Conclave Movie: Discover the Secrets of the Vatican

I share my experience watching the Conclave movie, a thriller that reveals the behind-the-scenes story of the papal election and provokes reflections on faith, tradition and modernity in the Catholic Church.

When cinema meets the mysteries of the Vatican

I confess that I have always had an almost childish curiosity about what goes on behind the closed doors of the Vatican.

So when I heard about the release of "Conclave", based on the best-selling book by Robert Harris, I didn't think twice about booking my ticket for the first available session.

And what a transformative experience that was!

Sitting in the cinema seat, with the lights slowly fading, I had no idea that the next two hours would lead me to question not only the mechanisms of power within the Catholic Church, but also my own conceptions about faith, tradition and the role of religious institutions in the contemporary world.

Have you ever had that feeling of leaving the cinema with more questions than answers?

Well, “Conclave” gave me exactly that – and, surprisingly, this restlessness was one of the most valuable things I took with me.

The premise: much more than a simple papal election

For those who don't know, “Conclave” narrates the events that follow the sudden death of the Pope.

Cardinal Lawrence (masterfully played by Ralph Fiennes) is appointed to lead the conclave – the secret process of electing the new Pope.

While dealing with his own doubts of faith and the intricate power struggles between the cardinals.

What initially appears to be a traditional and solemn religious procedural quickly turns into a gripping thriller.

Full of twists and turns that keep the viewer constantly on the edge of their seats.

Every vote inside the Sistine Chapel heightens the tension, every conversation in the hallways hides layers of meaning.

However, it would be reductionist to describe “Conclave” as just a religious thriller.

In fact, the film uses this unique setting to explore universal themes such as ambition, corruption, redemption and the search for truth.

The immersive atmosphere: when the setting becomes a character

One of the first things that struck me about “Conclave” was the meticulous reconstruction of the Vatican environment.

While they obviously didn't film in the actual Vatican, the production managed to capture the oppressive and majestic essence of the marble corridors, ornate chapels, and austere chambers.

The film's photography deserves special mention.

The lighting – often natural, coming through colored stained glass or simple high windows – creates a constant play between light and shadow that serves as a visual metaphor for the moral and spiritual conflicts that permeate the narrative.

Furthermore, the clever use of confined spaces contributes to the growing feeling of claustrophobia.

As the conclave progresses and tensions rise, the corridors seem narrower, the ceilings lower, the walls closer together – a direct reflection of the mental state of the main characters.

The soundtrack, with its choral compositions and minimalist arrangements, perfectly complements the atmosphere of solemnity and mystery.

There were moments when I found myself holding my breath, completely immersed in the tension created by the combination of music and image.

Ralph Fiennes and a star-studded cast: when less is more

Speaking of performances, Ralph Fiennes delivers a restrained and powerful performance as Cardinal Lawrence.

What impressed me most was his ability to communicate complex internal struggles with minimal expressive resources – a look, a hesitation in speech, a subtle change in posture.

Fiennes' character is fascinating precisely because of his humanity.

He is neither hero nor villain, but a man of genuine faith who finds himself constantly torn between his sense of duty to the Church and his growing awareness that something is deeply wrong with the power structures that sustain it.

The supporting cast, comprised of actors of the caliber of Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow, contribute equally nuanced performances, creating a mosaic of personalities and motivations that reflects the diversity and contradictions within the Catholic Church itself.

The interactions between the cardinals – sometimes tense, sometimes comical, always full of subtext – are among the most memorable moments in the film.

There is one particular scene in which a simple dinner turns into a minefield of alliances and rivalries that made me realize how much “Conclave” is, also, a fascinating study of human nature.

A twist that questions dogmas

Warning: this section contains spoilers!

I can’t talk about “Conclave” without mentioning its final twist — a moment that drew audible gasps from the theater where I watched it.

The revelation of the true identity of Cardinal Benitez (played by Sergio Castellitto) is one of those cinematic moments that redefines everything we have seen before.

When we discover that Benitez, elected as the new Pope, is actually a woman who has lived disguised as a man for decades, the film transcends religious thriller to become a powerful reflection on gender, identity and the foundations of religious traditions.

This twist is not merely shocking in and of itself – it forces us to reconsider the entire previous narrative in a new light.

Every dialogue, every look, every decision gains new layers of meaning. And most importantly, it makes us question how many other established “truths” could be equally challenged.

It was precisely at this moment that I realized the true power of “Conclave”: its ability to use a fictional story to make us examine very concrete realities about institutions, traditions and resistance to change.

The reflections that remain: Faith, Institution and Modernity

Days after watching the film, I realized that “Conclave” had planted seeds of reflection in me that continued to germinate.

As someone interested in both film and spiritual matters, I found the film to be a rare balance between quality entertainment and thematic depth.

One of the most thought-provoking questions the film raises is the tension between personal faith and religious institutions.

Cardinal Lawrence, throughout the narrative, must reconcile his sincere devotion with the recognition of the human failings that permeate the organization to which he has dedicated his life.

This dichotomy seems to me extremely relevant to the current times, where many people describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious” – a distinction that reflects precisely this conflict between the personal search for the transcendent and the distrust towards institutionalized structures.

Another theme that the film addresses with remarkable subtlety is the role of tradition.

“Conclave” invites us to consider that traditions are important and give continuity and meaning to religious practices, but they can also become obstacles to the adaptation necessary for the survival and relevance of institutions in the contemporary world.

As a viewer, I found myself wavering between admiration for the beauty of the centuries-old rituals depicted in the film and recognition that some of these traditions may no longer adequately respond to the issues and needs of today's world.

When cinema provokes necessary conversations

One of the greatest qualities of “Conclave”, in my opinion, is its ability to generate discussions.

I left the cinema and immediately called a friend who had also seen the film – our conversation lasted for hours, covering everything from technical aspects of the production to deep theological questions.

This is, for me, the sign of a truly impactful film: one that doesn't end when the credits roll, but continues to resonate in our minds and hearts, provoking dialogue and reflection.

In times of extreme polarization, where conversations about religion often descend into unproductive antagonisms, “Conclave” offers common ground for nuanced discussions.

The film does not explicitly take sides or condemn the Church as an institution – it simply presents complex characters, with virtues and flaws, navigating morally ambiguous situations.

This mature approach allows viewers from different religious and philosophical backgrounds to find points of identification in the narrative, facilitating conversations that might otherwise be difficult to initiate.

Technical aspects that enrich the experience

For film buffs who are more attentive to technical aspects, “Conclave” offers a true cinema lesson.

The direction by Edward Berger (the same director of the acclaimed “All Quiet on the Western Front”) demonstrates mastery in controlling the narrative rhythm.

The film precisely alternates moments of quiet introspection and scenes of intense verbal exchange, creating a cadence that reflects the conclave process itself – periods of solitary contemplation interspersed with heated debates.

The editing deserves special mention, particularly in the voting scenes.

The rapid cutting between the cardinals’ faces, each revealing varying degrees of surprise, disappointment or satisfaction with each announcement of votes, creates a visual microcosm of the complex power dynamics at play.

The sound design also contributes significantly to the experience.

Silence is used as a narrative element – moments without dialogue or music are as eloquent as the words spoken out loud.

The echo of footsteps in the empty corridors, the rustle of cardinals' vestments, the sound of rain against the stained glass windows – every sound element was meticulously planned to amplify the film's contemplative atmosphere.

Comparisons with other works on the Vatican

“Conclave” stands out in the panorama of films that address the Vatican and its mysteries.

Unlike works such as “Angels and Demons” (2009), which adopts a more sensationalist approach, or “The Two Popes” (2019), focused on the relationship between pontiffs Benedict XVI and Francis, “Conclave” finds its difference in the detailed exploration of the internal mechanisms of power and influence.

As I watched, I was occasionally reminded of Paolo Sorrentino’s series “The Young Pope,” which also examines the contradictions and complexities of the Holy See.

However, “Conclave” adopts a more restrained and realistic tone, less stylized and provocative than Sorrentino’s work.

This more sober approach does not mean, however, that the film is less impactful.

On the contrary – there is a quiet strength to “Conclave” that derives precisely from its refusal to resort to dramatic or stylistic exaggeration.

Who would I recommend “Conclave” to?

After sharing my experience with “Conclave,” many friends asked me if they should watch the movie.

My answer has been consistent: this is not a film for everyone, but it is certainly a film that deserves to be seen by many.

I recommend “Conclave” especially for:

• Lovers of slow-paced, high-tension psychological thrillers
• People interested in the power dynamics within traditional institutions
• Viewers who appreciate subtle, nuanced performances
• For those looking for thought-provoking films about faith, tradition and change
• Film buffs who value impeccable technical production and careful direction

On the other hand, it may not be the best choice for those who:

• Prefers fast-paced movies with lots of action
• Looking for light and uncommitted entertainment
• Feel uncomfortable with questions about religious institutions

The cultural impact and the discussions generated

Since its release, “Conclave” has sparked intense debate in both religious and secular circles.

Some Catholic leaders criticized the film for its depiction of the church's internal dynamics, while others praised its courage in addressing sensitive issues without sensationalism.

Film critics have mainly highlighted the technical excellence of the production and the memorable performances.

At film festivals, “Conclave” has received particular acclaim for its balanced script, which manages to be provocative without descending into gratuitous disrespect.

On social media, I noticed heated discussions about the film's ending, with opinions sharply divided on whether the final twist strengthens or weakens the film's overall message.

This division, in my view, is testament to the film's effectiveness in touching sensitive points and provoking genuine reflection.

A film that remains

Weeks after watching “Conclave,” I realize that scenes, dialogues, and images from the film keep popping into my mind at unexpected moments.

This persistence is, for me, the true test of a cinematic work's impact.

The film made me rethink my own relationship with traditions and institutions, and reminded me of the power of art to provoke important questions without providing simplistic answers.

In an increasingly polarized world, where complexity is often sacrificed for the sake of comfortable certainties, “Conclave” stands out as an invitation to nuance and reflection.

If you decide to watch this remarkable film, I suggest you do so with an open mind and allow yourself to be challenged by its provocations.

And then, invite someone to a conversation about what you watched – I guarantee there will be no shortage of topics.

Have you seen “Conclave”? What was your impression of the film and especially of that surprising ending?

Share your experience in the comments – I look forward to continuing this conversation!