REVIEW: Conclave [2024]

Rating: PG | Runtime: 120 minutes
Release Date: October 25th, 2024 (USA)
Studio: Focus Features
Director(s): Edward Berger
Writer(s): Peter Straughan / Robert Harris (novel)

Hell arrives tomorrow when we bring in the cardinals.

Towards the end of Edward Berger’s Conclave (adapted by Peter Straughan from Robert Harris’ novel), a revelation that we have known for quite some time is finally brought to light for the characters on-screen. Their reaction is as we would expect—including that of Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto). Because while everyone else is frozen in shock, he sassily places his vape pen in his mouth for a pointed drag. It’s such a small little thing and yet it speaks volumes towards the tone that runs throughout this papal “thriller.” One that trades in pulpy theatrics, heightened melodrama, and an overall silliness that both contrasts its narrative severity and is ultimately produced from it.

The result is extremely entertaining even if the stakes are never as high as the film believes. Sure, voting for a new pope is a serious endeavor. I get that as a lapsed Catholic even if I couldn’t care less. We might be talking about an antiquated position of power, but it remains an important one to those who adore the title as well as those who are affected by the words (decrees to the former) spoken beneath its mantle. So, the decision does come with a heavy responsibility. One that Dean Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) takes to heart even if that same organ is no longer secure in its faith. The question then is whether the sanctity of the process outweighs the sanctity of the office itself.

If that sounds suspiciously like a different series of elections held much closer to home, well, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Harris and company are obviously using the papacy as a metaphor for what’s been happening in the United States as tribalism replaces morality where politics are concerned. It’s hardly subtle when the presumed favorite (Tedesco) is drawn as a “traditionalist” who wants to roll back sixty years of reform to “make the papacy great again.” Nor is it when those he’s fighting against (the “liberals”) are led by Aldo Bellini (Stanley Tucci)—a “good guy” who doesn’t even want the crown. Add Lucian Msamati’s Adeyemi (unworthy to Tedesco because of Tedesco’s racism and Bellini because of Adeyemi’s bigotry) and you get a three-headed monster.

It’s not just Rome’s Trump, Biden, and Stein, though. There’s also their Harris by way of Lawrence himself. Here’s a guy who wanted to resign but was refused by the late pope. He’s fully behind his friend Bellini, but also willing to back Adeyemi despite his negatives because anyone is better than Tedesco. And, when push comes to shove, he might even accept the nomination himself if enough outside noise tells him he’s the “last line of defense.” Unlike America, however, Bellini doesn’t have to step down for Lawrence to start earning votes. All four end up on the ballot alongside Tremblay’s (John Lithgow) scandal-waiting-to-happen and Benitez’s (Carlos Diehz) soft-spoken stranger nobody knew existed until the conclave commenced. Buckle up for a long sequestering.

I’ll say this about the metaphor: it’s blunt but effective. It gets the wheels moving as far as where the tides start turning and provides Lawrence ample opportunity to go beyond his scope for the truth or wring his hands and let “God decide.” Brían F. O’Byrne and Isabella Rossellini arrive for brief but memorable counsel while Fiennes shines to really elevate his character from the otherwise thin material. Because there isn’t that much here beyond the play to hold viewers accountable for their own tribalistic tendencies. That Fiennes imbues Lawrence with such altruistic passion and unwavering strength in the face of corruption is a testament to his craft more than the script. Even if his day one homily is very well-written too.

Where things fall apart for me, however, is in the so-called “twist.” That’s what I’ve been hearing it called ever since TIFF, but I think the term “bombshell revelation” is more apt since it doesn’t impact the actual plot. Its purpose is to instead impact us. Well, I thought it was beyond naïve. Why? Because it presents the common sense argument about equality that simply has not moved the needle in the real world. It doesn’t matter that it’s logical because opponents towards the situations it confirms do not trade in logic. The thing about tribalism is that truth and decency are rendered moot. To those entrenched in the vitriol like Tedesco and Bellini, this is a war. And choosing a side means you cannot be wrong even if you know you are.

Do I feel that way because I’m watching it post-election? Maybe. But I had no delusions towards how things would end up, so I’m pretty sure I would have felt the same beforehand too. Because our world is imperfect. Charismatic monsters profiting off the backs of their constituents have the juice that sensible profiteers trying to play both sides do not. Maybe something would change if a third candidate came along to call both sides out, but America’s third-party candidates are either toothless or profiteers themselves cutting deals with the main candidates anyway. So, not only does the result of Conclave scream fantasy, but the bombshell also “my differences might create change” feels like a blinking “laughter” sign above a live studio audience. The silliness is fun until it’s just plain silly.