Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

100%.  
we also have to contend with leadership that at times can operate from a need to control.  

We sometimes have a schizophrenic approach to group dynamics.  The Church is a bilaterally voluntary association.  The individual can walk way at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.  If he stays, though, then conformity to the nucleus of principles around which the Church coheres is expected, even required. 

Imagine someone hiring a sherpa to guide him up the slopes of Mount Everest, then resenting the sherpa's instructions, or faulting the sherpa for having "a need to control."  That would be pretty odd, because that is the sherpa's job.  Similarly, the Brethren have mandates for exhorting us to repent, exercise faith, keep the commandments, etc.  Broadly, i don't know that I would characterize this as them having "a need to control."  Leaders are supposed to lead, after all.  

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Having experienced that too often, it leaves me to have to discern what is God’s will versus what his man’s will. That is my life journey.

Cumulatively, I think the Brethren are doing a very good job in terms of guiding the Saints.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The Hugh Grant character comes across as respectful, engaging and very bright.  He justifies what he is doing by logically showing the two missionaries glaring holes in what their religion and religion is in general is about by using object lessons.  He isn't scary at all, in fact he is quite charming.  But there is a constant feeling that things aren't as they appear.  So yes, he is a very likable 'monster'. . .until he isn't.  It becomes clear that his obsession with his study of religion has lead him to a very unhealthy place.

 If you think organized religion is a scam and all about control and power, you are probably going to leave with the same opinion.  If you think religion is connected to God and doing his will, you will probably leave with that view still intact.  

Does the movie give any idea what would have happened if the missionaries took the "Disbelief" door?  Would he let them go after that or would he still be a monster?

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine someone hiring a sherpa to guide him up the slopes of Mount Everest, then resenting the sherpa's instructions, or faulting the sherpa for having "a need to control."  That would be pretty odd, because that is the sherpa's job.

This literally happens all the time on Everest.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I was unclear. 
If I operate in a way that comes from lack of self awareness, a way that my family has always operated and I am influenced by those traditions, I am not in control.  

I'm still not quite grasping what you are saying.

"Influence" to me suggests having an effect on someone, typically through persuasion, suggestion, or example, without directly dictating outcomes. We all have a variety of influences in our lives, the potency of which varies all over the place.

Alternatively, "control" implies a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes.  For example, I have "control" over whether my minor children go to school, whereas I only have "influence" over the educational choices of my adult children.

The Church has no "control" over me.  None.  Only influence.  In contrast, secular governments have all sorts of "control" over me, as well as plenty of "influence."

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The family dynamics are in control.  

I don't know what you mean here.

What "family dynamics" exist which involve a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes in your life?

My parents and in-laws are faithful Latter-day Saints, but they have no "control" over me, just influence.  Any sense of obligation I feel toward them is that which I have voluntarily accepted and maintained.  For example, I feel a strong obligation to provide for, protect, respect and work with my wife.  My parents and my in-laws have that expectation of me, but it is only influential, not controlling.  They have never threatened to shoot me in the kneecaps or brain me with a baseball bat if I mistreat my wife.  They have no "power" over me, just the influence I choose to allow them to have.

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Subconsciously the family system likes to maintain status quo so they will predictably try to keep me operating in *sameness, even if change is harmless or even indicated.  I see this happening with church traditions as well.  

If so, how does this amount to "control"? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Influence" to me suggests having an effect on someone, typically through persuasion, suggestion, or example, without directly dictating outcomes. We all have a variety of influences in our lives, the potency of which varies all over the place.

Alternatively, "control" implies a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes.  For example, I have "control" over whether my minor children go to school, whereas I only have "influence" over the educational choices of my adult children.

 

When someone is unaware of the influence or how it impacts them, it can control behavior. Influence can of course be intentional or unintentional.

Influences can be social or environmental.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We sometimes have a schizophrenic approach to group dynamics.  The Church is a bilaterally voluntary association.  The individual can walk way at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.  If he stays, though, then conformity to the nucleus of principles around which the Church coheres is expected, even required. 

It just means familial alienation, the ending of a social support structure, potentially losing a large portion or all of your friendship group, etc.

I am not saying the church is necessarily trying to be coercive but there are a lot of implicit downsides that can have devastating emotional and social consequences that come with ending that voluntary association. Acting like you can just walk away one afternoon and be fine is only said by people who have either never been enmeshed that deeply into church culture or who have never seriously considered leaving.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm still not quite grasping what you are saying.

"Influence" to me suggests having an effect on someone, typically through persuasion, suggestion, or example, without directly dictating outcomes. We all have a variety of influences in our lives, the potency of which varies all over the place.

Alternatively, "control" implies a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes.  For example, I have "control" over whether my minor children go to school, whereas I only have "influence" over the educational choices of my adult children.

The Church has no "control" over me.  None.  Only influence.  In contrast, secular governments have all sorts of "control" over me, as well as plenty of "influence."

I don't know what you mean here.

What "family dynamics" exist which involve a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes in your life?

My parents and in-laws are faithful Latter-day Saints, but they have no "control" over me, just influence.  Any sense of obligation I feel toward them is that which I have voluntarily accepted and maintained.  For example, I feel a strong obligation to provide for, protect, respect and work with my wife.  My parents and my in-laws have that expectation of me, but it is only influential, not controlling.  They have never threatened to shoot me in the kneecaps or brain me with a baseball bat if I mistreat my wife.  They have no "power" over me, just the influence I choose to allow them to have.

If so, how does this amount to "control"? 

Thanks,

-Smac

I’d hate to get too lost in the weeds with regards to definitions as tends to happen on this board, but I do want to make sure that I am understood, if not agreed with. Give me a little bit of time on this one and I’ll get back to it. thanks for the engagement 

Edited November 12, 2024 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’d hate to get too lost in the weeds with regards to definitions as tends to happen on this board, but I do want to make sure that I am understood, if not agreed with. Give me a little bit of time on this one and I’ll get back to it. thanks for the engagement 

My thinking on this has been influenced by my experience as an attorney.  In a contract dispute, the court may evaluate A) the mental competency of the contracting parties, B) the voluntariness of the transaction (no coercion, fraud, etc.), C) the "conscionability" of the contract, and so on.  If a party is mentally competent, voluntarily entered into the contract, was not tricked/coerced/lied to, and if the contract is not unconscionable, then the contract is enforceable.  That the party may thereafter regret the contract does not matter, nor does that regret negate his consent, his capacity to choose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Does the movie give any idea what would have happened if the missionaries took the "Disbelief" door?  Would he let them go after that or would he still be a monster?

There is a very interesting discussion in the film about the "Disbelief" door.  One sister missionary wants to take that door because after being presented with all the reasons not to trust religion, she thinks it is the one Hugh Grant wants her to take.  So she wants to choose that door maybe not because she thinks it is the correct door, but because she wants to please Hugh Grant.  

I think the audience is left to decide if we make similar decision because we think the person in charge wants us to make that decision and we want to please the person in charge even when we might personally think it is the wrong decision.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is a very interesting discussion in the film about the "Disbelief" door.  One sister missionary wants to take that door because after being presented with all the reasons not to trust religion, she thinks it is the one Hugh Grant wants her to take.  So she wants to choose that door maybe not because she thinks it is the correct door, but because she wants to please Hugh Grant.  

I think the audience is left to decide if we make similar decision because we think the person in charge wants us to make that decision and we want to please the person in charge even when we might personally think it is the wrong decision.

Does it seem like she wants to choose that door because she wants to please Grant or because she believes that pleasing grant is a matter of life or death? (trying to figure out if her motivation seems like it's tied to religious belief or a desire to live. I doubt I'll ever see this movie but I do want to understand the ideas presented in it because I think the topic is intriguing).  

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it seem like she wants to choose that door because she wants to please Grant or because she believes that pleasing grant is a matter of life or death? (trying to figure out if her motivation seems like it's tied to religious belief or a desire to live. I doubt I'll ever see this movie but I do want to understand the ideas presented in it because I think the topic is intriguing).  

At this point in the film, both missionaries feel very unsafe in the house, but Grant is still very cordial to both of them and even charming.  She makes that choice both because she is uncomfortable and thinks that pleasing Grant will give her a way out.  

I think Grant is making a point that decisions about belief and non belief are often made just to make someone happy or made out of fear and may not be the best decision for the individual. Does religion keep its control on people because people fear not doing what the church asks will cause harm to them, perhaps after death?  Do they fear so much for their eternal soul that they are willing to make a decision they don't believe in hoping that will save them from harm?  How does religion convince a person to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a market place?  It is part of his whole object lesson even.

This question is brought up later in the film and is an important part of the discussion of how religion controls  people.  One of the missionaries makes this statement as best I can recall.  "I have been wondering how you would manipulate things to convince us that it is our idea to kill ourselves" 

 

 

[Tacenda]

Well, I went to see the movie with my husband. I'm glad my son and his girlfriend weren't there or I'd be constantly worried if they liked it or if it was a mistake to go. 

I like feel good movies, and this didn't feel all that great until it came to the end and finally I accepted the movie thought process. It was thought provoking as it did something that I was a bit surprised about. It made me defend the LDS church in my mind or think that out of all religions, it was a nice place to be. I also like the ending because to me it portrayed an afterlife. Hope I haven't done any spoiler alert types of TMI. 

I kept thinking it was a little too intense for me too. I like the "Wait Until Dark" movie type of intensity. For those that are in a different generation, it's an old black and white movie, but a good one. 

Towards the end I almost wished I hadn't gone because of the intensity. But the scene at the end was something that I really loved. Or something that happened that gave me the feeling of an afterlife since the movie was all about belief. 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

At this point in the film, both missionaries feel very unsafe in the house, but Grant is still very cordial to both of them and even charming.  She makes that choice both because she is uncomfortable and thinks that pleasing Grant will give her a way out.  

I think Grant is making a point that decisions about belief and non belief are often made just to make someone happy or made out of fear and may not be the best decision for the individual. Does religion keep its control on people because people fear not doing what the church asks will cause harm to them, perhaps after death?  Do they fear so much for their eternal soul that they are willing to make a decision they don't believe in hoping that will save them from harm?  How does religion convince a person to strap a bomb to himself and blow up a market place?  It is part of his whole object lesson even.

This question is brought up later in the film and is an important part of the discussion of how religion controls  people.  One of the missionaries makes this statement as best I can recall.  "I have been wondering how you would manipulate things to convince us that it is our idea to kill ourselves" 

 

 

I think it's fascinating that the movie uses a truly evil man as the delivery method for questioning concepts of religious control.  The person presented as 'wise' is also the one who's holding people hostage because of their religious belief and then killing them (at least, that's how I'm understanding what has been explained).

Religious people have to confront the weaknesses in their beliefs but it also seems like nonreligious people likewise have to confront the weaknesses in their perspectives as well.  It sounds like a really intriguing movie.

[Tacenda]

If anyone does go, try with all your might to skip seeing the previews, they were so stupid and show R rated movies much worse than the movie Heretic, IMO. I guess there's always risks to watching R rated movies. In Heretic, I can't recall any language and definitely no sex scenes. But I think the subject can be very triggering to people of many beliefs. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I also like the ending because to me it portrayed an afterlife. Hope I haven't done any spoiler alert types of TMI. 

If anyone watches the video you linked to (iirc I linked to it too), that was mentioned so I don’t think you are giving anything away 

Anyone who doesn’t want spoilers should never read a thread taking about a show, lol

Edited November 13, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If anyone watches the video you linked to (iirc I linked to it too), that was mentioned so I don’t think you are giving anything away 

Anyone who doesn’t want spoilers should never read a thread taking about a show, lol

My bad, I shared the link w/o watching it. Good to know Calm!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The movie was awesome. Probably one of the most genuinely positive portrayals of Mormon Missionaries I’ve ever seen in film (outside of, like, Dutcher’s “God’s Army” or something).

The two girls come out looking like absolute badasses. The filmmakers leave the end ambiguous on purpose — the entire point is for the viewer to freely make their own faith decision — but they are clearly and obviously 100% on the side of the Sisters. 
 

There’s nothing in the movie that is going to weaken the faith of any intelligent, well-informed LDS — it’s the usual CES Letter -level stuff. (And this movie is approximately ten BILLION times better — written, acted, everything — than the laughably pretentious “Under The Banner Of Heaven,” which was among the worst-written, most ahistorical loads of conspiracy-theory laden garbage I ever forced myself to sit through.) 

Spoiler Alert: I didn’t see “Heretic” in a theater, but I suspect there are going to be *massive* cheers from the live audience at what happens after the last time the psycho bad guy says “magic underwear.” I’m not even LDS anymore, and *I* wanted to stand up and applaud. 

C’mon, if the filmmakers can make one of the most common terms of mockery against Mormons into a frickin’ battle cry, they are on the Church’s side.  

I recommend the Church find a way to embrace the movie and turn the attention into a positive, the way they did when they took out ad space in the playbill for the Book Of Mormon Musical. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

The movie was awesome. Probably one of the most genuinely positive portrayals of Mormon Missionaries I’ve ever seen in film (outside of, like, Dutcher’s “God’s Army” or something).

The two girls come out looking like absolute badasses. The filmmakers leave the end ambiguous on purpose — the entire point is for the viewer to freely make their own faith decision — but they are clearly and obviously 100% on the side of the Sisters. 
 

There’s nothing in the movie that is going to weaken the faith of any intelligent, well-informed LDS — it’s the usual CES Letter -level stuff. (And this movie is approximately ten BILLION times better — written, acted, everything — than the laughably pretentious “Under The Banner Of Heaven,” which was among the worst-written, most ahistorical loads of conspiracy-theory laden garbage I ever forced myself to sit through.) 

Spoiler Alert: I didn’t see “Heretic” in a theater, but I suspect there are going to be *massive* cheers from the live audience at what happens after the last time the psycho bad guy says “magic underwear.” I’m not even LDS anymore, and *I* wanted to stand up and applaud. 

C’mon, if the filmmakers can make one of the most common terms of mockery against Mormons into a frickin’ battle cry, they are on the Church’s side.  

I recommend the Church find a way to embrace the movie and turn the attention into a positive, the way they did when they took out ad space in the playbill for the Book Of Mormon Musical. 

"This movie will scare your a couple of hours, we will scare you for a lifetime!" I don't think so!  

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I went to see the movie with my husband. I'm glad my son and his girlfriend weren't there or I'd be constantly worried if they liked it or if it was a mistake to go. 

I like feel good movies, and this didn't feel all that great until it came to the end and finally I accepted the movie thought process. It was thought provoking as it did something that I was a bit surprised about. It made me defend the LDS church in my mind or think that out of all religions, it was a nice place to be. I also like the ending because to me it portrayed an afterlife. Hope I haven't done any spoiler alert types of TMI. 

I kept thinking it was a little too intense for me too. I like the "Wait Until Dark" movie type of intensity. For those that are in a different generation, it's an old black and white movie, but a good one. 

Towards the end I almost wished I hadn't gone because of the intensity. But the scene at the end was something that I really loved. Or something that happened that gave me the feeling of an afterlife since the movie was all about belief. 

 

It is very intense. And I agree, some of the previews were much more graphic than the film.

Edited November 13, 2024 by california boy

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

The movie was awesome. Probably one of the most genuinely positive portrayals of Mormon Missionaries I’ve ever seen in film (outside of, like, Dutcher’s “God’s Army” or something).

The two girls come out looking like absolute badasses. The filmmakers leave the end ambiguous on purpose — the entire point is for the viewer to freely make their own faith decision — but they are clearly and obviously 100% on the side of the Sisters. 
 

There’s nothing in the movie that is going to weaken the faith of any intelligent, well-informed LDS — it’s the usual CES Letter -level stuff. (And this movie is approximately ten BILLION times better — written, acted, everything — than the laughably pretentious “Under The Banner Of Heaven,” which was among the worst-written, most ahistorical loads of conspiracy-theory laden garbage I ever forced myself to sit through.) 

Spoiler Alert: I didn’t see “Heretic” in a theater, but I suspect there are going to be *massive* cheers from the live audience at what happens after the last time the psycho bad guy says “magic underwear.” I’m not even LDS anymore, and *I* wanted to stand up and applaud. 

C’mon, if the filmmakers can make one of the most common terms of mockery against Mormons into a frickin’ battle cry, they are on the Church’s side.  

I recommend the Church find a way to embrace the movie and turn the attention into a positive, the way they did when they took out ad space in the playbill for the Book Of Mormon Musical. 

You and CB and Tacenda are making me want to see it.  

How bloody is the movie?

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is very intense. And I agree, some of the previews were much more graphic than the film.

Does that mean the previews had footage that the movie didn't have?

[MustardSeed]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If so, how does this amount to "control"? 

I’ll start a new thread. 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Bluebell - 

The movie is NOT a torture-porn gore fest, but I’m so jaded, calloused, and desensitized that I’m a little wary of trying to gauge the intensity for anyone else. 😅

I didn’t think it was extreme at all — a good 2/3? 3/4? of the movie is literally just dialogue. It’s more about mood, psychological tension, and existential anxiety than jump scares. All the violence comes in the last act, and it’s brief and cathartic, not the focus of the story. 

(Also, while the villain starts off making more-or-less fair points, he gradually gets crazier and crazier with the “Zeitgeist” Reddit-tier atheist debate club stuff, and I don’t think we’re supposed to take him as a real authority on religion.)

If I remember correctly (spoiler warning), there is one brief throat slash (I think intended to be reminiscent of one of the old penalties in the Temple), two or three stabbings, one loss of a finger, one blood-covered character who is … gooey? Kinda gross. Probably the worse scene for me was when one character slices into another character’s arm. And then a final death that is a little intense, with a blow to the head. There is also somewhat disturbing imagery of people kept in cages. 

Overall, if you are extremely squeamish, I’d steer clear, but otherwise, I’ve seen worse on broadcast TV. (I don’t want to recommend something that’s going to cause someone nightmares, though, so use your best judgment!) 

[Okrahomer]

8 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Spoiler Alert: I didn’t see “Heretic” in a theater, but I suspect there are going to be *massive* cheers from the live audience at what happens after the last time the psycho bad guy says “magic underwear.” I’m not even LDS anymore, and *I* wanted to stand up and applaud. 

 

I may have missed it, but I don’t think we have seen a lot of you lately.  Both yours and california boy’s comments make me want to see the movie.  More importantly:  it’s very good to see you again.  You “sound” well, and that makes me happy.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Bluebell - 

The movie is NOT a torture-porn gore fest, but I’m so jaded, calloused, and desensitized that I’m a little wary of trying to gauge the intensity for anyone else. 😅

I didn’t think it was extreme at all — a good 2/3? 3/4? of the movie is literally just dialogue. It’s more about mood, psychological tension, and existential anxiety than jump scares. All the violence comes in the last act, and it’s brief and cathartic, not the focus of the story. 

(Also, while the villain starts off making more-or-less fair points, he gradually gets crazier and crazier with the “Zeitgeist” Reddit-tier atheist debate club stuff, and I don’t think we’re supposed to take him as a real authority on religion.)

If I remember correctly (spoiler warning), there is one brief throat slash (I think intended to be reminiscent of one of the old penalties in the Temple), two or three stabbings, one loss of a finger, one blood-covered character who is … gooey? Kinda gross. Probably the worse scene for me was when one character slices into another character’s arm. And then a final death that is a little intense, with a blow to the head. There is also somewhat disturbing imagery of people kept in cages. 

Overall, if you are extremely squeamish, I’d steer clear, but otherwise, I’ve seen worse on broadcast TV. (I don’t want to recommend something that’s going to cause someone nightmares, though, so use your best judgment!) 

Jeremy, so good to see you!  It’s years and years.   My day instantly brightened seeing his name.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Calm