Some readers must surely share my view that a break from the intensity of political discussion is sometimes welcome. So I offer a slight divertissement: Frequent readers would have some recollection of my low opinion of the vulgarity, self-obsessive vanity, and political and social posturing of the American film industry. 

While there is no denying the talent of cinematographers and some actors, it is as steeped in ghastly, woke, infantile self-righteousness as ever. However, because a film about a conclave to select a new pope had been highly praised, and because I am a fairly observant Roman Catholic who has had the privilege of meeting the previous two popes and of knowing many cardinals, two of them closely, I thought it was worth a look.

“Conclave” is a distinct commercial success and has won much professional recognition, including eight Academy Award nominations, and it won the award for best adapted screenplay. I should stress that this is a British film. I am cautiously hopeful that even Hollywood, which has lavished honors on it, would have some reservations about actually producing such a plot.

The set and the acting were commendable and the presentation of liberal and conservative Catholic viewpoints, while a bit of a caricature in places, was a plausible superficial airing of some of those issues. It soon emerged, though, that one of the leading candidates for elevation to be supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church had effectively bribed 40 of the cardinals to support him for the papal succession.