[coffeeaddict1]

What makes you think that movie is an accurate representation of the papal selection process? I watched it too and while the videography is amazing, the plot of the movie is clearly dictated by having an agenda rather than accurately trying to portray reality.

[cj]

I saw the movie recently as well.

It’s the first time I’ve encountered any information about how a new pope is selected. Period.

As a not-dumb person, I realize it’s just a movie. But the basic premise of being cordoned off from the outside world, voting until someone is chosen, with the voting going on for days and signaled through smoke by burning the ballets - I assume that basic premise is at least mostly accurate?

Edit: Indeed, after some basic googling, the premise of the movie seems to line up with the basic premise of how a pope was selected centuries ago.

[olddustytrail]

I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book a couple of years ago, published in 2016, and I presume you could get the same information from there.

It's not really a secret how a pope is chosen, it's just not something most people are interested enough to look up (there's a missing "in" in that sentence but I couldn't decide where to put it).

Robert Harris wrote the book and also wrote Fatherland, Enigma and Pompeii. Those are three different books but I'd definitely read a book with that single title.

[coffeeaddict1]

The premise of the movie is obviously real. I don't think anyone would debate that. I was referring to the portrayal of the political and social dynamics of the process and the views of the Catholic Church.

[aprilthird2021]

I was of the impression there are conservative and liberal factions within the Church, and that electing the Pope is a time that that division comes out? No?

[lo_zamoyski]

Those who say film doesn't influence popular attitudes underestimate how many people treat film as a source of knowledge. Horrifying to realize.

[lenzm]

All sorts of works of fiction have been sources of knowledge for much longer than film has been around. Aesop's fables and parables in the Bible are intentful examples. I don't find this horrifying.

[tshaddox]

What sort of agenda did you think the movie had? I suppose there's a slight humanist agenda, since it portrays nearly all the characters pursuing goals that probably aren't considered the ideal religious goals.

[pchristensen]

The thread of conservative vs progressive cardinals and factions goes through the whole movie, but the ending is the most "agenda" part (although handled subtly).

[tshaddox]

The ending reveal doesn't even fit neatly into the hot-button American political issue you're associating it with. The film is clearly trying to make the viewer work out their view on the issue, and I think the film takes essentially no stance (unless you think that not taking a strong stance in one direction constitutes endorsement of a different direction).

Some might even say the film lacks courage, both by taking no stance on the issue and by presenting a scenario that only vaguely matches the hot-button American political issue.

[rightbyte]

I would say it is rather condemning vs forgiving?