nominated for, the parodies of oscar-nominated films, or parodic oscar-nominated films, are nominated for oscars that are parodies of oscars yet not parodies of parodic oscars, and so it all belongs in the trash with Oscar the Grouch parodically about, unless the Oscar the Grouch that grouches parodically is a parodic Oscar the Grouch that grouches, parodically or no, about the parodies of oscar-nominated films that are nominated for parodies of the oscars the non-parodic oscar-nominated films are nominated for.... Good luck with parsing the above paragraph: feel free to parodise the same.

[@ruurdm.fenenga2571]

It is often the use of metaphors that are missing in films of today. Many metaphors were used, for instance, in the Film Noir films, which makes it more interesting and gives your brain more to think about and relate to from your own life experiences.

[@Moviewise]

The “hardboiled poetry” of film noir is a subject I hope I can cover someday!

[@Luxington1]

​@@Moviewise Force of Evil is the best example of this I've seen, if you can find others, I'd love to know about them.

[@JohnMoseley]

@@Luxington1 Have you seen Kiss Me Deadly?

[@Luxington1]

@JohnMoseley Yeah, once and I don't remember it having this element.

[@JohnMoseley]

@ I thought it did.

[@sovereigndeleon]

One of my favorite things about this channel is that it suggests classic, near-forgotten films that are vastly superior to the modern equivalents it's criticizing.

[@wrlord]

If you think any of the films he has mentioned in this video are near-forgotten, you are woefully ignorant.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

I’m with you, man 🙂‍↕️🙂‍↕️

[@koira1]

And hes right

[@babylonian.captivity]

@@wrlord I mean, they *are* near-forgotten. I own a copy of A Man for All Seasons on DVD and I watched it a lot like twenty years ago or so. It's an outstanding film. But I nearly forgot it! Sure, every now and again I'll think, about it but on the whole, in my consciousness, it's nearly forgotten! Watching this video, seeing the clips felt like a beautiful reminder: "Oh wow, yeah, my old friend, A Man for All Seasons! It's been so long! Now I want to see it again! Thanks for the reminder!" Same with Beckett! There was.a period in my life where I watched it a lot, where it was fresh in my awareness. But that was decades ago. And Elmer Gantry I've never seen though I know it's a great film I should have seen by now. So there too, I'm reminded of a great film I should see, i.e., that I've nearly forgotten I should see! In short, I don't think that commenter is. "woefully ignorant." I think you're just operating under different definitions of "near-forgotten."

[@andrelegeant88]

It's funny to think as well that Catholic cardinals today tend to be extremely well educated in the humanities. The idea that they would all speak in such a pedestrian way about their ideas and beliefs is more insulting to the Church than the premise of the film itself.

[@phonecallsarejustoverquali1556]

Was just about to write something along those lines. Early years students at any decent seminary, Cathollic or otherwise, are above this.

[@HansZwiebeln]

I assure you, if you met a catholic career chasing bishops they would use language that is really simple. The ones that use sophisticated words are rarely high in the hierarchy. Of course, most of their yapping is completely useless and meaningless (theology is a joke).

[@josephfisher426]

@@HansZwiebeln Being inherently a politician (as bishops are) doesn't mean you only achieve the level of an ambulance chaser. They are not necessarily impressive people and some of them are evidently quite bad (like the last DC cardinal!), but one does have to be exhaustively educated to get there.

[@HansZwiebeln]

@@josephfisher426 do you actually know how theological education look like? Unfortunately I met not only those politicians but also phd students-priests in phd school. They are not required to do anything spectacular to achieve high position, those who are curious are discouraged and never achieve anything in Catholic Church. Catholic Christianity is inherently against intellectual achievements, the highest figures in their circles are limited conservative and repetitive. The only spark might be the part of church interested in science, but they mostly just push anything divine anywhere there is an issue worth researching.

[@mantabond]

Even farther down to the level of diocesan parish priest the quality of speech of a priest in real life shames the non-sense of these actors.

[@Portmilieu]

Dude, I watch a lot of movie buff channels on KZbin, but your channel is just special. You have an encyclopedic knowledge of old Hollywood cinema and every critic I watch of you baffles me with all the things I do not have the hindsight to analyze. You always have solid arguments and outstanding references when talking about current movies, and your seemingly unending cinema knowledge only makes me strive to watch even more movies and try to get as insightful as you are. Kudos, you deserve the best. Cheers

[@cube2fox]

He is also funny and opinionated and completely lacks the borderline pretentious tone that many movie KZbinrs have.

[@Selrisitai]

He also reads a lot and knows things about, for instance, the figures of rhetoric. He's both a movie director and a writer. (Metaphorically speaking.)

[@somoscinelento]

You're right but I was too busy hating on Emilia Perez to notice the other nominated films may suck as well

[@DylanPank71]

I'm fascinated by how _Emilia Perez_ went from being "groundbreaking positive representation" to "transphobic/racist hate crime" vying to the this year's _Green Book/Crash_ .

[@stopthecap1]

conclave is definitely not a bad movie

[@danikq2525]

@@DylanPank71 Emilia Perez was "groundbreaking positive representation" when cis people who have zero idea about trans reality were reviewing it. It is awful from a trans perspective.

[@DollyRanch]

@@stopthecap1it has pretty lighting and sets. But that script is not pretty

[@Treblaine]

​@@danikq2525 Who knew that combining Mrs Doubtfire with Scarface and making it a musical in a language most of the actors couldn't speak (let alone sing) was a bad idea.

[@JordanShipEnt]

More than stupid, it seems didactic in its dialogue. In my opinion, this has been a problem in recent years, and I believe it stems from the writers’ fear that today’s audience-who reads little, binge-watches short videos, and has the attention span of a hamster-won’t catch the metaphors, will “get bored,” and therefore needs to be “spoon-fed” like a small child. Tinker Tailor, by the same author, took the opposite approach, but that’s a film from several years ago.

[@DollyRanch]

Does didactic mean preachy?

[@cube2fox]

Yeah strange choice of the word "didactic" here.

[@JordanShipEnt]

In italian the word is “didascalico”. When a dialogue is described as “didascalico” (I think that the translation is “didactic”) it means the characters speak in an unnatural or unrealistic way, often sounding artificial, as if they are “explaining” something directly to the audience.

[@JEEDUHCHRI]

@@DollyRanchmore like professorial.

[@RichardDuryea]

My wife is a general movie goer and she hates films where people do not say directly what they mean. Colorful dialogue can be fun at times but if general audiences don’t understand it then you lose them.

[@johnpaulsylvester3727]

I guess I was too mesmerized by the costumes and performances to see how bare-bones the script was. Thanks for the in-depth review!

[@ProuvaireJean]

It's true. I enjoyed Conclave but what I mostly remember about it are the performances (Tucci and Fiennes especially) and the production design.

[@Nikki_the_G]

It's ok, I knew I was watching it for the performances and then forgot about it.

[@elijahalbiston]

I've been saying for a while now that everything in the film feels pretty pitch-perfect in execution... except the script itself was lacking. Performances are great, set design is great, costumes are great, I think it's all working hard to make up for the flaws at the core.

[@Brandon-a-writer]

"it's Dan Brown … not Umberto Eco" deep cuts: achievement unlocked the name of the rose would be the same smelly flower by any other name

[@vinvanveen]

Eco was a bestselling author. That's not a deep cut.

[@RobberZhi]

Talk about stupid trying to play smart…

[@Treblaine]

Eco's lunacy with ur-fascism doesn't exactly cover himself in glory. Imagine claiming to understand an ideology by rejecting everything it has to say or even does and mainly judging it by what equally extreme opponents think about it. His 14 points are just "how Marxists see Fascism as different from Marxism" while ignoring other really important aspects where the fascists and marxists are either identical or just variations on the same theme, like collectivism, anti-capitalism, class struggle, totalitarianism, censorship, etc Or it's just Marxist fabrications, like it's obviously untrue that the fascist is "impatient to die", that's right from Marxist propaganda to justify their vioIence in street fights. Or claiming that only Fascist nations ever militarily expand.

[@Guestus-n2j]

​@@Treblaine Fascists don't do class struggle. In capitalism the capitalist class eats the working class. In communism the working class eats the capitalist class. In fascism they are meant to work together for the sake of the nation.

[@Guestus-n2j]

​@@Treblaine Also censorship is a political constant, not necessarily fascist. Had you meant political repression you would have been slightly more accurate. Either way, marxist books could still be written, bought and read in fascist Italy.

[@Agentnz]

This criticism lacks the vagueness to be a mediocre opinion.

[@alexalexis7899]

Correction: this criticism is too masturbatory to have any value.

[@thadtuiol1717]

The accent being reminiscent of Terminator-era Schwarzenegger helps

[@MrX-hz2hn]

*"Tedesco"* is Italian for "German". Like Joseph Ratzinger was German, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI. Subtle as a rhinoceros in a trenchcoat. Edit: Corrected original misspelled "Tadesco" to correct Italian "Tedesco"; Thanks for the heads-up, commenters.

[@dr.juerdotitsgo5119]

I assume the liberals win in this movie, right? What's the Italian word for "Argentinian"? 😉

[@prst4190]

Tedesco.

[@CMI2017]

Tedesco

[@DollyRanch]

@@dr.juerdotitsgo5119 Argentines are practically Italian anyway

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@dr.juerdotitsgo5119 No, they actually don't. The liberal faction crumbles apart.

[@imdiyu]

"You should be ashamed of yourself." 😂😂😂 that killed me.

[@ReeReeSings]

“You need to do better, Cardinal”

[@CatholicDragoon]

Even more so that he's saying that to a strawman.

[@michaeldavid6832]

It looks like this is the first draft of the screenplay. The one where you just write the text and haven't yet figured how how much to place in subtext.

[@GomteshUpadhye]

Thank you for adding the names of the films being discussed.

[@gubbothehuggo2771]

I couldn't agree more. Part of why I really enjoy Moviewise is absolutely because he is an actual academic in his field and cites his sources assiduously.

[@lynnbowers4722]

This is more than just bad writing. It seems like fear of offending anyone about anything by making any definitive statements at all. All the dialogue ends up vague and open to interpretation.

[@Selrisitai]

Which is pretty crazy since plenty of movies have had characters with actual opinions and haven't offended people. Just look at the past 100 years of filmmaking if you don't know how to do it, for heaven's sake.

[@desibeo]

Whilst I agree with this in concept, I like that Conclave skirts over the ideologies it APPEARS to be about. It's NOT actually about those ideologies. It's about other things such as POWER and who gets to wield and control it and decide who has it. These characters already know each others' positions. We don't need it spelt out to us - the audience. We all know what they are talking about. And who. And the character types. Yes, it is unnecessarily too pro-liberal (I'm unsure if that word tracks correctly in the US), but it's stand-off enough for us to know the different factions without feeling the need to delve into to the heart of each. ....A 12-part TV series might have done that better. This is a movie. I believe it does well within the constricts of that.

[@JustforNow-ty5zt]

2:52 I think you’re kind of missing the forest for the trees. The point of the film is that the politics stops being about the ideas and slowly becomes more about clashing personalities. The reason why ideologies are never discussed is because they’re just the jumping off point. The vague way of speaking of also the point. The characters here are overly formal, meaning that they never really fully address any issues. The “boring” language is really just politician language. The vagueness is the point, as the characters aren’t saying what they really mean. It’s also a bit silly to compare the dialogue here to “The Seventh Seal” when that dialogue is heightened. It’s intended to be very dramatic, while the dialogue in “Conclave” is muted. Good dialogue doesn’t mean “dialogue that is poetic”, it means “dialogue that does what the creator intends”. Also, as for 6:28, lots of people talk like that. In addition, calling Conclave “a story about how religion is intrinsically tied to business” is an interesting reading, but I doubt it’s the scriptwriter’s intention. The film very clearly makes parallels between the situation in the conclave and elections going on in the US and UK right now. If anything, religion is just sort of a dressing. The discussion of theology is kept to a minimum because the film isn’t interested in that, it’s about politics. The film is discussing the difficulties in dealing with reactionary thought and the struggle with finding a “perfect” leader. That’s also why we get terms like “liberal” and “conservative” thrown around, as these are terms the audience will understand. I’m also confused as to where you got the “business” thing from, as the film never mentions the business side of things at all. You point out how there are few conservations about religion in “Conclave”, but the film does feature many, MANY conservations about politics and ethics. Those are the ideas the film is interested in. The film is also about modernity vs. tradition. That’s something present in many conversations, and a lot of the visual language of the film expresses this conflict, with images of cardinals in fancy robes using phones. The film is also very interested in gender. Characters rarely discuss gender, but we get constant visual reminders of the gender devision occurring in the church. I think maybe you should read some essays an articles about this film, as it seems like you’re misidentifying its themes. Also, your point at 11:26 confuses me, as we see multiple characters give opposing opinions throughout the movie, even if they don’t directly state it. Tabasco (or whatever his name was) gives two different speeches, and in both he mentions how we need to be really strict in our principles, which is him arguing against what Ralph Fiennes says in the speech. There are many clear debates going on in the film that are not entirely obvious. Also, the climax of the film sees Tabasco stating an opinion and the guy from Mexico attacking said opinion. That’s a major plot point in the film. Also, your point that “In an actually intelligent movie, a character must defend his point of view from equally strong points of view” is just…not true. When in “The Great Dictator” does someone do that? When in “2001: A Space Odyssey” does someone do that? When in “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” does someone do that? I could go on. When in “Synechdoche New York” does someone do that? When in “Ghost in the Shell” does someone do that? When in “Paris, Texas” does someone do that? Also, what Tabasco (or whatever his name is) shouts in the auditorium shouts is stupid, but it’s a common sentiment if you’ve been following politics. The lack of bite in Bellini’s argument is also the point. The film Is showing that he’s not a very good debater, despite his bluster. The problem is, “Conclave” is a very modern film about 21st century politics, and you keep comparing it to films about times past. A lot of politics nowadays is people “saying nothing”. The film does a good job of capturing that, which is what it is trying to do. You’re focusing too much on what the meaning of the lines is out of context, and not enough on how the lines pertain to the story of the film. You’re also ignoring the character aspect of the film. It’s about Ralph Fienne’s internal struggle as much as it is about everything else. It’s also very weird that you talk so much about dialogue, but don’t even mention the visuals of the film, seeing as this is a movie. Film is a visual medium, as I’m sure you know. I don’t even like “Conclave” that much, but you’re looking at it from a very unusual point of view. When you analyze films, you should get on their level, and you’re acting like the film is trying to be something it has no interest in being.

[@CatholicDragoon]

Well then start off with those ideas, then shift the focus to the clash of personalities as the film goes on.

[@SimonBuchanNz]

Thanks for saving me from writing out an embarrassingly worse version of this!

[@ksatiko6218]

I love MovieWise and I think he's right in pointing out that the film is a bit too shallow and empty and campier than what it could have been, but you are also very right in saying this film is a mirror of our times, made with empty rhetoric used by strong, deranged leaders and no one that could stand to them. However, the points regarding the ending and some of the dialogues are kind of true.

[@TheSkaOreo]

I quite liked Conclave, and my only real criticism is that it is a bit too on the nose with its political allegory. But I think this post here is correct as I was left scratching my head through a lot of this review. Mostly because it seemed like this youtuber was cherrypicking scenes to match the point he wanted to make rather than actually engage with what Conclave is actually about. "It’s also very weird that you talk so much about dialogue, but don’t even mention the visuals of the film, seeing as this is a movie. Film is a visual medium, as I’m sure you know." Yeah..this was also weird too. It's like, a lot of what the Conclave "depth" is told visually, which informs us of how the characters are feeling. Sometimes I get the impression from people that if I showed them a movie and then showed them the physical script, it'd be like that The Office meme: "They're both the same thing." The visual language is just as important in the context of a movie, and too often people don't consider the very thing that makes cinema "cinema" actually important. While it is always good to get a different perspective about a movie, this does absolutely feel like the reviewers misunderstood the film, or was more interested in doing a take down on a supposed "overhyped" movie.

[@Ronkyort0dox]

A film about a conclave that isn't interested in Theology is a bad film

[@TheTonyEntertainment]

Same energy as "You have to be better, Senator"

[@Selrisitai]

I noticed that. All of the stuff was either, "I'm gently pious," or, "Be 👏 better 👏."

[@Bluehawk2008]

I get the impression this film is only interested in the aesthetics of the Vatican and the plot is purely an excuse to put actors in vestments. Shots like 18:05, with all the white columns and tiles and just a splash of red and purple, sad old men in prayer on a gray afternoon... that's the movie.

[@Pythaghorean]

It is a painful reminder of how much dumber the elites, in this case, the Motion Picture Academy has become, in the last century.

[@matfresco]

I know citing all the clips with the name of the movie is a pain but its very much worth it and very much appreciated. You can skip authors and directors as we can look that up if you want to make it a little quicker and easier. Thanks for an excellent take down .... love it when you have a rant!! Is that your Moldovan temperament?

[@cube2fox]

Speaking of Umberto Eco, _The Name of the Rose_ (especially the book, the movie is naturally much shorter) seems to be pretty much the opposite of _Enclave._ You get actual historical theological debates, struggles between various religious orders which interpret the Bible differently (e.g. on whether Jesus was poor and whether monks should live in poverty), sometimes they do not recognize the pope or the rule of celibacy and are persecuted etc. They engage in disagreements and debates about concrete topics, instead of only speaking in vague generalities. It feels real. Actual people rarely have (and had) arguments merely phrased generalities. Generalities are for summarizing a history article in an encyclopedia.

[@cube2fox]

(of course I meant "Conclave", not "Enclave")

[@tublife]

It's ironic how little Conclave reflects its own message of looking within oneself for truth, rather than finding it by appeasing a populace's idea of truth to pacify them. I was expecting you to bring up the twist but I get there was already a pile of nonsense to be pointed out as stupid and vacuous in the broadness and lack of imagination in the dialogue. The people who I told the twist to were rightfully turned off from watching it because it's such of product of its time in the worst way possible - just giving the impression of transgressiveness while drawing within the lines in a way that I'd dismiss as a parody since I thought, for some reason, that this was a Netflix production. But it's actually an adaptation of a novel, which is even worse because if the novel is as shallow and honestly pointless (if it's not smart then it can at least be fun, but no) then this sham appraisal is unfortunately not only exclusive to modern cinema.

[@andrewrobertwells]

This channel is so underrated. The first writing principle I teach in my college classes is "show, don't tell". That means painting pictures with words, being specific, using metaphors, not the vague "telling" we see in these examples.

[@philterskilter9165]

Conclave was really great fun, was totally engaged from start to finish. Having said that, I totally agree with these criticisms of the film.

[@SwainBjornstrandt]

My dude. You fucking rock. From the bottom of my deeply damaged heart

[@babylonian.captivity]

Is that from Mad Men? I say that all the time: "From the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart." Roger says that at some point.

[@SwainBjornstrandt]

@@babylonian.captivity It actually is. Props to you my friend!

[@Hilislaw]

"Dan Brown, not Umberto Eco" - one of the neatest one-sentence summaries of the Conclave! Excellent!

[@temitopeonakoya3430]

I assumed Conclave was supposed to be a fun, breezy watch. I'm shocked that people have such an intellectual attachment to it.

[@elijahalbiston]

Honestly, I think we feel that way because the intellectual arguments are right there to bring up and add another depth to the film... but also aren't quite there. If it had actually gone a bit deeper then it would be one of my absolute favorites of the year.

[@temitopeonakoya3430]

@@elijahalbiston I'm inclined to agree because I also left feeling a little unresolved about whatever arguments it was trying to make. It, however, was too shallow to consider too deeply. That said, it was still such a great watch!

[@elijahalbiston]

@ Oh yeah for sure, awesome film and I'm absolutely going to give it a rewatch someday

[@johnfdm123]

I was waiting for you to mention A Man for All Seasons, and glad when you finally did!

[@Matheusss89]

How to make an "intelligent" oscar bait movie these days: have a lot of characters that are in well known positions of power, be slow, have everyone almost whisper because whispering means you're serious, and have all the dialogue be like twitter arguments, and the main point is always something very modern and generic like "tradition bad".

[@KarlBunker]

I don't care a fig about _Conclave,_ but I am so, so glad it was made, because it resulted in this brilliant analysis.

[@bluehorizon9547]

My fav channel! I'm crying because Villenew didn't get nomination so we won't get your analysis of his directing :'(

[@hpoonis2010]

I assume you mean Dune director? he is a fan of WHISPERING WHEN IT MAKES NO FRIKKIN SENSE TO DO SO! Two tits alone in a desert must whisper? Why???

[@abdelrhmandameen2215]

Your observation touches on a broader issue within Hollywood's portrayal of religious characters. The tendency to simplify or stereotype religious figures often reflects a lack of nuance, catering to people who may already hold preconceived prejudice and notions that religious people are one-dimensional or unintelligent. This film seems to reinforce that perspective, offering a narrative that aligns with those assumptions rather than challenging or deepening the audience's understanding of faith and its complexities. It’s a missed opportunity to explore the richness and diversity of religious experiences in a more meaningful way.

[@ablacknambercat]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

[@hitchcockisthegoat]

And the way the current, modern Oscars have been going it’ll probably win best screenplay.

[@johns123]

It won the Golden Globe so it's not unlikely

[@john_g_henderson]

It’s the odds on favorite to win. Personally I think it deserves it.

[@valleyshrew]

@@john_g_henderson "Personally I think it deserves it." -You liked the film which is contrary to this video, thus presents a nice opportunity for you to add to debate. And like the film, you pass on it, and make a comment of no substance that readers can gain nothing from.

[@john_g_henderson]

@ fine, how about this: you fundamentally misunderstand the power of cinema if you believe it is at its best when discussing ideas. Cinema is at its most powerful when it shows conflict and resolution, something I believe this film does rather well. No, the dialogue is not an awe inspiring philosophical treatise, and it doesn’t need to be. I say this as someone whose favorite director is Tarkovsky, a filmmaker famous for featuring long and brilliant philosophical conversations in his films.

[@danikq2525]

@@valleyshrew The counter-argument is all the films it's up against. Just because this isn't 5 stars best film ever doesn't mean it isn't better than the other dross that has also been nominated.

[@AkZeal76]

I think this is another victim of the overuse of allegory, as if every disagreement should really be about some culture war in California. its exhausting. But it does win award from other Californians

[@LetsKeepitCivil]

"Its Dan Brown not Umberto eco" was all I needed to hear.

[@JKRJ14]

6:45 Isn't that what Nolan does in all of his films i.e. Inception, interstellar, Tenet? Character explaining concepts to the other characters.

[@AWinkAndASmile]

Excellent analysis. And your observations are why I prefer the older classics to today's boring options.

[@ruata4cabin20]

Actually the film doesn't try to show your measurement of what a good clever film should be. It's just a drama with a blend of thrillers. The cinematography is good, the turn around is also great.

[@Cyanoh]

One of my favourite scenes from netflixes Daredevil is where Matt Murdock asks Father Lantom if the Devil exists and Lantom explains his thoughts about how he engages with the concept and what he really thinks. Im glad youve explained how to quantify scenes like that. Im not saying its as high class as some of the examples you promote here but it seems a lot more in depth than Conclave

[@knightsonofjack]

I've never heard anything about this movie but I can already see it's a dumb metaphor for the false drama of US party politics.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

I swear, your editing and videos are amazing, the choice to put different movie clips throughout this critique to show the contrast, as well as the sheer quality of these old films. Thank you so much, man! I miss quality art, and I’ll have them in my mind to watch! 😁

[@Maj_vec]

A little detail, but the line "nothing is ever fleshed out, we only go skin deep" is so lovely and brilliant. Actaully made me realise where fleshed out comes from and it's deeper roots.👏❤

[@mr_ocean5598]

Excellent critique as always - and a delightful sponsor segue!

[@mcrumph]

First, I will always like a video that mentions Don Umberto. Foucault's Pendulum was the first of his books I read & I was astounded. I gave up reading SFF almost immediately in search of other books that had such elevated standards. Second, I find it peculiar concerning the amount of anticipation I look forward to your videos. Third, more people need to take on the difference between good & poor writing. Thank you for fighting the good fight. Well Done.

[@menorcaventura3442]

I am a huge fan of Eco as well. You might want to read Victus by Albert Sanchez Pujol. Similar intellectual heft and sense of humor, and a great read.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Foucault's Pendulum is definitely a book everyone should read. Eco invented Dan Brown.

[@luiz_ed76]

We, as an audience, are becoming more dumb. Thank you for arousing our critical sense and teaching how to be more demanding.

[@Vesnicie]

Speaking of stupid playing smart, please rip "Emilia Pérez" a new one in your next review.

[@odeio_milho]

This video reminds me a lot of your Women Talking one, where you spend the introduction tearing that screenplay apart and still end it with "did i mention i like the movie?" 😆 I chuckled when you joked about not being able to witness people having fun with the things they like but, honestly, your complete thoughts tend to be pretty positive, from recognizing the different areas of film to acknowledging them being an entertaining watch. 100% agree on Cardinal Lawrence being a dull protagonist. The role of the mediator should be way more involved and developed than what happens in Conclave. As for his "crisis of faith", i kept waiting for the movie to make the connection between that and the religion-as-business ordeal. It would have been expected, but at least it would have been something. Appreciate the many recommendations you trojan-horsed in this, i'm definetely checking many of them out and i hope this video blows up so more people get Elmer Gantry on their radar. The editing here is top notch.

[@ME-ed7gc]

All the arguments in this video are completely valid and backed with evidence and I agree completely with this video. That being said I love the movie.

[@salmadys]

I never for a second felt this movie was about faith; but instead It was just another lazy Metaphor about the electoral process and how to "vote to stop the rise of fascism." And just like other movies of it's ilk it was unprepared to face corruption as a systemic issue and to say anything slightly critical about the system deemed as corrupt. It reduces the metaphor to fairy tale and sadly that is the caliber of most writing these days. But man, that was a satisfying essay, I added at least 6 movies to my watchlist and thank you for that!

[@larskaaber9869]

As always, Moviewise is spot on. "It sounds like a memo left by the author to be turned into character-specific dialogue later on." This video obliterates "Conclave" by demonstrating, through a well-written monologue, what the poorly written movie should have done. to the list of more intelligent films about religthe church, I will add "The Controversy at Valladolid" (1992) and "Doubt" (2008).

[@jamlife919]

I completely agree with this video, I never understood why the screenplay is what people praised this for or the acting, the mvp of this film is the direction which the academy and no one else seems to recognise. It looks so pretty but as shallow as puddle

[@adeepdive77]

Right? I thought it was beautiful.

[@michaelbodalski]

The acting is good, but it's the sort of good you get from great performers doing what they do best. The art and visual direction are what brought me to the theater and the only thing that stuck with me.

[@jamlife919]

@@adeepdive77 I would even say the direction enhances the lacklustre screenplay, like the shots of clergy in full regalia on a smoking break captures the vibe of endemic cynicism in the church much better than any line of dialogue

[@adeepdive77]

@jamlife919 I literally made sure I saw it because of a fanvid on here, set to New Bottega. The cinematography was fantastic. But I definitely agree with the criticism of the screenplay here, there are some massive arguments happening in Catholicism today but they're completely glossed over and reduced in the movie. (I'm not even Roman Catholic.) It just means that people are even a little familiar can insert those arguments, even if it's realistically not tackling those arguments, and people who are unfamiliar can treat the entire thing as allegory. On one of my other communities, this movie is tagged Mean Girls in the Vatican and I love that because it's true.

[@algotrhythm4287]

As shallow as a puddle with a light film of oil - totally gorgeous lights and rainbows built on nothing. And even the little bit of something evaporates away while you are watching. But: oooh shiny!

[@jodi2847]

An honest modern filmmaker would respond that movies are now being made for Tik Tok audiences. Short attention span, no critical thought, easily distracted, and driven by feelings over logic. They want to be influenced, not challenged. The problem is that these same people don't watch movies like Conclave, which sells itself as profound and thought-provoking, for the art house crowd... who hated it for said reasons in this video.

[@CatholicFilmClub]

Thank you so much. I hate it because it has so many opinions about the Church while obviously knowing nothing about it. But on movie terms it is absolutely a plot outline spoken aloud.

[@sauce8277]

Wow great timing. Knew I subbed for a reason. I was thinking of seeing this.

[@Shamino1]

It's the first season of 'The Borgia's' From 2011, just with my Medieval 2: Total War campaign goal of making a secret female bishop my pope. The first season of 'The Borgia' showed a far superior political maneuvering of the papal election than this. In fact, it felt like someone watched The Borgia's S1 and said "What would happen if Alexander VI wasn't a jerk, but a LAAAADY?"

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

Burt Lancaster’s performance in Elmer Gantry is fantastic! Especially when he’s giving the sermons.

[@_Braised]

Is this not the movie with Tobey Maguire and Robert Downey Jr before Tropic Thunder starts? Seems like it's about the same level of Oscar Bait...

[@wrlord]

Sounds like the perfect movie for the Cliff's Notes crowd.

[@nikkili8944]

"There's more wisdom in your aunt's FB feed" made my day. 😄 Movies about the Catholic Church are so terribly written these days because it's not about engaging in ideas and theology it's to cast the Catholic Church in a bad light. Catholic Church = bad, it's that simple. No interesting, engaging and intellectually honest conversations, just empty, cringy, pseudo intellectual and pseudo philosophical gibberish that's presented as dialog. It's more sophisticated than the average ranting Redditor would write it but make no mistake, the contempt is just the same. For your amusement, just watch Immaculate with Sydney Sweeney it came out last year. To me it's not a horror movie it's an accidental comedy due to how absurd and cringy it is.

[@kostantza1]

Haven't yet watched Conclave, but there's something that annoys me in modern movies about the Vatican, and Catholic church politics in general. Like, everyone was praising the New Pope, and it was indeed well-directed, acted and visually stunning...but it had such a shallow American understanding of everything, from corruption to spiritual struggle. Two Popes, same thing. I will go out and state that one of the most incisive ventures into the complexity of the Vatican was the relative subplot in Godfather III, and it wasn't even the main plot of the film.

[@nikkili8944]

@kostantza1 Yeah, the American/Hollywood approach to Catholicism and the Vatican/Catholic Church is mostly very shallow and caricatural 9 times out of 10. Godfather III is the honourable exception of the rule.

[@AudioEpics]

This video was definitely more in-depth and thought-provoking than the movie it thoroughly scrutinized. Great analysis! We've been frustrated with the same misplaced pretentiousness in other movies as well, like Nosferatu, for example. Movies tend to be exactly the opposite of what critics claim them to be. If critics deem a movie intelligent, the dialogues are usually on-the-nose and without depth. If they say it's 'mature' it often feels like it was produced by a horny teenager with zero life experience. The movie landscape has become a barren wasteland. +1 subscriber!

[@cube2fox]

Critics often also praise a film when they agree with its message, even when the message (the implicit argument the movie makes) is on-the-nose and simplistic. For example, if you are a liberal and the movie presents conservative cardinals as overly stupid and stubborn, that description may not register as a strawman to you because it is in line with your political opinion. (Related: There are actually psychological studies showing that people agree way more with one and the same argument when it is presented as being made by someone from their favored political party, and less if it presented as coming from "the enemy".)

[@markthomas3851]

I appreciate your thoughts. My adolescent son works at a small theater built back in the 20s. He told his mom and me that he was trans when he was 12. He turned 17 recently. He was so elated that he called me after his first viewing of Conclave. I went into my local theater on his recommendation. By the end, I was sobbing. My child had found his film. Something made that recognized him. I enjoy your essays. I don't care if this is a great film. I love it because it made my child feel understood. Thank you for hearing me out. ❤

[@wrlord]

No one can doubt your analyses are consistently smart. Please keep doing what you are doing!

[@joejellyfish]

As someone who went in trying to find a favorite in this hellscape of nominated films, so far it's my favorite of the bunch I've seen. It was a fun watch for sure, pretty pictures, atmospheric music, the collective experience was surely engaging but nothing more. The book was the fastest read I've done in a while. It made me realize how empty I felt trying to look for meaning behind it. Too transparent, expected to get to know more about the characters. Thank you for criticizing it.

[@Hilislaw]

This movie is the epitome of "made for modern audiences."

[@MattBellzminion]

I haven't seen this film, but your vlog essay has me convinced that "Conclave" is only clever as a subversive indictment of the contemporary Vatican as a debased bubble-realm of vaporware intellects, vaporware issues and policies, and vaporware relevance to modern life. But in fairness to its creators, this film is probably the most accurate depiction of the insider politicking inside the Holy See that we'll ever get. In real life, elites in positions that require a lifelong dedication and career path rarely discuss the issues and factions in the manner required to inform a general audience of hoi polloi mouthbreathers -- what critics universally pan and mock as "expository dialogue" and "General Exposition" characters. Vatican cardinals and other officials know the history, culture, and political intrigue of their increasingly pathetic little kingdom forwards and backwards already and -- like career bureaucrats, academics, officials, and scientific experts -- are presumably steeped in the arcana of their own subcultural argot, lingo, metonymic shortcuts, and in-jokes... but it appears that the screenwriter failed to capture any of that authentic essence, either.

[@babylonian.captivity]

"It's a fight for a knife in the mud" is one of the all time best lines. So fucking vivid, so memorable. One of those lines that's just etched in my psyche forever.

[@danikq2525]

I find the dialogue criticism a bit much. Nobody speaks with these over-the-top and theatrical metaphors in real life so why would a film purporting to be rooted in some reality use dialogue like that? I also would find it unbelievable that such high-level priests would be having deep philosophical conversations about the meaning of faith during a conclave. It's not like they're debating with some member of the clergy or an interloper - they all kinda know everything about the subject matter here. The film isn't there to place an 'audience' character among them to joust with or to be taught about xyz of Catholicism.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

I agree. There are a lot of givens among cardinals. A conclave is still an election.

[@cube2fox]

What? Of course they debate concrete theological disagreements, not just vague generalities. Anything else would be like claiming that physics professors don't discuss their disagreement about physics theories when they have to decide on allocating their funding either to research project A or to B.

[@cisco3111]

This movie was the exact definition of being mind numbingly stereotypically liberal, it insist upon itself

[@dawsondegraaf8143]

Pssst! Babe, wake up. There’s a new Moviewise video.

[@michaelward5477]

A well substantiated take-down. Yes, the novel is an airport page-turner, nothing more. Why a great actor like Ralph Fiennes dignified it with his presence is a mystery, or at any rate a pity. The only other person I've seen prick the bubble of this movie's pretensions is Dan Hitchens in a fine article for 'First Things'. I conclude that you, Mr Moviewise, are in fact Dan Hitchens, masking your Oxford-educated English accent through special voice mis-recognition software. Can there really be more than one perceptive movie critic in this world?

[@DylanPank71]

I concede the points here but have to say I really enjoyed the movie as a thriller (killer final plot revelation too). I know I'm going to sound like one of those "it was bad on purpose" type people but I did think the rather empty banal dialogue was meant to reflect that these people were actually denuded of real religious beliefs and had replaced them with of tribal allegiances, not actual men of conviction and duty but bureaucrats and political climbers. However, as a thriller, i'll say I kind of struggled with where the mysterious new arrival Benitez would keep getting votes from, and his "why can't we all just get along" speech at the end was certainly underwhelming, and I think it actuality unlikely to have swayed that many people. I was also rather lost on the significance of the terrorist attacks other than as a sort of Deus Ex Machina to drive everything to a crisis point.

[@unclegumbald989]

00:13 is that the courtyard from Game of Thrones / House of the Dragon??

[@elizabethpalladino8301]

Excellent analysis. I would be interested in how this screenplay compares to the original novel. My friend and I loved Conclave. For me, as a life-long Catholic, I've actually had and heard conversations on the Church that were just as fuzzy in words spoken. I think that someone like myself fills in the missing context and we don't need to spell it out in our conversations with fellow Catholics.

[@purekinema]

The script is great, not because of the surface-level dialogue (which was never the heart of the film), but as a tight thriller and as a character study of Lawrence. He is unexpectedly placed in a position to taste power and accept ambition, only for it to get yanked away from him, and all of that is in the subtext.

[@TonyinQuakeland]

Conclave is not about philosophical arguments. It's about office politics. It's about backroom nastiness, people making public commitments they abandon for personal reasons, maneuvering against factions simply because they're not on your side. It's just about winning an election. The presence of the nuns, especially Rossellini, is like a silent rebuke to their shallowness. Which is why the ending is interesting - without intending to they have accidentally done something that could have huge significance for the church. It's not trying to be A Man for All Seasons. Election and The Candidate are better comparisons. It's about careerism wrapped up in robes. Complaining that the characters are not making clear significant philosophical statements ignores the fact they're not interested in them. They are interested in organizational power.

[@cube2fox]

But that's a simplistic world view, a caricature of Catholicism. Of course they are very much interested in their theological convictions, and of course they believe their arguments are better, so of course they discuss ideas. That's the reason why they studied theology in the first place and became priests. If they were just in for the career, they would have studied business administration or something like that. If the characters in the movie are only interested in politics, then that's a fault of the movie, because that's not how things work in reality.

[@StephenYuan]

So the movie is superficial because the characters are superficial? Your defense makes me question why they should hold my attention for a whole movie.

[@TonyinQuakeland]

@@StephenYuan Very clearly not at all what i said. I posted because he did not describe the film i saw. It's not a defense. it's a clarification that the film's subject is organizational politics not philosophy. It does that very well and has a comic streak that he seems to have missed. I have no idea why you think i called the film superficial. I didn't and it's not. As for the characters, i don't think they are particularly superficial, but clearly there have been many sophisticated films about superficial people. I like this channel. He's brilliant on technical aspects (like his Furiosa video) but he can be very odd in some of his critical opinions. One example that sticks out is his critical comments about Zone of Interest in his screenplay nominations video. They seem to utterly miss the point of a brilliant film and instead criticize it for not being the film he wanted it to be. He does something similar here. The guy's good, but every critic has their quirks and blind spots. As for whether or not its worth your time, i have no opinion. I'm not trying to talk anyone into watching anything. I'm only interested in clarifying the film under discussions.

[@TonyinQuakeland]

@ @ In politics, academia, religions, and many, many governing organizations, philosophical convictions are often (frequently, maybe even always) trumped by maneuvering to gain control. That's not a caricature of anything. The convictions and beliefs of the various cardinals only matter in broad strokes. Anyone raised or still practicing Catholic understands the broad terms of liberal and conservative in the context of the film. They are broad alliances about what various cardinals can live with in a leader. These men have spent decades studying theology and developing their views. No one is going to be persuaded by the other side making a philosophical point. This is about politics, pure and simple. That doesn't mean they don't have philosophical beliefs. They just don't matter when you've locked the doors for the election.

[@cube2fox]

@ Of course they matter. Nothing else matters, because only concrete, intelligent arguments will persuade the undecided to vote for a certain candidate. What else would persuade them? Overly general platitudes?

[@TPubbie]

Conclave is not about theological debate. It's about a contest of wills. The characters have already staked out their positions. They've debated each other countless times, and now they've reached a decision point. That's where the story picks up. It's why doubt is such a strong, recurring theme. "What if I'm wrong? What if I'm unworthy?" The movie examines that condition. It doesn't have to be dialectical to be smart.

[@jaykaufman9782]

2024 may well go down as film history's worst year ever. Just going by the Academy Awards nominees.

[@magnusalexander2965]

I always jump right into moviewise videos, but the start of this one made me really eager to watch Conclave first. Don't know what that says about me

[@lanolinlight]

Schrader's FIRST REFORMED is the latest, greatest articulation of spiritual struggle this side of the ocean(s).

[@demolove368]

Good sir, you are not a hater, you are a critique. One hallmark I would say is that you offer better alternatives, like a shepard guiding us your sheep away from any terror. God bless you.

[@commonwunder]

This is the age we all live in... an age of the message... of progressives, name-calling conservatives as evil incarnate and vice versa. It has become a world at war over absolutes. Two sides each blaming each other for the enormous stagnant edifice, that has captured them both equally. A film like this illustrates society's dilemma... it is all surface, pure eye candy... without any nourishment.

[@Luxington1]

You know what I love about this channel? Its not afraid to say something is bad. After years of cultural relativism where art is nothing but subjective, it's a complete breath of fresh air to hear someone knowledgeable say No, there is technique and skill that make good art. With so much comeing out these days and a desire to enjoy the output beyond one's own generation, there is no room for the mediocre.

[@AudioEpics]

Exactly! I think people are bound to return to quality with this excess of quantity, especially since AI art... I hope videos like these will eventually give people higher standards.

[@Luxington1]

@@AudioEpics Not a bad place for recommendations either!

[@Davidbaratunk]

Well articulated points, and with the list of alternative films... Subscribed.

[@kaustubhpadala1989]

Next up - why dune deserved the best director snub

[@geodogg07]

We need to make Movieise a voting member of The Academy!

[@jenscha07]

Ohh yeah exactly is Dan Brown not Umberto Eco.

[@conservativemovement]

I really enjoyed hating that movie.

[@phildupuis1084]

This just may be my favourite movie review ever

[@joshuadaluz5391]

9:25 shoes of the fisherman is still the best movie set during conclave ❤ always worth a rewatch 😊

[@dwc1964]

the segue to the ad read rekt me

[@hamfranky]

It doesn't really have any pretentions of being all that though. That wasn't what I took away from it. It's a detective genre movie set in The Vatican. It's fine.

[@GangStalker17]

When a non religious person tries to write about religion

[@Clouden3]

I enjoyed Conclave. Mainly for its cinematography, costume design, and sharp performances, but I also thought it was missing something throughout. Now I know why.

[@riethc]

Exposition is a shortcut to move plot forward. It doesn't make something "stupid", it's just a way to shorten what would have to be what is otherwise a much longer film. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc. all start with exposition. It may not be preferable but it's not bad.

[@rickyvvvvv]

Brilliant dialogue could not have saved the story. It wanted to move like a great murder mystery, but Ralph Fiennes' Cardinal Thomas was given story contrivances and much convenience that he did not even have to do much investigation. That speech by the cardinal from Kabul belonged to a beauty contest Q&A. The story aimed for a Keyser Soze moment at the end, but it was just too dumb. The setup was not brilliant, but the liberal slant was obvious anyway that the story decided it was okay to throw in this dumb twist. It was funny though when the roof crashed as soon as Thomas cast a vote for himself, and found himself on the ground like the pope in Maurizio Catellan's art piece. He must have thought that God was angered by his vote, but was soon relieved to realize that it was just a terrorist attack. I had a feeling the director was trying to have some fun through all the stupidity.

[@philipmarsh2172]

Thank you for explaining why I had no desire to see this film a second time despite quite enjoying it first time round

[@eugeblacks]

How do I like this video more?