Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

You “sound” well, and that makes me happy.  

Indeed…

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Aw, thanks Okrahomer and Calm, nice to “see” you folks again as well. 🙂 Yeah, I guess it’s been awhile since I’ve posted — I still lurk ‘round these parts fairly often, but I’ve been busy the past few years with gettin’ married and havin’ babies, so I have basically lost all free time. 😄 

Anyway, back to your regularly-scheduled thread. 🙂

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I’ve been busy the past few years with gettin’ married and havin’ babies, so I have basically lost all free time.

Sweet…but yes, that happens for the next 15 years or so.

[Maestrophil]

Saw it...  Liked it better than I thought I would.

In reply to the door question asked earlier - later in the movie you see that both doors lead to the same place which is interesting 

Funnily enough, the most discomforting part for me wasn't;t the violence or the dialog about difficult religion topics, but rather the conversation between the sister missionaries at the start of the movie - They have a conversation about condoms, penis size, watching pornography etc.  Very out of character for most missionaries - especially for the type of girl a person like Sister Paxton in the movie.  That really left a bad taste in my mount and could have been different or omitted.  Especially since the discourse has the timid sister sayin that watching pron actually contributed to her testimony - Weird.

 

 

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

In reply to the door question asked earlier - later in the movie you see that both doors lead to the same place which is interesting 

That is interesting.  Does the movie give any kind of an idea of why the villain did that?  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

How bloody is the movie?

Like I said earlier, there is about as much graphic violence as shows like NCIS show.  There are two violent deaths if that helps.  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

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

The previews were not for Heretic, it was for other coming attractions films that were more graphic than Heretic, along with previews of Wicked and Gladiator II .

[Rain]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The previews were not for Heretic, it was for other coming attractions films that were more graphic than Heretic, along with previews of Wicked and Gladiator II .

Ahh.  Ok.  I was thinking of trailers for Heretic.  Thanks for being kind for my gaffe.

[Maestrophil]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

That is interesting.  Does the movie give any kind of an idea of why the villain did that?  

Nope - it doesn't even really point it out - you just see one of the sisters try and escape and as she tries to open the door from the other side, the camera briefly cuts to the other side of the door where you see it is the 'disbelief' door.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

Nope - it doesn't even really point it out - you just see one of the sisters try and escape and as she tries to open the door from the other side, the camera briefly cuts to the other side of the door where you see it is the 'disbelief' door.

 

Dang. That seems like an integral aspect of understanding his reasoning 

[Tacenda]

On 11/13/2024 at 7:19 PM, Rain said:

Ahh.  Ok.  I was thinking of trailers for Heretic.  Thanks for being kind for my gaffe.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific about that when I mentioned it. 

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific about that when I mentioned it. 

Not a concern. I actually understood what you said. I lost track of the conversation.❤️

Edited November 15, 2024 by Rain

[Teancum]

On 11/9/2024 at 10:43 AM, 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.  

 

This is a movie I would like to see. Heretic not likely.  I am just not into the horror, scary type genre.

[Dario_M]

You know....i'm looking at the titel. And i ask myself what Horor movies has to do with the missionaries work. Or the LDS community. 🤔

[Teancum]

On 11/12/2024 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said:

And we are having this discussion about "control" on a message board heavily populated by people who have left the Church, about which leavings the Church can do diddly squat.

My loyalty and devotion to the Restored Gospel is a matter of volition.  Choice.  My submission to the authority of the Church is something I can grant or withdraw at any time for any reason or no reason at all.  The Church only has as much influence/control over me as I choose to allow.

The movie's narrative about "control" does not hold up well relative to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Thanks,

While you voluntarily choose to submit your life to the expectations, commandments and rules of Mormonism it still has a level of control over your life.  And even more so since you were born into it. Leaving one's religion that one is birthed into and that one has been thoroughly indoctrinated with is not an easy task.  You may not have as much choice in the matter as you think. And I know you bristle when I have suggested this in the past, but my guess is had you been born into another religion and been actively indoctrinated into it, you likely would not be LDS. It is a simple fact that most people stay with whatever religion they are born into.  And yes, religion does and is designed to control behavior and religions use control techniques to one degree or another. And yes is is relatively easy to leave a religion these days if one so desires but that was not always the case.

[Teancum]

On 11/12/2024 at 5:13 PM, 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

Ok I can see the nuances here. Maybe control is to strong. Influenced or strongly influenced?  On that other hand if one desires to be in good standing one must submit to the rules and commandments the church lays out. Of course other organizations have similar expectations, like you have noted about the military.  I guess the question is where does the influence become excessive or unhealthy.  Temple recommend and youth interview as well as tithing settlement seem to go beyond influence. A member who desires to be in good standing must submit on a regular basis to probing personal questions. That seems to me to be more than influence. In addition a member who wants to be in good standing is going to have a whole bunch of their time taken by the church which is to some extend controlling IMO. Then there are temple covenants. I recall my very strict mission president frequently reminding us that we better be out working very hard and to not forget the covenant of consecration we had all made in the temple. That seems controlling to me.

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2024 at 10:23 AM, bluebell said:

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

How bloody is the movie?

Hmm.  Maybe me as well.

[Pyreaux]

On 11/13/2024 at 5:24 PM, Maestrophil said:

In reply to the door question asked earlier - later in the movie you see that both doors lead to the same place which is interesting 

I imagine the film is conveying a shallow message like "belief doesn't matter", especially if the movie's tone and overall narrative don't delve too deeply into philosophy or existential questions.

If both doors, regardless of the label, ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), it could be a commentary on how our beliefs are just different paths to the same uncomfortable or undesirable outcome, the basement. In this reading, the basement could represent a kind of existential dead-end or a place of reckoning.

On the other hand, it's possible that the "belief" door leading to the basement is just a red herring, or the "disbelief" door might offer a different perspective or even something better. If the film doesn’t provide enough clarity, it’s likely that the message is indeed a simple one: it doesn’t matter which door you choose; the end result is the same - they are both ultimately traps and all belief systems are arbitrary, and the labels we give them don't alter your experience.

Modern filmmaking, particularly in the Hollywood system, there’s often a tension between trying to appear “deep” and appealing to a wide audience. It sounds like Heretic might be leveraging the illusion of depth - putting in moments that appear thought-provoking or philosophical, designed to provoke an emotional or intellectual reaction without providing substantial intellectual payoff. The illusion of choice, fits right into that theme.

The door scene is a great example of how filmmakers can create the appearance of a deeper message without fully committing to it. By presenting two doors labeled "Belief" and "Disbelief," the filmmakers set up the expectation that this choice is significant and will lead to a meaningful conclusion, but if both doors ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), there is no meaning to the choice itself, instead gives the appearance of a profound commentary on the futility or illusion of our decisions.

However, if there’s no follow-through to clarify the implications of that idea—if the basement is just a symbol of bad things happening regardless of faith—then you’re left with a feeling that the film is playing with ideas without truly exploring them. The "truth" of the situation is that it doesn't matter, and we’re all headed to the same ambiguous outcome. That doesn't necessarily mean the filmmakers are presenting a deeply philosophical idea; rather, it might be a convenient way to make the film feel more intellectual than it actually is.

Filmmakers aim for a certain level of depth tailored to an "average" audience. Hollywood often walks a fine line between making something that seems profound and accessible, but not too challenging. 

In a way, the door scene may be serving as a metaphor for the whole movie itself—it gives the audience the illusion of choice or meaning (belief vs. disbelief), but ultimately both choices lead to the same place. It's not a new or radical insight, but it gives the impression of having something to say about life, choice, and belief—without actually saying much of anything at all.

If Hugh Grant’s character is proving his point about faith, and there’s ambiguity about whether faith or disbelief "prevailed," then it sounds like the film in its entirety might be playing with that same tension between appearances and reality. The missionary’s seemingly miraculous escape, for example, could be a classic "miracle" moment designed to make the audience question whether faith is truly the key to survival or if it’s just a convenient narrative device to create emotional resonance.

The ambiguity - was the escape truly miraculous, or was there some rational explanation we didn't see - is very much in line with that "illusion of depth". The filmmakers may be presenting these events in such a way that we’re left with the feeling that the world is mysterious but without giving us any clear answers. We’re left to interpret it however we want, which can make the film feel more open-ended and "thoughtful" (at least on the surface), but the lack of closure or clarity might leave viewers with a sense of emptiness, as if they’re being asked to fill in the gaps themselves without a strong foundation for those interpretations. It’s a bit like dangling a carrot in front of the audience’s face: "Here’s a question, but we’re not going to answer it for you." It’s a strategy that allows for different interpretations, but when those interpretations are based on shallow narrative choices, it often feels more like a storytelling cop-out than a real exploration of complex themes.

In terms of whether Hugh Grant’s character "proved his point," or the fact that the missionary escapes could serve as a symbolic win for faith - the audience isn’t given enough information to know if that’s truly the case. It could be that the escape was purely coincidence, or perhaps there’s something more mundane happening behind the scenes that the film doesn't reveal.

This kind of "half-answer" approach can leave audiences with a sense that the film wants to seem profound, but ultimately doesn’t have much to say. It’s like creating a puzzle that’s never meant to be solved, just to keep people guessing. So while some viewers might walk away thinking, "Oh, maybe faith really does work in mysterious ways," others might be left thinking like Hugh Grant, they are just being manipulated into thinking there’s more to it than there really is.

[Rain]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I can see the nuances here. Maybe control is to strong. Influenced or strongly influenced?  On that other hand if one desires to be in good standing one must submit to the rules and commandments the church lays out. Of course other organizations have similar expectations, like you have noted about the military.  I guess the question is where does the influence become excessive or unhealthy.  Temple recommend and youth interview as well as tithing settlement seem to go beyond influence. A member who desires to be in good standing must submit on a regular basis to probing personal questions. That seems to me to be more than influence. In addition a member who wants to be in good standing is going to have a whole bunch of their time taken by the church which is to some extend controlling IMO. Then there are temple covenants. I recall my very strict mission president frequently reminding us that we better be out working very hard and to not forget the covenant of consecration we had all made in the temple. That seems controlling to me.

Especially when you had no knowledge of exactly what you were covenanting until 1 second before taking it while surrounded by friends and family wanting you to do so.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

one: it doesn’t matter which door you choose; the end result is the same - they are both ultimately traps and all belief systems are arbitrary, and the labels we give them don't alter your experience.

This is where my mind went when I read it.

Does Grant’s character expand on the benefits of religious disbelief much?  Or just the negatives of religious belief.

Quote

 

Modern filmmaking, particularly in the Hollywood system, there’s often a tension between trying to appear “deep” and appealing to a wide audience. It sounds like Heretic might be leveraging the illusion of depth - putting in moments that appear thought-provoking or philosophical, designed to provoke an emotional or intellectual reaction without providing substantial intellectual payoff. The illusion of choice, fits right into that theme.…

Sound analysis, imo.  Enjoyed reading it.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I imagine the film is conveying a shallow message like "belief doesn't matter", especially if the movie's tone and overall narrative don't delve too deeply into philosophy or existential questions.

If both doors, regardless of the label, ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), it could be a commentary on how our beliefs are just different paths to the same uncomfortable or undesirable outcome, the basement. In this reading, the basement could represent a kind of existential dead-end or a place of reckoning.

On the other hand, it's possible that the "belief" door leading to the basement is just a red herring, or the "disbelief" door might offer a different perspective or even something better. If the film doesn’t provide enough clarity, it’s likely that the message is indeed a simple one: it doesn’t matter which door you choose; the end result is the same - they are both ultimately traps and all belief systems are arbitrary, and the labels we give them don't alter your experience.

Modern filmmaking, particularly in the Hollywood system, there’s often a tension between trying to appear “deep” and appealing to a wide audience. It sounds like Heretic might be leveraging the illusion of depth - putting in moments that appear thought-provoking or philosophical, designed to provoke an emotional or intellectual reaction without providing substantial intellectual payoff. The illusion of choice, fits right into that theme.

The door scene is a great example of how filmmakers can create the appearance of a deeper message without fully committing to it. By presenting two doors labeled "Belief" and "Disbelief," the filmmakers set up the expectation that this choice is significant and will lead to a meaningful conclusion, but if both doors ultimately lead to the same place (the basement), there is no meaning to the choice itself, instead gives the appearance of a profound commentary on the futility or illusion of our decisions.

However, if there’s no follow-through to clarify the implications of that idea—if the basement is just a symbol of bad things happening regardless of faith—then you’re left with a feeling that the film is playing with ideas without truly exploring them. The "truth" of the situation is that it doesn't matter, and we’re all headed to the same ambiguous outcome. That doesn't necessarily mean the filmmakers are presenting a deeply philosophical idea; rather, it might be a convenient way to make the film feel more intellectual than it actually is.

Filmmakers aim for a certain level of depth tailored to an "average" audience. Hollywood often walks a fine line between making something that seems profound and accessible, but not too challenging. 

In a way, the door scene may be serving as a metaphor for the whole movie itself—it gives the audience the illusion of choice or meaning (belief vs. disbelief), but ultimately both choices lead to the same place. It's not a new or radical insight, but it gives the impression of having something to say about life, choice, and belief—without actually saying much of anything at all.

If Hugh Grant’s character is proving his point about faith, and there’s ambiguity about whether faith or disbelief "prevailed," then it sounds like the film in its entirety might be playing with that same tension between appearances and reality. The missionary’s seemingly miraculous escape, for example, could be a classic "miracle" moment designed to make the audience question whether faith is truly the key to survival or if it’s just a convenient narrative device to create emotional resonance.

The ambiguity - was the escape truly miraculous, or was there some rational explanation we didn't see - is very much in line with that "illusion of depth". The filmmakers may be presenting these events in such a way that we’re left with the feeling that the world is mysterious but without giving us any clear answers. We’re left to interpret it however we want, which can make the film feel more open-ended and "thoughtful" (at least on the surface), but the lack of closure or clarity might leave viewers with a sense of emptiness, as if they’re being asked to fill in the gaps themselves without a strong foundation for those interpretations. It’s a bit like dangling a carrot in front of the audience’s face: "Here’s a question, but we’re not going to answer it for you." It’s a strategy that allows for different interpretations, but when those interpretations are based on shallow narrative choices, it often feels more like a storytelling cop-out than a real exploration of complex themes.

In terms of whether Hugh Grant’s character "proved his point," or the fact that the missionary escapes could serve as a symbolic win for faith - the audience isn’t given enough information to know if that’s truly the case. It could be that the escape was purely coincidence, or perhaps there’s something more mundane happening behind the scenes that the film doesn't reveal.

This kind of "half-answer" approach can leave audiences with a sense that the film wants to seem profound, but ultimately doesn’t have much to say. It’s like creating a puzzle that’s never meant to be solved, just to keep people guessing. So while some viewers might walk away thinking, "Oh, maybe faith really does work in mysterious ways," others might be left thinking like Hugh Grant, they are just being manipulated into thinking there’s more to it than there really is.

Wow, what more can I say. Did you see this movie? Because you nailed it in every way! To me, something could have gone past me w/o noticing but luckily I paid attention because the very last scene was significant and if I hadn't been following closely I would have missed it. But if it hadn't happened, I would have disliked the movie instensely. It would have been all for not and just a plain R rated movie with no moral to the story. Trying not to give the story away.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Rain said:

Especially when you had no knowledge of exactly what you were covenanting until 1 second before taking it while surrounded by friends and family wanting you to do so.

I think if one has been in the Church long enough the principles behind the covenants are clearly taught…the problem is the connecting of them all in the whole that is the covenant and doing it ahead of time.

I think in the past there was an expectation people would do it on their own or in families perhaps (I may be wrong on this with perhaps the earliest set up they were taught more specifically in sermons and it shifted to personal enlightenment later), but then by the time I was around at least the tools were removed when the temple ceremony became totally taboo to speak about and to some extent there was pressure to not even try to try and figure it out as it was seen as knowledge meant to be saved.****  I remember the impression that some thought it was important to go in there without any knowledge so the Spirit wouldn’t have obstacles of our assumptions to have to destroy before he could give us pure revelation.  Even my mother who would have been okay with breaking the taboo if she had recognized it didn’t go there.  I talked to her once about how our stake patriarch scolded us as not being open enough with our kids about what went on in the temple, that what was forbidden was a very, very small part, speaking about the covenants and why we were to make the covenants and those specifics were quite acceptable…as is demonstrated now by the Church now teaches them to some extent*** and she was perfectly comfortable with that and yet she had never taken the time to teach us in that way even though I at least spent hours and hours speaking with her, she did speak a lot about the initiatory and what it meant to her, but no specifics.

Does anyone know of research on the development of this taboo? I would love to read people’s journals on this or better somehow be able to eavesdrop on the conversations the early Saints were having as they exited the temple after their own endowments in Nauvoo and then see how they discussed their experiences over the years they had no access to a temple or even endowment house.  When did the taboo start?  Was it always present?  Was it a reaction to antimormon exposes or perhaps the tragic losses of the first temples?

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng

****There was a book by Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, that had an appendix with temple symbols and info about the endowment in its first 1941 edition, that was removed in later editions.   It was published by Bookcraft, which was not an official publisher of the Church, but had close ties, began from a push by Pres. Grant.  The Lundwall book might have been among the first published, so my guess is they were probably very careful in what they were publishing….and explicit temple content was not censored immediately.  This suggests to me the taboo wasn’t fully in place until later, but that is primarily speculation so I may be very wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookcraft

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/10/2024 at 1:56 PM, bluebell said:

I read a reveiw published by a returned sister missionary yesterday about it and she really really liked it, so hopefully that's a good sign.

I know folks (LDS) who attended BOM: The Musical and loved it. There is no accounting for taste.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If the film doesn’t provide enough clarity, it’s likely that the message is indeed a simple one: it doesn’t matter which door you choose; the end result is the same - they are both ultimately traps and all belief systems are arbitrary, and the labels we give them don't alter your experience.

I'm not sure we are supposed to learn moral lessons from a psychopath and serial killer?

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/11/2024 at 4:59 PM, Amulek said:

I think the only horror film I've ever really enjoyed was Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth.

Wikipedia characterizes it as being a "historical dark fantasy" movie, so maybe that one doesn't count as horror any longer.

It's still a really well made film - all in Spanish, with English subtitles. The R rating is primarily from violence and gore though, so it may not be for you.

Something Wicked This Way Comes. 👍👍👍