Secret societies have always held a special place within our imagination. The notion of something being withheld, that denial ignites curiosity. Countless movies and TV shows expound on these subjects ranging from the CIA to the Illuminati (the thirst is there whether it is real or not). But recently the papacy, in particular the Vatican, has been the target of increased fictional interest. With “The New Pope” and “Spotlight,” these sacred cloisters have been opened up to us in a multitude of ways.
“Conclave” is the most recent of these. Coming to us from author Robert Harris, the film takes on a practice that has been fascinating as it has been enigmatic; how does a Pope get chosen? Over the years, that curtain has been pulled back to reveal a rather mundane process we are currently in here. Campaigns and favor courted through glad-handing and persuasion. From the trailers, these plot elements were not fully revealed. I thought we were going to be treated to a murder mystery in which the former Pope was assassinated quietly and a group of sleuth cardinals would have solved. But no, this is not “The Name of the Rose.”
Ralph Fiennes has established a certain gravitas within the acting community; his mere presence lending legitimacy to any project. Here, as Cardinal Lawrence, his duty is to officiate all the pomp and decorum. He, also, plays him like a detective or judge presiding over a legal investigation. Along the way, his faith but also his fortitude is tested as one cardinal after another vies and jockeys for position in vote tallies. John Lithgow gives an outstanding performance as Father Tremblay, a man whose benevolent stature obscures his ruthless ambition. Isabella Rossellini heads the sisters in maintaining kitchen and cleaning staff, the silent majority in these walls. But they also represent its eyes and ears. Stanley Tucci’s Cardinal Bellini also lurks within the shadows, pressuring Lawrence with what is at stake if one priest secedes. All the time Tucci conveys his want for a progressive papacy that the former pope was working toward.
This all culminates in a collection twists and red herrings set within immaculate yet cold marble rooms and halls. Sex, lies, mismanagement of funds; it is all here under the gaze of Michelangelo’s Sistine, pristinely recreated. But the climax is truly shocking. I was left dumbfounded but ultimately satisfied, a message of hope for the future. One warning; go into the theatre rested as it is a slow burn to start.
This year I forgot to write a review for Halloween. But if you are still in in the mood for some scary fun, look no further than HBO Max for the long-awaited “Salem’s Lot” remake. Stephen King has become the go-to for any scary film or television series, “Castle Rock” and “It” being most recent. The latter seems to have informed this version of vampires overtaking a small town in Maine. In just under two hours, we are treated a Reader’s Digest adaptation. Characters like Father Callahan and Dr. Cody sacrifice deep dives into their backgrounds and psyches in an attempt at developing a breakneck pace to the finish. Even Ben Mears is given a light backstory. Having lost his parents at a young age, his is just window dressing to the action.
Yes, the scenes of floating child blood suckers and Nosferatu in the basement of the Psycho house are present. However, the purpose of King’s story is puzzlingly absent at a time where it has only become more relevant. Small town America is almost dead, feasted on by industry and commerce. It would have been fitting, just in this aspect alone, to expand on that. I guess HBO and Warner Bros. was more scared at who audiences would point a spindly finger at if that interpretation was made.
