And the whole dad is not enough

This week we were all interested mainly in politics. But what is the interest in changing politicians? This is the realization of the craving for the archetype of the father: all people need someone who comes and silently corrects everything. And even if everything is not bad, then he will make sure that it does not get worse.

All humanity, every nation, needs this figure on an ongoing basis. In the West, part of the role of this metaphorical figure is assigned to the world's main Catholic - the Pope, the guardian of the throne of St. Peter. And dad there is a part of popular culture and an actor in political life.

In connection with the scandals that actually accompanied the church throughout its history and have only intensified over the past 20 years, the apparatus responsible for the church’s public relations has begun to work more actively.

So, quite recently, several outstanding films were entirely dedicated to the figure of the Pope. One is “Two Dads” by Fernando Meirelisch, the second is “New Dad” by Paolo Sorrentino, the continuation of the bewitching “Young Dad” with sleek and affectionate Jude Law in the title role.

“Two Popes” is the story of the appearance on the Holy See of Pope Francis, the former Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the world.

The film is made in the best traditions of political biography. At the very beginning, the protagonist of the protagonist is clearly indicated - Bishop Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who received more votes in the 2005 conclave after the death of John Paul II.

These two - the future Francis and the present Benedict XVI - are frankly unpleasant to each other. Benedict is an exceptional conservative who is convinced that it is impossible to interfere in church affairs not only from the outside, it is better not to intervene at all. Let everything be golden, expensive and petrified. People are used to it, and nothing needs to be disturbed. Sex scandals? Boys seduced by priests? This is bad. But let's not talk about it yet. Or let's not talk about it at all.

Jorge Bergoglio is the exact opposite. He feeds the poor in his native Argentina, warmly supports his beloved football team, witty jokes with random passers-by and generally wants to resign from the post of cardinal. At this moment, the acting father calls him.

Further, for an hour and a half, we observe a fascinating conversation between two very charming learned husbands.

Pope Francis is played by Jonathan Price, known as the head of the sect of His Sparrow from the TV series Game of Thrones, and Anthony Hopkins, especially known as the cannibal Hannibal Lecter, plays the role of Pope Benedict XVI.

Francis is a living reform of the church, moving forward, helping the poor and punishing the unworthy. Benedict says that he himself is unable to bear this burden and therefore asks Jorge to change it on the throne, thus becoming Francis.

The heroes reveal the past to each other (in church terms, confess each other), and it turns out that the future Francis made a betrayal in his youth, which entailed the death of one of his comrades-in-arms, and Benedict covered priests involved in sexual scandals.

In the artistic sense, the film was made perfectly flawless and very witty. Two popes walk for a long time along the corridors of the Vatican, talking in the Sistine Chapel, and if the popes say that the world is mired in debauchery and love of money, the director shows us a fresco from the southern wall of the chapel - “The Giving of the Commandments and the Golden Calf” by Cosimo Rosselli.

In the finale, the two warring parties of Catholicism, represented by the popes - reformism and conservatism - are reconciled. Dads first eat pizza in the utility room, and then watch football together: Germany plays with Argentina.

This is not even a servile biography of Francis I, this is a frank panegyric not just to a living, but to an acting church official of the highest rank. So here, it means, we have a modest and humble dad, that he is a major director of our time - and Fernando Meirelisch shot, among other things, for example, the famous film "City of God" - he erects a cinematic monument during his lifetime. And he, in turn, in every possible way demonstrates his austerity, welcomes the orphans and abandoned the helicopter.

The series "New Papa" Paolo Sorrentino is ideologically diametrically opposed to all of this. At least his first two series, which so far have come out.

The film begins with a nun who masturbates while lying near the body of Judah Low, whose hero - the previous dad - is in a coma after transplanting another heart that has not taken root.

From the 35th time, the Conclave chooses a new pope, a front and spineless puppet bishop, who immediately calls himself Francis II and propagates the activity of spreading classical left populism: he walks in a linen cassock, lets the suffering refugees with checkered bags into the Vatican gardens, deprives him of a cardinal dear rings and announces that now all the property of the church will be distributed to the poor.

This is such a direct parody of the current Pope Francis, that the director Sorrentino is even a little scary. However, when you watch his film, it becomes clear that nothing can threaten a genius of this magnitude.

The first season of this series, entitled “Young Papa,” was about the beauty of a believer, about his perfection and how the inner light allows this perfection to work miracles.

The new season, it seems, will be about the insoluble conflicts of the modern world - about how populism, promising universal prosperity, reconciliation and tranquility, in reality destroys established and working mechanisms.

The new pope in the series becomes the bishop performed by the flirty and pensive John Malkovich with tinted eyes. Well, he clearly embodies the third, middle path - quite serious and at the same time unexpectedly dangerous.

So, in search of the fatherly dominant, modern popular culture is spinning along with high art. And if both of them suddenly became a PR, it’s just a sign of the times. All PR that works to good. For the benefit of gaining a missing spiritual leader.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.