The most absurd outcome in the whole conclave movie…..isn’t that they selected an intersex person as the next pope…..it’s that a relatively small and insular group like that would choose someone that none of them had met or heard of 72 hours before.
shareWhen I saw it, I was fine with it all, but with passing time, I agree there is zero chance some random would get chosen. They didn't even vet him all that well—especially since the Pope secretly made him a Cardinal. They threw out some background info that absolutely zero people in the Vatican knew about. He gave one inspiring speech, and boom, he's in.
shareYou do know this is a fiction and not a documentary, don’t you?
shareThis is a movie chat site where we discuss movies and point out things we like and don't like. Didn't know I couldn't have a simple criticism with a fellow viewer without calling you and the rest of the fun police for approval.
shareOooh, sarcasm!
shareYes…it’s a fictional movie trying to make some deep political point….I started the thread just to point out that in reality (and conclaves are a real thing unlike a lot of superhero or paranormal type movies) the most absurd thing in the movie is all these guys that have worked their way up this hierarchy and known each other for decades, would just pick someone that none of them knew even existed 3 days earlier….
I thought it funny to point out how unrealistic that was…..doesn’t mean it can’t still be a good movie with great acting.
Yes, you're right about that. But without that stretch, or some other, it just basically becomes a humdrum narrative of one or another faction coming out on top.
share
It's a valid point though.
Saying "it's not a documentary" would make any kind of standards we apply to movies - pointless.
LOL! Even documentaries?
Nitpicking a story like Conclave because it doesn’t hew to reality is missing the point. There are any number of plot points you could make that complaint about - if you won’t take the film on its own terms. It’s an entertainment about Vatican intrigue with a surprise ending. No obligation to be true to life.
It needs to be believable.
If we don't believe it, then the storytelling has failed.
You poor thing. You lack the imagination to enter the world the storyteller creates. Do you find The Tempest believable? Or Snow White? Or “Everything Everywhere All At Once”? By your standards, they and thousands of classic stories failed. Sad.
shareSo you are saying there is no bad storytelling, there is no bad movie, everything is audience's fault?
Why can't we "imagine" the bad movies into good movies?
That looks to be what you are saying.
No, that's what you're saying 'm saying. I'm saying a story like Conclave needn't be true to life to be a good story. Now here's what you said: "It needs to be believable. If we don't believe it, then the storytelling has failed." Again: do you find Shakespeare's The Tempest believable? Or a Midsummer Night's Dream? Or The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe, or any fairy tale? Of course not. But they're great stories. They don't fail because they're not believable.
shareI do find them believable, I am a big fan of fantasy genre.
They have the same issue, they need to be believable.
Like star wars was believable. Jedi was so believable it even became a religion of choice for many, at least according to the media.
You believe in fairy tales and A Midsummer Night's Dream? You think "Jedi was so believable (sic) it even became a religion"? ROTFL!!! You're plainly not very bright. But you are ignored.
shareStar wars is a classic, celebrated by billions if not more. The same with the tempest.
Maybe it is time you look in the mirror, about who is not very bright, the answer might lay right there.
Fantasy doesn't need to be believable in the concrete sense….because by definition…it’s fantastical…conclave is grounded in real stuff….and I was just pointing out that that one aspect of this plot would never happen in any similar real life scenario
shareor your imagination.
shareAs Mark Twain once wrote, "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities and truth isn't." In short, fiction has to be at least somewhat believable.
I haven't seen this drek, but it seems as though they had to make the elected person's background a mystery, otherwise no one would believe the person would have gotten elected. It's preposterous either way, even for the modern Catholic Church, which bears little resemblance to the Catholic Church of even the 1980's.
I felt very similar and agree with everything you said, only adding that the last minute intersex part added nothing to the story. Alas I also dislike that it was extremely predictable. First shot he was in: "Yep, he's going to be the pope."
The (real) Vatican City sentenced the closest butler of Benedict XVI to prison for breaking and entry, and stealing private documents. Lawrence does the same, a nurse who busts him doesn't warn guards, and gets away with it. Lawrence also wasn't sequestered. He was a papal candidate but kept asking and receiving outside information. No consequences whatsoever, it even made him more popular.
It's a shame. I love films about the Catholic church / Vatican City, but though this film had really good acting and had beautiful scenery, the story just fell flat and ended quite dumb.
I guess the idea is that they were moved by his speech. But I too didn’t buy it. His speech wasn’t that powerful. They would’ve picked Lawrence or tedesco
shareRoaring with laughter. The sequel will be even better.
“He’s having a baby”
Spoilers below....
It wasn't meant to be 'realistic' - it was meant to be thought provoking. Is an inter-sex person qualified to be Pope ? If he has male (along w/ female) genitalia ? Does GOD have a sex ? Isn't an inter-sex person, from a certain viewpoint, even closer to GOD, more inclusive of all of the human domain ?