Movies

Column: ‘Heretic’s’ villain treats women as props. Unfortunately the film does, too

BBG News

Column: 'Heretic's' villain treats women as props. Unfortunately the film does, too

As a woman who has spent her fair share of time navigating the complexities and contradictions of modern society, I found “Heretic” to be a chilling reflection of our current cultural climate. Having just witnessed the election of a man who, despite his obvious shortcomings, was supported by a majority of white women, the sight of women in cages in this film hit particularly close to home.

Warning: This column includes spoilers for the film “Heretic.”

I went to see “Heretic” four days after the election. It was too soon.

Eager for some thrills with Hugh Grant playing a menacing character and what seemed like a haunted mansion from the previews, I was looking forward to stepping away from the constant chatter and negativity in the news.

In part, I understood what you meant, but there was a crucial point where I encountered images of women confined within cages. At this critical juncture, Mr. Reed, Grant’s ruthless associate, gave an elongated speech suggesting that these women were precisely where they desired to be.

Because they had chosen to be controlled.

In simpler terms, the situation clearly demonstrated a habitual form of condescending explanation, often directed towards women, that we had just experienced for nearly two hours. The women were subjected to traps, fear, intimidation, and assaults. However, it was exactly what I didn’t want to see. Additionally, the movie trailer for “Babygirl,” which portrays a powerful woman desiring to be mistreated by a charming 24-year-old man, didn’t make things better.

It’s yet to be determined how a potential second Trump administration might impact our nation economically and diplomatically. However, culturally speaking, its influence seems to have started already. Just the day before I watched “Heretic,” my teenage daughter and her friends were taunted at school by boys repeating “Your body, my choice – Trump 2024.” This kind of behavior is increasingly being reported across the country with a growing sense of alarm.

In contrast to the fact that most white women backed Trump, I was among those who did not, and many others joined me in this stance. Therefore, please understand if I failed to perceive or find amusing the irony in Reed’s “I did this because you let me” lecture within “Heretic,” or its portrayal of women confined in cages.

In many states, reproductive rights are being taken away, a convicted rapist has become president, and the conservative agenda of Project 2025 is gaining momentum in politics. It’s troubling that women could be penalized for not realizing that a seemingly ordinary person was actually a psychopath, especially when they tried to deal with his unusual behavior. This situation feels uncomfortably relevant.

It’s not right to evaluate a movie based on political events that occurred well after its release. However, horror often has political undertones, and the increasing impact of different religious groups, such as the Christian right, on modern American politics is significant. A film featuring a character consumed by religious power who becomes a violent fanatic preaching to two young women about choice might evoke responses beyond simple praise for Hugh Grant’s exceptional performance.

To set the record straight, I found his performance commendable and overall, I had a good time watching “Heretic.” Although it could be foreseen at times, it skillfully strikes all the necessary eerie chords while being less gory and more contemplative than many similar genres. The writer-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods seem to have a fascination (at times overtly) with examining the divide between faith and submission, yet the film unequivocally contradicts Reed’s argument that his victims willingly accepted or deserved their plight.

Without a doubt, Mr. Reed is swiftly portrayed as an unsavory character, luring two charming young Mormons to his residence by feigning interest in their religion. Once there, he isolates them, cutting off all communication with the outside world, subjecting them to a forced and ominous presentation that escalates in pressure, ultimately posing a direct test of their faith.

Sister Paxton (Chloe East) and Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) have no other option than to step inside his home, let him shut the door after them, and remove their outerwear. (Just remember to keep hold of your coats, ladies.)

Despite claims suggesting Reed’s discontent towards established faiths, we glean scant information about him. Instead, Grant opts for the comical academic character, as opposed to the troubled pseudo-monk, offering an insight if nothing else, that a youthful grin and sparkling baby blues are merely genetic traits rather than indicators of one’s essence (It’s worth questioning whether anyone has ever searched Hugh Grant’s basement recently).

The female characters are skillfully depicted. Paxton is a kind-hearted and enthusiastic missionary who was born into her faith; Barnes joined due to her mother’s conversion and appears to be street-smart. When they discover that the man at the door isn’t trustworthy – there’s no Mrs. Reed, the front door is locked, and the windows are too small for an escape – they try their best to pretend and then, when things get more perilous, make a hasty exit.

In this work, as well as Reed himself, there’s a shared preoccupation with scrutinizing religious beliefs, particularly those that involve accepting the seemingly unbelievable. The narrative delves deeply into the polygamous past of Mormonism and the potential dangers of favoring one religion over another when they share common mythologies. This exploration ultimately leads to the tragic fate of women, often relegated to basement or pit-like settings reminiscent of horror films.

The movie “Heretic” unveils its own deceit when Sister Barnes suspects her captor of using illusion instead of miracles, and Sister Paxton finds the imprisoned women. Reed’s insanity doesn’t stem from his interpretation of faith as a wish to be dominated – if it did, there would also be men in those cages. Instead, removing its heavy religious symbolism, “Heretic” is essentially about a serial killer who, like many serial killers, targets only women.

This work could be interpreted as a subtle criticism of the suppression of women in conservative branches of what Reed calls “the big three” religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, or society at large. However, “Heretic” doesn’t seem to engage with, let alone endorse, this critique. Reed’s concerns about religion are not specific to gender; his personal issues are not.

Previously, it might have been acceptable, albeit a tad unsatisfying. However, “Heretic” doesn’t require anything beyond its current state – not every movie can mirror real-world social atrocities as sharply as “Get Out.” (“Barbarian” was an exhilarating thriller, despite not sparking deep contemplation about the essence of Airbnbs.) The film’s final scene leaves interpretations about faith and justice ambiguous. Yet, my concern wasn’t centered on God’s existence or the protagonist’s destiny, but rather the plight of those confined women.

What was their identity, and for how long had they been present in that location? Was there any chance someone would discover them and liberate them? Had their spirits been shattered, or could there still be a glimmer of restoration? Are we truly comfortable with the prospect of them perishing from hunger or cold?

In many horror flicks, you’ll find unnamed characters serving as victims for a few jolts of fear. At one point, this wouldn’t have phased me much. However, after watching “Heretic,” I felt like I had seen enough. When the antagonist in a movie treats women as mere props, it’s the film itself that needs to step up its game.

If you dare to confine women for amusement, you should certainly find a means to release them.

Read More

2024-11-13 03:03

Previous post Brent Oil Forecast