Conclave’s Script Weaves a Web of Intrigue and Wonder

Adapted from Robert Harris’ novel, Edward Berger’s Conclave pulls back the curtain on the Vatican’s enigmatic process of electing a new pope to reveal a complex world of political intrigue, personal ambition, and spiritual hope. Tasked with managing the process, Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) must discover the truth of every candidate, no matter how difficult, to allow this process to succeed. The final film, writes AV Club, is “a gradually swelling, deeply intellectual, and unexpectedly fun political thriller.”

Peter Straughan was chosen to adapt this complex novel. In the production notes, Harris says that Straughan “always has another layer. There’s something underneath the main story that I would call a soul.” Straughan—who was nominated for an Academy Award® for Best Adapted Screenplay for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy—instilled the story with cinematic suspense and philosophical intrigue. Collider writes, the script “plays out with the intensity of a political thriller.”

We spoke with Straughan about what makes this story so taut, thrilling, and timely.

Conclave is only in theaters October 25, so get tickets now!

How did you get involved with Conclave?

I had done two previous films—Frank and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy—for the producer Tessa Ross. When she sent me the novel, Conclave, I read in one day.

What excited you about adapting the novel?

I really loved it. First and foremost, Harris is a great writer. The novel was intelligent and elegant and I was surprised by how the story gripped me. Harris smartly made those tropes from great ‘70s thrillers new again by setting them in this new arena, this secret world of the Vatican. When you look to see if a book will become a good film, you are looking for the conflict. And you can’t get a conflict more naked than what transpires here. I was born a Catholic and went to a Catholic School, so this world was familiar to me. In writing this, I felt I had one foot in that world and one foot out, and that’s a good place to be.

To me, Lawrence felt like a classical hero, a quiet ordinary Joe with a modicum of common sense and decency. Early on, he gives a homily where he asks God to give us a pope who doubts. I found that quite electric. When I read that, I realized I really wanted to do this project.

What was the biggest challenge in adapting this story?

On the one hand, there's a grand scale to the story. It's the oldest election in the world, representing a constituency of one and a half billion people. It takes place inside the Vatican, whose very buildings are meant to intimidate and create a sense of awe. It’s an imperial citadel. It has all this scale, but, at the same time, it's a chamber piece with just a few actors. There are something like 108 cardinals but only seven main characters in the film. I worried that it might feel like a stage play.

My solution was that we should lean into that reality, because, after all, the Vatican is a theater. The conclave itself is theater. Just outside the doors of the Vatican, an audience of thousands is waiting in suspense for the decision. You've got a stage in which the play is taking place with the homilies and different rituals. And then, there is the backstage—all the wings and stairwells and private rooms in which the masks come off and the horse trading takes place. The story comes together at that moment when the wall separating the stage from the backstage comes down and nothing will ever be the same again.

Like with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, there is such great dramatic tension between the international conflict and the particularities of the individual characters.

That tension between opposites was inherent in the conclave from the start, in the difference between the grand drama of the ritual and the bathos of small, ordinary humans. That conflict also provided much of the humor in the film. There is something inherently comic, for example, in having a cardinal nip out for a cigarette, even as he is deciding the fate of the Catholic Church.

Also, the drama is rendered very human by the fact that the conclave is so isolated. None of the cardinals are allowed to give or receive any messages from the outside world. Because of that isolation, Beckett’s Waiting for Godot was in the back of my mind when I was writing the screenplay. In many ways, Lawrence, who is struggling with faith, captures that human experience of isolation in the way he is straining in his prayers for instruction. They are all thrown back into a small human world filled with deceptions and betrayals.

Although the story is not about any election in particular, the film feels very resonant with the times we live in.

I think that is right, even though it is not connected to, for example, the American election. But the story echoes issues that involve politics and power in general. What is unique here, however, is the cardinals’ belief that through their process the Holy Ghost speaks. When they have chosen someone in good conscience that person is supposed to reflect the word of God.

What makes these characters so interesting?

They are all flawed in the end. The story provides a wonderful study of the corrupting effect of power. Even Lawrence can’t resist its influence. Even though he just wants to get the conclave over with as little drama as possible, he is drawn into the drama of power. It is an interesting journey to put all those characters through.

What surprised you about the final film?

In one way, I wasn’t surprised when I saw the final film. Since I was in Rome when the shooting started, I asked Edward if I could come on set. I was there for a large portion of the shoot. Edward is such a collaborative director. We sat side by side, often talking about the individual shots. I was able to fine-tune the script. The actors were so great that we were able to trim the script down here and there because we didn’t need the dialogue. On the other hand, it changed a lot in the edit. I was delighted by what an entertaining thriller the film became. In addition, Edward and the editor, Nick Emerson, brought something special to the final edit that made the film deeper and more complex.

What do you hope audiences take away from the film?

I hope they take away two lines from the film. One is when Cardinal Benítez (Carlos Diehz) says that he knows what it means to exist between certainties and the other is Lawrence’s line about praying for a pope that doubts. In a world so polarized, those two sentiments seem really important.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.