[…] These men bore no resemblance to the real-life men they were supposed to represent. That\u2019s fundamentally why The Two Popes is a dangerous and misguided movie.<\/p>\n
At the level of story, it is the same old narrative we have been fed by the media from the moment of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger<\/a>\u2019s election as pope in 2005. He is a \u201cdour traditionalist,\u201d \u201cGod\u2019s Rottweiler,\u201d The Man Who Couldn\u2019t Smile or Dance. In the other corner is Francis, the first non-European pope in 1,200 years, a one-time Tango club bouncer, passionate soccer fan, the \u201cman with the common touch,\u201d and in due course the \u201cChristlike Pope\u201d\u2014in contradistinction to all his predecessors. This movie leaves idle no media clich\u00e9: Jorge Cardinal Mario Bergoglio\u2019s battered black brogues on the airport security scanner, Francis eschewing the papal red shoes, Bergoglio watching football in a bar and eating takeaway pizza. There\u2019s talk of the evils of walls and the virtues of bridges.<\/p>\n And there is worse. The movie uses clips from real news footage. One vox pop clip shows a man reacting to Benedict\u2019s election: \u201cI know Ratzinger. The Nazi should not have been elected.\u201d It is a spaghetti western without guns or horses. Ratzinger\/Benedict is all but fitted up with the droopy moustache: Aloof and introverted, he eats alone, prefers Latin to other languages, has never heard of ABBA, and cannot dance the Tango. Most damningly, he resists Bergoglio\u2019s attempt to hug him. The script leaves viewers in no doubt as to which pope they are expected to side with. …<\/p>\n Anthony Hopkins\u2019s portrayal of an obsessed, bad-tempered Benedict is counterposed to Jonathan Pryce\u2019s affable, benevolent, and placid Bergoglio. If you know anything of the truth of these two men, it is almost laughable. …<\/p>\n Things are not helped by the fact that, in terms of physique and kinesiology, Hopkins is utterly unsuited to playing Benedict. He depicts a bullish, lumbering man, puffed about the face, eyes like those of a dipso with a bad hangover. Everything is wrong; every graceful quality of Joseph Ratzinger is absent: the bearing, the diffidence, the passion for ideas. Neither the shyness nor quiet dignity is there. <\/p>\n Hopkins is also dissatisfying in that he portrays this man\u2014one of the most brilliant Europeans of the past half-century\u2014as a dogged doctrinalist obsessed with homosexuality and clerical celibacy. It feels like he has not, in preparing for this part, picked up even one of Ratzinger\u2019s sixty-odd books or glanced at one of his encyclicals. Anyone who had done so would have been unable to avoid knowing that the great themes of Pope Benedict XVI\u2019s papacy were love, charity, truth, hope, faith, reason, silence, and beauty. Hopkins is an actor of extraordinary genius, who normally approaches his parts with the deepest attention and care. Here, he has chosen to inhabit a caricature designed by others for reasons of myopia, malevolence, or both. …<\/p>\n The film was preceded by a book, The Pope: Francis, Benedict, and the Decision That Shook the World<\/a>, also written by McCarten. His description there of Pope Francis is a mixture of the clich\u00e9d and the cockeyed: \u201cA breath of fresh air, with a rock star\u2019s charisma, there was a touch of John Lennon about him (both men had been on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine) with a propensity for jaw-dropping statements to make even his most ardent fans gasp.\u201d<\/em> Bergoglio is a \u201ccharismatic, fun-living Argentinian, on the surface a humble man, an extrovert, a simple dresser (he wore the same pair of black shoes for twenty years). . . . He\u2019s a man with the common touch. A man of the people. Once even had a girlfriend.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Really? The same pair of shoes? Twenty years? It reminds me of the man who had the same broom for twenty-five years\u2014having, in that time, fitted it with seventeen new heads and fourteen new handles. And the \u201cgirlfriend\u201d? That would be Amalia Damonte, to whom Bergoglio sent a \u201clove letter\u201d when they were both twelve, telling her that if she didn\u2019t marry him, he would become a priest. Her parents intervened to put an end to their \u201crelationship.\u201d<\/p>\n In its core scenarios, the movie is almost entirely fictional. Bergoglio did not in 2012 fly to Italy to meet with Pope Benedict at Castel Gandolfo to ask for permission to retire. The two men did not spend days together getting to know each other. Pope Benedict did not give Cardinal Bergoglio advance knowledge of his intention to resign. He did not tell him that he regarded himself as no longer fit to be pope. He did not reveal that he had decided Bergoglio would be the perfect choice to replace him.<\/p>\n Aside from its fictions, the film refers to real events out of their chronological sequence: Things that occurred after the election of Pope Francis are depicted as having occurred beforehand. The script seeks to diminish Pope Benedict by elevating his successor even before he succeeds him.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re very popular,\u201d says Ratzinger, as though envious.<\/p>\n \u201cI just try to be myself,\u201d replies Bergoglio modestly.<\/p>\n \u201cWhenever I try to be myself, people don\u2019t seem to like me very much,\u201d the pope responds.<\/p>\n This exchange is rendered nonsensical by the facts. Benedict\u2019s public audiences in St. Peter\u2019s Square were consistently higher than those of Pope Francis, whose numbers decrease all the time. \u201cThis popularity of yours, is there a trick to it?,\u201d Benedict asks, seemingly fixated on wishing he were Bergoglio. The problem is that, before he became pope, Bergoglio was barely known in the world, never mind popular. He was not even unambiguously loved in Argentina.<\/p>\n In another scene, late in the evening, Pope Benedict sits at his piano trying to think of something appropriate to play for his guest. Suddenly he asks: \u201cDo you know the Beatles?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes, I know who they are,\u201d Bergoglio responds. \u201cEleanor Rigby?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWho?\u201d Pope Benedict asks, \u201cI don\u2019t know her.\u201d<\/p>\n This is harmless in its way. But for what it is worth (not much), it is untrue that Pope Benedict is ignorant of pop music, as intimated on several occasions by the script. In fact, he knows a great deal about the music, possibly from hearing it for many years blaring in every caf\u00e9 in Rome. He just doesn\u2019t like it. It concerned him that, as he said in his address to the International Church Music Congress in Rome in November 1985, such music \u201clowers the barriers of individuality and of personality,\u201d \u201crepealing the limits of the everyday,\u201d creating the illusion of \u201cliberation from the ego.\u201d These are not the words of a man who has never heard of ABBA, who does not \u201cknow\u201d Eleanor Rigby.<\/p>\n The Church-politics premises of the movie are the jaw-numbingly predictable ones: The Church as represented by Ratzinger \/ Benedict is \u201cout of touch with the modern world\u201d and this is a bad thing; Bergoglio\u2019s professed desire to bring the Church \u201cinto the 21st century\u201d is self-evidently noble and righteous.<\/p>\n Everything about The Two Popes is designed to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with Catholicism \/ Christianity, and everything to do with purveying a bogus notion of freedom in the public realm. The word \u201creforms\u201d is used as though its virtue were self-evident and unassailable. \u201cThe Church votes to make overdue reforms remain overdue,\u201d Bergoglio accuses. The audience is expected to recognize this proposition and nod in agreement. But there is nothing to guide anyone toward a true understanding of the implications. … Everything is grist to the mill of the agenda. … .<\/p>\n The \u201ctwo popes\u201d take turns at hearing each others\u2019 confessions. Bergoglio tells of his failures to support fellow priests during Argentina\u2019s \u201cDirty War,\u201d during the \u201cProcess of National Reorganization\u201d which followed the ascent to power of a military junta in the 1970s. Pope Benedict tries to reassure him about the efforts he made at that time.<\/p>\n Bergoglio flagellates himself: \u201cMy dear friend, where was I\u2014where was Christ?\u2014in all this? Was he taking tea in the presidential palace?\u201d Later he admits: \u201cI am a divisive figure in Argentina,\u201d one of the few statements from the mouth of the Bergoglio character that rings completely true.<\/p>\n The implication of the storyline is that by underlining Bergoglio\u2019s guilt over his failure to stand up to Argentina\u2019s oppressive dictatorship, the movie offers a kind of balance: Both popes are shown warts-and-all. But no: The account of Bergoglio\u2019s actions\/inaction during the Dirty War are taken from the official record; the depiction of Ratzinger\/Benedict is\u2014overwhelmingly\u2014invented.<\/p>\n There follows a sequence that goes beyond crimes of falsification, deceitfulness, and cheating. In the course of his \u201cconfession,\u201d Benedict becomes agitated and starts to relate some hitherto unrevealed \u201csin\u201d from his past. As he does so, his voice is drowned out as though by some kind of interference. We see his lips move; we see the shocked face of Bergoglio. When the sound comes back up, Benedict seems to be finishing some account of his negligence while Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. It is intimated that he failed to act against a Mexican priest, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ: Marcial Maciel Degollado<\/a>, a sexual abuser of boys. When he is finished, Bergoglio does something a trained priest would never do: He stands up and begins to remonstrate with the penitent who has just unburdened himself.<\/p>\n To the extent that this scene seeks to uphold the calumny that Pope Benedict in some way collaborated in the cover-up of clerical child abuse, it is false and grossly libellous. It was Ratzinger who, as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, altered the canonical procedures to make it possible to remove those using the priesthood to prey upon\u2014mostly\u2014teenage boys. As Pope Benedict, he kicked hundreds of such individuals out of the priesthood, including Maciel. In fact, it was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who in 2001 authorized an investigation into the accusations against Maciel. This investigation continued until 2006, by which time Ratzinger had become Pope Benedict XVI and his successor, Cardinal William Levada, decided\u2014\u201ctaking into account both the advanced age of Father Maciel as well as his poor health\u2014to drop the canonical process and invite him to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing all public ministry.\u201d Pope Benedict approved these decisions. Maciel died in 2008, the highest-ranking priest ever disciplined because of sexual abuse allegations.<\/p>\n There is no mention in the movie of Julio Grassi<\/a>, the priest currently serving a 15-year sentence for sexually abusing minors in Argentina\u2019s most notorious clerical sex abuse scandal. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio did his best to protect Grassi from secular justice, even arranging for the Argentinian bishops\u2019 conference, which was under his presidency, to commission a leading Argentine criminal defense attorney to compile a \u201cforensic study\u201d that claimed Grassi was innocent and sought to discredit his victims. During his trial, Grassi praised Cardinal Bergoglio and thanked him for his support, saying that \u201cBergoglio never let go of my hand.\u201d Pope Francis has persistently refused to meet with Argentinian victims of clerical sex abuse.<\/p>\n Having tried it a couple of times, I understand the difficulties of converting a real-life story to fictional form, either for stage or screen. Life is too detailed and complex to translate unedited into drama. To marshal the energies of a real-life story, it is always necessary to nip and tuck, elide, compress, transpose, foreshorten, conflate. But in doing this, it is all the more vital that the essence of a story be protected and respected.<\/p>\n McCarten, speaking of writing versions of real-life figures, has said: \u201cWhether they\u2019re alive or dead, you still have to do justice to them. You can\u2019t do injury to their character. You can\u2019t have them doing terrible things when they didn\u2019t do terrible things.\u201d How, then, can he justify The Two Popes? It treats Benedict XVI as though he were not human, as though he were not alive, as though he were unbeloved, as though he had never existed. This is outrageous, yes, but it is also not good art. The propulsion of story is an insufficient justification for the levels of invention, prejudice, and partisanship on display here. The movie title is elaborated by the weasel words, \u201cInspired by true events.\u201d Yes, but this inspiration has resulted in a farrago of falsehoods. McCarten owes Benedict an apology. <\/p>\n It has been observed that The Two Popes is ultimately frivolous\u2014a \u201choly bromance,\u201d a \u201cbuddy movie,\u201d a sort of \u201codd couple\u201d remake. So, you know, lighten up! And this is the level on which it is most successful. Yet this is also the movie\u2019s most insidious aspect: It draws you into itself. In the depths of its mendaciousness and shallow moralizing, an engaging and moving story of a personal encounter is told. This means that, as propaganda, this movie is both hugely effective and extremely dangerous.<\/p>\n […] These men bore no resemblance to the real-life men they were supposed to represent. That\u2019s fundamentally why The Two Popes is a dangerous and misguided movie. At the level of story, it is the same old narrative we have been fed by the media from the moment of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger\u2019s election as pope […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6702,9],"tags":[39,149,7919,7920],"class_list":["post-9756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thechrist","category-europe","tag-papacy","tag-pope-benedict","tag-pope-francis","tag-ratzinger"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Excerpts from: Two Popes, Too Many Untruths, by John Waters, published at First Things<\/a>.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"