Jonathan Pryce received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis in The Two Popes.
The Two Popes follows the interactions between the soon to be retired Pope Benedict and the soon to be Pope, Pope Francis. The films has merits, though suffers most from not honing within its most effective material of the two Popes together, and spending too much time on drawn out flashbacks and highlighting events most viewers would be keenly aware of even with a cursory knowledge of the recent events involving the papacy.
Jonathan Pryce earns his very first Oscar nomination, from being extremely well cast as Pope Francis. This as he extremely closely resembles the real man, so in a way Pryce has a great advantage here from the outset in that one already accepts him in the role with little input from his actual performance. This beneficial connection of appearance though itself will be nothing if he does not deliver beyond that, in the end, a superficial element. Although still speaking of superficial I do have to note the impressive Spanish speaking moments of Pryce, in Francis's native language, this is to the point that I thought he might've been dubbed, he wasn't apparently, as he does deliver it so naturally in his work. Although these sort of things shouldn't be too stressed in my mind when speaking of the merits of a performance, at least not as a deciding factor of quality, it is an impressive element from Pryce's work nonetheless. It certainly helps in Pryce becoming even more acquainted into the role and he does disappear into the idea of merely playing the Pope. This also naturally acquiring his slightly South American influenced English speaking accent within the role. Pryce's performance though goes beyond this as his physical demeanor too effectively evokes the real man, beyond just already looking at him, with the very reserved physicality, but with a sense of a naturally welcoming quality within that. Pryce indeed just seems to become Francis, which yes is less of a stretch for him than most, but it sets his performance up from a good starting point nonetheless.
The next hurdle though is within the script by Oscar whisperer Anthony McCarten, who knows how to write a script to earn an actor an Oscar win, he's done it three times now, but struggles a bit more in providing a real depth towards his subject matter. It is important to note that this is his best script, helped greatly by the scenario that somewhat reduces his "then this happens" approach to telling a life story, even if there is a bit of that, in turn it seems just as fitting that this will probably be the first McCarten biopic script that "merely" results in Oscar nominations for its performers rather than Oscar win. Nonetheless there is a bit of "then this" happens material that far more heavily, in fact almost entirely, handles the portions of the film squarely focusing on Francis and less so on Benedict, where Hopkins only really appears in the better parts of the film. Pryce has to instead lead several sequences that don't really add a great deal to the film, but rather just let you know some basic things, that one would assume we know, such as Francis learned of John Paul II's death, he almost was elected Pope, and was elected Pope. We also just have the brief moments of Francis in his ministry, where we just see the likable man of the people. These scenes bear the odor of McCarten most strongly in their excessive simplicity. Pryce though performs them to the best of his ability though in providing the natural charm of the man of the people, and the grace that defines his place of power. The latter element's impact being the strongest in its relation to Hopkins's differing portrayal of the burden of that power.
It is in that dynamic between Francis and Benedict where the film works best, and it is through Hopkins's and Pryce's performances that they elevate beyond their material. This is as McCarten overdoes setting the positions of the two men of the conservative Benedict and the progressive Francis in every facet of their lives, however this is not nearly as detrimental as it might seem or could've been due to the work of Hopkins and Pryce. The initial conversation between the two, as Francis comes seeking permission to retire while Benedict has no wish to provide that, offers a glimpse in that. Now Hopkins has the inherently more complicated role, which he makes more than the most of, but Pryce importantly avoids potential pitfalls on his side. This is as the story is firmly in Francis's corner, which isn't a criticism, but could've simplified Francis as merely the good nearly perfect man. This is not in Pryce's performance in this scene as the two debate their differing views on the purpose of the church and their views on various controversial positions. Pryce is terrific in this scene. Now on the most immediate surface he is effective in providing the position of the man advocating for the ideas of changes to improve the connection of the church to the world, and growing through the times as a benefit. Pryce provides the conviction in each word, but doesn't simplify this, granting a real intensity within his eyes that subverts his often more gentle line deliveries. This in realizing Francis's way of advocating his position, while also showing the way he negotiates the conversation between that deep seeded passion, and needed to attempt to soften its delivery given his audience is his technical superior.
In that scene though the disagreement, which are painted directly, but given a real life by both Pryce and Hopkins. This as Pryce makes something far more vivid in moments by his articulation that goes beyond a straight passion, even as that too is abundant. His way of saying lines with a slight self-bemused laugh, as though easing Benedict's hearing of it, though finds the right personality within the ideals, revealing the man rather than being representative of simply the idea of a progressive. The same is found in their scenes of meetings each other more so as men than religious figures, though here too they are set as extremes of the introverted Benedict and the extroverted Francis. Again the key within this is that both actors manage to humanize this idea being the slightly contrived set up. This is that Pryce does indeed deliver on the idea of the extrovert in his eyes that show a man genuinely interested in when Benedict speaks of his own passions, and kinder affection in his delivery of Francis's own. This that Pryce delivers as an inviting and disarming quality, of a man hoping to share in this rather than limiting the interest more within. It goes beyond that as the chemistry between Pryce and Hopkins does go beyond this set up of the extremes. This in the way they play off each other they do create a real natural quality within their interactions, both in terms of those differences but the connection in their mutual faith. This as the two manage to work off one another with wonderful sort of moments of detachment from their differences but also moments of understanding which are weaved in so naturally by both performers.
The film though develops as instead of Benedict accepting Francis's resignation, he instead introduces his own choice to resign from his position. Pryce's reaction in this scene is fundamental to the strength of his work. This in he creates such a vivid sense of his disbelief at the idea, and creates a real sense of the frustration and passion even towards having the man stay, even though the man is someone he so strongly disagrees with. Pryce in that moment though grants the eloquence of the words though underlined with a convicted emotional belief behind the idea of the need of the Pope to maintain his position. This is in the strength of his performance as Pryce's work goes beyond even the sometimes perfunctory lines by revealing the deeper personality and humanity of the man speaking the words. He finds a complexity of really so often words are the way they are said, even if they are quire simple. The longest detour of the film unfortunately comes within this conversation as the film flashbacks to the younger Francis's struggle to deal with the political upheaval in Argentina. What I so dislike about the scene, is, one, the flashback brings the film to a halt, but more so its approach gets in the way of the most positive qualities of the film which are Pryce and Hopkins's performances. This as the flashbacks are simple to a fault and cursory. The strongest element of them is Pryce's narration that underlines a more powerful emotion of regret regarding the compromises of the past. It is the shame that we can't see him, as Pryce's work likely would've added more vibrancy to the scenario than we are given technically actually seeing it through the typical Wikipedia article depth offered by McCarten's script. The sort of highlights of that sequence are the brief glimpses of Pryce, the brief things we hear, where Pryce does find a greater depth of feeling than the images can provide. It's a shame the filmmakers did not just leave it to Pryce and Hopkins to create the scene entirely, as their input is more captivating than any of the images found within the visual retelling. This is as everything we need to know is in Pryce's work, so it is unfortunate that director Fernando Meirelles didn't quite have the confidence in his work to let him be. Still even with that missed opportunity, what we still see from Pryce shows why it is a missed opportunity in his moving portrayal of the guilt, before it is absolved by his priest in the moment by Benedict. Again where the film excels and succeeds in allowing the two performers to bring the best out of the material by making the two so tangible as men. Even when they are simplified potentially as figureheads, or ideas, we see them beyond that through the endeavors of Hopkins and Pryce. Take a pivotal moment where Benedict gives his own confession, Pryce is essential within the scene as the partner towards Hopkins's in the realization of the moment. This in his expression of priestly concerned the segues ways towards a more distinct at the sin of his soon to be predecessor. This though still with a portrayal of the attempt of consoling and wisdom, as Benedict goes on to speak of his crisis of faith. In that concern, Pryce emphasizes such a powerful empathy and understanding, and again builds upon the relationship between the two with such a poignant sincerity. Pryce delivers a terrific performance here as he goes beyond a cursory likeness, he also goes beyond the occasionally hackneyed choices of the screenwriter. He consistently offers something worthwhile in his portrait of Pope Francis. I suppose the highest compliment I can give is typically re-watching a McCarten penned film, becomes a far more aggravating the experience in each subsequent viewing. This film though I've actually gained a bit more appreciation for, due to the central performances that so elevate their material, though I still can't help but wish they had a script completely worth of their work.
