*** Conclave ***

1,761 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Faustus
AtticusMatlock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46p, 10/29/24
Anyone see this yet? The movie follows the Dean of the College of Cardinals (played by Ralph Fiennes) as he does his best to lead a very divided conclave after the unexpected death of the Pope.



I saw it last night. I think it was beautifully shot. The costumes were fantastic and I was marveling at the sets and how they made it look like it was shot at the Vatican. Definitely the best part of this movie.

They built a replica of the Sistine Chapel:
https://variety.com/2024/artisans/news/conclave-movie-sistine-chapel-replica-1236167640/

Overall I felt like this film may have been better served as a mini-series. It is so hard to develop characters over two hours, but I think it mostly worked. I would have liked to know more about these guys and develop more of the story.

For what it was, I thought it was moderately good.

Spoiler Alert:
There is a particular plot point which I found to be completely unnecessary and will be controversial. I think the film may have been better off without it. It felt forced.
Reply Quote
2
frenchtoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03p, 10/29/24
Convex
Reply Quote
5
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 10/30/24
Staff
AG
I saw this on Friday night. It was 90% of an awesome movie. Great writing, great acting, beautifully shot, etc.

The "twist" at the end was so unnecessary and out of left field and ruinous to the great themes and debates that were being had in the film that it derails the film completely, IMO. Which was a real bummer because there was a lot to like about it before that.
Reply Quote
1
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:34a, 10/30/24
AG
I am excited for this one. Love Fiennes.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:40a, 10/31/24
AG
Saw it tonight and loved it.

Yes, for a movie about choosing the next pope it can be a little too catty at times (I saw two hilarious tweets that said: "CONCLAVE: What if an episode of Gossip Girl took place entirely at the Vatican????" and "Conclave, the best housewives reunion in years"), but it all makes for such great drama, and a runtime that absolutely flies by, that any potential issues with believability went out the window for me.

As for the "twist" ending, I would argue that it's the perfect culmination of the movie's themes. Yes, it's somewhat out of nowhere, but it's the same ending from the 2016 novel the movie is based on, in no way does it "derail the film completely," and in hindsight, again, literally every thematic argument in the movie leads directly to it.

The best breakdown of it I could find was from a recent Vulture article, two excerpts of which are quoted below...

VULTURE: "Conclave's Surprise Twist Ending Has a Deeper Meaning"

"While in both the book and movie, the new pope declares, 'I am what God made me,' in the film he emphasizes that his intersex identity could make him more useful in his role, precisely because he 'exists between certainties.' It's a callback to the impromptu homily Lawrence delivers before the cardinals are sequestered, in which he asserts that 'certainty is the enemy of unity and tolerance.' Lawrence, who has been battling his own doubts, wants a pope who doubts and sins. This is read by most cardinals as a plea to elect a liberal and that's ultimately where the conclave lands, with a pope whose gender identity is, however accidentally, a radical step forward for the church."

"Conclave isn't exactly taking a side on Catholic doctrine, however. If the film has a message, it's less about the church specifically and more about the inevitability of progress. After Bellini reveals that he believes women should have a larger role in the Curia, his supporters advise that he keep that one to himself - this is the line that even many liberals won't cross. But the women in the film, though undeniably outnumbered, prove to be pivotal: It's Sister Shanumi (Balkissa Maiga) whose confrontation of Adeyemi leads to his downfall, and Sister Agnes (Isabella Rossellini) who turns the cardinals against Tremblay. The movie ends with the election of a pope who is not a woman, but whose anatomy and existence 'between certainties' allows for a far broader perspective on gender than someone like Tedesco would have.

In the end, all of the cardinals' bickering and betrayal can't thwart an ascension of feminine power that feels preordained. Here, Conclave seems to suggest that 'the world only spins forward,' as Tony Kushner once put it - it's a hopeful and perhaps overly optimistic notion, to be sure, but in October 2024, it's not an unwelcome one."

In other words, you may not like the ending, but you can't argue that it's not thematically sound. I admit to being thrown by it at first, but the more I thought about it on the drive home, and the more I read about it when I got home, the more I liked it. That, and anything that cleverly thumbs its nose at the ridiculous rules and ostentatious traditions of the Catholic Church is okay in my book.
Reply Quote
5 edits
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:09a, 10/31/24
Staff
AG
TCTTS said:

In other words, you may not like the ending, but you can't argue that it's not thematically sound. I admit to being thrown by it at first, but the more I thought about it on the drive home, and the more I read about it when I got home, the more I liked it. That, and anything that cleverly thumbs its nose at the ridiculous rules and ostentatious traditions of the Catholic Church is okay in my book.

I admittedly haven't read the book, but I'm sure it does what most books do and explores this in much more depth, so I'm not going to argue against the book.

BUT your bolded quote is one of the reasons I think the ending and how its handled derails the film.

1) [sp]It's not clever. It's using a blunt object to underline a point it thinks is clever. But the ending is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It's both saying his intersex gender MATTERS(!!!!) and also doesn't. It matters in how it gives the new pope a unique perspective on living in-between worlds. And it matters, as you quoted in your post, that "progress is inevitable". But it also isn't progress and it isn't an example of faith. It's an example of someone misrepresenting themselves (at best) or lying about their identity to gain access to power they wouldn't have access to normally. Now if the movie wants to explore why they don't have access and such, great. But thats not what the film does. It's about subterfuge and a gotcha Pope, not about faithfully and honestly arguing a point and moving it forward. And then it argues it doesn't matter because it's not wrong for him to have kept it to himself. But if it's truly how God made him, then he should/would have the faith to walk in openness. It's not an example of faithfulness, but of "I know best". Like it or not, the Catholic church has a deliberative body of leaders select a pope. To hide things from that body is to say I know better than this group of people. Which, if that is how one feels, then why participate at all?[/sp]

2) [sp]Its clear your not a fan of the catholic church. I know many aren't in our modern era. I think this movie, in underlining a gripe modernity has with the church, actually highlights a feature of the church. Our modern era, "progress" is moving a breakneck speed. The cultural norms of 20, even 10 years ago have totally shifted, to the point where people at the leading edge of progress a decade ago now appear to be way behind the curve. The Catholic church, as an institution is much much much slower to implement change and adapt to culture. This is obviously frustrating to a lot of people, but for a church that has existed for a couple thousand years, taking the long view and implementing any change slowly is a much better practice than just bending to every wave of change that crashes on its shores. It really felt like the film was exploring THAT in interesting ways up to the election of the new pope, only to wipe that away with the "twist" or gotcha moment. [/sp]

I was going to say this in my initial post, but it felt too combative, but I will say it now. This movie, as a whole, feels like in writing and execution as an outsiders view of how things should go in the church without any respect for that institution. Which is fine and people can enjoy that, it just isn't all that compelling of a story and continues in the tradition of cinema of criticizing the church without fully understanding it to begin with.
Reply Quote
7
8 edits
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 4:49p, 10/31/24
AG
First of all, I don't know why you're not using spoiler tags, as you're blatantly spoiling the entire twist ending super early in the thread, for all to see, barely a week after the movie's release.

As to your two main points…

1) Pop Benitez's intersex gender would ABSOLUTELY matter to someone like Pope Tedesco, along with damn near every other ultra conservative Catholic on the planet, who wouldn't be in favor of such a nomination. The entire point of the movie is that Benitez is, as evidence by his third-act speech, the only "pure" candidate in spirit, his intentions, etc. He's not coveting/gunning for the position like everyone else, he didn't make a deal with Tremblay, he's the only one in any real danger, out in the world walking the walk, risking his life, etc. Clearly, he's the best man for the job, and the movie is using his character to show how ridiculously stupid it is for the Catholic Church to discriminate based on sex, against an otherwise perfect candidate who would be ruled out because he's not technically a man. You're right, it's 100% about "subterfuge and a gotcha" because that's the only means the "underdogs" have to fight such entrenched, reductive, archaic ideas. What would you have Benitez do? Come clean to, say, Tedesco and "honestly argue his point"? Because everyone and their dog knows that wouldn't move the needle "forward." Benitez would be on a plane back to Kabul faster than you could say "laparoscopic hysterectomy," if not removed from his position altogether. All because of some dumb, arbitrary rule.

"To hide things from that body is to say I know better than this group of people." Yes! Again, that's LITERALLY the point of the movie. Lawrence, Benitez, and the former Pope CLEARLY believe that the Catholic Church needs to change. "Which, if that is how one feels, then why participate at all?" So that they can ENACT that change. So that they can help the Catholic Church become a better version of itself. That just seems… so obvious to me. Why would you not try to change something for the better - something that is so clearly in the wrong - that you care about and have devoted your life to?

2) I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous point. In the year 2024, any organization that subjugates women, views women as less than, or doesn't allow women to lead others spiritually, etc, is a relic of bygone era. Women being equal to men is no longer a "progressive" idea, and to group it with whatever modern, cultural "wave of change" you're talking about, that the church shouldn't "bend to," is crazy. To argue that the Catholic Church somehow needs EVEN MORE time to adjust to something as basic as gender equality is laughable.

In fact, this hits especially close to home for me because someone very, very close to me, in my hometown in Texas, who was a female employee of one of the biggest (albeit non-Catholic) churches in town - one that somehow still doesn't allow women in positions of leadership - was sexually assaulted last spring by the head pastor at her church, and you sound EXACTLY like all the elders who at first tried sweeping it under the rug, then took months to take any action at all. "Taking the long view and implementing any change slowly" is what they too kept arguing in favor of, constantly putting the well-being of the church above the well-being of the victim. The pastor finally agreed to step down, but the church still didn't tell the congregation WHY he was leaving, or publicly acknowledge the victim in any way. So the victim, after giving the church every opportunity to come clean, finally decided to tell her story online. And within 48 hours it was viewed by 11,000 people, a number of which were women at the same church who then told their stories of how the "boys club" at the church often objectified them, inappropriately touched them at times, and basically treated them as lesser than. You can argue all you want that we should take our time "slowly implementing change," but when it comes to gender equality in the church, every day that we do, women are being subjugated, and such toxic, archaic thought is becoming further engrained, emboldening the worst of those in positions of power to do exactly what they did to my sister.
Reply Quote
5 edits
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 5:04p, 10/31/24
Staff
AG
1 -- ive tried spoiler tags and they are not working for some reason and Ill look into it.

2 -- you are WAY out of line in that 2nd comment and I would hope you would revisit what you wrote

Obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on this, and that is fine, but the personal attacks are not necessary at all and I am completely disgusted by what you insinuate.
Reply Quote
6
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 5:10p, 10/31/24
AG
In no way am I "personally attacking" you. Rather, you are simply and literally excusing something in the exact same way the church elders I referenced did, and in return I'm attempting to show you the harm those kinds of excuses can cause, whether intended or not. Of course I'm not saying you're doing so intentionally.
Reply Quote
2 edits
concac
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 5:25p, 10/31/24
AG
veryfuller said:
1 -- ive tried spoiler tags and they are not working for some reason and Ill look into it.

2 -- you are WAY out of line in that 2nd comment and I would hope you would revisit what you wrote

Obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on this, and that is fine, but the personal attacks are not necessary at all and I am completely disgusted by what you insinuate.
Well, now I'm expecting some Sixth Sense shock ending out of "left field" now.

Not the most serious spoiler offense and it's not going to ruin my viewing experience, though.

And quite the drama queen by being "disgusted" by what TCTTS said. Grow some thicker skin if what some stranger says on a message board affects you that much.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 7:28p, 10/31/24
Staff
AG
Oh ok, so I'm just unintentionally supportive of spiritual abuse and covering for criminals. Then no offense taken….

I think you are painting with a very broad brush based on whatever baggage (that sounds legitimate) you have. I am making an argument about polity and orthodoxy and you are conflating that with covering up criminality. It's not the same thing. One can be for deliberative institutions of faith and can be for swift consequences for criminal behavior. They are not mutually exclusive.

Reply Quote
6
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 7:59p, 10/31/24
AG

Quote:
Oh ok, so I'm just unintentionally supportive of spiritual abuse and covering for criminals.

Obviously not. But your quote below *is* inadvertently supportive of putting the needs of the church (implementing change slowly) over the needs of those whom the church continues to tread on (women)…

Quote:
The Catholic church, as an institution is much much much slower to implement change and adapt to culture. This is obviously frustrating to a lot of people, but for a church that has existed for a couple thousand years, taking the long view and implementing any change slowly is a much better practice than just bending to every wave of change that crashes on its shores.

I'm sorry, but I'm simply done listening to those who make excuses for the church in this way, which is exactly what you're doing, intentionally or not. Re: gender equality, the church has had more than enough time to get up to speed. There is no rational argument to the contrary. You certainly have a case when it comes to, say, gay marriage or trans issues, but not gender equality, which is what the movie is clearly tackling.

I shared my personal example so as to not compare your intentions with those "coving for criminals," but to show how your argument, even when completely void of ill will, still favors institutions over individuals.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Redstone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:16p, 10/31/24
AG
This thread is very difficult for me, because I am:

a Catholic, on the political right (Pat Buchanan wing), AND an ally of TNNCS. (We cooperate on my alien thread.)

I decided not to see this film after reading a synopsis. I have many opinions related to this topic, but have also been warned by Staff / Moderator with regard to some of the relevant issues.

It might be a good idea for posters / lurkers to email Staff / Moderator in advocacy of allowing me to take ownership of this thread, but that would require me to potentially break the aforementioned alliance.

Not sure what to do.
Reply Quote
2
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:04p, 10/31/24
Staff
AG
Again, you are painting with a very broad brush, making assumptions, and connecting dots that aren't there.

I am not advocating for the church to tread on women. I am not advocating for a position that excuses that. I am advocating for an institutional process that isn't reactive, but deliberative about these issues. But go ahead and write people off with a different perspective. They must be knowingly dense and not thoughtful at all.

And, to get back to the film, that deliberative process was interesting until the story takes a turn that undermines the argument. Subversion is not a real solution. Sure the movie's conclusion probably lands with audiences with your perspective, but it's more akin to Inglorious *******s in its fan fiction than a film that actually has anything valuable to add to the conversation. That's what made it frustrating to me.

Reply Quote
2
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 9:29p, 10/31/24
AG
veryfuller said:
Again, you are painting with a very broad brush, making assumptions, and connecting dots that aren't there.

I am not advocating for the church to tread on women. I am not advocating for a position that excuses that. I am advocating for an institutional process that isn't reactive, but deliberative about these issues. But go ahead and write people off with a different perspective. They must be knowingly dense and not thoughtful at all.

And, to get back to the film, that deliberative process was interesting until the story takes a turn that undermines the argument. Subversion is not a real solution. Sure the movie's conclusion probably lands with audiences with your perspective, but it's more akin to Inglorious *******s in its fan fiction than a film that actually has anything valuable to add to the conversation. That's what made it frustrating to me.


I've said multiple times now that you obviously aren't advocating for treading on women or a position that excuses that. I don't know how much clearer I can be, yet you seemingly keep playing dumb in order to keep playing the victim. All I'm saying is, advocating for a non-reactive position when it comes to the church and gender equality inarguably equals more women being subjugated in the meantime. I know that's not your intention, and I know that's not what you want, but such a position objectively places the needs of the institution over the needs of the individual. To that end, when it comes to gender equality, in the year 2024, arguing that the church just needs more time is simply not a tenable position.

As for subversion not being a real solution... why? For the movie's plot purposes, subversion IS the solution. The most deserving candidate won. The best "man" for the job now leads the church. Otherwise, due to their ridiculous, arbitrary rules/views on gender, the route you're advocating for would have inevitably led to Benitez not winning the candidacy and likely losing his position altogether. How is that better than Tedesco or Tremblay being in charge? Regardless, the movie obviously isn't real life. It's not meant to be a practical discussion on the subject, one that would somehow lead to tangible change in the real world. It's simply meant to shine a light on how dumb the gender rules of the Catholic Church are, and in that sense it succeeds wildly IMO.
Reply Quote
5 edits
AtticusMatlock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:17a, 11/1/24
I have never read the book so I can only look at the film itself, but I think this film was far deeper than a commentary on gender issues. Greed, pride, selfishness, anger, worldliness - all on display. It was every bit as much a commentary on the sinful nature of man but also a witness to grace - not in spite of sin but in light of it. The fact that the Cardinals in the Catholic Church struggle with those same things that everyone else struggles with and need grace just as much of as all of us do. The film never made gender much of an issue until the end. Again I don't know what the book went into, but in the film the last scene just seemed like a throw-in.

I politely disagree with your comments on the roles of women in the Church as I do not believe the Catholic Church views women as second class or with disregard. Some of the most revered saints, in fact the most venerated Saint in the Catholic Church is a woman. Women are deeply involved in ministry. The majority of Catholics who participate in ministry are women. They are not second class.
Reply Quote
2
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AtticusMatlock • 4:05a, 11/1/24
AG
By no means am I saying that gender issues are the only issues the movie is concerned with. You're absolutely right when it comes to all of the other themes/issues you listed. My only point is that, seeing as how A) Sister Agnes and the other women are portrayed and treated by the men throughout the movie as silent helpers in the fringes while the men do the "real" work, B) the climax is primarily focused on a gender issue, and C) the fact that the final shot of the movie is of three nuns emerging from the conclave, seemingly happy and "freed," gender issues seem to be the main theme the movie is concerned with, but not the only theme.

As to your second point, seeing as the Catholic Church doesn't allow women to become priests, and only ordained men can be elected pope, I'm sorry but that is the very definition of treating women as second class. I'm not arguing that women aren't deeply involved in ministry. That, and the Catholic Church may very well revere and venerate women in the positions they ALLOW them to hold. But the fact remains that only one gender can become pope/priests, thus one gender holds power over the other - something the movie is clearly thumbing its nose at. It's the same way at my sister's former church. While women are deeply involved with the ministry, and celebrated in myriad ways, none are allowed positions of leadership over men. And it's that very imbalance that ultimately led to what my sister endured and the women after her admitted to experiencing as well (not only at her church but she ended up hearing from a number of women at many other churches as well) - men treating them as objects, less than, not worthy of leadership/elder positions, etc. It doesn't matter how well the men's intentions may or may not be, or if they celebrate women for other Christian attributes in the process. The fact remains that the men still have a level of power over the women, thus the women are "below" men.

Now, I know some will say that's what the Bible teaches, that such a dynamic is biblically sound, etc (not that women are below men, but that women can't be in positions of church leadership). And in return I simply say that's one of the many reasons I left religion altogether. At some point you have to reconcile believing something is right simply because a book says it's right - vs - every fiber of your being telling you that thing is wrong and listening to that feeling instead. Some may call that hubris, or believe the former to be the more noble pursuit, and that's fine. But when the latter kept happening to me time and again, for numerous issues, I couldn't in good conscience continue believing the former.
Reply Quote
7 edits
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 5:00a, 11/1/24
Staff
AG
You do say that you don't think I'm advocating for that multiple times, while adding a huge BUT every time that I essentially am because it's 2024 and anyone making an argument anywhere close to mine is essentially advocating for it. So forgive me for 1) disagreeing with that and 2) continuing to clarify that it's not what I'm arguing for.

I'm not playing a victim, I'm just not content to let you continue to try and have the last word on this and mischaracterize or paint with a broad brush anyone who doesn't agree with your binary view of church institution = dumb, bad, anti-progress, anti-women, anti-insert hot topic here, versus individualism = noble, good, honorable, right. I just don't think that is true. I think there are plenty of examples of institutions and individuals being bad/evil and good/honorable so we can't just throw one or the other out every time one fails us.

I also want to make a point that the Catholic Church is a global institution, and one that's center of gravity is no longer in the west. There are billions of Catholics around the world from a vast array of cultures and contexts and whose issues with the church or "needs" as you put it are not the same as western progressives. This film shows that somewhat, but I do think that's an aspect of this that is missing in the argument as well.

Finally, I'm not even a Catholic, so again, not feeling victimized by you, just continue to feel grossly mischaracterized because of the broad brush argument you have against the church as a whole.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 6:07a, 11/1/24
AG
No where have I said that my broad "view of church institution = dumb, bad, anti-progress, anti-women, anti-insert hot topic here" or that "individualism = noble, good, honorable, right." Now you're putting words in my mouth, when I've almost exclusively been talking about gender equality in the church, or the lack there of. You're mostly inferring everything else.

That said…

- If you disagree with Benitez's speech in the final act, I don't know what to tell you. IMO, it's about the most level-headed thing said in the entire movie, yet you're acting as if me agreeing with it, or liking the fact that he becomes the new pope, makes me out to be some deranged liberal who wants to see the church crumble to the ground, which I don't.

- This is a pulp thriller featuring a bunch of catty, diva, backstabbing priests, a terrorist attack on the Vatican, and an intersex she-man ultimately elected pope. In other words, it's clearly meant to entertain first and be a referendum a distant second. Yet for some reason you seem almost offended that it's not a complex, nuanced, true-to-life examination of Catholicism in the modern world. That's of course your prerogative, but it's so obviously not what this movie is trying to be, and getting so bent out of shape that it's not seems pointless to me.

This is all while of course characterizing me as being difficult and disagreeable, yet you're the one replying to/disagreeing with me just as much as I'm disagreeing with you. You said it yourself in not wanting me to have the last word, when I'm merely responding to your incessant, continued replies to me.
Reply Quote
5 edits
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 6:56a, 11/1/24
Staff
AG
Man, you are such a moving target. I didn't like the movie. I don't care to continue the church commentary critique of it.

Let's try this: "I see what you are saying. I don't agree but that's ok". Which it is. I'll leave it at that.
Reply Quote
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:27a, 11/1/24
AG
Not sure what I'm looking forward to more, the movie or reading this argument after I watch it.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Faustus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redstone • 9:02a, 11/1/24
Redstone said:
This thread is very difficult for me, because I am:

a Catholic, on the political right (Pat Buchanan wing), AND an ally of TNNCS. (We cooperate on my alien thread.)

I decided not to see this film after reading a synopsis. I have many opinions related to this topic, but have also been warned by Staff / Moderator with regard to some of the relevant issues.

It might be a good idea for posters / lurkers to email Staff / Moderator in advocacy of allowing me to take ownership of this thread, but that would require me to potentially break the aforementioned alliance.

Not sure what to do.


Chuckle at emailing staff to allow you to poach the thread.
Reply Quote
Wolfpac 08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:41a, 11/1/24
AG
Boy, TCCTS really knows how to rile up the entertainment board
Reply Quote
1
GoAgs92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 5:53p, 11/1/24
AG
veryfuller said:
I saw this on Friday night. It was 90% of an awesome movie. Great writing, great acting, beautifully shot, etc.

The "twist" at the end was so unnecessary and out of left field and ruinous to the great themes and debates that were being had in the film that it derails the film completely, IMO. Which was a real bummer because there was a lot to like about it before that.
Thanks for letting me know there is a twist, now I can be looking for it.

Dumbass.
Reply Quote
Ferg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:01p, 11/1/24
I had heard about the hidden spoiler above. Definitely Anti Catholic, I hope it crashes and burns in Hell.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GoAgs92 • 6:11p, 11/1/24
AG
To his credit, you'll never guess the twist in a million years. It's not one of those twists where there are clues throughout. Part of the issue some people seem to have with it is that it's basically out of left field. After the fact, I love how it connects thematically, but in-movie there's no "looking for it" or anything like that.

Granted, had I started the thread, I wouldn't have even hinted at it, and it's kind of ****ty how openly it's being talked about in a couple posts sans spoiler tags. But now that the cat's basically out of the bag I don't know how else to address it, other than to say, if at all possible, don't read this thread before seeing movie
Reply Quote
3 edits
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ferg • 6:13p, 11/1/24
AG
This is an ill-informed take and far from the truth.
Reply Quote
GoAgs92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 6:39p, 11/1/24
AG
TCTTS said:
To his credit, you'll never guess the twist in a million years. It's not one of those twists where there are clues throughout. Part of the issue some people seem to have with it is that it's basically out of left field. After the fact, I love how it connects thematically, but in-movie there's no "looking for it" or anything like that.

Granted, had I started the thread, I wouldn't have even hinted at it, and it's kind of ****ty how openly it's being talked about in a couple posts sans spoiler tags. But now that the cat's basically out of the bag I don't know how else to address it, other than to say, if at all possible, don't read this thread before seeing movie
My son wants to go see it, but now I'll just be trying to figure out the stupid twist.

I thought there was a week moratorium on people posting junk like that.

They should At least spoiler tag it….
Reply Quote
Ferg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:40p, 11/1/24
Reply Quote
1
Redstone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GoAgs92 • 6:41p, 11/1/24
AG
I frequently use spoiler tags, especially when the film or television show is new. My cut off tends to be 3 months, and even then I'll give a courtesy "potential spoilers ahead," until a year or slightly more has passed.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ferg • 7:09p, 11/1/24
AG
Ah, yes, the TexAgs tried-and-true e-board tradition wholly judging a movie before laying eyes on it yourself, while listening to incredibly bias people who haven't yet seen the movie over those who have.

Is it an endorsement of the Catholic Church? Absolutely not. But it's not "anti-Catholic propaganda" either, and far more complicated than just Catholicism = bad. The heart of the movie deals with characters who deeply care about the Catholic Church and want more than anything for it to be the best version it can possibly be. Where the drama comes from is A) those characters having different ideas of what the "best" version is, and B) some of those characters being fallible men who can't help but also want the papacy for their own, personal glory. Among them are many shades of pure, faithful, flawed, and corrupt, which, IMO, makes for something compelling, clever, and thoughtful, in addition to first and foremost being highly entertaining. To bluntly label the movie as "anti-catholic" is so incredibly reductive, and so misses the mark, especially considering where it ultimately lands.

That said, this is exactly the kind of posturing that turns people off of Catholicism/religion altogether; angrily acting as if your religion is infallible or above criticism. Never mind the fact that a person or group who is confident in their beliefs would no doubt invite a bit of scrutiny for the chance at a greater dialogue.
Reply Quote
3 edits
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GoAgs92 • 7:14p, 11/1/24
AG
GoAgs92 said:
TCTTS said:
To his credit, you'll never guess the twist in a million years. It's not one of those twists where there are clues throughout. Part of the issue some people seem to have with it is that it's basically out of left field. After the fact, I love how it connects thematically, but in-movie there's no "looking for it" or anything like that.

Granted, had I started the thread, I wouldn't have even hinted at it, and it's kind of ****ty how openly it's being talked about in a couple posts sans spoiler tags. But now that the cat's basically out of the bag I don't know how else to address it, other than to say, if at all possible, don't read this thread before seeing movie
My son wants to go see it, but now I'll just be trying to figure out the stupid twist.

I thought there was a week moratorium on people posting junk like that.

They should At least spoiler tag it….

Again, you won't be able to figure it out, no matter how closely you pay attention. But yeah, it should definitely be behind spoiler tags regardless, though veryfuller has said he tried. I don't know what the issue is.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Redstone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37p, 11/1/24
AG
Bellini is Good, since he tells his allies he thinks women should have a role to play in the priesthood. Tedesco is Bad, because he thinks the Catholic Church needs to get rid of all this, ugh, diversity.
Reply Quote
Redstone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:39p, 11/1/24
AG
Adeyemi …. he might want to imprison gays, that's BAD, but at least he'd be the first BLACK pope! This is an actual argument one of the GOOD cardinals makes, and with a straight face.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redstone • 11:53p, 11/1/24
AG
I don't think anyone in this movie is necessarily meant to be portrayed as "good," at least in terms of the writers/filmmakers choosing sides. The liberal priests believe themselves to be good, and on the right side of history, but the movie goes out of its way to highlight their flaws and hypocrisies as well, even with Lawrence. Benitez is clearly meant to be the most Christ-like, but he's obviously not without his controversies either. Yes, the movie thumbs its nose at the conservative priests more, but at the same time shows the liberal priests to be flawed and compromised too. They're all some level of sinner, just some more than others, and I think that's one of the elements that makes the movie so compelling.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.