Skip to main content

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Because The Two Popes, despite its prestige leads and director (Fernando Meirelles, although admittedly, he hasn’t really wowed anyone since The Constant Gardener), has been massaged into meticulous averageness of content by screenwriter Anthony McCarten, adapting his book The Pope: Francis, Benedict and the Decision that Shook the World. You may not have heard of McCarten, but he has firmly established himself as the go-to-guy for meticulously average, inoffensively palatable biopic content in the form of lightweight populist awards darlings The Theory of Everything, Darkest Hour and Bohemian Rhapsody.

Now, I’m not knocking any of these in terms of being agreeably watchable movies, each with a range of satisfying performances and displaying impressive craftsmanship on all counts. However, their greater commonality is an utter lack of anything approaching a challenging take on their subjects. Each comes out of the McCarten blender shorn of any edges, transformed into personality-free pulp designed to be as easily and effortlessly digestible as possible; they’re Oscar-worthy (with The Theory of Everything and now The Two Popes, McCarten has received two Best Screenplay nods) Lifetime movie fare. He’s the crown prince of the safe biopic.

So if you thought McCarten might seriously get to grips with weighty, sobering issues – and those are the only issues when it comes to the Catholic church today – you can put that one safely to bed. Early on in The Two Popes, there’s a flavour, a pleasant waft, suggesting he might go in such a direction, just as in all his films, there’s a glimmer that intelligence and insight into his subject matter might gain ground, before something much less confrontational determinedly holds sway. Meirelles utilises period footage (often from the BBC) as he documents the death of John Paul II and the scandals that engulf the church under his successor Benedict XVI’s reign (2005-13). Cardinal Bergoglio was the “runner-up” in that election, eventually to become Pope Francis when Benedict stepped down, and the “in” for McCarten in this story proved easy; the clash of attitudes between the two pontiffs. The (relatively) progressive Argentinian man of the people, shunning the prestige and baubles of office, versus the strict German disciplinarian, who feels his predecessor became too liberal and that change is compromise.

And their first meeting proper – when they previously encountered each other, Benedict registered undisguised distaste for Bergoglio’s freer attitudes – is, credit where it’s due, exactly what one might hope from a dramatisation of their conflicting ethea. Bergoglio (Pryce) has come to see Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) at the Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the pope’s summer retreat, wishing to resign, and Benedict, while taking him to task for his principles, consistently avoids the salient matter.

We see Bergoglio enjoying the grounds, casually getting on with the gardener, before the two get down to meaty doctrinal matters (the celibacy of priests, homosexuality, the communion). Bergoglio has no compunction in looking inconsistency in the eye, while Benedict would seek to bury it beneath rigidity and dogma; there were no mention of angels prior to the fifth century, Bergoglio tells him, “and suddenly, angels are everywhere”. His point being that nothing is static, “not even God”. “God doesn’t change” snaps the indignant pope. “Yes, he does” replies his cardinal. “He comes towards us.”

Unfortunately, McCarten doesn’t take long to dispense with such high-minded talk, opting instead to turn this tale of two popes into a buddy movie, one where they exchange confessions and embrace mutual respect. Bergoglio allowed himself to be cowed to the fascists four decades earlier and has never forgiven himself (albeit he clearly wasn’t chastened to the degree that he felt himself unfit for the priesthood), and a good portion of his countryfolk have never forgiven him either. Benedict meanwhile, rather than telling Bergoglio how much he regrets having been in the Hitler Youth – the closest we get to this being explicitly referenced is footage of a critic yelling “The Nazi should never have been elected” – confesses that he ignored evidence of paedophile priests.

In response to which, Benedict is outraged. Albeit, McCarten pulls a massive dodge here, either because he can’t be arsed to actually dig into the matter or because he feels it would surrender the picture’s commerciality/appeal (as if it was ever going to float in that regard – why else did it end up with Netflix?) Whatever the white noise content of their exchange, don’t worry, never fear, it isn’t enough to dent what is becoming a rollicking good friendship. The picture thus takes on a more and more anaemic course as it continues. Even the extended flashbacks to young Bergoglio’s fall from grace have a slightly antiseptic, handwringing quality. I’m sure McCarten will argue that he didn’t shy away from this element and wants viewers to make up their own minds, but it serves to underline the picture’s fatal lack of a point of view.

The Two Popes is, ultimately, a very comfortable and non-confrontational biopic, one that wants you to like both these men (so it’s like every other biopic McCarten has written). It’s junk food served on a silver platter. As a consequence, its problem fact check-wise, isn’t that there’s inevitable make-believe, it’s that the make-believe – starting with Bergoglio even meeting with Benedict to discuss his retirement – is so facile. Naturally, there are moves to soften or humanise these figures, no small feat in Benedict’s case (he really does like Fanta, but being a fan of Kommissar Rex, about a crime-busting German Shepherd is hilariously daft), but when the film concludes with the carefree pair watching the 2014 World Cup Final together, having already witnessed Bergoglio invite Benedict to tango, you have to throw up your hands in despair. Or seek out something truly thought provoking. Maybe, I don’t know, climb aboard a Tube train in the vain hope Winnie will appear and take stock as he listens to the proles tell him how it is.

The performances are very good, Pryce in particular, in many scenes delivering to my imperfect ear convincingly fluent Spanish and getting all the loveable beats (including being a footie fan and telling jokes such as “How does an Argentinian kill himself? He climbs to the top of his ego and jumps off”). Hopkins is also serviceable, although I ended up wondering why they didn’t have done with it and cast Ian McDiarmid.

Still, though, the duo’s Oscar nominations belie that this is a script throwing them disingenuous softballs (“The hardest thing is to listen. To hear his voice”. “Even for a pope?” asks the wondering Bergoglio, which is a question of the writer, not a cardinal well aware of his own and infallible popes’ failings). I wouldn’t have expected The Two Popes to attack the edifice of the Roman Catholic Church – it might have known where to start, but where would it end? – but I could still have hoped it would have been slightly less toothless than it is. Meirelles’ film is easy-going viewing – that’s McCarten for you – but ultimately less satisfying than the writer’s previous eager-to-please biopics. Because, I think, anyone who isn’t a lifetime member of the Vatican fan club would not unreasonably have expected it to dig a little deeper.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.