Conclave parades its Oscar-bait ‘prestige’ in bad faith

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/01/2025 (317 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

When the annual Academy Award nominations are announced, there are always a few surprises, a few snubs. There are always a few picks that will prove polarizing.

And then there are those films that have felt Oscar-anointed right from the get-go, their awards-season pedigree completely, maybe even complacently assured. This year, the Oscar-iest Oscar nom might be Conclave.

Conclave is perfect Oscar-bait, a term when applied to Best Picture alluding to a subtle but immediately identifiable vibe. Oscar-bait films are almost always handsome, semi-historical, seriously worthy but fatally safe.

I must start by saying I enjoyed Conclave, which begins with the death of a beloved pope and then follows Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes, deservedly nominated for Best Actor) as he oversees the conclave to elect a new pontiff. This Vatican melodrama is supremely entertaining, incredibly good-looking and irresistible in its talky, theological tensions.

It features an expert ensemble of veteran actors delivering wily performances and wearing fabulous ecclesiastical raiment. It has an indelible drop-in by Isabella Rossellini (nominated for Best Supporting Actress). The long middle section — which is almost all alignments and betrayals, whisper campaigns and back-room deals, buried secrets and sudden reversals — is transfixing.

It’s a fine film, in fact — at least up to about 15 minutes from the end, when it undoes much of its own good work and goes from Oscar-worthy to Oscar-baity.

First, let’s look at those factors that might draw Academy voters.

Conclave has gorgeous production values. Much of the set design and costuming basically comes from the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that knows something about visual spectacle.

Director Edward Berger painstakingly recreated the Sistine Chapel on a sound stage at Cinecittà Studios, and there are a lot of cool, formally composed shots of grand arching ceilings, dramatic stairways and long, echoing marble halls.

There’s the sense of history. Conclave isn’t strictly a period piece: The papal election it follows is fictional, set in an alternative but roughly contemporary timeline. (Before sequestering for the vote, the cardinals must ditch their phones.) But the process we’re witnessing is steeped in centuries of ritual, and its recreation is detailed, immersive and impressive.

Then there are the weighty themes. The script, adapted from the Robert Harris novel by Peter Straughan (who got a Best Adapted Screenplay nom), raises thorny theological issues about the nature of belief, especially the difference between easy certainty and struggling, self-examining faith. There are moral questions about means and ends, about the clash between private ambition and public service. There are debates about the role of the modern church and how the papacy might balance continuity and change.

Conclave does raise challenging questions. Unfortunately, in typical Oscar-bait fashion, it proceeds to answer these questions in a way that is too facile, too pat, too safely reassuring. The discourse gets clunkier and more didactic near the end of the film, and the story’s final shock is handled in a hasty, desultory way. This is a film about faith that loses faith in itself and its own ambiguities.

Conclave probably won’t win Best Picture. If it does, its victory won’t be one of those absolute Oscar fails like the coronation of A Beautiful Mind or Crash. Conclave’s particular tragedy is that’s it’s good, but it could have been much better. As with so many Oscar-bait titles, it looks like a prestige film when it’s actually prestige-lite.

alison.gillmor@freepress.mb.ca