Movie You're Watching Tonight

My feelings about this film are very mixed. I watched it with someone who hated it, to the point that she spent the latter half of the film on her phone and even moved to answer the phone when it rang (I put an end to that). That in itself was unpleasant, but it didn’t affect my own perception much. I mention it because I found myself adopting a position of apologia, almost, given how vehemently she disliked the film. We left the theatre and she kept asking me ‘what it all meant’ and ‘what the film was trying to say’. I had barely been able to pull together my own thoughts on the matter, but I found that while I didn’t think it was particularly good, I did like some parts of it and found various little details to be of interest. I enjoyed it very much as an experience, and the subject is one I find fascinating.

I managed to know next to nothing about this going in, and nothing that was said here certainly made me any the wiser in terms of plot. That was helpful. I thought the imagery of some of the cardinals sitting outside ‘playing on their smartphone’ before the conclave begins was absolutely striking and to me, it was a pretty good foreshadowing of what the film is really ‘about’. There absolutely is a certain ridiculousness to the ritualistic aspect of religion in this day and age, and it’s unreasonable to pretend that it doesn’t jar with the tech world. The attempt to maintain separation from the outside world, avoid using the internet even to snoop on candidates’ past and such is a case in point. It’s such bizarre, irrational and self-destructive behaviour but it underscores how irrational the institution of organised religion as a whole feels in this day and age. It’s very arbitrary to decide not to use the internet when it’s right there to be used, and the film really drives home the arbitrary nature of the church as a whole.

To me, the film was mainly about the futility of trying to find a middle ground between tradition and ‘modernity’/‘liberalism’ (which I realise may sound a bit 'rich’, given the ending seems to imply exactly the opposite, that tradition has lost, etc.). But I felt, despite the multiple references to doubt and needing to be humbled by one’s own doubt at times, that the film sort of ends up saying the opposite: there can’t be a middle ground if the church is to maintain any semblance of doctrine, order and internal discipline (which is severely lacking throughout the film, and to me that’s a direct consequence, diegetically within the film’s universe, of the church becoming less certain of itself). I, personally, am a relativist in the broadest sense of the word when it comes to most things, but what the film ended up saying to me was that without the steadfast, tradition-first leadership of someone like Tedesco, the chief descends into farce and undignified internal strife, which is exactly what we see throughout the film. This last point is half in jest, but I think through a humorous lens it’s not hard to see the explosion hitting the window as God ‘smiting’ the conclave for making the ‘wrong’ decision

Beyond that, there were quite a few moments when the entire audience laughed hysterically (Rossellini’s very rude curtsey). I found those hilarious too, won’t mention what the others were as that’s not the point, but this film definitely benefits from being seen on the big screen where one can observe the live audience reaction.

I think this is a film where much of the intrigue and mystique comes from the fact the inner goings of the Catholic Church, especially ecclesiastical elections, are still so arcane and unfamiliar to the general public (the very idea of an election seems counter-intuitive). To that end, I thought the film was ‘interesting’ in the pure sense of the word, in that it generated and maintained interest in the mechanics of that world and its inner politics. The point that people are incredibly fallible no matter who they are is trite and tired, but I don’t think it’s intended as the focus/core message. I’m probably semi-purposefully reading it ‘wrong’, but I think that while what Lawrence is doing is coming from a good place and he’s trying to do the ‘right thing’, follow the late Pope’s wishes, listen to his own heart and experience and so on, it ends up causing more harm than good, and to me he (and the conclave) ends up making the wrong choice. I feel this is telegraphed rather too much because the suicide bomber attack happens after Benitez begins to gain support but before his speech, which to me feels like the conclave being ‘smitten’ as they are on the wrong track and decided on the wrong course of action (with Benitez gaining support).

I doubt that was the intended conclusion, but that’s how I read it. What the ultimately chosen Benitez professes and preaches is the so-called ‘Liberation Theology’ (which makes sense, seeing as it it originated in Latin America). The issue with Liberation Theology is that it aggressively politicises religion, and much as we might all say religion is by default political, thus makes it explicitly so, and I don’t feel anything good can ever come of that. I’m not going to say this is a ‘woke’ ending, heh, but it is an ending in favour of reform and change that purposefully puts down tradition (no character professing traditionalism is given the time of day to state their position, traditionalists like Tedesco get no screen time at all, other than where other people criticise them as bigoted and backward. We aren’t offered even a rudimentary summary of what the traditionalist position actually is, what it stands for, why it might be reassuring in a chaotic world, why it has endured for centuries on end). But as someone socially conservative, I tend to read such things as the last hopeless hurrah for the classic, traditional Catholic Church, which simple doesn’t seem to have any relevance whatsoever in the modern world and society, especially if it keeps making such anti-traditionalist choices.

Lawrence feels like a tragic figure because while he embraces doubt, and of course that’s essential, he seems far too deep in a crisis of faith of his own to offer/maintain the sort of discipline that’s needed to steer the church through this conclave or beyond (he is, after all, its second most senior figure). He inspires much sympathy in this regard, but he also does take very active steps to affect the outcome of the election. That’s understandable given his character the way it’s written (it’s an aspect of personality, not his position), but I also think there is, ironically, a distinct lack of humbleness in his actions and that is also part of why he isn’t fit to be pope himself: he doesn’t have that inner authority, which I feel is in no way antithetical to embracing doubt. Anyway, this is a film I feel people will interpret extremely differently depending on their personalities and worldviews, which sounds like a ridiculously banal thing to say, but I see a huge dichotomy here between men of action and men of tradition, as it were, and how both types choose to see the world.

On a completely irrelevant note, it was strange to watch this just as the Notre-Dame is about to reopen.

My feelings about this film are very mixed. I watched it with someone who hated it, to the point that she spent the latter half of the film on her phone and even moved to answer the phone when it rang (I put an end to that). That in itself was unpleasant, but it didn’t affect my own perception much. I mention it because I found myself adopting a position of apologia, almost, given how vehemently she disliked the film. We left the theatre and she kept asking me ‘what it all meant’ and ‘what the film was trying to say’. I had barely been able to pull together my own thoughts on the matter, but I found that while I didn’t think it was particularly good, I did like some parts of it and found various little details to be of interest. I enjoyed it very much as an experience, and the subject is one I find fascinating.

I managed to know next to nothing about this going in, and nothing that was said here certainly made me any the wiser in terms of plot. That was helpful. I thought the imagery of some of the cardinals sitting outside ‘playing on their smartphone’ before the conclave begins was absolutely striking and to me, it was a pretty good foreshadowing of what the film is really ‘about’. There absolutely is a certain ridiculousness to the ritualistic aspect of religion in this day and age, and it’s unreasonable to pretend that it doesn’t jar with the tech world. The attempt to maintain separation from the outside world, avoid using the internet even to snoop on candidates’ past and such is a case in point. It’s such bizarre, irrational and self-destructive behaviour but it underscores how irrational the institution of organised religion as a whole feels in this day and age. It’s very arbitrary to decide not to use the internet when it’s right there to be used, and the film really drives home the arbitrary nature of the church as a whole.

To me, the film was mainly about the futility of trying to find a middle ground between tradition and ‘modernity’/‘liberalism’ (which I realise may sound a bit 'rich’, given the ending seems to imply exactly the opposite, that tradition has lost, etc.). But I felt, despite the multiple references to doubt and needing to be humbled by one’s own doubt at times, that the film sort of ends up saying the opposite: there can’t be a middle ground if the church is to maintain any semblance of doctrine, order and internal discipline (which is severely lacking throughout the film, and to me that’s a direct consequence, diegetically within the film’s universe, of the church becoming less certain of itself). I, personally, am a relativist in the broadest sense of the word when it comes to most things, but what the film ended up saying to me was that without the steadfast, tradition-first leadership of someone like Tedesco, the chief descends into farce and undignified internal strife, which is exactly what we see throughout the film. This last point is half in jest, but I think through a humorous lens it’s not hard to see the explosion hitting the window as God ‘smiting’ the conclave for making the ‘wrong’ decision

Beyond that, there were quite a few moments when the entire audience laughed hysterically (Rossellini’s very rude curtsey). I found those hilarious too, won’t mention what the others were as that’s not the point, but this film definitely benefits from being seen on the big screen where one can observe the live audience reaction.

I think this is a film where much of the intrigue and mystique comes from the fact the inner goings of the Catholic Church, especially ecclesiastical elections, are still so arcane and unfamiliar to the general public (the very idea of an election seems counter-intuitive). To that end, I thought the film was ‘interesting’ in the pure sense of the word, in that it generated and maintained interest in the mechanics of that world and its inner politics. The point that people are incredibly fallible no matter who they are is trite and tired, but I don’t think it’s intended as the focus/core message. I’m probably semi-purposefully reading it ‘wrong’, but I think that while what Lawrence is doing is coming from a good place and he’s trying to do the ‘right thing’, follow the late Pope’s wishes, listen to his own heart and experience and so on, it ends up causing more harm than good, and to me he (and the conclave) ends up making the wrong choice. I feel this is telegraphed rather too much because the suicide bomber attack happens after Benitez begins to gain support but before his speech, which to me feels like the conclave being ‘smitten’ as they are on the wrong track and decided on the wrong course of action (with Benitez gaining support).

I doubt that was the intended conclusion, but that’s how I read it. What the ultimately chosen Benitez professes and preaches is the so-called ‘Liberation Theology’ (which makes sense, seeing as it it originated in Latin America). The issue with Liberation Theology is that it aggressively politicises religion, and much as we might all say religion is by default political, thus makes it explicitly so, and I don’t feel anything good can ever come of that. I’m not going to say this is a ‘woke’ ending, heh, but it is an ending in favour of reform and change that purposefully puts down tradition (no character professing traditionalism is given the time of day to state their position, traditionalists like Tedesco get no screen time at all, other than where other people criticise them as bigoted and backward. We aren’t offered even a rudimentary summary of what the traditionalist position actually is, what it stands for, why it might be reassuring in a chaotic world, why it has endured for centuries on end). But as someone socially conservative, I tend to read such things as the last hopeless hurrah for the classic, traditional Catholic Church, which simple doesn’t seem to have any relevance whatsoever in the modern world and society, especially if it keeps making such anti-traditionalist choices.

Lawrence feels like a tragic figure because while he embraces doubt, and of course that’s essential, he seems far too deep in a crisis of faith of his own to offer/maintain the sort of discipline that’s needed to steer the church through this conclave or beyond (he is, after all, its second most senior figure). He inspires much sympathy in this regard, but he also does take very active steps to affect the outcome of the election. That’s understandable given his character the way it’s written (it’s an aspect of personality, not his position), but I also think there is, ironically, a distinct lack of humbleness in his actions and that is also part of why he isn’t fit to be pope himself: he doesn’t have that inner authority, which I feel is in no way antithetical to embracing doubt. Anyway, this is a film I feel people will interpret extremely differently depending on their personalities and worldviews, which sounds like a ridiculously banal thing to say, but I see a huge dichotomy here between men of action and men of tradition, as it were, and how both types choose to see the world.

On a completely irrelevant note, it was strange to watch this just as the Notre-Dame is about to reopen.