New Hugh Grant horror film raises questions about nature of religious belief
Film review: ‘Heretic’ by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, ★★★★☆
(Note about possible spoilers: This review takes the form of reflections on the dialogue of a film; those planning to see the movie may want to consider reading this review after seeing the film. This review does not reveal plot developments on the horror aspects of the film beyond what can be gleaned by watching the official trailer.)
Why do we believe what we believe, and what does it take to change our minds? Those are the questions at the heart of Heretic, the horror drama that opened last weekend and placed second in the U.S. box office.
Yes, a horror film that asks serious questions. And the questions involve far more than what they appear to be on the surface, which is a protracted challenge by the protagonist, Mr. Reed, played by Hugh Grant, to the religious beliefs of two 20-ish female proselytizing missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The missionaries are played by Sophie Thatcher (currently playing Natalie in Yellowjackets) and Chloe East (seen most recently in The Fabelmans).
Latter-day Saints positively portrayed
Before continuing with the review, let me get one point out of the way: A statement from an LDS church spokesman to the church-owned Deseret News suggested that the film “promotes violence against women because of their faith.” The Deseret News article quoting the spokesperson went onto to suggest that the film is sacrilegious and an attack on religion.
In a sense, of course, any horror film promotes violence, often involving women as victims. But this film does not glorify violence in a way that justifies anti-religious or misogynistic behavior. The victims are sympathetic figures, and the perpetrator is not likable.
Neither is the film an attack on religion nor the Latter-day Saint faith. In fact, the film offers one of the most positive portrayals of a Latter-day Saints that can be found in today’s films or TV shows. The two young missionaries are as normal as young adults can be; they are not portrayed as cultish nor as flamboyantly hypocritical as is common in films or shows portraying Latter-days and other religious characters. The missionaries even show some nuance in their religious thinking. The characters who come across negatively are a few bit characters who harass the missionaries in the film’s opening scenes and the atheist Mr. Reed.
Protagonist misunderstands religion
The missionaries go to Mr. Reed’s home because he had indicated an interest in learning more about the missionaries’ church, but we learn very soon that he has other motives. The plot of the movie is an elaborate cat-and-mouse game, one that is both physical and verbal. He hopes to end both missionaries’ lives and the faith that they hold.
Mr. Reed’s brand of atheism might be seen as the fundamentalist variety: He sees his duty in life as persuading others to his point of view, and he can’t even conceive that he might be wrong. He’s the type of true disbeliever that you’ll find on social media, the kind who thinks he has all the answers and believes anyone who doesn’t see things his way is mentally deficient.
And while Mr. Reed has plenty of facts at his disposal, he doesn’t understand how religion works in real life. He thinks that by merely presenting the facts, such as those of history and science, the faithful will see the error of their ways and acknowledge that truth can’t be found in religion.
But that’s not the way that religion works. As it comes out in the film, it’s clear that religious belief is based in part on feelings along with hopes and desires. Mr. Reed pooh-poohs the idea, although it’s clear that he has feelings of his own. His efforts at persuasion are ineffective, partly because the missionaries realize that what they believe is something that isn’t based on total objectivity. In fact, one of them finds meaning in prayer despite explicitly acknowledging that scientific experiments have been unable to verify its efficacy.
In this way, the film becomes a metaphor for all kinds of belief and decision-making. An example might be the recent presidential election, where many of Donald Trump’s supporters were well aware of the facts that his opponents saw as disqualifying — but they voted for him anyway at least in part because of feelings and hopes that they had, such as that he would stand up for them. This reliance on feelings more than facts isn’t restricted to one side of the political aisle, of course; survey after survey showed, for example, showed that Kamala Harris supporters in this election cycle felt much better about the state of the economy than did others, even though we’re all dealing with the same set of facts about matters such as inflation and employment rates.
Similarly, advertisers know that consumer decisions are more often based on feelings rather than on objective specifications of the products being sold. Apple fans are seldom open to arguments that Android phones are as objectively powerful as similarly priced iPhones, for example, and Android fans may discount the objective advantages of iPhones because they see iPhone owners as elitist.
Whether it comes to religion or politics or consumerism or whatever, it isn’t that objective facts aren’t important; it is just that they often aren’t at the heart of we value, and we often interpret the facts in light of what already feels right. The complexity of the human eye, for example, might be seen by an atheist as a sign of the incredible power of natural selection, while the same thing may be seen by a fundamentalist Christian as a sign of God’s creativity — and a Christian who accepts evolution may see both signs.
It’s an act of creative genius that writers Scott Beck and Bryan Woods could raise profound questions in the context of a horror film.1 What they didn’t do is provide the answers. They don’t set out to dissuade believers or unbelievers, and chances are both sides will come out of the film with minds entertained and challenged but unchanged.
Although the violence in this film is brief and provides the R rating, it isn’t for the squeamish.