Bergoglio unburdens himself of his darkest memory—his failure during Argentina’s Dirty War, when he allegedly did not do enough to protect two imprisoned priests. The film handles this controversial chapter with nuance, suggesting that Bergoglio’s entire papacy is an act of penance for that silence. In this scene, Los Dos Papas transcends biopic territory. It becomes a meditation on whether the sins of the past can ever be redeemed by the actions of the present.
Pryce, by contrast, is all earthy motion. His Bergoglio shuffles, sighs, and dances the tango in his head. He is a pope who smells of sheep, who washes the feet of the poor, and who speaks of God not in Latin syllogisms but in the silence of a rainy Buenos Aires street.
Hopkins’ final performance as a retired pope—living in a cloistered garden, feeding chickens, and smiling without the weight of the world—is heartbreaking. He has found peace by relinquishing power. Pryce’s final shot, walking through the Vatican halls alone, realizing he is now the one who must doubt, is equally powerful. Los Dos Papas is a rare film: a religious movie for atheists, a historical drama that invents its history, and a comedy about the end of the world. It argues that faith is not the absence of doubt, but the courage to live within it. It suggests that the future of the Church—perhaps of any institution—depends not on warriors who never change their minds, but on leaders willing to admit they might be wrong.
In the annals of cinema, few films have dared to place two men in a room, set them at ideological odds, and emerge with something as fragile and revolutionary as hope. Fernando Meirelles’ Los Dos Papas (2019) is precisely that film. On its surface, it is a buddy dramedy set in the gilded cages of the Vatican. But beneath the Latin chanting and the white cassocks lies a searing, profoundly human argument about the nature of faith, the burden of tradition, and the terrifying necessity of change.
Bergoglio unburdens himself of his darkest memory—his failure during Argentina’s Dirty War, when he allegedly did not do enough to protect two imprisoned priests. The film handles this controversial chapter with nuance, suggesting that Bergoglio’s entire papacy is an act of penance for that silence. In this scene, Los Dos Papas transcends biopic territory. It becomes a meditation on whether the sins of the past can ever be redeemed by the actions of the present.
Pryce, by contrast, is all earthy motion. His Bergoglio shuffles, sighs, and dances the tango in his head. He is a pope who smells of sheep, who washes the feet of the poor, and who speaks of God not in Latin syllogisms but in the silence of a rainy Buenos Aires street. los dos papas
Hopkins’ final performance as a retired pope—living in a cloistered garden, feeding chickens, and smiling without the weight of the world—is heartbreaking. He has found peace by relinquishing power. Pryce’s final shot, walking through the Vatican halls alone, realizing he is now the one who must doubt, is equally powerful. Los Dos Papas is a rare film: a religious movie for atheists, a historical drama that invents its history, and a comedy about the end of the world. It argues that faith is not the absence of doubt, but the courage to live within it. It suggests that the future of the Church—perhaps of any institution—depends not on warriors who never change their minds, but on leaders willing to admit they might be wrong. It becomes a meditation on whether the sins
In the annals of cinema, few films have dared to place two men in a room, set them at ideological odds, and emerge with something as fragile and revolutionary as hope. Fernando Meirelles’ Los Dos Papas (2019) is precisely that film. On its surface, it is a buddy dramedy set in the gilded cages of the Vatican. But beneath the Latin chanting and the white cassocks lies a searing, profoundly human argument about the nature of faith, the burden of tradition, and the terrifying necessity of change. He is a pope who smells of sheep,