Conclave, the Intersex Gut Punch
A Review
THE OTHER DAY I sat down to watch the film Conclave. I had heard nothing about it other than glimpsing the trailer, which suggested a fast-moving thriller about the selection of a new Pope.
I thoroughly enjoy watching thrillers, and especially appreciate the craftsmanship needed to construct a pulsating plot. However, I had long bemoaned how the quality of thriller films had been decreasing over the last decade, largely because of three factors:
Streaming, which had overtime reduced the amount of ‘middle budget’ films that were made, many of which were thrillers;
Trope Subversion, the constant subversion of tropes like having the hero lose, or merely being less heroic or moral than usual; and
Ideology, the lathering of political beliefs on top of a story to the point it becomes propaganda.
As a result, wisely or unwisely, I have largely shielded myself from new productions, expecting that my time will likely be wasted. Even so, like many of the writers of this platform, in my own little way I am working to establish a cultural rejuvenation of the West. And so, I am always looking out for examples of that rejuvenation. They needn’t be grand or philosophical, but something with clear artistic merit - that for once does not lecturer you about your ‘moral failings’.
If you have seen Conclave, heard reviews, or as you will find out when you finish this essay, you will realise I was looking in exactly the wrong place.
But five minutes in and I was excited: I was excited because I was engaged, and I was engaged due a complete lack of propaganda (for once!) The Pope had just died, and there appeared, through the artful suppression of dialogue and use of tense strings, some kind of conspiracy.
Twenty minutes in and I was still exited. The main character Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes), had been asked to lead the Conclave, the process by which Cardinals from around the world select a new Pope. (I should say now, I am not a Catholic, and thus do not know whether the producers represented this process correctly). Lawrence was likeable, and it appeared his role was to support a close friend of his, Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), in becoming Pope.
Shortly before or after this mark, it became clear who the main antagonist will be, and political propaganda began to seep in. The main challenger was Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a brutish reactionary from Italy who desired to undo recent progressive reforms. He was made out to appear uncivilized, unsophisticated, and authoritarian, next to the erudite, liberal, and multi-cultural Brit, Lawrence.
As the film developed, three more characters appeared: Two red herrings for Pope, and the other, well … you’ll see.
The first was Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), an African. Openly looked down upon by Tedesco, he was not given much screen time, though he was in the lead when it came to votes (the winner needed a clear majority to become Pope). The second was Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), an American who was suspected to have been expelled by the recently deceased Pope for gross misconduct. The third was Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), a Mexican outsider who worked in Kabul, Afghanistan - of all places.
Watching this, I thought it too obvious of the - now clearly - progressive filmmakers to make a black man Pope, and the story would likely be less interesting (given he was in the lead), so I looked elsewhere.
The protagonist Lawrence had given a speech that had inadvertently gained him supporters in becoming Pope, and his friend Bellini, the liberal American, had lost support because of a lack of character and courage (much of this was implied).
Uncovered in Adeyemi’s past, was an affair he had with a woman thirty years previous, which resulted in a child out of wedlock. Tremblay, who helped expose this moral failing to ruin his rival’s attempt for the Papacy, was himself exposed: The truth was revealed how he was expelled for gross misconduct.
This left the protagonist Lawrence, liberal, multicultural, pro-gay marriage, against Tedesco, reactionary, tribal, traditional. You might think I am putting words on actions here, but all their political positions were stated in arguments and debates. There was no ambiguity as to what they stood for.
As it seemed the ‘good’ was going to triumph over the ‘evil’, Islamist suicide bombings occured all across Europe, preventing the final vote. The Mexican Benitez won a debate against Tedesco - largely about the tolerance of Islam and its radical arm; Tedesco wanted to expose their hate of Christians, while Benitez believed ‘hate leads to hate’ (not a direct quote, but basically his argument). Though I was supposed to side with Benitez here (and it was a good speech, do not get me wrong), I in fact agreed with most of what the ‘evil’ Tedesco had said.
All the other Cardinal’s then, suddenly inspired by this progressive speech, voted for Benitez and ‘he’ became Pope.
The final twist was the gut punch. After watching a film that was very well made, with artful editing, brilliant pacing, solid acting, and a decent plot, the filmmakers decided it would be a great idea to reveal to the viewer that we were all tricked: Benitez was born with ovaries, he (she) had female chromosomes, and a micro-penis.
Great.
Conclave is one of the most virtue signaling films I have ever seen. I do not need to go into detail, really - it’s self-evident with what I have described. One side was evil - everything conservative, reactionary, traditional; one side was good - everything progressive, LGBT, multi-cultural. As a viewer, I was constantly pulled out of the narrative and going, ‘hold on, I do not agree with that ridiculous straw man’. They created two-dimensional arguments voiced by two-dimensional characters to ‘destroy’ the right. It was such a shame, because technically - if you took the propaganda out of it - it could have been a wonderfully entertaining film.
I’ll guess I’ll have to keep looking.
Thank you all for reading.
If you enjoyed this, please consider giving it a like, or if you have some thoughts, share them in the comments.
Even better, click this button…
If you want to support me further, and help me realise my dream of becoming an independent writer and voice, you can upgrade to a paid subscription or you can simply give me a tip.
Chur, and have a good day and night,
The Delinquent Academic
Thank you for saving me time watching this pile of tripe.
It's such a tragedy, really, that messages within such media could not be left more ambiguous. Why could each side not have a fair hearing without a particular bent being pushed? Why must any grasp at traditionalism be tarred and feathered? After a while, it's just so insufferable that nothing is worth watching anymore.
There is a great cast here and a fantastic premise, yet they use this opportunity to espouse the same moral lecture that is rife in Western media every single day. Honestly, they could have the progressive win without trashing every other viewpoint. This would accurately reflect reality, and as the old saying goes, art should imitate life.
Frankly, it's boring.
Sadly, it does not look like any of this will change much. Most of those who still create "art", "content", or "entertainment" are still of a certain disposition -- they all read the same propaganda (it's all propaganda, of course, not just on the left), and are convinced that we are at some kind of impasse where if Western values of "kindness" and "tolerance' are not upheld, then we will somehow fall into utter chaos. This is not true; in fact, it only shows a closed-mindedness that is deeply rooted in a fearful post WW2 ethic where we must reject every view that does not adhere to the "open-society' consensus in the wake of that calamity.
If you're looking for entertainment that isn't propagandized (you did say you're still looking, even if I know it was just a cheeky addition!), I'd recommend HBO's White Lotus. While I believe you get it on "Neon" in NZ, my father (who lives in Auckland), recommended it to me and I have adored every moment.
What I appreciate most about it is that it reflects the modern West in an accurate way without taking a side. I've no problem with progressivism being reflected as dominant -- that is reality, after all -- I just don't want the *narrative* to tell me that that is right or wrong. The world isn't that simple, and neither are the people who live in it.