Like many people, the death of the pope led me to decide now was the time to watch Conclave.
I really enjoyed it. It had such excellent atmosphere, brilliant aesthetics, excellent acting, and music that fit the mood perfectly. The political intrigue was compelling, if a little shallow.
And then we get to the end. I was not surprised at who ended up on the throne. Basic media familiarity had me guessing correctly who it would be from early in the first act. And watching how his votes changed over the various ballots was all the more satisfying because of that.
And then at the very end, it completely dropped the ball. Instead of a gradual build up of his votes leading to his win, he just suddenly wins by accident. The accident itself was set up well enough, but the extent of its influence on the outcome of the next ballot was overblown, in my opinion.
And after that came the final twist. An interesting one. And one a better movie might have wrestled with a bit. Instead, no character at any point made any decisions based on learning it, because instead of influencing the denouement, that twist itself was the denouement, and then we cut to credits. No buildup, no payoff, just twist and done.
I enjoyed it up until then, but was left feeling hollow by the lacklustre ending.
Spoilers
If I recall correctly, the Bishop of Kabul’s votes started at just 2 or 3, and gradually grew over the ballots until in the penultimate one he got like 9. Because I assumed he would win, I thought this was brilliant set-up. Showing he’s in there, but just quietly in the background. I thought he’d eventually get an opportunity to grab a whole bunch of votes at once, which would set him properly on the path to victory.
And that’s kind of what happened. He gave that speech in the theatre after the bombing. It was a good speech. Not nearly as dramatic as I expected, and kind of understated. I thought that worked for what we knew of the character thus far. It was enough that I could have bought him jumping into 2nd place as a result, and then maybe doing some more politicking before a final vote that he wins. But I just couldn’t buy going from 10 votes to over 70 in a single ballot based on that little speech.
Maybe if his speech had been over-written, like a more typical Hollywood monologue, it would have worked for me. Wouldn’t have been as good as adding in a little more politics, but it would have worked well enough.
The twist that he was intersex could have been interesting. Especially considering the conflict was ostensibly about how progressive the church should be. The actual doctrine underlying the two parties was not explored much, and maybe it would have been a more interesting movie for me (as someone interested in political intrigue) if it had been. I wouldn’t have had it explicitly talking about intersex people—that would have been too on the nose—but talking more about something else that could have been later re-interpreted as a metaphor for, or at least analogous to, the question of intersex people might have helped set it up better. As it was, it came out of nowhere, and affected nothing. We have no idea how or if anyone else finds out or reacts to it. We have no idea how it influences his doctrine. It’s like it got put in there just to be a shock twist. But the twist left no impact.
Oh, and tangentially, I was hoping Lawrence would reveal, after Tedesco’s racist tirade, that actually the people responsible for the bombings were right-wing white terrorists, and not Muslims. That would have been emotionally satisfying in the moment, though it would have robbed the Benitez’s speech of its impact.
You must log in or register to comment.
I agree with you and I think quite a few other people have shared similar sentiments here too. There is nothing wrong with any of the narrative components that comprise the ending, but they aren’t given enough time throughout the film to match everything that has come before. All the political thriller tension type stuff leading up to the finale is consistently excellent and there is a lot of time spent on this sort of personal crisis the lead is going through, with quite a bit of foreshadowing that he is going to be corrupted by a lust for power. Yet that never actually comes, and instead we get a different ending which is fine but hasn’t received anywhere near as much attention. It’s like a 9/10 film for 85% that drops to a 6/10 right at the end. I left the cinema feeling somewhat disappointed but if I reflect honestly on the entire film it was still great and absolutely worth the watch.
with quite a bit of foreshadowing that he is going to be corrupted by a lust for power
Yeah I definitely saw this and was a little disappointed it didn’t amount to anything. I left it out because I wasn’t actually sure it was really there, or if I just read it into the film without serious evidence.
It’s like a 9/10 film for 85% that drops to a 6/10 right at the end
Those are almost the exact numbers I was gonna give it. I’d have said 8/10 down to 6/10.
Iirc this is pretty realistic. After a certain number of voting rounds cardinals often agree to switch to a different candidate, with such candidate who suddenly comes up as a new option taking a huge jump in votes for him.
spoiler
And given when the book was written - on the height of Daesh/ISIS bombings in Europe - the fact that a jihadist group would bomb the Vatican during Conclave makes way more sense than if it was a white supremacist group.
The fact that the last twist isn’t properly influencing anything is, I believe, also down to the fact that it is simply adapted from the book.
Re the context of when the book was written…I didn’t actually know it was based on a book, as I watched it. I did already know that as I wrote this review, but that was too late to shape my original interpretation of the film as I watched it.
Plus, I don’t really love it as an excuse. There are two possibilities as I see it. Either it worked in the book but didn’t translate well to screen, in which case they should have made the necessary changes to come up with something that did work. Or it didn’t work in the book and they should have taken the opportunity of the adaptation to improve upon it. It wouldn’t be the first time an adaptation significantly changed the source material.
I’d agree that it seems unnecessarily overdramatic in the movie plus due to the fact that we are closed in with the cardinals, we don’t see how this attack was possible nor the police investigations that follow it. So we are left with an incomplete picture and the cardinals’ reactions to that.
