"The Two Popes" - two film reviews

I’ve not seen The Two Popes (Nov 2019), so I have quoted two separate film-reviews to spread the issues, both religious and cinematic. Note these reviews were written before Pope Benedict XVI passed away.

Rosa Bruno-Jofre wrote that The Two Popes provided a creative dial­og­ue about God, faith and moral responsibility. The film was a fict­ion­alised encounter between German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI in 2005), and Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Berg­oglio, (later Pope Fran­cis after Benedict’s resign­ation in 2013). The film’s appeal had to do with the global ch­aracter of the Catholic Church.

Argentinian Bruno-Jofre is a Professor of History­, focusing on Cath­olic philosophy, educ­ation and the st­ate, and women’s religious teac­h­­ing or­ders. How did the film un­cover the theological currents und­er­lying the institutional chur­ch? The account conveyed a con­vers­ation that confronted 2 of many divergent currents in the Cath­olic Chur­ch: a] a reformist one and b] a conservative one that ret­ained the church’s anti-modernist tones before Vatican II (1962-5). This Coun­cil faced the Church with C20th social & cultural changes.

In the early 1970s, Latin American theologians developed liberation theology, a perspective that emerged from the opp­ression in Latin America. This theology nurtured the move­ment of po­p­ular educat­ion in the 1970s, but Cardinal Ratzinger was active in un­der­mining lib­er­ation theology.

The film referenced Pope Francis’ religious commitment to the poor. It showed the repressive era in Argent­ina (1976-83) which over­lap­­­p­ed with Bergoglio’s time as Sup­er­ior of the Jesuits in Argentina and Urug­uay (1973-79). But then two Jesuit priests were kidnap­ped by the mi­l­itary, and the Jesuits sent Bergoglio into exile in Cor­doba. The film suggested Bergoglio was tormented by his failure to protect the priests.

The film began when the men met in the garden of the papal summer re­sidence, Palace of Cas­tel Gandolfo, and talked about God and the ch­ur­ch. The dialogue recreating their positions, and their pasts were beaut­if­ul­ly set in both the palace and the Sistine Chapel. The viewer could forget the institutional ch­urch’s hierarchical, author­it­ar­ian structure, out of tune with a world concer­ned with rights.

But many Catholics’ conflicted souls were left unhelped by the film regarding eg exclusion of women from ordinat­ion, church’s opposition to gay marriage, divorce and contraception. As was the voice of fem­inist the­ologians who might have offered pow­erful embracing of social justice and the envir­on­ment, focusing on gender, cl­ass and race.

Vatican II, which set the stage for openness to ch­ange, was res­isted by many, including Ratzing­er. Even before Vatican II, changes were taking pl­ace outside the Va­t­­­­­ican walls. A red sea of men, incl­uding Card­inal Bergolio, were dec­id­ing the future of the Cath­olic Church. Brazilian Cat­holic educator Paulo Freire, for example, marked a turn­ing point for cr­itical-minded ed­uc­ators in Latin America, based in the 1960s-70s cult­ural and social movem­ent. However even today auth­or­it­­ar­ian church leaders have not ach­iev­ed a dem­oc­ratis­at­ion of the church as an inclusive in­stitution. Of course Pope Francis made a com­mit­ment to the poor and to social trans­formation, as in the film.

So the film’s omissions left the author with a taste of excl­us­ion, a need for a renaissance. She couldn’t loc­ate her spiritual soul in the red sea of well-rounded men, dec­iding the future of the church.

Peter Bradshaw in Toronto wrote quite a dif­ferent review of The Two Popes. Anthony Hopkins and Pryce Jonathan found some tremendous actorly form in this hum­or­ous, indul­gent, sent­imental view in this carefully script drama. It became a Pontiff bro­m­ance written by Anth­ony McCarten and dir­ect­ed by Fernando Meirelles.

It was an entert­ain­ing if preposterous vision of past private meet­ings, be­tween Austrian Pope Benedict XVI and Ar­gentinian Pope Fran­cis. Benedict XVI was considering his sensat­ional decision to retire. But note the discussions were with liberal Cardinal Bergoglio, cr­it­ic of Benedict’s conservativism. In the real world, Benedict XVI might have been dis­pleased by the Vat­ican’s choice of successor. But the film strangely suggested that Cardinal Bergoglio had precisely those con­serv­ative qual­it­ies of world­ly comp­romise that Benedict would have found congenial. But was that ever true, in real life or in the film?

Hopkins was very watchable as Benedict: reactionary, with a piercing hooded-eyed gaze, white hair and an elderly hau­t­eur. The film was at its most successful when it was a duel be­tween the two of them; it got a bit flabby when they warmed up to each oth­er and be­came an Odd Couple who wound up wat­ching the football tog­et­her.

The child abuse issue which was strongly rais­ed at the film’s be­gin­ning, then ignored. There were long black-and-white flash­backs show­ing Bergoglio’s early life and his anguish at having compromised with Argentina’s brutal 1970s junta re­gime when he should arguably have been defiant to the point of mart­yrdom. But there was no balan­cing flashback scene for Ben­ed­ict, no scenes of his youth in the Hit­ler Youth and then the Wehrmacht, and he never answered the Nazi jibe the general public were sh­own making.