the two popes – Smaller Pictures

Why Parasite’s win is important

Going into the 92nd Academy Awards, it seemed that pretty much every category was a lock. Joaquin Phoenix was favoured to take home the Best Actor gong for Joker, Renee Zellweger winning Best Actress for Judy and Sam Mendes was the strong favourite to win Best Director for 1917 with the latter ultimately winning Best Picture. How much the Academy surprised us then when the Best Director trophy was awarded to Bong Joon-ho for Parasite and then his film won the Best Picture award, beating the odds. Personally I was very happy as I had placed a bet on Parasite to win so there was a monetary reward for myself but the happiness goes to another more serious level. 1917 is a prime example of a quintessential award film. Don’t get me wrong, 1917 is a brilliant film that is full of revolutionary technical achievement, particularly Roger Deakins’ cinematography but it is no secret that the Academy and other Western award bodies have a love affair with war films. So much so that it has become a running joke in the film industry that to win awards, you have to make or star in a war film.

For those who are not in the know, Parasite is a Korean film exploring classism and inequality in a society that only benefits the rich and leaves those poorer to live in the gutter (quite literally). It has been the source of much hype since its premiere at last year’s Cannes Film Festival where it won the top prize, the Palme d’Or, in a rare unanimous vote, marking the first Korean film to win the prestigious award. Korean cinema is among the best in the world and has been a leading institution for years for filmmakers and film lovers and it felt like it was finally getting its due in the mainstream. Bong Joon-ho has previously delved into English-language with Snowpiercer (2013) and Okja (2017) which have become much-loved modern classics and released to acclaim; however, I think it’s poignant that Bong’s ascendance to the global audience has come from a Korean-language film that explores Korean society. It is very much detached from Western society in both its subject matter and filmmaking technique, allowing Bong to direct without the restrictions that Western studios demand. The fact that a film like Parasite, a film that is inherently unique in its style and content can beat a film like 1917 shows that there is an appetite for a different kind of film experience. It also shows a promising step forward in what audiences now expect. Naturally, franchises such as the Marvel and DC films still top the box office but Parasite concrete proof that people want more variety in the cinemas as well. Parasite’s subsequent box office success after its award wins confirms this. Now that it’s been given the chance to screen in more cinemas, it’s been able to demonstrate that there is an audience who want to watch foreign-language films, snubbing the assumption that Western audiences don’t want to watch films with subtitles.

There are many people who dismiss award season as pointless and dim, viewing it as celebrities patting themselves on the back. I don’t think it is as simple as that though. The truth is people do pay attention to awards season and follow the films that are successful. Of course, a lot of time there are the usual suspects who are nominated time and time again, sometimes undeservedly but when you have a film like Parasite that isn’t given the same chance as a mediocre English-language film then the exposure that award season brings is crucial for the film’s box office success.

Overall, there were some brilliant films this award season but Parasite was the clear standout. The fact that it won the major awards is a sign that the Academy is looking at artistic merit and not just succumbing to making it a popularity contest. Parasite’s win may not seem significant but the importance cannot be understated. Hopefully this will spark the beginning of an awards body that seeks to be more inclusive and diverse, giving all films an equal chance.

Here are my reviews for some of the films of the 92nd Academy Awards:

Winners: 1917, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, Judy, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite, Toy Story 4

Nominees: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Bombshell, The Irishman, The Lighthouse, The Two Popes

Snubs: Dolemite Is My Name, Hustlers, Midsommar, Uncut Gems

What did you think of Parasite’s winning streak at the Oscars? Let me know in the comments below!

The Two Popes (2019)

The first film I watched this decade is a surprising choice in the form of biopic The Two Popes following the conservative Cardinal Ratzinger (Anthony Hopkins) who becomes Pope Benedict XVI and his eventual friendship with the more liberal Cardinal Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), who later becomes Pope Francis. Directed by Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles with a script written by Anthony McCarten based on the latter’s novel The Pope, The Two Popes manages to successfully avoid falling into the trap of becoming another studio churned out biopic. There is no doubt that the two leads are the stars of the show and contribute a lot to the film’s overall acclaim but Meirelles control on the tone of the film and McCarten’s deeply intense script make The Two Popes a thrilling watch, particularly scenes when it is the two gentleman by themselves. The film’s strength comes in its constant shift in dynamic. The opening scenes follow the death of Pope John Paul II and the deciding vote on who will be his successor and the differences between the two eventual popes are crystal clear. Cardinal Ratzinger does everything in his power to become Pope and succeeds by persuading his fellow Cardinals during breaks from voting whereas Bergoglio is discomforted by the prospect of becoming pontiff. There seems to be a projected rivalry on the two men which Ratzinger seems to act on but Bergoglio is perplexed by this narrative.

The power from this film comes from the brilliant screenplay by McCarten. His script reads like a power struggle at times as the dynamic shifts between the two popes’ favour throughout. The inclusion of flashbacks and context into their histories also helps the film to avoid being just a simple story of one Pope’s decline and another’s ascension. There is no bias for either one as we are just presented with facts such as Ratzinger’s admission that he knew about the molestation within the Church before the scandal came to light. Despite the two men being a part of the same religion, they have completely different viewpoints. Ratzinger feels that resigning is the only way to seek absolution whereas Bergoglio thinks that he should remain Pope and see the scandal through to the end. Bergoglio’s upbringing and story is filled with a lot more turmoil than Ratzinger who seems to have had a more privileged upbringing. Their conflicting interests and differing politics result in Bergoglio coming across as more compassionate than Ratzinger because he is more accepting and open to change. The ending scene with the two men watching the football is funny to watch and makes for a light tone to suggest that their friendship is on good terms.

The two leads excel in their roles as expected. Jonathan Pryce is absolutely brilliant in the leading role as Bergoglio who is the quietly outspoken of the two. Constantly having to justify his stance on controversial topics that differ from the conservative Church teachings, Bergoglio is seen equally as a disgrace and a revolutionary within the Church. It comes to light that this has been the case all his life with his complicated background during the Argentinian militaria regime. Whereas Ratzinger revels in the tradition and opulence of the Catholic Church, Bergoglio is happy with what he has. He doesn’t understand why those high up in the Church live in such luxury. Pryce is perfect casting in both his appearance and his characterisation, truly becoming the future pope. You never know what he is going to do or say next because he is unpredictable. One minute he will be conversing in Latin with Ratzinger and the next he will be teaching him how to tango.

Anthony Hopkins’ performance is his best in film for years. Bringing out mannerisms subtly with an understated accent and acting that seems effortless but is really meticulous, Hopkins is fantastic as the newly elected Pope. Ratzinger is not necessarily a likeable character because he is so set in his ways and has many dated opinions that don’t fit in with the times. He is clearly a highly intelligent man and extremely well-read but also detached from modern society. In some ways Bergoglio tests him to embrace the present world more and try to adapt. We don’t see as much of Ratzinger’s background as Bergoglio’s but Hopkins gives us enough to know that he has always been a lonely figure. The scene in which Ratzinger gives Bergoglio his confession is fantastic. The audience lingers on Hopkins’ words as he reveals his difficult time growing up and being saved by God.

In terms of awards buzz, The Two Popes has garnered attention for Pryce and Hopkins’ performances. I don’t think either will win due to strong competition in both categories but they are deserved nominations. I didn’t think I would find this film particularly enjoyable but I was pleasantly surprised. The performances alone are enough to the grip the viewer but it proved to be even more. It’s not a film about religion but more of a character study about two very men who are connected because of that religion. There were many gripping scenes filled with tension as the two popes debate about various aspects of the church. I also wasn’t expecting the film to have so many funny moments as well and it doesn’t feel too heavy in subject matter. I think following it primarily from the point of view of Bergoglio was a smart choice as we see the events from both the inside and the outside depending on what is happening.

What did you think of The Two Popes? Let me know in the comments below!