We Have a Pope (2011)

This particular movie is based on a very original idea. It has scenes that depict with vividness the process of Papal succession. It portrays the ambivalence and doubts of a man and a collective entity when faced with a weight of responsibility which is much greater than that expected to be shouldered by an average human being. It very well conveys the atmosphere in St Peter's Square among the multinational crowd of the faithful as they wait for the election of their new spiritual Father. But it has a flaw.

It promotes the idea that the collective entity known as the College of Cardinals, a team which along with the Pope rules the Roman Catholic Church, is a group of grown-up boys, simple and faithful, humbly devoted to the Pope. It is strange that an institution that numbered among its former Heads people such as the Borgias and the Medici, which has been responsible for such events such as the Crusades and has invented and controlled the Inquisition could be nowadays governed by a group of naive simpletons. Of course the Roman Catholic Church has promoted art and learning and has played a great role in the history of Europe and the World.

Still, an institution from which so much evil as well as so much good has sprung, does not in any sense done justice when its hierarchy is portrayed in such a manner. In that point I disagree with the reviewer that considers that the movie has a sympathetic portrayal of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I think the portrayal of the hierarchy is far too simplistic and naive and gives the impression that even the professors of Hogwards in Harry Potter are a group of people that collectively possess more gravitas and serious purpose than the College of Cardinals. Neither the faithful nor the opponents of the Roman Catholic Church would find in this group either role models or worthy adversaries.

Excluding that flaw, which incapacitates the movie from been taken seriously as a depiction of the workings of the higher echelons of the Church bureaucracy, one can commend the views of the Vatican and of Rome it offers as well as the performance of the lead actors in the roles of the Supreme Pontiff and the Professor of Psychology.

Fmovies: We have a Pope, or Habemus Papem, starts with the death of the Pope and the funeral procession at the Vatican. The scenery is spectacular with Cardinals from all over the world reciting prayers. The story then switches to the voting for the new Pontiff. The election of the new Vicar of Christ, played brilliantly by Michel Piccoli, is a very interesting concept.

Piccoli has severe doubts as to his ability to lead the Catholic Church and refuses to accept his fellow Cardinals decision appointing him to be in charge of the great bureaucracy of Rome.

The best psychiatrist in Italy is brought in to help the newly elected Pope deal with his anxiety. He leaves the Vatican for a few days to travel incognito and find himself among the common people. I won't continue so as not to spoil the rest of the film except to say that it remains interesting throughout. It never becomes preachy and the cast is excellent, led by Michel Piccoli.

This is going to be one of the most watchable films of the year, a conversation piece to shoot the breeze around religion. It is about a new Pope elect who, after the elaborate ritual has drawn thousands of people in anxious anticipation outside the Holy See, discovers that he cannot go out on the balcony and give his blessing. He cannot be what he's expected to be.

So the eye turns inwards for self-discovery. On that level the film adopts a tone of melancholy yearning. It is sad, just to see a man weighed down by the will of god, possibly dismayed at the silence. On the flipside it is funny, when all the ordained officials are worried about is the ceremonial shibboleth or a cup of cappuccino. It is generally bittersweet with old life greeting itself from a pulpit that demands closure, revelation. Meanwhile conjecture and idle speculation are continuously throughout the film being blabbed from the TV.

But does it matter, which is to say can it weigh down on us or instill a silence in which to seek our words? I'm not just idling here, what I mean is this; although enjoyable on a very plain level, melancholy with red curtains fluttering in absence, and since it competed with both Tree of Life and Melancholia this year at Cannes, does it offer its own ascetic images to contemplate?

The answer is likely no, but not for failing to provide opportunities. Exemplified in two instances, double perspectives both; one is of course at the beginning, with outside the triumph and celebration of organized faith, faith in god's will, but from inside there is only the confused, agitated mind of a plain man who must embody that will. The other is when the cardinals rejoice that the Pope is finally doing better; but of course, from our perspective, we know that inside the chambers is only an even more plain man as substitute, baffled at his newfound importance. He stages behind the papal curtains a play of light and shadow for the gathered congregation outside, this is a fitting image of what Moretti is looking to exemplify.

So in both cases we are directed to recognize a charade of profoundest deception or false hope. Where god should be made manifest, we have instead the same hapless poor schmucks as the rest of us. There is no higher wisdom, atheists will rejoice in this. Another opinion is that his depiction of cardinals, despite the odd sour face, as kindly old men, overgrown children really, is not as scathing as some might have hoped.

But the old man heard at the sermon, about the wisdom that comes from humility. Some weighs we let fall on our shoulders, because there's no two ways around it. So even though this spiritual absence becomes deafening in the finale, I just cannot embrace any of it.

Catholicism may or may not deserve our modern scorn, but faith isn't doctrine. Faith being a personal attainment, it is not an old man greeting us from a balcony.

We Have a Pope fmovies. Moretti is an interesting director and his documentaries and movies (like "The Son's Room") shows us why. But what in the name of the Holy Spirit is he trying to tell us here? To get a foothold inside the Vatican, the nucleus of one of the great (well, at least by numbers) religions in the world, is a daunting task. It becomes clear that the director had been more interested in the the mindset of the man who's to be the next pope, than in any political or human machinations of the electors. We know our popes of the past - Peter O'Toole's or John Goodman's pope are a delight - but any effort to get into the inner workings of the Vatican has eluded us: Preminger's "The Cardinal" and Anderson's "The Shoes of the Fisherman" just scratch the surface and are too reverential, so Fellini still steals the show with his delightful religious fashion show in "Roma".

And that for a job description to head a congregation of over a billion, elected by a college of a mere hundred or so cardinals. Stuff for either historical pageantry (we all love our Borgias) or an insight into the mindset of electors or popes-to-be, about why a job can make or break a man, or how the past does influence your future. Instead we're offered the choice of an ass between two bales.

Is it is meant to be a farce? Then the bunch of actors hired to play a bunch of totally idiotic cardinals playing volley-ball in the aftermath of the conclave are right fitting in. But because of that it is very difficult to sympathize with the turmoils of a Pope-to-be with those allusions to All the world's a stage, the heavy references to Chekhov and all that. I mean, who wants to be a pope over this lot of twittering morons? And Piccoli is certainly not a fool, but a tormented soul who seems to have lost his confidence and the past. How does that fit in with farce? With a bunch of blabbering idiots playing pinocchio or volley-ball and a man in crisis? So, is it then meant to be a probing insight into the soul of a man who's thrown into this world as the next Pontiff? Is this a probe into the turmoils of a Pope-to-be? After all, apart from power-hungry popes in fiction, it is indeed an almost inhumane job. Then the bunch of actors hired to play a bunch of totally idiotic cardinals inside the conclave or playing volley-ball in the aftermath are totally unbelievable. They deny us any symphatising with the main character as we're lead to believe that some of the most powerful men in the world are blabbering idiots playing pinocchio. Alas, the director, playing the part of an atheistic psycho-analist, fits right in with this cardinal bunch.

The director should have known that the real world is barging in with almost every frame, with a church and its board of managers wading through a lot of controversial items. As a viewer you can't exclude that: we don't live in a vacuum. Moreover, the allusions to John XXII, Paul VI and John-Paul I are drawn with heavy strokes indeed.

So, we're stuck between two bales of hay. Bad choice. The director couldn't make an artistic choice and left us with no choice at all. In the end we can understand the Pope's decision, but not because we care for him or his struggle, but who in his or her right mind would govern a church with a council of idiots? MmmÂ… that may be the point the director is making?

The description of the movie is wrongly understood. This movie is definitely NOT about the relationship of Pope and his therapist. The failed therapist has and episodic side-role. The movie is about a Bishop who cannot take the burden of responsibility and attention that falls upon him. How he struggles and how he finds courage to solve the situation. There is no relationship between a Pope and therapist who have a 10 sentence conversation. Even the other therapist - therapists wife does not have any major impact or role in the movie whatsoever. Okay she kind of connects with the Pope but has more of a satirical role considering the outcome and storyline. Misleading is this introduction. Please change it.

I saw the movie a few days ago and, even though I did not like the ending, I gave a 9/10, because I loved how the Cardinals were made to look so godly and so human at the same time. Michel Piccoli did such great acting.

Last but not least, besides being very entertaining, the movie now has proved to be prophetic, as Pope Benedict has resigned to everyone's surprise. That alone makes this movie, a great movie.

PS: For the person who wrote: "Waste of time, written by an atheist so what do you expect", and then complains of "an insult to all Believers". I am not an atheist; I believe in God. But my thinking brain felt deeply insulted as I was reading the rant.