Habemus Papam: Una historia de poder

This documentary is extremely boring but also weirdly made. It's a series of stock images of Medieval and Renaissance Europe flashed upon the screen alongside video game background music. I felt like I was waiting for my game to load as brief, meaningless pictures of plague-torn Italy or poor peasants begging in the streets accompanied "rock star" shots of white men in robes of fur and silk sashaying around cathedrals.

"Teenaged Pope was a Sociopath" intrigue gives way to "There Was One Pope in France and Another in Italy!" then suddenly fast forward to "Pope John Paul II almost collapsed on the throne, but Benedict scandalously is the first pope to ever step down voluntarily and is that worse?"

I feel like Liam Neeson and whomever else was involved in this doc was trying to appeal to the sort of viewers who go see stupid super hero flicks as adults.

I wish they had mentioned that basically none of the storys presented in this series is in any way proven. For example the quote that "on this rock i will build my church..." was probably never said by the historical jesus (whose existence is a whole other story). The man believed that the end is near, so he had no reason to build a church that would last for millennia. In 3 out of 4 gospels this sentence is not included. After 10 minutes I was out of this show. This is missing all of the actually interesting historical questions. They should have talked to some scholars who are not as affiliated with church as those featured or at least the better informed ones within church. What this series presents as the beginning of christianity is just a world of make-believe.

I love the visuals and narration. It's dramatic, but so is this history and all history! It's wonderful and gives the recounting of papal history an excitement that's fun and fair. Very enjoyable documentary to watch.

It's also pretty concise. They go through the important moments and show the flow of time and impact.

The drawbacks are the over-generalizations made by the writers. For example, suggesting that Urban II ordered the massacre of the Jews in the Rhineland is just false. This outcome was the result of religious zealots who took advantage of the crusades to act out their own ideological beliefs. (Look up Emicho) This still happens today. Also, accusing him of having deceitful purposes is just inaccurate. He was doing what he could to help our brothers and sisters in the east defend themselves against invading armies of Islam. Somehow, the fact that this all started with outside invaders attacking first gets completely ignored. And the Islamists were engaged in a holy war, while Christians in the east and west were engaged in self-defense. But okay. Let's ignore that.

The accusatory stance can be seen again in how Pope Francis is described as "mischievous." Whoever sees our Pope this way has a mischievous heart himself and so sees through the lens of his own faults. ("For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you." Matthew 7:2)

Still, the recounting of historical events is accurate and if one is willing to see objectively and look below the surface of the shallow judgements presented here, one can see much more-the hand of God preserving and growing the Church in every way. The friction of events-the uncertainty, the errors, the challenges to authority and the infighting among Christians-all of this has made the Church stronger and wiser over time. Unlike nations which have all crumbled away, she has remained intact and improved, leading to peace and strength that's nations have never achieved ever. It is clearly God who has done this as only with God could things that would normally lead to an institutions demise end up leading to its preservation and constant renewal.

I got 5 minutes into this piece of trash before I gave up on historical accuracy

1) It says that Christianity was illegal. No, it wasn't, in general. The Jewish authorities were threatened by it, and would cause trouble, blaming the Christians. So Christians would be blamed for civil unrest, not for their beliefs. The Neronian persecution was not throughout the empire, but in the city of Rome only, because Nero needed a scapegoat.

2) Some alleged scholar claimed that Rome was the ONLY city with an apostle. But, prior to Rome, Peter was resident in Antioch. Andrew was resident in Byzantium. John was the leader of the church in Ephesus.

A little bit of historical research could have easily corrected these errors. "Scholars" interviewed couldn't be bothered. I, therefore, can't be bothered to watch it.

Maybe, not the theme itself, but the manner to use it defines this portrait of the leader of Catholic Church. Commentaries, comparations, subtle explored details, characters and their facts, the way who the present is influenced, in profound sense, by the events of past. At the first sigh, nothing new, but the desire to propose a large image, for large public is not a bad thing. Sure, knowledge and understanding are purpose. And the result is more than decent.