Reviews ‘Woman of the Hour’ and ‘Conclave’

There is a very interesting sequence of almost 70 minutes Woman of the Hour in which director Anna Kendrick shows how subtly changing the position of a camera can dramatically change how we think about a scene, and how we read the characters’ intent in that scene.

After Sheryl (Kendrick, who also plays the lead role) and Rodney (Daniel Zovatto) move on The dating gamethey decide to have a drink to get to know each other a little better before they leave for the holiday they have won. They’re sitting in an orange-hued tiki bar, across from each other at a table, and Kendrick starts the sequence with a pretty standard shot-counter shot: Rodney is slightly to the left of the screen, Sheryl is slightly to the right of the screen, and we switch back and forth back between them as they talk. She’s a little awkward because she’s completely into the movie; he’s a bit weird, although that’s to be expected since we’ve seen him commit a few murders.

The conversation continues and Rodney asks why she continued The dating game if she doesn’t date much. And Kendrick, director, gives her own answer from the side, her face in profile. “Yes, that’s funny. Um. My agent said this would get me noticed,” she says.

And if we go back to Rodney, his face is now right in the middle of the screen. He grins. Nods.

“Did you feel seen?” he answers. Almost rhetorical.

And then Kendrick goes back to Sheryl, who’s also right in the middle, and the panic starts to creep into her face, and she does that thing with her mouth that she does where it looks like she’s trying to decide whether or not to doesn’t have to smile – like when her lips, independent of her brain, aren’t quite sure if this is really happening – and says a little more softly, “I felt stared at.”

Rodney, still centered: “How are you feeling now?”

Sheryl, centered yet clearly off balance, understanding that things could get very bad very quickly: “…Fine.”

The sequence continues, culminating in him chasing her through a parking lot after she tells him she would never go anywhere with him – another masterfully lit, masterfully framed, masterfully paced – but above all it is this moment of conversational danger . Woman of the Hour‘s dangerous moments, has stuck in my head. Because that change in camera placement is the smallest of shifts, the most minuscule tinkering with cinematic norms, yet one that audiences often find deeply unnerving. because the difference is so small, becausethe norms have been violated in just the same way. It’s a pretty perfect visual representation of the internal radar that every woman needs to keep them out of harm’s way, to keep them from becoming a victim.

Woman of the Hour is not always so subtle. An earlier sequence – in which Laura (Nicolette Robinson) tells her boyfriend she thinks contestant Rodney may be a murderer, to which he responds with a litany of reasons why she’s probably overreacting – is as close as the film gets to shouting the main thematic point (BELIEVE WOMEN, there might as well be a subtitle flashing). But even at this point, there’s a worse version of this movie that ends the series with a big speech about how women are in danger because men are never in the same kind of danger, because they are not surrounded by half the population who are physically stronger and more chemically inclined to violent impulses.

Speeches are not necessarily the enemy of art, but sometimes they are the enemy of good art.

Conclave doesn’t quite close with a speech, but a speech certainly sets the stage for closing in the most hammered way possible.

Some spoilers from Conclave are coming soon – including an acknowledgment of which cardinal will be chosen as the next Pope in the film – so if you’re worried about that sort of thing, stop reading now!

Edward Berger’s film always focused on this speech; it was inevitable and obvious from the start. No one would ever be wrong Conclave for a subtle film; I saw someone refer to it derogatorily as Sorkinesque in its sensibilities, and rarely has that adjective been so apt. Cardinals have gathered in the Vatican to elect a new pope after the death of the previous one; there is sadness, of course, but also a buzz of excitement as those present realize that one of their own will walk away as pope.

As dean of the College of Cardinals, Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is in charge of the proceedings. The pope he served under was a liberal, reformist pope, and he and his liberal, reformist allies hope to appoint Bellini (Stanley Tucci) as his successor; you know he’s good since he tells his allies that he believes women should have a role in the priesthood. Their main opponent is Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), an ultra-conservative Italian Catholic; You know he’s bad because he thinks the Catholic Church needs to get rid of this, ugh, diversity.

Leave a comment

Speaking of which, there’s Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), an African cardinal who is economically liberal and socially conservative; Sure, he might want to jail gays, but at least he would be the first black pope! (Note: This is a factual argument that one of the liberal cardinals makes, and with a straight face.) Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), meanwhile, is conservative, but not at conservative. He is also an operator, an expert politician, skilled in the subtle art of papal knife fighting. He is ten steps ahead of everyone, although rumors circulate that the Pope asked him to resign before he died.

And then there is Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz). No one knows who this cardinal is when he appears at the conclave. It turns out that he is the Cardinal of Kabul, secretly ordained because of the grave threat he would face if exposed. Needless to say, it is Cardinal Benitez – who has washed the feet of those suffering in war zones; who is not tainted by the ugliness of the quarrels in the Vatican – that is the most Christian of all these men of God. It doesn’t take a script doctor to see where this movie is going within moments of its appearance, but that doesn’t mean writer Peter Straughan had to seal the deal by giving Benitez the kind of speech that, if this were a parody movie, , would result in a slow blow from the College of Cardinals, which would mean his election as Pope.

There’s a final reveal that ties all the themes of the film together in a nice little bow – I won’t spoil it here; suffice it to say that after it played out on screen, all the Oscar buzz around this well-acted but light procedural was made a lot of makes more sense – and that’s appropriate, since this is one of those films that has to mean everything at the screenplay level. ConclaveThe show’s characters continually tell us what to think of them with their casual bigotry and increasing arrogance. This isn’t to say the movie looks bad. The shots are well framed and the lighting creates just enough atmosphere and shadows to make us feel like we’re involved in a mystery.

But given its size, scope and cast – and the fact that Berger earned a bushel of Oscar nominations for his previous work – his a tired, unsubtle adaptation by Everything quiet on the Western Front– it’s at least a little surprising that Anna Kendrick, the new director, had visual rings turning around him on the storytelling level.