The Oscar Race Review: "Conclave"
Drama within the Catholic Church? Shocking.
In April of 2005, the world lost Pope John Paul II. A beloved humanitarian who once famously forgave a man who nearly assassinated him, the passing of the man born Karol Józef Wojtyła was both tragic and a cause for great interest. The world’s cardinals were quickly away to Vatican City to vote for the next pontiff, a process known as the papal conclave.
I was approaching the end of the third grade as this was happening, and I have this memory of my Catholic elementary school wheeling in a CRT so that the class could watch constant live updates as votes came and went. I’m sure that the TV wasn’t actually always there, but in my minds-eye I see every single plume of gray smoke that indicated a failed attempt at election. I don’t remember the white smoke that signaled a new Pope had been chosen, but I do recall being frightened by the image of Benedict XVI when he first appeared.
John Paul II had come across as a kindly paternal figure, but his successor, German-born Joseph Alois Ratzinger, felt oddly sinister. Later revelations about the man regarding his role in covering up cases of sexual abuse within the Church and position in the Hitler Youth as a teenager only validated my initial childhood misgivings about him.
It’s now 2025. As I write this, Benedict’s own successor, anti-capitalist icon Francis, is facing serious health conditions that may prove terminal. As the Catholic Church looks to a possibly impending new conclave, America faces constant ramifications from a political election that felt less like a popularity contest between two figures and an ideological battle for our time. The film Conclave couldn’t have anticipated either of these factors around the time of its release, yet they lingered at the forefront of my mind while watching. The wonder of this fictional election brought me right back to staring at that CRT with rapt attention for any hint of world-changing news.
As I’ve grown up and away from the Church, I’ve realized some things about it that may seem obvious to those of you who’ve never attended a Catholic mass. Namely, it’s a strange institution. Simultaneously holding world-shaping importance and yet mistrusted in places like America where doomsday-cult Evangelism offers itself as the much more popular religious option. Not as maligned as Mormonism or Scientology, but steeped in a history of scandal and insular rituals centered around the Pope, the last true vestige of the medieval era of kings
And that’s before you even get into its aesthetics, simultaneously grand and grotesque. When I read Gideon the Ninth (great book) a couple of years ago, I felt right at home in its gothic, morbid worship of bones and necromancy, directly inspired by Catholicism. At a Church wedding last year, I marveled at the relics kept in a glass case in the lobby. My brother-in-law looked on in horror as I oohed and ahhed at the preserved remains of multiple saints.
Conclave isn’t fully reverential of the Church, nor is it interested in exposing it as a source of institutional child abuse. Instead, the movie, helmed by All Quiet on the Western Front director Edward Berger in his English-language debut, wants to use its unique, frankly strange setting to do some digging. The movie both seriously considers the future of the Catholic Church in the modern world while also offering a metaphor for democratic elections at large and the pitfalls of political tribalism. If that sounds heavy, it is. Did you think the Academy was just nominating musicals this year?
Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence, dean of the College of Cardinals, who must organize and run the conclave after the death of the previous pope. As Lawrence struggles with his Holy Orders, he colludes with fellow liberals to elect Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci) in the face of opposition support for a more conservative, traditional Pope. As revelations about the major candidates come to light and world events threaten to breach the conclave’s isolation, the Dean must work through his personal doubt and usher in the best possible future for a Church divided.
Fiennes, nominated for Best Actor, is phenomenal. Do I need to tell you that? The man’s been a legendary performer longer than I’ve been alive, carrying both genre fare like the Harry Potter franchise and more critically acclaimed gems like The Grand Budapest Hotel, a personal favorite of mine [5/5]. He’s in essentially every scene of Conclave, and I think the movie would be noticeably worse without his performance. It’s filled with emotion, both repressed and expressed, a portrait of a man constantly on the brink of a breakdown. Lawrence is the man in charge of electing the next Pope, and he doesn’t think he should be anywhere near the conclave. What hope do the rest of us have in our day to day life?
The large supporting cast around Fiennes are all almost as good. Tucci isn’t necessarily playing beyond the casual, somewhat sassy persona that he’s cultivated in the past couple of years, but it works for the character of Bellini. He’s progressive, honest, and actively does not want to be Pope (making him the most qualified man for the job). Tucci seems exhausted throughout the whole ordeal, effectively so. Ironically, the only thing he lacks is a messiah complex.
John Lithgow, playing seemingly safe, definitely scheming moderate Cardinal Tremblay, nails the centrism of the character. He’s generally affable to everyone but silent on what actually matters, shifting his charisma and the truth to suit his needs and goals. The character is a brilliant component of the overall dynamic of the conclave. The liberal contingent of cardinals admitting defeat early and begrudgingly throwing their support behind Tremblay feels like a bad idea before his secrets even get out.
They aren’t given as much overarching screentime, but conservative Cardinals Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati) and Todesco (Sergio Castellitto) are each given moments to shine and peddle their traditionalism as the solution to the Church’s modern woes. That namely means gay people and a perceived global incursion by Muslims, making them the defacto villains of Conclave. Their success feels frighteningly inevitable, a constant threat to the more accepting Cardinals like Lawrence and Bellini that feels more and more insurmountable as the movie goes on.
Conclave is a story built around intense one-on-one conversations. Characters reveal themselves primarily in what they say to each other, both in terms of backstory revelations and philosophical musings. It’s even more of a Guys Talking in Rooms movie than Oppenheimer [5/5], but the whispering of secrets and political arguments make its many conversations feel as taut as piano wire. This is not a thriller in content, but its pacing and dialogue had me on the edge of my seat. An actual explosion happens at some point in the movie, and it shook me less than a whispered “Judas” from one character to another.
Berger’s version of the Vatican is absolutely breathtaking. Our characters are surrounded by both centuries-old frescos and state of the art security technology, highlighting the divide in the Church between old and new. Deep shadows permeate the entire conclave, casting stunning artwork and architecture into almost-frightening uncertainty. The moments outside should be a relief, but more often than not they feel like the yard of a prison, not school recess.
Conclave has a few moments of stunning cinematography, highlighting Berger’s expert direction of crowds in large spaces. There’s a shot during the final vote that I won’t spoil that involves all the Cardinals staring at the same thing in silence that, alongside the last shot of the film, will sit with me for a long time. This is a showcase of potent visual storytelling, slowing down when necessary to let you ponder what it is you’re seeing. I’ve heard some people call the movie "boring” for stuff like this, and while I get it, I fully disagree.
That does speak to Conclave not being a movie for everyone though. Its subject matter may not interest you at all, nor may its admittedly pretty heavy handed use of political metaphor. Maybe if resentful allegiance to a centrist didn’t recently just hand this country over to technofascists, I could see the relationship between Lawrence and Tremblay as more nuanced and interesting. That’s what the movie’s going for, after all. Instead, my perception of Lithgow’s character was immediately altered by my own experience: aligning with him is an obvious fool’s errand, even among the voting body of the conclave.
Isabella Rossellini plays Sister Agnes, a nun who acts as the one woman with anything to really do in this movie. Even then, she’s barely a presence, only interacting with the Cardinals briefly a couple of times. Rossellini does really well in the movie, but I don’t know if it’s a performance worthy of her Best Supporting Actress nomination, especially when she’s competing with Monica Barbaro and Ariana Grande.
The biggest narrative flaw with Conclave is Cardinal Benitez, played by Carlos Diehz. The character’s importance is hinted at with a mysterious backstory early on, but Benitez is never fully fleshed out, even as his role in the conclusion of the story becomes more and more obvious. The climax of the movie rests its weight against the character, and while Diehz is fine in the part, his character always felt too distant and in the background given his narrative relevance. His final conversation with Lawrence doesn’t really solve many of the dangling thematic threads like the movie seems to think it does.
I initially ranked Conclave quite highly on Letterboxd, but then I watched another Best Picture nominee that made me realize that, as beautiful, thoughtful, and well-acted as it is, Berger’s film caps out at being “Great” and not “One of the Best of the Decade.” It’s a nearly perfect film technically, and its story (adapted from Robert Harris’s 2016 novel of the same name) had me riveted from beginning to nearly the end. And yet it isn’t a movie that’s really stuck with me in the week or so since I watched it. As lovely as its final moments are, they don’t feel like an earned conclusion to the story, which harms its overall effectiveness.
I still thoroughly enjoyed Conclave; it’s more visually ambitious than A Complete Unknown, better written than Wicked, and makes Emilia Perez look like Post-It note sketch of a stick figure by comparison. As of right now, I’m leaning towards Fiennes to win Best Actor, and while I wouldn’t be mad if Rossellini won Best Supporting Actress, I would be confused. I think it or Nickel Boys may be my favorite for Best Adapted Screenplay, but I haven’t seen Sing Sing yet, so I may be totally surprised come showtime.
It’ll be a stiff competition further down the card, as Conclave has to contend against heavy-hitter Wicked for Best Music, Best Production Design, and Best Costume Design. I think Conclave looks slightly better than its musical competition thanks to better color grading and no reliance on questionable CG, but neither movie winning in these categories would upset me too much. Repeat after me: So long as it isn’t Emilia Perez.
We’ll likely see a new Pope elected within the next couple of months, meaning that Conclave will remain relevant regardless of its success at the Academy Awards. Hopefully its place as a prestigious centerpiece for Peacock doesn’t prevent it from eventually being a network TV staple, because I can see an audience building around it year over year. It’s a beautiful looking, beautifully acted film that stumbles on some of its political metaphors (especially at the very end), but as someone who still feels a deep cultural connection to the Church, I found it deeply enjoyable.