The Two Popes
A very Pope-ular film
(This opinion piece was originally written in January 2020 but is being reuploaded here)
 |
| Jonathan Pryce seeing his awards nomination |
The Two Popes begins slow. Knowing little as to the plot or context of the film prior to watching it I feel was a double edged sword to my experience. It meant I could learn a lot along the way, but some of the specifics were lost on me. I was also unaware of the directors previous exploits, considering Fernando Meirelles is Brazilian, that portfolio is exclusively foreign language films. After seeing The Two Popes however, I’m intrigued to visit his previous films. The directing and cinematography are what stood out strongest in what, in my opinion, teeters the line of a bland film. That is not to say bland = bad, far from it, but often these films that the Academy hoover up (especially when they are biographical in style) meander their way through an often low-key plot. I do feel the need to prefix this commentary with the fact that I am in no way, and have never been religious. Criticism should be accepted from any source, so long as it is well-mannered, justified and well intentioned. I DID really enjoy this film, but I don’t know if I could watch it again.
The religious imagery, vocabulary and fervour that is on display here alienated me somewhat. The film was easy to follow, and remained engaging throughout, but often times I found myself two steps behind the admittedly witty and snappy dialogue between the two leads. Playing catch up throughout large swathes of the film felt like a chore, but in the final ⅓ of the film it clicked satisfyingly into place and I loved it. The film provoked a conversation with my family about the details of the film, and how accurately they mirrored the real world shift of power and direction in the Vatican. The final 20 minutes of the film made me somewhat understand just what religion and the existence of a Pope means, yet the film isn’t afraid to question its own content. Is a Pope necessary? What price is placed on tradition? How much should you change yourself to fit in in the world? The film probes the vile controversies and conspiracies surrounding the Vatican (and religion as a whole), yet carefully doesn’t outwardly point accusatory fingers, just says things as they appear. There are two sides to every story. Two different ideologies. Two Popes, if you will.
As previously stated, the cinematography is stunning, helmed by César Charlone (a long standing professional partner of Meirelles) with inspired camera angles, framing and beautiful locations throughout the running time. Accompanying the visuals to great effect is the score by Bryce Dessner, featuring a blend of electronic instrumentals, often primarily guitar, and evangelical hymns and chanting.
The obvious other selling points are the two leads: Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce. The opening of the film very much makes it seem to be Hopkins film, but the narrative quickly and decisively shifts to Pryce’s perspective, and he truly shines here. In retrospect a large portion of this film is in fact Juan Minujín commanding the screen, as a younger representation of Pryces character, Jorge Bergoglio; after all, this film IS about the current standing Pope. The aforementioned low-key plot works wonders for the nuanced visual storytelling at work here. The stark choice for many of the flashback scenes to be presented in black and white is distinctive, bold and allows easier catch up from the at times complicated dialogue. Regardless, the chemistry between Hopkins and Pryce is impressive considering that their characters are almost always at odds, and the preparation both have committed to accurately portraying their respective roles is admirable; both speaking decent chunks of Italian and Spanish (as far as I could discern). I can understand most of the awards discussions surrounding this film, yet I’m not overly convinced of Hopkins for Supporting Actor as although portrayed more than adequately, there wasn’t a vast amount of substance to it. Perhaps intentionally? I may have missed the mark on this one. It is however the most I’ve enjoyed Pryce in a long time. A shame I suppose that he has to face off against Joaquin this year.
What I must remind myself however, is that this is a Netflix film. I'm watching this film on Netflix. They have produced this. Netflix is truly going from strength to strength when producing original movie content, and are more consistently proving their worthiness in awards discussions. Following on from 'El Camino', 'Gerald's Game', 'Dolemite Is My Name', 'Annihilation', 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs', 'Roma', 'Marriage Story' and 'The Irishman' to name but a few, their capacity for providing feature length content of such quality is honestly starting to astound me.
The religious imagery, vocabulary and fervour that is on display here alienated me somewhat. The film was easy to follow, and remained engaging throughout, but often times I found myself two steps behind the admittedly witty and snappy dialogue between the two leads. Playing catch up throughout large swathes of the film felt like a chore, but in the final ⅓ of the film it clicked satisfyingly into place and I loved it. The film provoked a conversation with my family about the details of the film, and how accurately they mirrored the real world shift of power and direction in the Vatican. The final 20 minutes of the film made me somewhat understand just what religion and the existence of a Pope means, yet the film isn’t afraid to question its own content. Is a Pope necessary? What price is placed on tradition? How much should you change yourself to fit in in the world? The film probes the vile controversies and conspiracies surrounding the Vatican (and religion as a whole), yet carefully doesn’t outwardly point accusatory fingers, just says things as they appear. There are two sides to every story. Two different ideologies. Two Popes, if you will.
 |
| Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce walking |
The obvious other selling points are the two leads: Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce. The opening of the film very much makes it seem to be Hopkins film, but the narrative quickly and decisively shifts to Pryce’s perspective, and he truly shines here. In retrospect a large portion of this film is in fact Juan Minujín commanding the screen, as a younger representation of Pryces character, Jorge Bergoglio; after all, this film IS about the current standing Pope. The aforementioned low-key plot works wonders for the nuanced visual storytelling at work here. The stark choice for many of the flashback scenes to be presented in black and white is distinctive, bold and allows easier catch up from the at times complicated dialogue. Regardless, the chemistry between Hopkins and Pryce is impressive considering that their characters are almost always at odds, and the preparation both have committed to accurately portraying their respective roles is admirable; both speaking decent chunks of Italian and Spanish (as far as I could discern). I can understand most of the awards discussions surrounding this film, yet I’m not overly convinced of Hopkins for Supporting Actor as although portrayed more than adequately, there wasn’t a vast amount of substance to it. Perhaps intentionally? I may have missed the mark on this one. It is however the most I’ve enjoyed Pryce in a long time. A shame I suppose that he has to face off against Joaquin this year.
What I must remind myself however, is that this is a Netflix film. I'm watching this film on Netflix. They have produced this. Netflix is truly going from strength to strength when producing original movie content, and are more consistently proving their worthiness in awards discussions. Following on from 'El Camino', 'Gerald's Game', 'Dolemite Is My Name', 'Annihilation', 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs', 'Roma', 'Marriage Story' and 'The Irishman' to name but a few, their capacity for providing feature length content of such quality is honestly starting to astound me.
 |
| Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce sitting |
SH
Comments
Post a Comment