It's funny to think as well that Catholic cardinals today tend to be extremely well educated in the humanities. The idea that they would all speak in such a pedestrian way about their ideas and beliefs is more insulting to the Church than the premise of the film itself.
I assure you, if you met a catholic career chasing bishops they would use language that is really simple. The ones that use sophisticated words are rarely high in the hierarchy. Of course, most of their yapping is completely useless and meaningless (theology is a joke).
@@HansZwiebeln Being inherently a politician (as bishops are) doesn't mean you only achieve the level of an ambulance chaser. They are not necessarily impressive people and some of them are evidently quite bad (like the last DC cardinal!), but one does have to be exhaustively educated to get there.
@@josephfisher426 do you actually know how theological education look like? Unfortunately I met not only those politicians but also phd students-priests in phd school. They are not required to do anything spectacular to achieve high position, those who are curious are discouraged and never achieve anything in Catholic Church. Catholic Christianity is inherently against intellectual achievements, the highest figures in their circles are limited conservative and repetitive. The only spark might be the part of church interested in science, but they mostly just push anything divine anywhere there is an issue worth researching.
It is often the use of metaphors that are missing in films of today. Many metaphors were used, for instance, in the Film Noir films, which makes it more interesting and gives your brain more to think about and relate to from your own life experiences.
The day they get Timothée Chalamet to do a 3 hour long period drama (preferably about the film industry), it's over, that thing is sweeping all the categories
One of my favorite things about this channel is that it suggests classic, near-forgotten films that are vastly superior to the modern equivalents it's criticizing.
I'm fascinated by how _Emilia Perez_ went from being "groundbreaking positive representation" to "transphobic/racist hate crime" vying to the this year's _Green Book/Crash_ .
I know citing all the clips with the name of the movie is a pain but its very much worth it and very much appreciated. You can skip authors and directors as we can look that up if you want to make it a little quicker and easier. Thanks for an excellent take down .... love it when you have a rant!! Is that your Moldovan temperament?
I completely agree with this video, I never understood why the screenplay is what people praised this for or the acting, the mvp of this film is the direction which the academy and no one else seems to recognise. It looks so pretty but as shallow as puddle
The acting is good, but it's the sort of good you get from great performers doing what they do best. The art and visual direction are what brought me to the theater and the only thing that stuck with me.
@@adeepdive77 I would even say the direction enhances the lacklustre screenplay, like the shots of clergy in full regalia on a smoking break captures the vibe of endemic cynicism in the church much better than any line of dialogue
@jamlife919 I literally made sure I saw it because of a fanvid on here, set to New Bottega. The cinematography was fantastic. But I definitely agree with the criticism of the screenplay here, there are some massive arguments happening in Catholicism today but they're completely glossed over and reduced in the movie. (I'm not even Roman Catholic.) It just means that people are even a little familiar can insert those arguments, even if it's realistically not tackling those arguments, and people who are unfamiliar can treat the entire thing as allegory. On one of my other communities, this movie is tagged Mean Girls in the Vatican and I love that because it's true.
As shallow as a puddle with a light film of oil - totally gorgeous lights and rainbows built on nothing. And even the little bit of something evaporates away while you are watching. But: oooh shiny!
It's the first season of 'The Borgia's' From 2011, just with my Medieval 2: Total War campaign goal of making a secret female bishop my pope. The first season of 'The Borgia' showed a far superior political maneuvering of the papal election than this. In fact, it felt like someone watched The Borgia's S1 and said "What would happen if Alexander VI wasn't a jerk, but a LAAAADY?"
You know what I love about this channel? Its not afraid to say something is bad. After years of cultural relativism where art is nothing but subjective, it's a complete breath of fresh air to hear someone knowledgeable say No, there is technique and skill that make good art. With so much comeing out these days and a desire to enjoy the output beyond one's own generation, there is no room for the mediocre.
Exactly! I think people are bound to return to quality with this excess of quantity, especially since AI art... I hope videos like these will eventually give people higher standards.
More than stupid, it seems didactic in its dialogue. In my opinion, this has been a problem in recent years, and I believe it stems from the writers’ fear that today’s audience-who reads little, binge-watches short videos, and has the attention span of a hamster-won’t catch the metaphors, will “get bored,” and therefore needs to be “spoon-fed” like a small child. Tinker Tailor, by the same author, took the opposite approach, but that’s a film from several years ago.
This video was definitely more in-depth and thought-provoking than the movie it thoroughly scrutinized. Great analysis! We've been frustrated with the same misplaced pretentiousness in other movies as well, like Nosferatu, for example. Movies tend to be exactly the opposite of what critics claim them to be. If critics deem a movie intelligent, the dialogues are usually on-the-nose and without depth. If they say it's 'mature' it often feels like it was produced by a horny teenager with zero life experience. The movie landscape has become a barren wasteland. +1 subscriber!
It looks like this is the first draft of the screenplay. The one where you just write the text and haven't yet figured how how much to place in subtext.
@@john_g_henderson "Personally I think it deserves it." -You liked the film which is contrary to this video, thus presents a nice opportunity for you to add to debate. And like the film, you pass on it, and make a comment of no substance that readers can gain nothing from.
@ fine, how about this: you fundamentally misunderstand the power of cinema if you believe it is at its best when discussing ideas. Cinema is at its most powerful when it shows conflict and resolution, something I believe this film does rather well. No, the dialogue is not an awe inspiring philosophical treatise, and it doesn’t need to be. I say this as someone whose favorite director is Tarkovsky, a filmmaker famous for featuring long and brilliant philosophical conversations in his films.
Excellent analysis. I would be interested in how this screenplay compares to the original novel. My friend and I loved Conclave. For me, as a life-long Catholic, I've actually had and heard conversations on the Church that were just as fuzzy in words spoken. I think that someone like myself fills in the missing context and we don't need to spell it out in our conversations with fellow Catholics.
An honest modern filmmaker would respond that movies are now being made for Tik Tok audiences. Short attention span, no critical thought, easily distracted, and driven by feelings over logic. They want to be influenced, not challenged. The problem is that these same people don't watch movies like Conclave, which sells itself as profound and thought-provoking, for the art house crowd... who hated it for said reasons in this video.
I enjoyed Michael Anderson's 70mm roadshow Pope soap of Morris L. West's big novel, THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN, back in 1968 than I did CONCLAVE, but then again most Catholic ritual and school movies are generally entertaining most of the time. Hell, even the Vatican syndicate in GODFATHER 3 was a better clerical thriller. Nothing tops Otto Preminger's THE CARDINAL for cheap melodrama though. I did notice that all these films had some really great music scores too! Particularly Alex North for "Shoes" and Jerome Moross for "Cardinal". This was a great overview of lots of really good old movies. I think you should review the nasty nun genre as well. That would be just as swell.
A well substantiated take-down. Yes, the novel is an airport page-turner, nothing more. Why a great actor like Ralph Fiennes dignified it with his presence is a mystery, or at any rate a pity. The only other person I've seen prick the bubble of this movie's pretensions is Dan Hitchens in a fine article for 'First Things'. I conclude that you, Mr Moviewise, are in fact Dan Hitchens, masking your Oxford-educated English accent through special voice mis-recognition software. Can there really be more than one perceptive movie critic in this world?
It's ironic how little Conclave reflects its own message of looking within oneself for truth, rather than finding it by appeasing a populace's idea of truth to pacify them. I was expecting you to bring up the twist but I get there was already a pile of nonsense to be pointed out as stupid and vacuous in the broadness and lack of imagination in the dialogue. The people who I told the twist to were rightfully turned off from watching it because it's such of product of its time in the worst way possible - just giving the impression of transgressiveness while drawing within the lines in a way that I'd dismiss as a parody since I thought, for some reason, that this was a Netflix production. But it's actually an adaptation of a novel, which is even worse because if the novel is as shallow and honestly pointless (if it's not smart then it can at least be fun, but no) then this sham appraisal is unfortunately not only exclusive to modern cinema.
When I saw it I thought it reminded me of a movie that would've come out in the 80s that would've had a nice run, then would've been forgotten after that. I guess so few movies get made these days that they think this one is Oscar worthy. Also, why hasn't anyone pointed out that it's so similar to 12 Angry Men? Even the actor who plays Tedesco looks like Lee J. Cobb!
Yes, it's a pleasant watch and not much more (not that there's anything wrong with that). I was reminded more of The Best Man -- which at least had a satirical ending. I think Mr. Moviewise's critique is aimed less at the film than at the reviewers.
I concede the points here but have to say I really enjoyed the movie as a thriller (killer final plot revelation too). I know I'm going to sound like one of those "it was bad on purpose" type people but I did think the rather empty banal dialogue was meant to reflect that these people were actually denuded of real religious beliefs and had replaced them with of tribal allegiances, not actual men of conviction and duty but bureaucrats and political climbers. However, as a thriller, i'll say I kind of struggled with where the mysterious new arrival Benitez would keep getting votes from, and his "why can't we all just get along" speech at the end was certainly underwhelming, and I think in actuality unlikely to have swayed that many people. I was also rather lost on the significance of the terrorist attacks other than as a sort of Deus Ex Machina to drive everything to a crisis point.
The script is great, not because of the surface-level dialogue (which was never the heart of the film), but as a tight thriller and as a character study of Lawrence. He is unexpectedly placed in a position to taste power and accept ambition, only for it to get yanked away from him, and all of that is in the subtext.
Speaking of Umberto Eco, _The Name of the Rose_ (especially the book, the movie is naturally much shorter) seems to be pretty much the opposite of _Enclave._ You get actual historical theological debates, struggles between various religious orders which interpret the Bible differently (e.g. on whether Jesus was poor and whether monks should live in poverty), sometimes they do not recognize the pope or the rule of celibacy and are persecuted etc. They engage in disagreements and debates about concrete topics, instead of only speaking in vague generalities. It feels real. Actual people rarely have (and had) arguments merely phrased generalities. Generalities are for summarizing a history article in an encyclopedia.
If they wanted to make a "Catholic Church bad" movie it's not like they're short of real world material. If you like I could offer you a list of other films that do a much more brutal job of point out what a corrupt and immoral institution it is.
See also: _The Two Popes_ from a few years ago, which was allegedly a dramatization of the events surrounding Benedict XVI retiring and Francis becoming Pope, but was more interested in setting Benedict up as a villain and Francis as a hero than in actually understanding either of them.
@ weird, I actually don’t think that’s what that movie did at all. Yes of course it sets up their major differences as a point of tension, but they ultimately end up having mutual respect and love for one another.
I was surprised how painterly the compositions in the movie were, but I find your argument convincing. You can't really make a movie of ideas based on a "tell don't show" screenplay.
I get the impression this film is only interested in the aesthetics of the Vatican and the plot is purely an excuse to put actors in vestments. Shots like 18:05, with all the white columns and tiles and just a splash of red and purple, sad old men in prayer on a gray afternoon... that's the movie.
Good sir, you are not a hater, you are a critique. One hallmark I would say is that you offer better alternatives, like a shepard guiding us your sheep away from any terror. God bless you.
A film that took ideas seriously would have responded to "... the media will see it as a sign the church is in crisis." with "Good! We are in crisis and there's nothing wrong with that. We are in the business of human souls, we should be contesting how best to save them. We should be arguing, we should be in disagreement. There are two times when the Church can present as united, when everyone has perfectly agreed with correct doctrine and when dissenters are suppressed. Which situation are we in?".
Greatly enjoyed this, thank you😂😂 Have no idea who could possibly think of this pulpy thriller as anything more than that. 20-25 years ago, there were 10 similar movies coming out in a single year.
I had 3 things to ask that you could address in your upcoming videos 1) In your Godfather video you discussed Coppola's framing of the gun in the final moment's of Part-II and that it was intentionally cut out to make it feel like it's not happening which you are clearly against so what made you come to thr conclusion that it was intentional and not a framing error like those in Oppenheimer? Was it Coppola's previous good framing and Nolan's consistant inconsistencies? If so then what actually is a parameter of interpretating the meaning behind blocking and framing? 2) You said you considered Gangs of New York one of the greatest of this century so I wanted to know how big a part does Daneil Day Lewis's performance play in that as I find the screenplay not upto the mark of the direction and acting in the film in comparison to that of Lincoln. And also the direction the opening battle which uses handheld was so annoyingly shaky and just wasn't marty standard. Took away all the great buildup to it. 3) And finally I am eager to know if you are excited about the Live action Film adaptation of Ramayana which is currently in production and Hans Zimmer is composing along side AR Rehman and held by the director of Dangal and also potentially Mahabharata by SS Rajamouli.
Ya know, I was over halfway through this and was ready to panic that you hadn't mentioned "A Man for All Seasons" yet. I'm not catholic nor english but t's a favorite movie of mine especially for the "… clear every tree" scene. But, additionally, I would like to recommend to you the 1967 version of "Bedazzled" with Peter Cook and Duddley Moore for it's take on God, and religion and the not-so-silent partner.
Bravo, indeed! Thank you for this brilliant and deadly-accurate analysis. Whatever happened to all the great screenwriters? Don't tell me they're all dead; that would be too depressing. I realise that especially among Americans, the majority of moviegoers have too much disdain for language to be 'challenged' in this way, but at the very least, it seems to me there should be some impulse in the screenwriter (or author or composer, etc.) to challenge and stretch the imagination. I mean, God forbid we should actually *learn* something while watching a film. (Hence, every f
Nice analysis and comparisons. I loved the look of the movie, and wanted to embrace it. But I was troubled by the often stereotyped conversations and opaque motives. Something seemed "off" but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks for clearing that up!
I am stuck on the twist being very stupid. But it would have been a higher-quality screenplay to summarize out one or two of the all-overly-dramatic threads so that the rest could be explored with more depth. The requisite acting talent is there...
I never noticed how alike Richard Burton and Bill Murray are. But yes, this film Conclave is a popcorn movie written from a story by a man who doesn't really know the subject matter. Write what you know. Robert Harris didn't take that advice to heart.
Thank you so much. I hate it because it has so many opinions about the Church while obviously knowing nothing about it. But on movie terms it is absolutely a plot outline spoken aloud.
I feel like Conclave is more of a thriller than a movie about opening a debate, it doesn't focus much on what each side believes and why, but rather on who would get the most votes
The problem is it doesn't deliver as a thriller/detective story either. It lacks basic mechanics for the detective story, it's not captivating, intriguing and literally nothing is at stake here because it doesn't matter, for the plot or the audience, who would win this race (for the reasons explained in the video). The only mildly intriguing part of it was how exactly the main character would orchestrate this election to his favour, and it turned out he wasn't even doing that! The guy was a genuine goody-two-shoes all along! Hulk do good and be good and not be bad. Shut the front door!
Is there any suggestion that this was meant to be more than entertainment. Robert Harris is a writer who does plot based stuff rather than the deep exploration of societal profundity
I think this is another victim of the overuse of allegory, as if every disagreement should really be about some culture war in California. its exhausting. But it does win award from other Californians
The "anti-bad things" director played by Cleese is one of my favorite bits they did. "Ahw it's greeeeeat, it's greaaaaat!" Kills me every time. This Conclave movie probably thought of as deep nowadays because a lot of people are sitting around talking about stuff and because that is rare in today's hyperactive cinema where nobody has an attention span or the capacity to engage philosophical ideas on any level viewers are confusing it for profound. Elmer Gantry was my dad's favorite film, and Becket is one of mine. I like the counter-examples; those are all masterworks. The bit from Major Barbara at the end, holy sh*t man! Another one of my all-time faves. It's lonely feeling like I'm the only person who has ever seen it and loved it. Would love to see that Shaw flick analyzed.
This is more than just bad writing. It seems like fear of offending anyone about anything by making any definitive statements at all. All the dialogue ends up vague and open to interpretation.
I BEG you... analyze and talk about any script form Aaron Sorkin... but specially JOBS or The Social Network (Jobs doesn't get enough love here) I love the way he engages his characters into conversations, debates and ideas.
@gelchert And? Good dialogue is good dialogue, even if you don't agree with what's been said. Aaron Sorking is one of the best writers in the bussiness right now.
I thought the film was okay, but you're touching on something I had a hard time figuring out. I was looking for a deeper religious exploration, but it became a modern political ramble - although the performances and dramas within the film were entertaining enough - and in the end I don't fully see the point of making it through this setting. There's something very safe about this whole film.
I think i accidentally watched a slightly more interesting movie than what conclave actually was. Basically, when first watching it I already knew there was going to be a twist with an intersex person (even if some people falsely claimed it was about a trans person) and was looking for hints of that throughout my watch. I assumed that Ralph Fiennes' character might be that person because of his talks of his crisis of faith. It would have added a bit more depth to his character for his character to be the one that's in charge of this boy's club while also struggling with his own identity in the shadows I know that feeling of being stuck in an all male environment while struggling with your gender identity and started to really see myself in that character's struggles. This would have also added another reason for his reluctance of accepting the papacy and his wishing of leaving that institution at once to free himself of that conservative and restrictive environment and it would have also made all that liberal talk of Fiennes' and Tucci's side a more personal debate instead of an abstract one. I also thought I saw this into Fiennes' performance which read to me as slightly unsure in his masculine place and somewhat feminine. Alas, the twist was a different one (in my opinion a worse one) and the hints I saw were just false imaginings. Of course, this wouldn't have changed the glaring dialogue problems you mentioned, but it would have made Fiennes' character and struggles more interesting and more relatable (at least to me).
Airport novels are books you buy before getting on your flight. They tend to be very mainstream and written in ways that the stories are easy to digest despite the numerous distractions going on around you. Not necessarily bad stories but not challenging to read.
I never for a second felt this movie was about faith; but instead It was just another lazy Metaphor about the electoral process and how to "vote to stop the rise of fascism." And just like other movies of it's ilk it was unprepared to face corruption as a systemic issue and to say anything slightly critical about the system deemed as corrupt. It reduces the metaphor to fairy tale and sadly that is the caliber of most writing these days. But man, that was a satisfying essay, I added at least 6 movies to my watchlist and thank you for that!
"There's more wisdom in your aunt's FB feed" made my day. 😄 Movies about the Catholic Church are so terribly written these days because it's not about engaging in ideas and theology it's to cast the Catholic Church in a bad light. Catholic Church = bad, it's that simple. No interesting, engaging and intellectually honest conversations, just empty, cringy, pseudo intellectual and pseudo philosophical gibberish that's presented as dialog. It's more sophisticated than the average ranting Redditor would write it but make no mistake, the contempt is just the same. For your amusement, just watch Immaculate with Sydney Sweeney it came out last year. To me it's not a horror movie it's an accidental comedy due to how absurd and cringy it is.
Dude, get out of my head! I said this movie was dumb airport book schlock with lame dialogue and worse plot. (I said it with more swear words). I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just SO STUPID. "Conclave is as interested in theology as the Fast and the Furious in physics". Great Line and Great video as always and for once I've actually seen a lot of the movies you listed. A Man for All Seasons is my favorite movie! (Becket isn't my fav, but it's up there).
I like this book and the movie (really identical things) for showing me this world, which I was not aware about. They're educational, quite entertaining and very cosy. They both are decent and good. But not great in any way. Praising this movie as an important awards contender is ridiculous.
"this conclave could have been an e-mail"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It's funny to think as well that Catholic cardinals today tend to be extremely well educated in the humanities. The idea that they would all speak in such a pedestrian way about their ideas and beliefs is more insulting to the Church than the premise of the film itself.
Was just about to write something along those lines. Early years students at any decent seminary, Cathollic or otherwise, are above this.
I assure you, if you met a catholic career chasing bishops they would use language that is really simple. The ones that use sophisticated words are rarely high in the hierarchy. Of course, most of their yapping is completely useless and meaningless (theology is a joke).
@@HansZwiebeln Being inherently a politician (as bishops are) doesn't mean you only achieve the level of an ambulance chaser. They are not necessarily impressive people and some of them are evidently quite bad (like the last DC cardinal!), but one does have to be exhaustively educated to get there.
@@josephfisher426 do you actually know how theological education look like? Unfortunately I met not only those politicians but also phd students-priests in phd school. They are not required to do anything spectacular to achieve high position, those who are curious are discouraged and never achieve anything in Catholic Church. Catholic Christianity is inherently against intellectual achievements, the highest figures in their circles are limited conservative and repetitive. The only spark might be the part of church interested in science, but they mostly just push anything divine anywhere there is an issue worth researching.
Even farther down to the level of diocesan parish priest the quality of speech of a priest in real life shames the non-sense of these actors.
It is often the use of metaphors that are missing in films of today. Many metaphors were used, for instance, in the Film Noir films, which makes it more interesting and gives your brain more to think about and relate to from your own life experiences.
The “hardboiled poetry” of film noir is a subject I hope I can cover someday!
@@Moviewise Force of Evil is the best example of this I've seen, if you can find others, I'd love to know about them.
@@Luxington1 Have you seen Kiss Me Deadly?
@JohnMoseley Yeah, once and I don't remember it having this element.
@ I thought it did.
Most oscar nominated films this year are like parodies of oscar nominated films.
I know right?
The day they get Timothée Chalamet to do a 3 hour long period drama (preferably about the film industry), it's over, that thing is sweeping all the categories
@jakedesnake97 I see it, a biopic of Buster Keaton.
@@RHR1991they've got to have a side plot about the blacklist
6 of the 10 nominees are pretty amazing imo
This criticism lacks the vagueness to be a mediocre opinion.
Correction: this criticism is too masturbatory to have any value.
One of my favorite things about this channel is that it suggests classic, near-forgotten films that are vastly superior to the modern equivalents it's criticizing.
If you think any of the films he has mentioned in this video are near-forgotten, you are woefully ignorant.
Thank you for adding the names of the films being discussed.
You're right but I was too busy hating on Emilia Perez to notice the other nominated films may suck as well
I'm fascinated by how _Emilia Perez_ went from being "groundbreaking positive representation" to "transphobic/racist hate crime" vying to the this year's _Green Book/Crash_ .
"it's Dan Brown … not Umberto Eco"
deep cuts: achievement unlocked
the name of the rose would be the same smelly flower by any other name
Eco was a bestselling author. That's not a deep cut.
Talk about stupid trying to play smart…
"Tadesco" is Italian for "German".
Like Joseph Ratzinger was German, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI.
Subtle as a rhinoceros in a trenchcoat.
I assume the liberals win in this movie, right?
What's the Italian word for "Argentinian"? 😉
"You should be ashamed of yourself." 😂😂😂 that killed me.
“You need to do better, Cardinal”
My fav channel! I'm crying because Villenew didn't get nomination so we won't get your analysis of his directing :'(
I assume you mean Dune director? he is a fan of WHISPERING WHEN IT MAKES NO FRIKKIN SENSE TO DO SO! Two tits alone in a desert must whisper? Why???
I know citing all the clips with the name of the movie is a pain but its very much worth it and very much appreciated. You can skip authors and directors as we can look that up if you want to make it a little quicker and easier. Thanks for an excellent take down .... love it when you have a rant!! Is that your Moldovan temperament?
We, as an audience, are becoming more dumb. Thank you for arousing our critical sense and teaching how to be more demanding.
I completely agree with this video, I never understood why the screenplay is what people praised this for or the acting, the mvp of this film is the direction which the academy and no one else seems to recognise. It looks so pretty but as shallow as puddle
Right? I thought it was beautiful.
The acting is good, but it's the sort of good you get from great performers doing what they do best. The art and visual direction are what brought me to the theater and the only thing that stuck with me.
@@adeepdive77 I would even say the direction enhances the lacklustre screenplay, like the shots of clergy in full regalia on a smoking break captures the vibe of endemic cynicism in the church much better than any line of dialogue
@jamlife919 I literally made sure I saw it because of a fanvid on here, set to New Bottega. The cinematography was fantastic.
But I definitely agree with the criticism of the screenplay here, there are some massive arguments happening in Catholicism today but they're completely glossed over and reduced in the movie. (I'm not even Roman Catholic.)
It just means that people are even a little familiar can insert those arguments, even if it's realistically not tackling those arguments, and people who are unfamiliar can treat the entire thing as allegory.
On one of my other communities, this movie is tagged Mean Girls in the Vatican and I love that because it's true.
As shallow as a puddle with a light film of oil - totally gorgeous lights and rainbows built on nothing. And even the little bit of something evaporates away while you are watching. But: oooh shiny!
It's the first season of 'The Borgia's' From 2011, just with my Medieval 2: Total War campaign goal of making a secret female bishop my pope. The first season of 'The Borgia' showed a far superior political maneuvering of the papal election than this. In fact, it felt like someone watched The Borgia's S1 and said "What would happen if Alexander VI wasn't a jerk, but a LAAAADY?"
I guess I was too mesmerized by the costumes and performances to see how bare-bones the script was. Thanks for the in-depth review!
You know what I love about this channel? Its not afraid to say something is bad. After years of cultural relativism where art is nothing but subjective, it's a complete breath of fresh air to hear someone knowledgeable say No, there is technique and skill that make good art. With so much comeing out these days and a desire to enjoy the output beyond one's own generation, there is no room for the mediocre.
Exactly! I think people are bound to return to quality with this excess of quantity, especially since AI art... I hope videos like these will eventually give people higher standards.
Excellent critique as always - and a delightful sponsor segue!
More than stupid, it seems didactic in its dialogue. In my opinion, this has been a problem in recent years, and I believe it stems from the writers’ fear that today’s audience-who reads little, binge-watches short videos, and has the attention span of a hamster-won’t catch the metaphors, will “get bored,” and therefore needs to be “spoon-fed” like a small child. Tinker Tailor, by the same author, took the opposite approach, but that’s a film from several years ago.
This video was definitely more in-depth and thought-provoking than the movie it thoroughly scrutinized. Great analysis! We've been frustrated with the same misplaced pretentiousness in other movies as well, like Nosferatu, for example. Movies tend to be exactly the opposite of what critics claim them to be. If critics deem a movie intelligent, the dialogues are usually on-the-nose and without depth. If they say it's 'mature' it often feels like it was produced by a horny teenager with zero life experience. The movie landscape has become a barren wasteland. +1 subscriber!
It looks like this is the first draft of the screenplay. The one where you just write the text and haven't yet figured how how much to place in subtext.
I was waiting for you to mention A Man for All Seasons, and glad when you finally did!
And the way the current, modern Oscars have been going it’ll probably win best screenplay.
It won the Golden Globe so it's not unlikely
It’s the odds on favorite to win. Personally I think it deserves it.
@@john_g_henderson "Personally I think it deserves it." -You liked the film which is contrary to this video, thus presents a nice opportunity for you to add to debate. And like the film, you pass on it, and make a comment of no substance that readers can gain nothing from.
@ fine, how about this: you fundamentally misunderstand the power of cinema if you believe it is at its best when discussing ideas. Cinema is at its most powerful when it shows conflict and resolution, something I believe this film does rather well. No, the dialogue is not an awe inspiring philosophical treatise, and it doesn’t need to be. I say this as someone whose favorite director is Tarkovsky, a filmmaker famous for featuring long and brilliant philosophical conversations in his films.
"Dan Brown, not Umberto Eco" - one of the neatest one-sentence summaries of the Conclave! Excellent!
Excellent analysis. I would be interested in how this screenplay compares to the original novel. My friend and I loved Conclave. For me, as a life-long Catholic, I've actually had and heard conversations on the Church that were just as fuzzy in words spoken. I think that someone like myself fills in the missing context and we don't need to spell it out in our conversations with fellow Catholics.
An honest modern filmmaker would respond that movies are now being made for Tik Tok audiences. Short attention span, no critical thought, easily distracted, and driven by feelings over logic. They want to be influenced, not challenged.
The problem is that these same people don't watch movies like Conclave, which sells itself as profound and thought-provoking, for the art house crowd... who hated it for said reasons in this video.
I always jump right into moviewise videos, but the start of this one made me really eager to watch Conclave first. Don't know what that says about me
No one can doubt your analyses are consistently smart. Please keep doing what you are doing!
Wonderful! You have the wit of Wodehouse, the sarcasm of Swift, and the cleverness of Conan-Doyle.
I enjoyed Michael Anderson's 70mm roadshow Pope soap of Morris L. West's big novel, THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN, back in 1968 than I did CONCLAVE, but then again most Catholic ritual and school movies are generally entertaining most of the time. Hell, even the Vatican syndicate in GODFATHER 3 was a better clerical thriller. Nothing tops Otto Preminger's THE CARDINAL for cheap melodrama though. I did notice that all these films had some really great music scores too! Particularly Alex North for "Shoes" and Jerome Moross for "Cardinal". This was a great overview of lots of really good old movies. I think you should review the nasty nun genre as well. That would be just as swell.
A well substantiated take-down. Yes, the novel is an airport page-turner, nothing more. Why a great actor like Ralph Fiennes dignified it with his presence is a mystery, or at any rate a pity. The only other person I've seen prick the bubble of this movie's pretensions is Dan Hitchens in a fine article for 'First Things'. I conclude that you, Mr Moviewise, are in fact Dan Hitchens, masking your Oxford-educated English accent through special voice mis-recognition software. Can there really be more than one perceptive movie critic in this world?
Schrader's FIRST REFORMED is the latest, greatest articulation of spiritual struggle this side of the ocean(s).
The problem with Thomas Moore was not that he objected to KIng Henry as head of the church but "that I would not bend to the marriage.".
What do you think about the "I'm Still Here" Screenplay?
It's ironic how little Conclave reflects its own message of looking within oneself for truth, rather than finding it by appeasing a populace's idea of truth to pacify them.
I was expecting you to bring up the twist but I get there was already a pile of nonsense to be pointed out as stupid and vacuous in the broadness and lack of imagination in the dialogue. The people who I told the twist to were rightfully turned off from watching it because it's such of product of its time in the worst way possible - just giving the impression of transgressiveness while drawing within the lines in a way that I'd dismiss as a parody since I thought, for some reason, that this was a Netflix production. But it's actually an adaptation of a novel, which is even worse because if the novel is as shallow and honestly pointless (if it's not smart then it can at least be fun, but no) then this sham appraisal is unfortunately not only exclusive to modern cinema.
Excellent analysis. And your observations are why I prefer the older classics to today's boring options.
When I saw it I thought it reminded me of a movie that would've come out in the 80s that would've had a nice run, then would've been forgotten after that. I guess so few movies get made these days that they think this one is Oscar worthy. Also, why hasn't anyone pointed out that it's so similar to 12 Angry Men? Even the actor who plays Tedesco looks like Lee J. Cobb!
Yes, it's a pleasant watch and not much more (not that there's anything wrong with that). I was reminded more of The Best Man -- which at least had a satirical ending. I think Mr. Moviewise's critique is aimed less at the film than at the reviewers.
It’s like 12 Angry Men if it didn’t have the biting dialogue, compelling themes or brilliant direction that’s made it a timeless classic
I concede the points here but have to say I really enjoyed the movie as a thriller (killer final plot revelation too). I know I'm going to sound like one of those "it was bad on purpose" type people but I did think the rather empty banal dialogue was meant to reflect that these people were actually denuded of real religious beliefs and had replaced them with of tribal allegiances, not actual men of conviction and duty but bureaucrats and political climbers.
However, as a thriller, i'll say I kind of struggled with where the mysterious new arrival Benitez would keep getting votes from, and his "why can't we all just get along" speech at the end was certainly underwhelming, and I think in actuality unlikely to have swayed that many people.
I was also rather lost on the significance of the terrorist attacks other than as a sort of Deus Ex Machina to drive everything to a crisis point.
The script is great, not because of the surface-level dialogue (which was never the heart of the film), but as a tight thriller and as a character study of Lawrence. He is unexpectedly placed in a position to taste power and accept ambition, only for it to get yanked away from him, and all of that is in the subtext.
Sounds like the perfect movie for the Cliff's Notes crowd.
Speaking of Umberto Eco, _The Name of the Rose_ (especially the book, the movie is naturally much shorter) seems to be pretty much the opposite of _Enclave._ You get actual historical theological debates, struggles between various religious orders which interpret the Bible differently (e.g. on whether Jesus was poor and whether monks should live in poverty), sometimes they do not recognize the pope or the rule of celibacy and are persecuted etc. They engage in disagreements and debates about concrete topics, instead of only speaking in vague generalities. It feels real. Actual people rarely have (and had) arguments merely phrased generalities. Generalities are for summarizing a history article in an encyclopedia.
Thank you for bringing Elmer Gantry to my attention - who can resist a Jean Simmons movie? Have you ever seen the Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith" ?
It's basically a "Catholic church bad, should be like I think" screenplay. Now you know why the awards.
@@sebastianshnsk3330 as a Catholic I really don’t think the film is saying that. I would say it’s ultimately rather optimistic about the Church
If they wanted to make a "Catholic Church bad" movie it's not like they're short of real world material. If you like I could offer you a list of other films that do a much more brutal job of point out what a corrupt and immoral institution it is.
See also: _The Two Popes_ from a few years ago, which was allegedly a dramatization of the events surrounding Benedict XVI retiring and Francis becoming Pope, but was more interested in setting Benedict up as a villain and Francis as a hero than in actually understanding either of them.
@ weird, I actually don’t think that’s what that movie did at all. Yes of course it sets up their major differences as a point of tension, but they ultimately end up having mutual respect and love for one another.
Your video made my day soooo much better!
I was surprised how painterly the compositions in the movie were, but I find your argument convincing. You can't really make a movie of ideas based on a "tell don't show" screenplay.
Great work!
I get the impression this film is only interested in the aesthetics of the Vatican and the plot is purely an excuse to put actors in vestments. Shots like 18:05, with all the white columns and tiles and just a splash of red and purple, sad old men in prayer on a gray afternoon... that's the movie.
the segue to the ad read rekt me
How do I like this video more?
Good sir, you are not a hater, you are a critique. One hallmark I would say is that you offer better alternatives, like a shepard guiding us your sheep away from any terror. God bless you.
On point as usual!
A film that took ideas seriously would have responded to "... the media will see it as a sign the church is in crisis." with "Good! We are in crisis and there's nothing wrong with that. We are in the business of human souls, we should be contesting how best to save them. We should be arguing, we should be in disagreement. There are two times when the Church can present as united, when everyone has perfectly agreed with correct doctrine and when dissenters are suppressed. Which situation are we in?".
Greatly enjoyed this, thank you😂😂 Have no idea who could possibly think of this pulpy thriller as anything more than that. 20-25 years ago, there were 10 similar movies coming out in a single year.
I had 3 things to ask that you could address in your upcoming videos
1) In your Godfather video you discussed Coppola's framing of the gun in the final moment's of Part-II and that it was intentionally cut out to make it feel like it's not happening which you are clearly against so what made you come to thr conclusion that it was intentional and not a framing error like those in Oppenheimer? Was it Coppola's previous good framing and Nolan's consistant inconsistencies? If so then what actually is a parameter of interpretating the meaning behind blocking and framing?
2) You said you considered Gangs of New York one of the greatest of this century so I wanted to know how big a part does Daneil Day Lewis's performance play in that as I find the screenplay not upto the mark of the direction and acting in the film in comparison to that of Lincoln. And also the direction the opening battle which uses handheld was so annoyingly shaky and just wasn't marty standard. Took away all the great buildup to it.
3) And finally I am eager to know if you are excited about the Live action Film adaptation of Ramayana which is currently in production and Hans Zimmer is composing along side AR Rehman and held by the director of Dangal and also potentially Mahabharata by SS Rajamouli.
Brilliant exegesis. Much needed, much appreciated. Thank you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
Ya know, I was over halfway through this and was ready to panic that you hadn't mentioned "A Man for All Seasons" yet. I'm not catholic nor english but t's a favorite movie of mine especially for the "… clear every tree" scene. But, additionally, I would like to recommend to you the 1967 version of "Bedazzled" with Peter Cook and Duddley Moore for it's take on God, and religion and the not-so-silent partner.
Bravo, indeed! Thank you for this brilliant and deadly-accurate analysis. Whatever happened to all the great screenwriters? Don't tell me they're all dead; that would be too depressing. I realise that especially among Americans, the majority of moviegoers have too much disdain for language to be 'challenged' in this way, but at the very least, it seems to me there should be some impulse in the screenwriter (or author or composer, etc.) to challenge and stretch the imagination. I mean, God forbid we should actually *learn* something while watching a film. (Hence, every f
Verbs vs. Nouns. Metaphor vs. Description. That’s the problem
Nice analysis and comparisons. I loved the look of the movie, and wanted to embrace it. But I was troubled by the often stereotyped conversations and opaque motives. Something seemed "off" but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks for clearing that up!
Finally! Someone said it!
9:45 what's the name of this film?
This movie is the epitome of "made for modern audiences."
Hey Moviewise! Are you on Letterboxd, by any chance?
I don't care a fig about _Conclave,_ but I am so, so glad it was made, because it resulted in this brilliant analysis.
14:08 LOL)) I said so when I was translating Tudors for Russian dub. There're 14 Thomases there! Lot's of them are killed by King Henry...
I am stuck on the twist being very stupid. But it would have been a higher-quality screenplay to summarize out one or two of the all-overly-dramatic threads so that the rest could be explored with more depth. The requisite acting talent is there...
2024 may well go down as film history's worst year ever. Just going by the Academy Awards nominees.
Dude, make a letterboxed or some sort of list of all these old films you've watched and think are good so we can check them out
I never noticed how alike Richard Burton and Bill Murray are. But yes, this film Conclave is a popcorn movie written from a story by a man who doesn't really know the subject matter. Write what you know. Robert Harris didn't take that advice to heart.
Thank you so much. I hate it because it has so many opinions about the Church while obviously knowing nothing about it. But on movie terms it is absolutely a plot outline spoken aloud.
I feel like Conclave is more of a thriller than a movie about opening a debate, it doesn't focus much on what each side believes and why, but rather on who would get the most votes
The problem is it doesn't deliver as a thriller/detective story either. It lacks basic mechanics for the detective story, it's not captivating, intriguing and literally nothing is at stake here because it doesn't matter, for the plot or the audience, who would win this race (for the reasons explained in the video). The only mildly intriguing part of it was how exactly the main character would orchestrate this election to his favour, and it turned out he wasn't even doing that! The guy was a genuine goody-two-shoes all along! Hulk do good and be good and not be bad. Shut the front door!
A redux of "The Shoes of the Fisherman," which was sorely lacking as well.
Is there any suggestion that this was meant to be more than entertainment. Robert Harris is a writer who does plot based stuff rather than the deep exploration of societal profundity
I think this is another victim of the overuse of allegory, as if every disagreement should really be about some culture war in California. its exhausting. But it does win award from other Californians
You're hilarious!😂😂😂great review and you know mediocrity, when you hear it. I love the re run 'it is a war, blah, blah, blah'
Paolo Sorrentino did it 10x better with The Young Pope.
Excellent.
Would highly recommend anyone watch Elmer Gantry. It was one of the movies that really got me into older cinema. I need to watch it again!
The "anti-bad things" director played by Cleese is one of my favorite bits they did. "Ahw it's greeeeeat, it's greaaaaat!" Kills me every time. This Conclave movie probably thought of as deep nowadays because a lot of people are sitting around talking about stuff and because that is rare in today's hyperactive cinema where nobody has an attention span or the capacity to engage philosophical ideas on any level viewers are confusing it for profound. Elmer Gantry was my dad's favorite film, and Becket is one of mine. I like the counter-examples; those are all masterworks. The bit from Major Barbara at the end, holy sh*t man! Another one of my all-time faves. It's lonely feeling like I'm the only person who has ever seen it and loved it. Would love to see that Shaw flick analyzed.
This is more than just bad writing. It seems like fear of offending anyone about anything by making any definitive statements at all. All the dialogue ends up vague and open to interpretation.
I BEG you... analyze and talk about any script form Aaron Sorkin... but specially JOBS or The Social Network (Jobs doesn't get enough love here) I love the way he engages his characters into conversations, debates and ideas.
Yeah, and every character sounds like he wrote them, and every character who wins an argument happens to agree with Sorkin.
@gelchert And? Good dialogue is good dialogue, even if you don't agree with what's been said.
Aaron Sorking is one of the best writers in the bussiness right now.
I thought the film was okay, but you're touching on something I had a hard time figuring out. I was looking for a deeper religious exploration, but it became a modern political ramble - although the performances and dramas within the film were entertaining enough - and in the end I don't fully see the point of making it through this setting. There's something very safe about this whole film.
I think i accidentally watched a slightly more interesting movie than what conclave actually was.
Basically, when first watching it I already knew there was going to be a twist with an intersex person (even if some people falsely claimed it was about a trans person) and was looking for hints of that throughout my watch.
I assumed that Ralph Fiennes' character might be that person because of his talks of his crisis of faith.
It would have added a bit more depth to his character for his character to be the one that's in charge of this boy's club while also struggling with his own identity in the shadows
I know that feeling of being stuck in an all male environment while struggling with your gender identity and started to really see myself in that character's struggles.
This would have also added another reason for his reluctance of accepting the papacy and his wishing of leaving that institution at once to free himself of that conservative and restrictive environment and it would have also made all that liberal talk of Fiennes' and Tucci's side a more personal debate instead of an abstract one.
I also thought I saw this into Fiennes' performance which read to me as slightly unsure in his masculine place and somewhat feminine.
Alas, the twist was a different one (in my opinion a worse one) and the hints I saw were just false imaginings.
Of course, this wouldn't have changed the glaring dialogue problems you mentioned, but it would have made Fiennes' character and struggles more interesting and more relatable (at least to me).
Well actually Conclave (2006) is a much, much better movie than Conclave (2024).
Love it!
Especially with religions people of today, you aren't allowed to argue nor to be philosophical today. People aren't allowed to think.
Pssst! Babe, wake up. There’s a new Moviewise video.
Also what does "Airpot Novel" means?
Airport novels are books you buy before getting on your flight. They tend to be very mainstream and written in ways that the stories are easy to digest despite the numerous distractions going on around you. Not necessarily bad stories but not challenging to read.
Bestselling trash (aka Arthur Hailey garbage).
@@sheets75 thanks.
I never for a second felt this movie was about faith; but instead It was just another lazy Metaphor about the electoral process and how to "vote to stop the rise of fascism." And just like other movies of it's ilk it was unprepared to face corruption as a systemic issue and to say anything slightly critical about the system deemed as corrupt. It reduces the metaphor to fairy tale and sadly that is the caliber of most writing these days.
But man, that was a satisfying essay, I added at least 6 movies to my watchlist and thank you for that!
Young Pope was fantastic though
Next up - why dune deserved the best director snub
I wanted more of isabella roselini. She was barely in the movie
"There's more wisdom in your aunt's FB feed" made my day. 😄 Movies about the Catholic Church are so terribly written these days because it's not about engaging in ideas and theology it's to cast the Catholic Church in a bad light. Catholic Church = bad, it's that simple. No interesting, engaging and intellectually honest conversations, just empty, cringy, pseudo intellectual and pseudo philosophical gibberish that's presented as dialog. It's more sophisticated than the average ranting Redditor would write it but make no mistake, the contempt is just the same. For your amusement, just watch Immaculate with Sydney Sweeney it came out last year. To me it's not a horror movie it's an accidental comedy due to how absurd and cringy it is.
Yeah, this movie made me roll my eyes. Not the worst watch from last year but I don't get the high praise.
Dude, get out of my head! I said this movie was dumb airport book schlock with lame dialogue and worse plot. (I said it with more swear words). I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just SO STUPID. "Conclave is as interested in theology as the Fast and the Furious in physics". Great Line and Great video as always and for once I've actually seen a lot of the movies you listed. A Man for All Seasons is my favorite movie! (Becket isn't my fav, but it's up there).
Thank you
I like this book and the movie (really identical things) for showing me this world, which I was not aware about. They're educational, quite entertaining and very cosy. They both are decent and good. But not great in any way. Praising this movie as an important awards contender is ridiculous.
Muchas gracias