Temos Papa

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.

We have a Pope, or Habemus Papem, starts with the death of the Pope and the funeral procession at the Vatican. The scenery is spectacular with Cardinals from all over the world reciting prayers. The story then switches to the voting for the new Pontiff. The election of the new Vicar of Christ, played brilliantly by Michel Piccoli, is a very interesting concept.

Piccoli has severe doubts as to his ability to lead the Catholic Church and refuses to accept his fellow Cardinals decision appointing him to be in charge of the great bureaucracy of Rome.

The best psychiatrist in Italy is brought in to help the newly elected Pope deal with his anxiety. He leaves the Vatican for a few days to travel incognito and find himself among the common people. I won't continue so as not to spoil the rest of the film except to say that it remains interesting throughout. It never becomes preachy and the cast is excellent, led by Michel Piccoli.

This is a movie about an elderly man who has been chosen to be the next Pope. But, beware: the operative word in the previous sentence is "man", not "Pope", because the story is not about the challenges of being (or becoming) Pope: the story is about the struggles of being human. That's the reason why each and every one of us should be able to easily follow and enjoy this funny, educated movie. Taking for granted that all the viewers will be men (and women) themselves, it will be easy for everybody to get in touch with the doubts, the fears and the memories that the main character has to confront after he is called to take on himself one of the greatest responsibilities that the world has to offer.

Of course a lot of risks were involved in dealing with such issues as faith and self confidence using such an unusual and peculiar subject. But, just like a slim young acrobat on a flying trapeze daring to attempt a difficult exercise, the movie achieves the result of telling this strange story with grace, with humor, with kindness, and with a respect for the themes involved that, I think, the faithful part of the audience should be able to appreciate even more than those among us who wouldn't define themselves religious, or catholic.

Furthermore, I can't resist to notice how funny it is that a movie realized by an openly atheist author depicts catholic hierarchy with such a sympathetic view – with tones much more friendly, I would say, than the ones of many mainstream blockbusters we have seen in recent years. So, go watch this movie with confidence (it's an entertaining, interesting work of fiction), and trust (it's soft-spoken, and respectful): you could take even your kids along – and, go figure, even your confessor!

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?