I was really excited to see Hugh Grant's new movie Heretic especially as it was marketed as a creepy cat-and-mouse horror flick with one of my favorite actors at the buttons. I did not expect it to play into what I was saying just yesterday about allowing "dangerous" themes into the arts.
Basically, the plot is two missionary Mormon girls are invited inside by a charming, reclusive Englishman they're trying to convert. Of course, you know from the get-go that the charm is going to fade - rapidly - and that the girls are not in charge at all. What starts out as a fairly ordinary set-up rapidly gets switched around - soon enough, it's the Machiavellian Mr. Reed who's preaching to convert the (increasingly terrified) girls.
It's not a standout movie when it comes to the genre, but I don't really think it's supposed to be. It seems to me Heretic merely uses horror tropes to drive across a point. It's playing on a double level, so to speak. You're free to take it as a fun little horror flick that's not too great and not too shabby. If you chose Route A, you're still getting a good deal, since the performances are superb and the film keeps you reasonably entertained and caught up in the story for the most part. There is also, of course, Route B which allows you to search for deeper meaning and hidden messages.
Which is a plague of our modern age, have you noticed? We tend to pick everything apart, but what does that mean and who is it insulting? Nothing's ever just a dirty bit of fun anymore. Shame, no?
Of course, I realize the irony that I'm now picking this film apart, but c'est la vie.
Photo Credit: A24
Before I saw it, I'd read heaps of glowing review titles, praising Hugh Grant, and even suggesting he'd missed his calling as a horror actor. Yes, because so many women would resist being stuck inside a house with a 40-ish Hugh Grant. Even at 64, the man sure is a charmer.
I see now, however, a lot of mixed reviews from movie-goers (as opposed to critics), with most of the negative comments coming either through the religious angle, or the genre one. It's either (a) harebrained and offensive to the various big religions suggesting they're panacea for the gullible, or (b) not a proper horror movie.
Personally, I think both angles are missing the point. Yes, the film's anti-religion spiel is fairly run-of-the-mill and reductive. And no, it's not that stellar horror film you'll talk about for years. But maybe it's not meant to be either. I did think it was a commentary on religion, but rather than putting it out in the dialogue (which is actually really good, for the most part) it's in the essence, in the plot, in the suggestions.
Religion isn't the board of Monopoly that Mr. Reed compares it to. It's the maze-like house the girls get trapped in. To me, Heretic doesn't come armed just with the same dull arguments atheists have flaunted a million times over, but with a question,
What if there's a madman at the buttons? What if God isn't the benevolent father, but the lunatic recluse that the children of the neighborhood are terrified of?
There is, in most religious practices, a supposition that there is a someone in charge, and more often than not, that someone is good or at the very least capable. That they know where they are taking us. And maybe they do, but maybe they're also psychotic. Maybe the Plan is actually a madman's plan, in that it still follows a logic, but it's a twisted, terrifying, malevolent logic known only to the creep in charge.
The film actually plays on that, with Mr. Reed suggesting at one point to the girls that religions are actually re-iterations of previous religions, an argument that atheists and various spiritual folk across the world have made for a while now. In the film, Mr. Reed points out that Radiohead's hit song "Creep" is actually a reiteration (at least in composition) of the 70s song "The Air That I Breathe". He later sings the chorus to Creep as the girls descend into his terrifying basement.
Could be that that's actually what the film is saying. That despite our recurrent expectation of an all-knowing, well-meaning, righteous-leaning god, the man upstairs might just as easily fit into the unsettling misfit category. That he could be not evil, because after all, that's a bit of a simplistic turn-around. But someone who thinks they're good, that they're doing the right thing, that they've found the correct direction to take this beautiful green ball of ours?
That's a scary concept, isn't it? But also an exciting one, at least from the creative perspective. From the humanist perspective? I don't think so, not more so than the others. As the film suggests, it's not knowing what's at the other end that truly fuels our nightmares, which is possibly why so many actual horror movies center around either death and/or religion.
We don't know. But we wish like hell we did.
I think that's what Heretic challenges. I think it strikes out to make the people who cling to this falsified knowing most fiercely a little uncomfortable, and maybe challenge that. Viewed as a horror movie alone, it doesn't make sense, chiefly because (as the climax of the movie highlights), the girls go through much of Reed's puppeteering willingly. It's only very late that they actually fight back, missing a slew of opportunities. There's the locked basement, the robed figure with long dark hair, the deus ex machina finale of the story, and several other elements that seem to be poking fun a little at the genre. Then there's the anti-religious argument which, while good at times, is quite superficial, so maybe the film is neither.
And when you leave the cinema with the thought that there might be a psycho in the heavens running the show, then that's quite a horror show, no? Makes the need for one to brush by on a Tuesday a little trivial.
Or maybe it's just a so-and-so fun little movie you can enjoy if you like Hugh Grant. Whatever works, man. It's year's end, let loose.
Oh fun... I am curious about the film and have heard many takes on it and all the while no desire to actually see it because there are other movies i'd much rather see. But i was interested in the themes of course of this one.
You didn't miss much ;) I didn't think it went into much depth on any religious angle to be honest. Didn't even see why it had to be two Latter Day Saints girls, honestly. Probably the going to people's houses just offered the writers a good, easy lead... though I did find it interesting (and vaguely creepy on the producer's part) that the actresses hired actually both had a LDS background.
Ha, well, I want to see it now. I do like analyzing a movie. That's the fun bit - and it makes a movie worth analyzing, imo. Have you seen 'Men'? Only it's the last film I've seen of mate worthy of analysis. Most films seem mere entertaining. I miss the DVD shops of the '00' and '10's full of art house bizarreness.
I used to love to hate Hugh Grant. He is MUCH better now he's matured somewhat.
I know right? Can't stand the romcom stuff mostly, but he seems to be broadening his range considerably.
Oh just checking out Men. Love Rory Kinnear, so will definitely give this a watch. Thanks!