Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries

[smac97]

Des News Article: The problem with ‘Heretic,’ Hugh Grant’s new horror movie about Latter-day Saint missionaries

Quote

The villain in “Heretic” is operating a long-term scheme to commit assault on women and religion.

The new horror movie hits theaters Nov. 8 and stars Hugh Grant as Mr. Reed, a warped charlatan who seeks to control, degrade and commit violence against women, including two female missionaries, in an anti-religious rage.

In short, Reed wants to kill the women from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but first he wants to take their freedom, murder their faith and replace it with his own twisted beliefs.

The movie joins a growing line of Hollywood vehicles dismissive of what believers find sacred. “Heretic” is the first to have a villain deceive, entrap and commit violence against sister missionaries. The trailers and premiere of the film at the Toronto International Film Festival last month drew both praise for Grant and concern for women and missionaries.

It’s also drawn strong reaction from Latter-day Saints and the church itself.

Huh.  The villain means to "control, degrade and commit violence against women," including "murder their faith."

I wonder how folks who are "anti-religion" or, more specifically, "anti-Mormon" might end up feeling about this.  We've seen plenty of instances of movie/TV/Book stories where the villain's religious zealotry drives them to do terrible things.  Is Heretic going to depict a similar progression borne of anti-religious zealotry?  I'm skeptical this will happen.

Quote

Church issues statement about ‘Heretic’

“Like many Hollywood productions, this is a work of fiction and is not based on actual events,” church spokesman Doug Andersen said in statement provided to the Deseret News. “It portrays the graphically violent treatment of women, including people of faith, and those who provide volunteer service to their communities. Any narrative that promotes violence against women because of their faith or undermines the contributions of volunteers runs counter to the safety and wellbeing of our communities.”

Andersen said the church has nearly 80,000 missionaries serving around the world and that it provides them with a thorough program of physical and emotional safety training.

“Our commitment is to foster a culture of respect, empowerment, and safety for all individuals,” he said.

Wow.  The Church's statement characterizes the movie as having a "narrative that promotes violence against women"?

Quote

‘Religion becomes an easy foil’

A24, the studio that produced the film, displayed ads inside the Salt Lake airport earlier this month during the Church of Jesus Christ’s semiannual general conference. Reminiscent of missing persons messages, they show photos of the women who play the sister missionaries under the provocative headline, “What happened to PAXTON and BARNES?” The disturbing ads greeted the millions of passengers — and the hundreds of Latter-day Saint missionaries — who travel through the airport each month.

“Religion becomes an easy foil,” said Diane Winston, Knight Center Chair in Media and Religion at the University of Southern California. Think about the number of horror movies focused on Catholic priests and/or exorcism, she said.

Many Latter-day Saints will object to “Heretic” from the opening street scenes that portray the young missionary women talking crassly about sex.

The most sacrilegious moment comes in the following scene, when the sister missionaries encounter a group of women about their own ages, late teens or early 20s. The result is an encounter ending with the group of women simultaneously pulling up the skirt of a missionary to reveal her temple garments, the sacred underclothing worn by adult, temple-attending Latter-day Saints.

The entire movie hinges on the sister missionaries walking through Reed’s door, so one of his earliest lies is that his wife is home. For their safety, Latter-day Saint sister missionaries do not enter a residence without another woman present. Reed has prepared a deception so he can reel them into both his home and his version of Bible bashing.

One reviewer wrote that a self-absorbed Mr. Reed forces the missionaries to listen to his anti-religious TED talk.

“The experience of meeting a condescending know-it-all is a really common experience for Latter-day Saint missionaries,” said Christopher Blythe, a Latter-day Saint convert and BYU English professor who co-hosts the “Angels and Seerstones” podcast with his wife, Christine.

This seems kinda weird.  Normally it's the religious zealots who are the baddies.

Quote

Writers-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (who co-created and co-wrote “The Quiet Place” and directed “Nightlight” and “Haunt”) have nothing new to add in their attacks on religion except jokes. They acknowledge borrowing ideas from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, well known atheists authors, and Charles Darwin. They have Mr. Reed mix those and other ideas together in a stew with humor and heat it up in the microwave.

So they are taking anti-religion ideas of Dawkins and Hitchens and putting them into the mind and words of a murderous villain?  

Quote

Why the writers of ‘Heretic’ attacked religion

A majority of people around the world are weary of religious stereotypes. A global 2022 poll found 78% of respondents said religious stereotypes need to be addressed by society as much or more than gender and race stereotypes. Harris X conducted the 2022 Global Faith and Media Study that surveyed 10,000 people in 18 countries and five languages.

“Everyone’s saying, ‘Stop stereotyping my faith,’ and Hollywood doesn’t see that,” Radiant Foundation executive director Angela Redding told the Deseret News earlier this year.

Redding said 61% of the poll’s respondents said media perpetuates faith-based stereotypes rather than protecting against them. Other polls show how religion improves wellbeing, mental health, spirituality and more.

This would be nice to see. 

Quote

The vibe in the Princess of Wales Theatre in Toronto was non-religious. The representative who introduced “Heretic” at the festival praised the team that chose to premiere it on a Sunday and said, “Welcome to the church of cinema!”

Beck and Woods were dismissive of religious belief in the Q&A that followed the viewing.

“We were raised Christian,” Woods said, “and then you make friends, and you get married and your wives and friends and family have different beliefs than what you grew up with and you kind of expand your mind. I think in many ways this is the most personal project that we’ve ever been a part of, because we got to kind of express some of these feelings and fears and conversations that we’ve been having.”

Woods is married to Julia Glausi, who graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in Theater and Media Arts. Glausi is credited as a producer on “Heretic.” The women who play the sister missionaries, Zoe Thatcher (“Yellowjackets”) and Chloe East (“The Fabelmans”) are former Latter-day Saints.

Winston, the media and faith chair at USC, also works with the Faith in Media Initiative, which collaborated with HarrisX on a 2023 global survey that found 80% of people want the entertainment industry to improve its portrayals of faith, making them more accurate.

“It sounds like the people who made this film have their own issues about religion, and this was one way to exorcize them,” she said.
...

“Mormons become this great gimmick for mainstream media, because people are curious. ... People are going to come to learn a little bit about Mormons, but they’re really going to get an earful about conservative belief at large,” she said.

In fact, in Toronto Beck and Woods said they wrote the first scenes involving the sister missionaries a decade ago because the writers believed they were such a good hook for a movie. They then shelved the project to dive into atheist works so they could give Mr. Reed the sheen of an anti-religious genius.

I'm not really seeing Woods' comments above as "dismissive of religious belief."  What they are describing doesn't seem that far from the three-part progression of religious belief that I have cited a number of times, e.g., here:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.
...
In the volume, lived stories — like a Latter-day Saint being challenged by an agnostic coworker — blend with the doctrinal discussions one might expect from university-level lecturers. As the authors put it, “untested idealism,” “naïve simplicity” or a gospel that’s little more than “a firm handshake, a high-five, and a smiley face” is unlikely to foster the requisite conviction in order for faith to survive today's trials.
...

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

Like Beck and Woods, I too was raised in a religious household ("Stage One" - "childlike simplicity — 'innocent and untested'").  Then when I left home for the Army, I started "Stage Two" ("believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where 'we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty'").

It looks like Beck and Woods (and, perhaps, the former Latter-day Saints who contributed to the movie) stopped at, or are still in, Stage Two (or else they have exited it, just not to "Stage Three").  Stage Two is an interesting and crucial phase in the life of a Latter-day Saint.  I have plenty of relatives, friends, etc. who grew up as Latter-day Saints, some even progressing quite far in the "Covenant Path" (mission, temple marriage, service in the Church, etc.), but do not end up at Stage Three. 

However, the alternative destinations are not all the same.  I have a relative who has not been an observant Latter-day Saint for a long time, but he still holds the Church and its members in high regard.  He is cognizant of the errors of the members, and to some extend the institutional church, but he also sees the beauty and strength and hope that can come from it.  His wife has recently started attending church services, and he has been encouraging her (and even attending with her at times).  He respects and admires the Church and its members, even if he remains mostly apart from it.

Other Latter-day Saints who set aside their faith take a more adversarial approach.  Their experiences in Stage Two foment ill will, enmity, anger, etc.  For many of these folks, it is not enough to leave the Church.  The Church therefore becomes not just an institution run by flawed human beings, but a malevolent entity.  They must therefore leave it and thereafter oppose and speak against denigrate it.

As noted above, Woods, one of the writers/directors of Heretic, is married to an (apparently former) Latter-day Saint.  I think an observant Latter-day Saint would have a hard time participating in and advancing a movie like this. 

Nevertheless, as Diane Winston put it above: "It sounds like the people who made this film have their own issues about religion, and this was one way to exorcize them."  If the folks who made Heretic "have their own issues about religion," it seems odd that they would proceed with making those "issues" the centerpiece philosophies of the murderous villain of the film.  I suspect I would have to see the movie for context, as the author of Des News article apparently did.  Perhaps the comment from 

Quote

Catholics, Muslims, evangelicals, Hindus, Jewish groups and others have complained about their treatment in movies, said Winston, the media and religion chair at USC.

In fact, many Latter-day Saints feel their faith is often ridiculed in popular culture. A recent study by More in Common found that 60% of Latter-day Saints say they are portrayed unfavorably by TV shows and movies.

“I understand why members of the church feel singled out by these bad representations, but Hollywood spares no one,” Winston said “... I think that everyone is subjected to this kind of problematic representation and the wheel keeps turning. Most religions issue a press statement saying this is not a fair representation of us, and that’s that.”

Winston makes a fair point here.  Religionists don't like to be stereotyped, so we ought not blithely reciprocate when speaking of "Hollywood."

I don't watch TV much, but two series I sometimes pull up and listen to while I work are Bones and Blue Bloods.  Both of them have main characters who are religiously observant (Catholic), are good people, and whose faith is treated with some seriousness and respect.

Quote

Reviews and reactions to “Heretic”

Behina Doroodgar, a University of Toronto graduate student who attended the premiere of “Heretic” in Toronto, said she is learning more about the church from reality shows. “The Mormons are a bit more other to us,” she said. “We don’t have any experience with them in our day-to-day lives. I think that they’re certainly more other than the majority of religions that you’ll come face-to-face with living in an area like Toronto.”

At the same time, the growth of the church into a global religion also draws attention, the Blythes said.

Doroodgar is studying comparative literature. She said Mr. Reed claimed to be a heretic but actually was organizing his own religion within his house. The sister missionaries had to become heretics to that system to find their footing and try and escape.

“I didn’t think particularly less or more of Latter-day Saints at the end,” she said, “though I was impressed by Sister Paxton’s ability to allow something like forgiveness to Mr. Reed, who appears to crawl back to religion at the end.”

The Hollywood Reporter’s reviewer says “Heretic” is more compelling when it is a three-character chamber drama.

“The charade between Mr. Reed, Paxton and Barnes helps to distract from the screenplay, which wobbles under analytical pressure,” the reviewer wrote. “Beck and Woods, at first, seem intent on interrogating the pitfalls of modern religion, but their narrative never goes all the way in its criticism. Once Mr. Reed moves on from his speeches and into more conventional horror-villain machinations, so too does Heretic distance itself from its most fiery theses. While it doesn’t totally diminish the thrill of watching Grant’s character revel in his own supposed cleverness, it does make the enterprise disappointingly shallow.”

Hmm.

Quote

How Hollywood could produce more well-rounded religious content

USC’s Winston said some filmmakers do a thoughtful job of creating characters who portray the positive role religious faith plays in the lives of characters. Terrence Malick, Luis Buñuel, Paul Schrader and Denis Villenueve have made interesting, provocative statements about religion or depicted interesting characters motivated by religion “with sensitivity and grace,” she said.

“It would be nice if moviemakers portrayed religion in a better light than they tend to do,” Winston said, “because although we see in the world today a lot of instances of why religion can be deeply problematic and be implicated in wars and violence, I think for many more people, religion is something which provides comfort, which provides a sense of transcendence, a sense of belonging, a sense of community, a sense of life being worth living and that we’re all blessed to have this experience.”

At its best, religion asks profound questions that should lead to great filmmaking, Winston said: “How do we lead good lives? What does it mean to be a moral person? How do we show our love? How do we show gratitude for what we have? What is our meaning?”

“To some extent, they’re questions that probably a lot of people don’t want to deal with,” she said, “because they might have to rethink some of their choices, and they might be questions that they’re uncomfortable with, because nobody likes to have to really account for how they’re spending their time, because we all think we’re going to live forever.”

Another member of Faith in Media Initiative, Josh Good, suggested a scene from the Netflix series “Beef” as an example of a portrayal that captures the importance that religion plays in many lives.

The Blythes understand that stereotypes and folklore are part of narrative storytelling. Watching a sensationalized depiction of Latter-day Saints really isn’t the way to understand them, they said.

“If you want to know something about a member of The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints,” Christine Blythe said on their podcast, “go talk to one. One who is not promoting their own television show. Honestly, and I promise this is true, only a very small number of us are swingers or hitmen.”

Good points, these.  

thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church's statement characterizes the movie as having a "narrative that promotes violence against women"?

Showing violence against women—where the violence is the central aspect or hook of the story—as entertainment does seem to me to promote such violence as something acceptable.

Edited November 1, 2024 by Calm

[Senator]

It's called a horror film for a reason! This is what the devil and his evil dominions do in horror films.  What? Are we now demanding that the devil be respectful, now that the victims are Mormon missionaries? Good grief!

[smac97]

Article in GQ: Mormonism, and cinema smell-o-vision ("Scott Beck and Bryan Woods talk to GQ about Heretic's cerebral scares, and why audiences are still turning up for horror movies")

An excerpt:

Quote

GQ; Why did Mormonism feel like the right way in?

Scott Beck: To us, it feels like it's one of the newest religions. You can look at Christianity or Islam, and it's rooted in thousands of years of history, but Mormonism, it's uniquely new, it's uniquely American, transplanting the story of Christ and putting it in America.

It also comes from a personal connection. Twelve years ago, we made one of our first feature films in Salt Lake City, the hotspot of Mormonism. Through that experience, we ended up making lifelong friendships with so many people from the Mormon faith, and that became our induction into the religion, the lifestyle, the culture.

Bryan Woods: One of the things we found is that whenever Mormons are depicted in the media, it's always with this kind of naiveté; a condescending, like, “maybe they're not as smart as everyone,” this attitude that comes with it. And so one of the things we're trying to do with the film is subvert that expectation, and maybe touch on the hint of naiveté on the surface … but we also wanted to represent the depth of the people we know, [who] are smart, and cool, and unique.

How did those conversations go with Sophie and Chloe? I know they both grew up in the church.

Woods: They wanted to keep everything grounded, and wanted to find that authenticity that they know. Chloe has friends to this day that are missionaries on missions right now, so she was texting them while we were filming.

And I think Sophie, who had left the church earlier in her life, and who has family members that are in and out, it definitely helped layer her performance as Sister Barnes — somebody who grew up in the church, but has this lingering question of, “Is it real?” or “do I fit in here?” and “what do I believe?”

Interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

Plot twist: the missionaries convert him and he puts his skills to good use by joining the Danites. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Senator said:

It's called a horror film for a reason! This is what the devil and his evil dominions do in horror films.  What? Are we now demanding that the devil be respectful, now that the victims are Mormon missionaries? Good grief!

Do you think that horror films can be exploitative?

[smac97]

YouTube Video: "It's not an anti-Mormon film in any way." | Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East talk HERETIC

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you think that horror films can be exploitative?

Absolutely.  The demons and  psychotic characters in horror films have been preying upon the most innocent (mainly women and children) , the religious, the naive, the vulnerable since the beginning.  

[Calm]

https://fb.watch/vKyYbnq6yC/?

She goes through the film (briefly on each point) and says what they got right and wrong about the Church in the movie

Edited November 9, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 6/27/2024 at 10:25 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I watched the trailer.  There went 2:24 of my life I'll never get back.    Tracting out in the middle of nowhere?  No, thanks.  The closest I ever came to doing anything akin to that is when, I think (if I remember right) my companion and I were getting out of the car to go visit somebody, and, abruptly, he told me to get back in and we left.  I guess we impinged on the turf of one gangbanger or another.

But, since Latter-day Saints, of course, Polllyannas that they are, lack any awareness of the potential dangers of the real world (especially missionaries), tracting in the middle of nowhere is exactly what they would do.  Already, I have devoted entirely too much of my time to this dreck.  Hollow-weird* thinks Latter-day Saints are good for only a few things, none of which are worthwhile: (1) caricaturing, (2) making fun of, and (3) exploiting otherwise.  I don't expect anyone in Hollow-weird to make any real effort to understand anything relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as its adherents understand it.  That's a bridge too far for them.

______________________________

*My [apt, I think] name for Hollywood.

It is a horror movie. The victims in a horror movie always do very dumb things. It is how the genre works. When the killer comes into the house they run upstairs and trap themselves. When a bunch of creepy stuff happens that should scare someone away they brazen it out. It is not an attack on Mormon naivete. It is just how the genre is usually done.

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:02 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Plot twist: the missionaries convert him and he puts his skills to good use by joining the Danites. 

[TEMPORARY THREADJACK ON]What's the general Roman Catholic attitude toward Conclave?  Harmless?  Caricature of Roman Catholicism?  Waste of time and money?  Just curious.[/TEMPORARY THREADJACK OFF]

Edited November 9, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a horror movie. The victims in a horror movie always do very dumb things. It is how the genre works. When the killer comes into the house they run upstairs and trap themselves. When a bunch of creepy stuff happens that should scare someone away they brazen it out. It is not an attack on Mormon naivete. It is just how the genre is usually done.

Good point. 

 

Edited November 9, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[TEMPORARY THREADJACK ON]What's the general Roman Catholic attitude toward Conclave?  Harmless?  Caricature of Roman Catholicism?  Waste of time and money?  Just curious.[/TEMPORARY THREADJACK OFF]

This had really good reviews, it might be on my list. Hate to admit, and hopefully I won't be judged, but I'm going to see Heretic today. I saw a review and it supposedly isn't critical of the church. And I like horror movies that aren't like Saw or those other types. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[TEMPORARY THREADJACK ON]What's the general Roman Catholic attitude toward Conclave?  Harmless?  Caricature of Roman Catholicism?  Waste of time and money?  Just curious.[/TEMPORARY THREADJACK OFF]

I saw the Conclave last week.  Found it very interesting movie.  For those that don't know, it is about the process in electing a new pope.  

Growing up, I thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had such a superior way of deciding who should lead the Church when the President dies.  It is already decided.  Everyone already knows it is the senior apostle.  Where the Catholic system seemed so divisive.  I changed my mind.  Yes there are factions within the cardinals that naturally occur.  The progressives against those who what to push the church back to previous practices and all of the drama and politics that can occur with that system.  But it also allows for an evaluation of what the church stands for and the best path forward in terms of how the church will be lead.  It allows for inspiration of who is the best person to take over leadership  and the direction the church would take under his leadership rather than just the last man standing. The Mormon system does none of those things.  It is a system where only very old men are the only ones allowed to lead the church.  Men that grew up and lived literally in a different century in most cases than most of the members.  Maybe one would argue, the leader is the one with the most experience.  But sometimes experience can mean repeating the same mistakes over and over again because that is all you know.  This isn't a post about which system is superior (you can back down SMAC).  It is a reflection of the strengths and weaknesses of both systems in choosing a leader. 

The is one line from the film that I am still thinking about.  It doesn't matter what the church was in the past.  It only matters what the church is today.  

Maybe you have to see the film to see how important that impact can be.  And maybe you have to see the film to see that perhaps what I grew up thinking was the best way to choose a new leader might not actually be the best way.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This had really good reviews, it might be on my list. Hate to admit, and hopefully I won't be judged, but I'm going to see Heretic today. I saw a review and it supposedly isn't critical of the church. And I like horror movies that aren't like Saw or those other types. 

Let us know what you think of it!

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Let us know what you think of it!

Darn, my husband won't be done golfing, so maybe next week. 

[Raingirl]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I saw the Conclave last week.  Found it very interesting movie.  For those that don't know, it is about the process in electing a new pope.  

Growing up, I thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had such a superior way of deciding who should lead the Church when the President dies.  It is already decided.  Everyone already knows it is the senior apostle.  Where the Catholic system seemed so divisive.  I changed my mind.  Yes there are factions within the cardinals that naturally occur.  The progressives against those who what to push the church back to previous practices and all of the drama and politics that can occur with that system.  But it also allows for an evaluation of what the church stands for and the best path forward in terms of how the church will be lead.  It allows for inspiration of who is the best person to take over leadership  and the direction the church would take under his leadership rather than just the last man standing. The Mormon system does none of those things.  It is a system where only very old men are the only ones allowed to lead the church.  Men that grew up and lived literally in a different century in most cases than most of the members.  Maybe one would argue, the leader is the one with the most experience.  But sometimes experience can mean repeating the same mistakes over and over again because that is all you know.  This isn't a post about which system is superior (you can back down SMAC).  It is a reflection of the strengths and weaknesses of both systems in choosing a leader. 

The is one line from the film that I am still thinking about.  It doesn't matter what the church was in the past.  It only matters what the church is today.  

Maybe you have to see the film to see how important that impact can be.  And maybe you have to see the film to see that perhaps what I grew up thinking was the best way to choose a new leader might not actually be the best way.  

 

I’ve been curious about this movie since I first saw commercials and the trailer for it. And I’m a Stanley Tucci fan.  After reading your review, I’m for sure going to see it when I get the chance. 

[Amulek]

I don't care for horror as a genre. It's like the cinema equivalent of reality TV. 

That being said, if any of my nonmember friends or co-workers wanted to check it out I would be willing to go with them. 

If that happens I'll be sure to provide my own review.

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I saw the Conclave last week.  Found it very interesting movie.  For those that don't know, it is about the process in electing a new pope.  

My friend read the book a while back and enjoyed it well enough. I kind of already know all the spoilers, so I'll probably hold off until it shows up on a streaming service.

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[TEMPORARY THREADJACK ON]What's the general Roman Catholic attitude toward Conclave?  Harmless?  Caricature of Roman Catholicism?  Waste of time and money?  Just curious.[/TEMPORARY THREADJACK OFF]

It’s split. Traditionalists see it as another sensationalist attack on the Church and the magisterium. Liberals love it. As a convert, I don’t really have a strong opinion. I haven’t seen it yet but will when it streams. 
 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The is one line from the film that I am still thinking about.  It doesn't matter what the church was in the past.  It only matters what the church is today

This is why traditionalists don’t like it and liberals do. Tradition is one of the three pillars of the Church. 

[The Nehor]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:55 PM, Senator said:

It's called a horror film for a reason! This is what the devil and his evil dominions do in horror films.  What? Are we now demanding that the devil be respectful, now that the victims are Mormon missionaries? Good grief!

Wait, the devil is behind horror films now?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't care for horror as a genre. It's like the cinema equivalent of reality TV. 

Generally I hate it. Too visual of a memory so I can get haunted for years by images that make me ill.

There are a few more mild, fantasy horror films that I enjoy…obviously could never happen in the real world. Mummies and vampires usually.  Probably more adventure than horror though. 
 

People doing awful things to people and some getting off on it, those films I will avoid like the plague. The worst are putting people in situations where they have to turn on others to save themselves. 

[The Nehor]

On 11/1/2024 at 1:26 PM, Calm said:

Do you think that horror films can be exploitative?

Exploitation films are their own genre. Many also fit into the horror or documentary genre. Not all horror movies are exploitation films. Most are B-movies trying to cash in on current social trends or just lurid content or the bizarre or whatever.

Found a fun list of exploitation film subgenres:

Blaxploitation

Cannibal film

Chambara - Samurai

Clownsploitation

Gaysploitation

Hixploitation

Nazi Exploitation

Nerdsploitation

Ninja Films

Nudist Film

Nunsploitation

Outlaw Biker Film

Redsploitation

Stoner Films

Teensploitation

Transploitation

 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is why traditionalists don’t like it and liberals do. Tradition is one of the three pillars of the Church. 

I thought it was an odd comment about the Catholic Church given that.

[Tacenda]

On 11/9/2024 at 8:17 AM, Tacenda said:

This had really good reviews, it might be on my list. Hate to admit, and hopefully I won't be judged, but I'm going to see Heretic today. I saw a review and it supposedly isn't critical of the church. And I like horror movies that aren't like Saw or those other types. 

Quoting myself. I don't know if this is a good movie for true believing members. It's probably offensive. From some reviews by those that have seen it. I was going to go with my son and his girlfriend. She was a missionary in a very poor country and nearly died from a flesh eating disease. I saw a picture of her and the IV bottle they used in this so called hospital came from a Gatorade bottle. And while they were over to watch the BYU/UTE game last night, she mentioned that her and her companion probably shouldn't have gone into many homes on their missions especially with just a man at the home. Maybe this movie could be triggering for her to watch.

I believe the good thing about the movie is that it portrays the dangers for missionaries. And luckily the church does train the missionaries through the MTC training period with what they should be aware of. There are many stories out there that missionaries don't really talk about and I feel for them, because they are doing what they are told the Lord wants them to do, so they probably endure way more than what they normally would put up with. 

 

Edited November 10, 2024 by Tacenda