A conclave is a very film event, with the inconvenience that no one has ever been there to see it, except the cardinals of the Catholic Church, who have to keep the secret of what happens there. Therefore, although then many things are over, you have to invent everything. ConclaveEdward Berger’s film that with eight candidacies is one of the favorites this Sunday at the Oscar ceremony, invents it well. It is very documented, it is very precise in the details and, above all, what counts, except for some turns, is plausible. Moreover, it portrays quite successfully what is happening in the church right now, the dilemmas it faces and may be telling how the next conclave will be more or less, it arrives when it arrives, something that the Pope’s health has put very current. Robert Harris, whose book is based on the film (as happened with The writer o The officer and the spyboth directed by Roman Polanski), always works rigorously.
In Italy, the criticism of the Diario de los Obispos Italian, Happenit was not entirely bad, admitting that it was a good product and had interesting reflections, although it pointed out that “it is impossible not to smile at certain characters or situations that, especially in the eyes of Italian spectators, risk seem involuntary parodies.” Some cliché there, but they are nuances. Without giving up anything about history, you can list successes and exact details.
The protocol of the death of the Pope, the environments and all the rituals and mechanisms in general of how the conclave is organized are very correct, because the truth is that everything is very regulated. The least true are the spaces: in the film the residence where the cardinals are housed seems more distant than it is really, and bigger, when the truth is that the Vatican, as is known, is very small. The cardinals stay next to the Basilica of San Pedro and the Sistine Chapel is the other, they move by bus for comfort.
The moment of the action is timeless, but it is very close to the current one now. There is a very precise detail: the Pope of the film does not die in the Apostolic Palace, but in the room of a kind of hotel inside the Vatican, and this is how Francisco lives, and only he, is the first Pope who does it, in a suite of the residence of Santa Marta (specifically the 201, second floor, 90 square meters). The reference is very clear. As well as others that refer to the character of the deceased Pope: who has undertaken many reforms, who has tried to clean the curia, which had the furious opposition of the conservative sector. Even the criticism that in fact only replaced a bureaucracy with a parallel court with identical vices and problems now Francisco is made. They touch, otherwise, very real problems, and some still little known as the abuse of nuns by priests.
A figure already appears, but exact: the so -called cardinal In the chestwhich is the one named by the Pope, but without revealing his name, for security reasons. It happened with bishops from Eastern Europe during the Cold War, or from China until a few years ago. The last to resort to this formula was John Paul II, four times. And the funny thing is that of the last, in 2003, the name was never known, because Wojtyla died in 2005 and took the secret to the grave, did not clarify it in his will. They are called In the chest Therefore, because the name is kept by the pontiff “in his chest.”
Another well -brought character is that of the protagonist, magnificently played by Ralph Fiennes, who is the dean of the Cardinal College and in the vacant headquarters period it is one of the highest authorities, and who directs the conclave. Although in the next, for example, the current one, Giovanni Battista Re, cannot participate because he is over 80 years old, limit to enter the Sistine Chapel. The oldest cardinal will replace you that you still do not have that age.
The development of the conclave in the film resembles that of 1978, and something similar is likely to happen in the next one, given the complexity of the situation. Two large sides, progressive and conservative, collide without having any two thirds of the votes, and burn their candidates. Then they must look for a consensus name, which can sometimes be unexpected. This is what happened in 1978 with John Paul II, Archbishop of Krakow. Something similar is expected in the next one, there is a great internal division. Although in the film the distinction of sides is something schematic, for the sake of understanding, the animosity between them is currently accused. It is also true the clash between the nostalgic of an Italian or European Pope, and a globalized church that is already majority. In fact, in the next conclave there will be more cardinals and countries than ever, with probability for unknown surprises and names.
In the film, for narrative reasons, he skip the death of the pontiff at the beginning of the conclave, but in reality in the previous days the cardinals maintain assemblies, the so -called general congregations, where they intervene, discuss and discuss their peers. It is then when the candidates are forged, not so much at the last minute, on the march.
The characters are complex, and in general the truth of that Roman saying is perceived that whoever enters Pope leaves Cardinal. That is, who wants to be or believes it can be, then it is not. The search and exchange of information, sometimes malicious, on the past of a possible candidate, is very truthful, in case it had dirty rags, and about their health, to calculate what can last. Bergoglio himself has told him about the last conclave, because he ran the rumor that he was touched on health, and they went to ask him. The Pope, in addition, as seen in the film, can strip a cardinal of his right to enter the conclave, and Francisco has already done it with some, such as Angelo Becciu, involved in a financial scandal. As for the conspiracy environment of the curia, the same news of recent years have already made it clear that any fiction can fall short.