#conclave robert harris

[honey-fluxx]

I’ve been wedding planning and it’s made me want to draw Lawrenitez wedding (or just my excuse to draw Vincent in a veil and fancy robes)

Anyways I also just like to imagine that Vincent made Thomas wear his red chasuble from his homily cuz he looks so handsome in it <3<3<3

[motheroftheantichrist]

My favorite part of Conclave is watching Thomas Lawrence, in his SECOND EVER conversation with Vincent, break protocol to call him "my dear Vincent" and Vincent just be like Yeah That's Fine.

[thaern]

My favourite part of the vote for Vincent in the book is not just Lawrence/Lomeli losing his mind, writing his speech to then after vote 50 tear it to pieces, nor the bishops scolding the cardinals for making noise on vote 80.

No, my favourite part is when Lawrence/Lomeli starts clapping with happiness because Vincent won and when he looks down at Tedesco in his misery then start clapping more vigorously like yes bitch, neither you nor me but the embodiment of everything you hate in person and I am entirely happy and proud for that.

[revvlation]

my favourite genre of film? i guess "mean girls" but make them Catholic

[conclaveyaoi]

The Ashtray — Queer-coding and Intimacy Subtext between Aldo Bellini and Giulio Sabbadin

an analysis of the ashtray in Bellini's suite, the chess match in progress, shot compositions and adding my interpretation that Robert Harris uses queer-coded phrasing to imply an intimate connection between them beyond what we see on the surface.

Grab your tinfoil zucchetti. But not really. Jokes aside, I don’t want to “prove” anything, just to point out the potential significance of this and how it relates to the two characters in question. This is based on Robert Harris' phrasings in his book, classic queer-coding in literature, the long-lasting history of gay men in the Catholic church and shot composition analysis. My credentials are a summer course on film at NYU, former member of the chess club at school and being gay with an autistic brain.

This post was what made me notice the ashtray, credit to OP for pointing it out. I thought it was a cool detail. When editing a random clip, I noticed how the ashtray is then revealed to us in this scene. This is the first shot from the angle where we see Bellini sitting next to the chessboard and you can see Thomas is covering the rest of the table:

It is only when Thomas moves that we see the ashtray:

[this covering/uncovering technique is also seen when they all turn to look at Agnes in the cafeteria and Tedesco is blocking Benítez sitting in the back until he walks and we can see him]

We then get another angle of Bellini and the table and this shot includes the chair on the other side of the table that we also couldn’t see in the first shot:

Talking to my tiktok pal @tomwambsgansdarkglasses about this, I took a closer look at the chessboard and wondered: Did Bellini memorise and preserve the last chess match against his friend the late pope, keeping it there as a reminder? Has Bellini been playing chess against himself during the conclave? Why is the ashtray there and what does it represent? Does the chessboard represent the late pope/the papacy/Bellini’s inner turmoil? The table features quite a lot in this sequence (covered, uncovered, stared at by Bellini at one point, next to him in the wider shot and blurred in the end). Here’s a clip:

I. The chess match

I returned to the first scene where we see the last match against the late pope and I don’t think this is the same match preserved. There’s enough to assume this is a different match. Different pieces have been taken. Not to mention how impractical it would be to preserve the last match and take it with him for the conclave. Considering what Bellini says to Lawrence in the beginning, we can also assume the late pope was winning, playing with the white pieces and Bellini playing with the black pieces.

II. Is Bellini playing against himself?

It’s not uncommon for chess aficionados to play against themselves so that was my first assumption. Of course the ashtray may be just a meaningless addition by the set design, same as the extra chair and he was playing both sides. But if we assume the ashtray was put there for a reason, taking into account the table features in nearly every shot of the entire sequence, there’s a chance the implication is that he isn’t playing against himself. Another thing my pal pointed out was: Why would he be placing the pieces taken differently, some organised, the others dropped? And more, wouldn’t it be more practical to be placing the taken pieces on the side so he doesn’t have to reach for the other side of the table? Wouldn’t it be easier to remove the ashtray to get more space? The chessboard has already been introduced to us as an accessory associated with Bellini’s chess interest/his grief/friendship with the late pope/papacy. The chessboard could be on the table by itself and it would make no difference. There’s no need for the chair on the other side too. We can see this is a suite and a bigger room than Lawrence’s through other elements in this sequence. Why the ashtray?

III. The ashtray

Around 10 minutes before this scene takes place, we see Bellini, Lawrence and Sabbadin in the stairwells, where we see Sabbadin smoking. This is his fourth scene (auditorium, bus, breakfast, stairwells) and the first in which he’s smoking. So far we’d seen Bellini and Sabbadin often side by side and surrounded by others but never in an intimate setting just the two of them. To me this can be interpreted as a glimpse into all that we haven’t seen, those two characters being closer than what we had previously seen. There’s an ongoing match happening, perhaps started when the conclave began, perhaps because Bellini relaxes through playing. Where did they go after the auditorium? Where were they before knocking on Lawrence’s door before the stairwells? If they’ve been playing chess since the conclave began, they might have been in each other’s company, just the two of them, every night in Bellini’s suite. There’s intimacy in that. While we see it’s common for the cardinals to be visiting each other in their rooms for canvassing or socialising, this is a level beyond that once you consider Bellini’s queer-coding and the subtle implication of intimacy this brings, using their dynamic in the book as foundation. In a story about the Catholic church, widely known for having a gay subculture and being a common destination for gay men, it seems like an oversight not to make a single nod to homosexuality and queer-coding, in my view. This piece of visual subtext seems to mirror the queer-coded phrasing chosen by Robert Harris in the book to describe their dynamic and the characters, which we’ll revisit soon.

Moreover, if he’s been playing against Sabbadin, he’s playing with the white pieces and winning. Sabbadin, sitting on the side of the ashtray, is playing with the black pieces (emo “undertaker” core). Bellini’s taken pieces are all organised on his side. The few white pieces taken aren’t equally organised, some are dropped near the ashtray.

If the chessboard represents Bellini’s inner turmoil, the late pope, the papacy, the grief, wanting and not wanting, the ashtray represents Sabbadin and his intimate connection to the man himself and the papacy, since he has an interest in becoming Secretary of State in a potential Bellini papacy. The chessboard and the ashtray, side by side. The potential relationship between the two as an added factor in understanding both characters. When Bellini looks at the table, frustrated and not knowing what to do about the simony discovery and what this will mean for the election, he looks at the chessboard and the ashtray. Sabbadin’s point of view is one he has been taking into account throughout the entire narrative and stands next to his inner turmoil and his grief. We had seen that proximity but here we see a potential glimpse into exactly how close their relationship has been through some visual subtext of queerness and intimacy. Watching the film after having read the book, it seems like a visual way of adapting dialogue and descriptions from the book that didn’t make into the movie.

— Further queer-coding in the book (or why I interpret them as being together, in the book at least and don’t think that’s any reach)

I had pointed out before the moments between them in the book are more personal than professional. I like this one where Bellini snaps and brings up his father + first name:

And my favourite being the line that shows not only that Sabbadin has been to Bellini’s suite but also that he chooses to point this out to Lomeli when there was no reason to do so and he could have simply said “I have a suite” or “some of us have suites”:

The book also brings the information Bellini had been Archbishop of Milan before him and of course Sabbadin is introduced in the book as Bellini’s praetorian guard, which, again, is very unique wording:

And Harris doubles down on the description by making Lomeli say in the next page:

In conclusion, I just find this all very interesting and my intention is to explore this visual detail in the cinematography with my interpretation of the queer-coding of Bellini/Sabbadin as a couple in Harris’ book. Thanks to OP for pointing out the ashtray in the first place, thanks to @ tomwambsgansdarkglasses for going through this with me at 1am last night.

PS: If you think my tinfoil zucchetto is too big already, just wait till you find out that I went to sleep trying to discover what that blue led display in the right corner of the shot/on the other table in his suite is. A minibar/electric kettle/coffee maker that each cardinal has in their suites? I’ve checked the tutorial of Tremblay’s coffee machine and that one seems only his own. I’m trying to find the exact match. This is my idea of fun.

[trueishcolours]

Cardinal Benitez moments I wish had made it into the film.

I was discussing Conclave with my mum and said that while it felt very fitting for an unknown actor to get his break with Cardinal Benitez, I thought the role could have been played with more nuance as he felt a bit one-note to me. Mum countered that she thought Carlos Diehz didn't have much to work with as the script 'just called for him to occasionally show up and look holy.' So I looked back through the book and found that Benitez does have a lot more varied moments which might have given Diehz more to get his teeth into if they'd made it into the film.

when he gets into a tiff with Bellini ON ARRIVAL at the Casa Santa Marta. Bellini says 'you probably shouldn't have come and now that you have come you probably can't go back' and Benitez is like 'well that's not up to you on either count, is it?'

then two minutes later Lomeli (book!Lawrence) is explaining the procedures of the Conclave and Benitez is like, 'aw heck, Bellini was right, I shouldn't have come.'

at dinner when Lomeli says, 'I must introduce you!' and Benitez is all 'nooooo I wanna just hide behind this pillar all evening because I'm shyyyyyyy'

(Lomeli trips over his own feet to reassure him both times it's really sweet. And I just think these moments of doubt help to highlight his courage. It's less impressive if he's calm and self-possessed the whole way through.)

In his conversation with Lomeli about whether or not he should vote for Tremblay, he almost accuses Lomeli of idolotry - worshipping the church rather than God! The Dean of the College! The largest cardinal!

And he says you're more likely to encounter the Holy Spirit in the victims of violence he's helped in his missions than in the Curia; he is NOT shy about throwing his experiences in people's faces and making them REAL uncomfortable if he thinks it will make his point.

(You can see the echoes of this conversation when Lawrence/Lomeli says to Bellini, 'I thought we were here to serve God, not the Curia - in the book, he's clearly taken Benitez' words on board)

After the bomb goes off and they're discussing what to do, Benitez gets up and says, 'excuse me, I guess this isn't proper procedure but I think what we should do is all agree to go back to the Sistine and elect Lomeli as pope' and it really makes you think, wow, this has NOT been the procedure but maybe it should be? If these people really were all united in desire to do what was best for the church and the world, wouldn't they just be able to sit down and openly discuss who they should all vote for instead of all this shadowy politicking? And Benitez cuts through that and it's actually this suggestion that triggers Tedesco's Islamophobic rant.

So yeah. More shyness and doubtfulness AND more fire from book!Benitez.

[littleguy-pi]

Vincent recovering from his car bomb incident :(

[mrstedescollitto]