The Two Popes on Netflix

Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s the problem, people see it and assume they are learning something from it.

This even after realizing other parts of the movie are false.
Yes, I hear what you are saying…however, I don’t see things in black and white like that. Just because one part of the movie had problems, I’m not going to dismiss the rest of the movie. I’ll also try to check other sources.

The story portrayed by the movie relating to Pope Francis and his time as the head of the Jesuits in Argentina seems to basically be the same story described (and referenced) in Wikipedia

 
Last edited:
What actual change in Benedict XVI is being portrayed?
As I said, he almost embraces Francis at the end.

At the start, Benedict eats by himself. At the end, they say grace over pizza in the Sistine Chapel. (They even have Francis theologize about it, if you did not get the meaning)

Two men, stumbling under the enormous burden of world problems that were their responsibility, found forgiveness together in Reconciliation, and in friendship. You heard Maciel’s name before Benedict’s confession went silent. As Cardinal, Benedict took responsibility for clergy sexual abuse but could not do enough; only as Pope was he able to stop Maciel. It was not enough, just like Bergoglio could not do enough in the dirty war.

A more accurate portrayal would have shown how difficult this was for the gracious, shy Ratzinger and how mch he relied on God’s forgiveness before this fictional encounter. But the dramatic view showed how much mercy meant to both.
Their debate in the garden is really ridiculous. They set up Francis as the one who better grasps the understanding of what the Church should be and their exchange has him lecturing Benedict on the role of Jesus in the Church as it pertains to mercy.
Isn’t that when Francis “lectures” Benedict by quoting Caritas in Veritate? It is Benedict’s own lecture that guides both men.
 
Well this forum doesn’t have dislikes for a post, so I will just say, I disagree. But, perhaps I am wrong.

Merry Christmas
 
I don’t believe Ratzinger was the dope the movie portrays him as. Turned it off then cancelled NF. They’ve got nothing worth 2 hours of life to waste watching.
 
I saw the trailer for it onNetflix. The casting is great.
But I probably won’t watch the movie because I don’t want to be mislead. While the director may say that it is not factual, I would be hard pressed to know what is and isn’t true about a lot of it. And I just don’t think I want to watch something about either pope that isn’t the truth.
 
But I probably won’t watch the movie because I don’t want to be mislead. While the director may say that it is not factual, I would be hard pressed to know what is and isn’t true about a lot of it. And I just don’t think I want to watch something about either pope that isn’t the truth.
I completely agree. So many people will watch it now and take it as truth and that is not good for the Church.

I also hope Catholics will be wise enough to stop promoting the movie but rather boycott it and sign off of Netflix.
 
Last edited:
We should be thankful that Netflix would even want to shed light on Pope Francis in a movie. We live in days that shows promote extreme immorality, depravity, and witchcraft.

It’s good to see a movie promoting the goodness of the church, Christ, and the Pope.

So what if the two Popes didn’t actually sit down and eat pizza and watch soccer together. The movie has a greater message than this.
 
I get that, but as I said, I don’t know what part are true and what parts aren’t. It’s not the pizza eating. It is the personality issue as others have mentioned. From what I saw in the trailer, Pope Benedict does come across as the total opposite in demeanor as what I saw of him. That is kind of a big deal.
 
Again, no problem showing the two Pope’s in a fictional setting it meeting. Big problem with misrepresenting the popes’ personalities, beliefs, philosophies, bacgoynds etc.
And the confession scene sounds like it borders on calumny.

Overall, not thankful at all.
 
Last edited:
The portrayal of Benedict XVI is difficult, but it was done to show him change.
Difficult? It was a slanderous portrayal.

slander

1 the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
 
Big problem with misrepresenting the popes’ personalities, beliefs, philosophies, bacgoynds etc.
And the confession scene sounds like it borders on calumny.
Exactly the over-all problem.
 
So what if the two Popes didn’t actually sit down and eat pizza and watch soccer together. The movie has a greater message than this.
I thought it was a good movie. Love me some Anthony Hopkins.

But I don’t think I liked the “greater message.” To me it was about a stale, out of touch Church in need of reform.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe the Church should be in a constant state of renewal, like the seasons, an Easter people.

But I think the message here suggests something more drastic. Using Pope Benedict XVI as the face of all that is wrong & Pope Francis as all that is right.

& that may very well be the case, what do I know?

I do plan to watch it again this weekend when I can really watch it. I had just watched it with the Fam over for Christmas. I’m sure I missed a few things here & there.
 
Honestly looks stupid to me. I heard its about the world having 2 popes. Feels like Hollywood “Catholic” BS to me.
in a politically polarized world IMHO it is refreshing to have a movie that entertains and examines “catholic” issues
A PBS NewsHour piece about the movie can be read by clicking here.
actually think it is refreshing and a step in the right direction to have a “Hollywood” movie w/ out gratuitous sex scenes and car chases with lots of special effects explosions
 
I watched it on Christmas Eve coincidentally, the same day as my brother and so we had this conversation on Christmas Day. As SDG’s observes at the end of his review:
" what Roger Ebert wrote about Memoirs of a Geisha applies to all of these films: The more you know about the subject matter and movies, the less you are likely to enjoy them."
First and foremost it’s not intended to be anything other than a dramatisation - it tells a story about historical events/figures in a particular way for dramatic purposes and, to this extent, doesn’t claim to be historically accurate. Indeed, when it comes to any historical drama, no matter how attentive the screenwriters might be to historical accuracy, some artistic licence is inevitable. Yes, Benedict and Francis are caricatures but, as my brother pointed out, this could be said about pretty much every character in The Crown other than the Queen (and even then…). As I see it, the object of the film was not to present a factually historical drama but rather a dramatic portrayal of history with the intent of showing how two contrasting figures can find common ground and mutual respect for each other out of humility and faith. Granted there will be people who take every aspect of it to be real (I’m not sure that the caricatured view of either pope needs any help) but then the is true of the Da Vinci Code - I’m told for a while curators at the Louvre kept being asked where the murders happened!
 
I watched it and enjoyed. I viewed Francis and Benedict as caricatures, but not cruel ones. It’s not a historical piece, per se. I suppose where it does tread on iffy ground is seeming to lay a lot of the abuse scandal at Benedict’s feet, but it was a popular theory after Benedict resigned that the pressure of the scandals were a significant reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top