Habemus Papam - Ein Papst büxt aus

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.

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.

This film has had a very diverse range of reviews, and this is probably because its full appreciation requires a finger on the pulse of the Catholic world.

Moretti makes a statement about the current state of the Church, which behind its omnipotent facade seems to be unable to truly face the challenges of remaining relevant to its followers. Rather than set up an intricate political plot of intrigue and betrayal, Moretti chooses to represent this powerlessness through a single person, an unassuming cardinal who feels unable to take on the responsibility. At the same time, though, he reveals that the state of unease is widespread among the cardinals, who dread the thought of having to take on this leadership, as much as the thought of losing their leader.

A banal way forward would have been for the cardinals to turn against each other, or against the Pope; instead, here they find relief in reverting to games and simple everyday activities, as if the isolation inside the Vatican walls is lifting an unbearable oppression from them, as they can do normal things as normal people do.

The film has several imperfections, and one feels sometimes the story gets somewhat contorted, especially when the new Pope rekindles his old love for the theatre. Still, it is a visually attractive film, sensitively scripted and well acted.

This is a surprisingly sympathetic film made by a non-believer who is often critical of the Church. Moretti is appreciative of the magnitude of the problem faced by the church, but most of all one has the impression that he cares deeply about the people involved: those on the balcony, those behind the curtains and especially those down below, in the square.

Every comment I see about Habemus Papam seems to focus a little too much on the depiction of the Catholic Church and its figures of authority, maybe because of the title. Let it go, it's not a critical movie of the religious institution, and it's certainly not a mocking of anyone's faith.

It is actually a story about a man's confrontation with great responsibilities, set in a very peculiar yet strangely believable scenario.

I'd say that the central plot and general feeling of the story could be reasonably translated into a different setting. The Catholic Church replaced with a government, the newly-elected Pope replaced with the newly-elected or crowned leader, etc. Maybe a different setting would fall short trying to depict the seriousness of the situation - can you think of a higher position of authority than that of the Pope? -, and maybe it wouldn't be such a charismatic movie if all the central influential characters weren't light-hearted old men, such as the cardinals in this instance... but it could definitely be done.

There are several high points in this movie, most of them straightforward enough that you don't have to be a cinema-nut to appreciate. The acting is terrific, the general quality is comparable with the most hyped Hollywood films (I'm guessing that not needing helicopters, extreme CGI and explosions really helps keeping the budget low). I'm not an 'artsy cinema nut' - and I loved it. (In fact, liking it so much and finding only reviews about it being about 'the Pope' bothered me, that's why I registered to write this review).

Anyway, this was different from everything I had ever seen before, and always in a good way. Well, at least never in a bad one! There is indeed some kind of fresh entertainment and novelty in knowing that your finely tuned powers of plot prediction are useless against a storyteller's unusual way of telling an interesting story. I don't even know who this storyteller is, but assuming it is the director Moretti - he did a good job.

Maybe a more 'conventional' viewer, if there is such a thing, might be unsatisfied because of the peculiarities - some open ended scenes, even one untied subplot; unexplained character reactions that seem entirely sincere nonetheless. While I noticed these things, they didn't annoy me enough to detract from the general experience. And as long as you watch it without a 'conventional viewer's' mindset and expectations, I can almost guarantee that you will be pleasantly entertained.

Let me clarify: don't expect situation jokes. Don't expect an inner journey into the darkness of a hero's troubled dark soul. Don't expect a wacky incarnation of comic relief. And let me repeat this one more time: you don't have to be an 'artsy cinema nut' to enjoy it; just don't expect to be presented to the same old situations and movie gimmicks.

It's actually worth a lot more than just for it's quirkiness, but if for nothing else, watch this so you can briefly purge your mind of the sameness that plagues the screens.

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? Mmm… that may be the point the director is making?