Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 2 hours, 5 minutes
Director: Fernando Meirelles
Quick Impressions:
This movie is so delightful. Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce have wonderful chemistry and both bring such infectious energy to their roles. As I watched, though, I could not help asking myself at every minute, “How much of this is true? How could the author know some of these things?” I know only that when desperate for something to read a few weeks ago, I read some online reviews of screenwriter Anthony McCarten’s book The Two Popes, and they were all abysmal. So I would like to know how much of this is based on fact, and how much is simply the screenwriter’s fantasy. I am positive Anthony McCarten wasn’t lurking in the bushes at Castel Gondalfo, chatting with the gardener about oregano and eavesdropping on the Pope’s private conversations. And certainly there is no chance the titular pair heard each other’s confessions, then provided McCarten with a transcript. Even non-Catholics know priests can’t break the seal of the confessional because this is a common plot point in melodramatic crime fiction.
But did these conversations take place at all? Has McCarten interviewed sources, or is he just imagining the entire dialogue based on the facts he does know about Benedict and Frances? I thought it must be largely the latter which is not a bad thing. It’s sort of like reading The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail. A cursory zip through the internet seems to confirm my suspicions. McCarten did a lot of research, but he did not interview either pope. Apparently, this is like one of those classroom assignments I remember from college. Socrates, Descartes, and Nietzsche walk into a bar to have a drink together. Write a dialogue of how their conversation would go.
Based on what I’ve read, although the-soon-to-be Francis did try in vain to resign, he did not actually fly to Rome and engage in a series of private talks with Pope Benedict.
McCarten is essentially ventriloquizing these two men of God, creating dialogue that reflects their publicly stated beliefs. (This is what he says he’s doing, by the way. He’s not pretending to have overheard conversations.) There is certainly no shortage of material to draw from. He’s basically personifying two viewpoints and bringing them into dialogue. He says that he did it because Catholics (and in fact, humans) are so polarized these days but need to agree to come together in communion to reach genuine understanding and move forward. Director Fernando Meirelles says he was drawn to the idea of the growing friendship between two ideologically different men of God. Both screenwriter and director apparently wanted to give the world a parable about how to get along. These are commendable goals, and the Vatican doesn’t seem angry about the film.
Honestly, no one should be angry about being portrayed so sympathetically. This film reminds me of the 2006 success The Queen, which remains one of the strongest films I’ve ever seen thanks in part to the excellence of Helen Mirren’s Oscar winning lead performance. That movie was clearly designed to make Elizabeth II a more sympathetic figure in the public eye, and this film clearly wants to redeem the papacy in the eyes of the secular public.
I watched this largely because I’m obsessed with the Academy Awards (and I do think Hopkins especially deserves recognition for his captivating performance). But I’m also a Catholic, and my alma mater actually has a second campus extremely near Castel Gandolfo, so the material itself is of interest to me, too. And I liked the movie even if it isn’t true, and even though McCarten tries to make Benedict more likable by seemingly suggesting that he had an epiphany that God wanted someone more liberal in charge. I’m quite liberal myself these days, and I’ll admit this suggestion is artfully implemented, but still, I doubt very much that Benedict himself would tell us the same story we get in this film.
The Good:
Months ago while scrolling through my Facebook feed on my phone, I glanced down and wondered, “What is Pope Benedict doing playing the piano with Jonathan Pryce?” I had to look much more closely to realize I was actually looking at Anthony Hopkins in an ad for this movie. And about a week after that, awards season junkies started buzzing about The Two Popes all over the internet. I had to admit, “You were right, Facebook. That video was for me.”
Both actors give excellent, Oscar-worthy performances in this film, but I personally think Hopkins is slightly better. (Well more than slightly better. His performance is by far the best thing about the film.) For some odd reason, he really seems to become Pope Benedict. I say it’s odd because the physical resemblance isn’t that strong, and the accent doesn’t seem particularly…correct, and yet half glancing at him in that ad, I recognized Pope Benedict right away. As I watched the movie, I believed Hopkins was Pope Benedict, that he truly spoke for him and gave us insight into his character and beliefs. Since Hopkins is a much bigger star than Pryce, the fact that I looked at him and saw only Pope Benedict is slightly surprising. (Then again, Benedict did have a signature look. Who can forget those red shoes?)
Pryce gives a good performance, too. (I understand why he’s running in lead, Hopkins in supporting, but since Hopkins won Best Actor for his paltry minutes of screentime in The Silence of the Lambs…Well, whatever, they’re both good, and they both deserve a shot at an Oscar nomination.) Pryce makes an extremely convincing Pope Francis. Facially, he seems to resemble him far more than Hopkins looks like Benedict, though weirdly, as I said, I found Hopkins more convincing, almost eerily so.
For a movie about two old men talking together about theology, this film is surprisingly engaging and entertaining. It’s also quite funny, like The Odd Couple with popes. I love their banter and their adorable misunderstandings. Pope Benedict’s Fitbit is hilarious, too. (Is its voice also meant to be symbolic? Does he actually have a Fitbit? These are the questions that keep me awake at night!)
The film has such energy, and also some lovely imagery. (Part of what makes its visuals so good are all of the lovely locations. Apparently, the confessional we see in one flashback is the actual one in which the young Pope Francis decided to become a priest. I learned that bit of trivia while scouring the internet for information about how McCarten researched and wrote the screenplay.)
Best Scene Visually:
I love that garden at Castel Gandolfo. At one point, someone’s eyes pop up over the hedge in such a funny way. In a later moment, Pope Benedict appears to be wandering off into the beginning of The Divine Comedy.
Best Action Sequence:
The bit at the piano is quite fascinating. It shows us how the two fail to connect but also teases the possibility of how a meaningful connection might be formed.
The sequence featuring the exchanged confessions is best. Even if elements of it frustrate me so much, both actors do some of their best, most emotional work here. Hopkins is absolutely riveting. The bit with the shared pizza is pretty great, too.
Most Oscar-Worthy Moment, Anthony Hopkins:
I was spellbound by everything Anthony Hopkins said. He seemed to be channeling Pope Benedict. I found him so immensely compelling. I never see Pope Benedict XVI without thinking of one of my undergraduate theology professors who told us, “Cardinal Ratzinger is the prefect. That used to be the Grand Inquisitor, but to be less threatening, they changed his name…and his robe! He now wears baby blue!” (She was just kidding about the robe.) If I had to single out one moment of the performance, I’d point to the time when Benedict discusses his anguish about silence during the exchange of confessions. He’s also uncannily good in the early garden sequence, almost like a different man, though. Hopkins is a great actor. I’d love to see his work recognized.
Most Oscar-Worthy Moment, Jonathan Pryce:
Jonathan Pryce was so good opposite Glenn Close in The Wife last year, but nobody seemed to care. I’m glad to see him getting positive attention (including a Golden Globe nomination) for his work here. Like Hopkins, he gets to show deep emotion during the exchange of confessions, but I like him better in the more casual scenes. He’s quite charming when he strolls through the garden and chats with the gardener.
The Negatives:
This movie puts a lot of words into the mouths of these two popes. What Benedict says in his confession–that is truly weighty and seems to undermine a worldview that I would bet money the real man still espouses. It’s kind of like making him say, “God stopped speaking to me until I realized it was morally wrong not to be a progressive liberal.” Speaking for myself, it’s a very nice fantasy to believe that the former prefect and scholar decided that God was telling him to open his mind to more convenient views for liberal Christians. But I don’t think it’s entirely fair to make Benedict say these things that I very much doubt he said. In fact, it’s entirely unfair and intellectually dishonest.
Now, here is something I will never forget. One night, I was reading something Benedict wrote (or maybe something he wrote as Ratzinger). I felt overcome with frustration and confusion and prayed, “What kind of Catholic am I? Pope Benedict seems so sure about certain things. I’m not sure I can agree with him. But he has such unwavering certainty.”
The next morning, I heard that he was stepping down.
But then he didn’t write me a letter saying, “And a new pope is coming whose beliefs the world at large will find more palatable, and after a surprise change of heart prompted by God, I now agree with him completely, and I also agree with anything else that would be convenient for you.”
In so many ways, this film is almost shockingly kind to Benedict. It hardly mentions the scandal of the abuse of the young, and even when confessing his guilt here, Benedict also tells us that what he is actually guilty of is not reading all of the papers on his desk, of not being aware of what was happening. Even though we get a deep dive into Cardinal Bergoglio’s past sins, we never hear about the Hitler Youth. Some random guy in a bar refers to Benedict as a Nazi, and Francis chides him, “No!” That single word refutation is very powerful because the audience is meant to see Cardinal Bergoglio as the morally correct one. If he says, “No,” that is enough for us. (To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t follow Pope Francis. I’m a fan. I’m also not saying Pope Benedict should be blamed for being forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child. I’m just pointing out that this movie seems determined to rehabilitate Benedict in the public eye.)
I am absolutely fine with the movie making the two popes appear to be good (and nice) people. I’m Catholic. The film also reveals some sins of Pope Francis’s past, but basically only to show us that they weren’t as bad as his detractors say because he had good intentions and was in a terrible situation. McCarten seems to be an apologist for both popes, and that’s fine. Certainly, abundant ink and air time has been devoted to their describing their failings.
There’s just something irkingly dishonest about this method of improving someone’s image, though. If people watch this film and like Benedict, is it the real Benedict they like? In a similar way, viewers could be forgiven for believing Francis is ready to throw dogma, doctrine, tradition, all of it, right out the window. This is not true either. I do believe the movie is correct in painting Benedict as a scholar, Francis as more of a people person. (As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict was an exemplary prefect, and as Cardinal Bergoglio, Francis clearly loved to move among the people.) But I would imagine that most of their core beliefs are exactly the same.
My non-Catholic sister, who watched with us, had a similar observation, from a different perspective. She said, “Anthony Hopkins being charming does not take away from all the harm that was done to children.” It’s like the flip side of what I am saying. Making Benedict more lovable to the general public is a pointless exercise if the Benedict in the film is not the same person as the actual Benedict. Just this year, the actual Benedict published his actual thoughts about sexual abuse in the Church. They are not going to be what many people want to hear. This is definitely a film that wants to rehabilitate the reputation of Pope Benedict, but it does it by presenting a false version of Pope Benedict, one that (if examined closely) might well offend those who admire the real man’s virtues and those who despise him for his failings.
I was also less taken with the flashbacks to Cardinal Bergoglio’s past than with the other scenes. They were informative and carefully crafted, and perhaps more honest than some of the “odd couple” scenes, but I missed the crackling interactions of Hopkins and Pryce. The flashback sequences reminded me of an earlier film by director Fernando Meirelles, The Constant Gardener, a movie I did not like as much as most people.
Overall: