- A brilliant film about two men with very different views about the church and God who find common ground in their own humanity.

Full Disclosure: I am not a Catholic, but I have to confess that I’m fascinated by the inner workings of Catholic church politics – how papal elections work, the secrets that the Vatican holds in its vaults, the history of a leadership position that has a near-unbroken line going back almost 2000 years, etc. I didn’t know much about this film beforehand, other than it dealt with those issues, and had two great actors in the lead roles.

Review

The Two Popes is a movie that feels both intimate and global at the same time. It is mostly a film that consists of quiet conversations between two old white men, and yet the impact of those conversations reaches around the world. It focusses on imagined conversations between the two most recent popes, Benedict XVI and Francis, near the end of Benedict’s papacy, as he struggles with the decision to step down, and Francis’ own conflict about whether or not he’d be the right man to take over.

Much like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, this is a movie that feels like it speaks directly to our time. Fundamentally, it’s a film about two people finding common ground despite diametrically opposed views on the liberalism-conservatism spectrum. It’s about finding common humanity. Whether or not you believe that popes are actually the instruments of god, this movie explores just how human they can be, with insecurities, regrets, and questions just like everyone else.

The movie is based on a play by Anthony McCarten (who also wrote the screenplay), and despite the beautiful settings, it still feels very much like something you could see on the stage. Of course, in a movie or play dominated by conservations between two people, a key to its success will be the acting of the two leads. No problem here, as director Fernando Meirelles (City of God, The Constant Gardener) managed to secure the services of two of the best actors of their generation – Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce. Do I even need to state that the acting is incredible? Well, it is. Both men can do so much in a simple look that much of the story is actually told in their reactions to each other – a smile here, a questioning glance there, a disapproving frown.

It’s hard to imagine that a movie that mostly consists of two old white men talking would hold ones interest. Having those two men played by Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce is a good start.

The film begins with the two men at odds. They aren’t friends, and barely acknowledge each other during the papal enclave following the death of Pope John Paul II. The lines are drawn: Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict) is the arch-conservative, seeking to maintain John Paul’s legacy, Cardinal Bergoglio (future Pope Francis) is the reformer who sees the church losing membership and believes it is desperately out of touch with the changing world. When they meet again several years later after Bergoglio is called to the Vatican to meet with Pope Benedict, those differences are even more pronounced. Bergoglio is distraught with the church’s handling of decades of abuse by priests, and Benedict sees Bergoglio as a constant critic and thorn in his side. “The way you live is a criticism. Your shoes are a criticism,” he exclaims at one point, a fun nod to the real life differences in the public style preferences of the two men.

For the most part, this is Pope Francis’ story. He’s the one that gets the exploration of his backstory, complete with flashbacks to his youth and time as a young priest in Argentina. At times these flashbacks threaten to distract from the main story of the relationship between the two popes. Although the story always comes back in a satisfying way, some of these scenes could probably be cut down a little bit. However, the scenes are important to the character of Francis, and why he finds himself reluctant to take over the mantle of pope. There’s actually another fascinating story in there somewhere, how the church maintains cohesion in times of great political turmoil, such as the dictatorship in Argentina in the 70s and 80s, when people are forced to choose sides. I’d love to see that movie someday.

The Vatican doesn’t allow filming inside its important halls and rooms for narrative films, and this movie was no exception. You wouldn’t know it. The scenes that take place in the hallways of the Vatican, and most impressively, the Sistine Chapel, were so realistic-looking that it seems as if they had to have been there. These were all sets, some of which included walls and ceilings “tattooed” with artwork to imitate the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, a method chosen because apparently layering posters would have given a different gloss and shine. I don’t rarely comment on the work of set designers, but this is amazing stuff.

Spoilers Ahead

For this movie they built an entire set that was a scale reconstruction of the Sistine Chapel. It’s incredible.

In the story of the film, Benedict is trying to come to grips with the fact that he believes he should step down, but he wants to speak with the man who is likely to be elected his successor before he can feel comfortable doing so. Over the course of their conversations, which include sidebar discussions about music and sports, they come to respect the other’s viewpoints, and their place in the church, even if they still fundamentally disagree on certain issues.

Ultimately, it is their common failings which seal the deal. They both have things in their past for which they need forgiveness, and they come to realize that while the Pope is supposed to be infallible, as human beings they have regrets and have made mistakes. For Bergoglio, it is his actions during the Argentinian dictatorship, during which he believes he abandoned some of his fellow priests while trying to placate the brutal regime. For Benedict, it’s a little more circumspect (the audio cuts out as he’s confessing to Bergoglio), but it’s clear that he harbours regrets over his inaction when faced with accusations in the past about pedophile priests.

I’m not going to sit here and debate how much of this story is true. There are others who know much more about the subject matter than I do, who can and have been arguing this topic. Even the name “The Two Popes” has garnered some scrutiny, because apparently it insinuates some ecclesiastical bullshit that I think is irrelevant to the point of the film. Suffice it to say, this is largely a work of fiction. But I’m not sure that it matters. This isn’t a documentary. This is a movie with a message, and that message is one that is worthwhile.

The pomp and drama of a papal enclave. Ridiculous outfits aside, this is pretty impressive stuff.

5 Quick Hits

It’s uncanny how much Jonathan Pryce at times looks like Pope Francis. There have been memes about this, especially when he was playing the High Sparrow on Game of Thrones. Given the way he humourlessly sat through the entire Golden Globes Awards, he probably isn’t aware of this, but it’s still cool that he was available for this project.
A fun detail that I enjoyed: Bergoglio going through airport security and having to place his large cross chain, made of iron, on a tray and through the metal detector.
The scene at the end of the film, after Francis has become pope, where the two of them are sitting together watching the finals of the 2014 World Cup between their two home countries, Germany and Argentina, was apparently written after McCarten saw a picture of the two men watching TV and imagined that this is what they were watching. I don’t know if it’s true, but it would be so great if it was.
The movie makes reference to an album that Pope Benedict XVI recorded. This is supposedly a real thing. I haven’t yet had the heart to search it out on Spotify.
This is apropos of nothing, but I’ve always wondered if the Swiss Guards are any good. I imagine they would have to be - Vatican security is no joke. But those uniforms and halberds must be more form than function. Do the baggy clothes these days hide more modern weapons?