The screenplay for ‘The Two Popes‘ is written by Anthony McCarten and this is his fourth screenplay of a successful biopic brought to screens since 2014, after ‘The Theory of Everything‘, ‘Darkest Hour‘ and ‘Bohemian Rhapsody‘. Beware, the filmmakers claim in the credits and on posters that this is a film ‘inspired by real facts’. ‘Inspired’ and not ‘based’ sounds a little less commited and reflects McCarten‘s style of writing. He chooses significant historical characters from various fields (science, history of WWII, music and now the history of the Catholic church) and important moments, from those that seem to be well known, he comments on them and gives them meanings beyond the images and words we all know using imaginary dialogues and action threads. With ‘The Two Popes‘ screenwriter McCarten and director Fernando Meirelles (author of the fantastic ‘City of God‘, but how long as it has been since then!) take on a greater risk. The events described in the film – the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the transition of the papacy by Pope Francis – took place in 2013. Most of the protagonists are still among us, many of the problems described are still alive and painful. Even the most ‘pious’ and most respectful approach, as the filmmakers tried to make the film, cannot avoid questions and controversies.
The main quality of the script, which provides the film with style and eloquence are the dialogues. McCarten starts from the real events, the transition from a relatively conservative pope in terms of Catholic dogma to a pope who, without being a reformer, is much more open to events happening around the world and to cautious changes, especially in the way the church operates and communicates with believers and the rest of the world. Around them he imagines two days of discussions between Benedict, decided to resign for reasons that will be clarified more or less in the film, and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (the future Pope Francis) who wanted to withdraw from the cardinal position and is surprised with the proposal to become the successor of Benedict to the chair of St. Peter. During the discussions we watch not only two different conceptions of how the Catholic church must behave in order to adapt to the changes around it, but also two very different biographies, temperaments, and lifestyles. The sparkling, intelligent, sensitive dialogue between the two is the principal material from which the film is built. A series of flashbacks allow us to know details of the muggy past of the Argentine priest who became a cardinal and whose destiny is to become a pope. The meeting and the dialogue did not take place in reality, but the way it is presented and the acting make them seem plausible and consistent with the image we have about the two men. The sets, completely built in studios, are also extremely truthful and reinforce the credibility of this imaginary dialogue. An essential contribution is of course the interpretation of the two magnificent actors in tle lead roles. If Anthony Hopkins can’t be but himself and creates a Benedict in the own image of Anthony Hopkins, Jonathan Pryce approaches the role of Bergoglio / Francis using an opposite technique. He melts into the role, the makeup makes him look almost perfectly like the real pope Francis in reality, and viewers watching the Pope may have the illusion that he himself plays his own role on the screen. The musical track of the film is also excellent, with innovative and surprising ideas.
Making a film about the papacy, an institution that is almost permanently in the news attention and was haunted over the last decade by scandals and controversies, cannot result in a film that will please everyone. The net is full of articles that report alleged errors,events invented or which happened otherwise than described in the movie. I personally think that most of these critics of detail sare unimportant as long as the film manages to build an excellent portrait of the two popes, and to describe their personalities, weaknesses and the faith that motivates them. However, the film has, in my opinion, another serious flaw. Addressing the painful problems and scandals that marked the Vatican at that time and which are still largely ongoing today is done in a much too cautious manner. The scandals of corruption and mismanagement are mentioned only indirectly, and when the tragedy of sexual abuse comes up the dialogue is simply cut off. The result is that the film loses its balance and slides too far into the positive aspects, gaining a little air of propaganda in favor of the papacy and its servants. It may be that more time and a more remote perspective are needed to make a film that offers a critical and lucid judgment of the events. As it turned out, ‘The Two Popes‘ offers a cleverly written docu-drama, but the focus is on the entertainment side and not the historical inquiry and analysis.
