Conclave

It was pretty interesting. I’m not sure about the representation of cardinals in this film (I have never met one), but I can see the power-hungry nature of some of the cardinals being true. Today, I was reading The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, and he mentions:

In so far as the division of mind and body can be accepted, the worst pleasures, as well as the best, are mental […] Many eminent ecclesiastics, having renounced the pleasures of sense, and being not on the guard against others, became dominated by the love of power, which led them to appalling cruelties and persecutions, nominally for the sake of religion.

The ending of the movie kind of ruined it for me. There is a terrorist attack during the conclave vote, and this attack leads to a meeting of some cardinals, during which an Italian cardinal himself as a pretty conservative guy (relative to the church at the time) who threatens to turn back the “progress” that the church has made. In response to the Italian cardinals speech in which he makes his stances clear, a Mexican cardinal from the diocese of Kabul makes a speech about turning away from hatred. This Mexican , who had only been promoted to the rank of Cardinal last year by the previous Pope, ends up being voted the next pope. It turns out that this Mexican cardinal is something other than he appears at the end of the film.

I liked the movie until the terrorist attack, after which I believe it became a film that transparently promoted the values of the filmmaker, and it did so in a haphazard way. Whereas most of the intrigue of the film takes some time to develop, the last big developments in the film seem rushed and obvious from a “how do you want the audience to receive this” kind of way. This is a way to say that I think the end of the film lost some of the nuance of the film, and it was also the most unrealistic.