It’s easy to hate what creates discomfort. To avoid the horrible, palpable silence just before a conversation that forces the discussion of true and unflinching thought. The most significant part of “Heretic” is the arduous reflection that cycles, endlessly, around personal belief. It gets louder as the movie ends; it remains weeks after watching. It’s possible to live another thirty years and still, once a day, think about “Heretic.” And, perhaps, in a world where politicians, pastors, and parents have created pre-packaged mindsets and lifestyles, a movie that forces self-thought is considered to be of bad quality.
“Heretic,” which was released into theaters in early November of this year, follows two Mormon missionaries, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East), as they face the abominable intellectual Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who seeks to use them as an experiment to discover the “one true religion.” While it may be slated and advertised as a horror movie, it’s more than that.
Shot in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, writers and directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods force upon their audience the experience of the Heretic: the home of a man who has been driven to madness by his quest for reason. His torture of two young girls.
“You’re able to capture a lot more in the shots with the wider aspect ratios,” English 10 Honors, AP Seminar, and film studies teacher Scott Barycki said. “And even thinking of a horror film, a lot of times, we’re trying to get the reactions of the characters and almost put ourselves in their shoes.”
However, the set feels almost underwhelming when held under the light of the aspect ratio. Perhaps it was intentional to use a more simple set to allow focus on the movie’s philosophical quandaries. Instead, it seems as if Beck and Woods are holding out for a larger set budget. This is especially true when considering “Heretic”’s advertising, which seems to imply that the movie would follow Thatcher and East through an intricate labyrinth. Instead, audiences are forced to make do, for most of the movie, with a grimy cellar and a very short Dante’s Inferno-esque reveal of Reed’s house in the final moments of the movie.
But what does “Heretic” actually argue? Beneath a convoluted discussion about copyright law, originality, and Monopoly, it’s clear to see that there are genuine questions about the nature of religion. Through the lens of Mr. Reed’s hyper-intellectualism, the argument is made that, because there is no concrete evidence of an afterlife or a God, all religions are false. Instead, Reed claims, control is the only true religion, and religious leaders abuse biblical doctrine to oppress others. Trapped in the world of academia, Reed seems to thoroughly reject the idea that religion may stem beyond the physical world in front of him. However, to many, religion is the celebration of the unnatural. It is the adherence to the opinion that, in the words of Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston, “there can be miracles when you believe.”
“It’s kind of like saying, ‘Because there are no deductively valid proofs for the existence of God, that therefore, God doesn’t exist,’” AP US Government, AP Seminar, and AP Research teacher Allison Cohen said. “That’s not the reason for the non-existence of God. You can’t use reason to explain something that is fundamentally founded on faith.”
However, this doesn’t mean that “Heretic” is against religion. To claim that “Heretic” is some sort of satanic crime written by the unfaithful is a claim that can only stem from watching the movie with both eyes closed and both ears plugged. In actuality, “Heretic” is anything but atheistic. In fact, Beck and Woods are extremely religious people who believe in the all-consuming power of faith in the battle of good over evil. In the end, it is Sister Paxton’s faith that helps her escape Mr. Reed’s house. Doubt, in essence, is a natural part of faith. However, this argument isn’t overwhelmingly obvious in the movie, and therefore, it seems to have flown over the heads of those who have flooded its Google page with one-star reviews. “Heretic” doesn’t spell out exactly what it believes in. The audience is expected to draw their own conclusion as they walk out of the theater.
“That also leaves things open to interpretation,” Barycki said. “Where you watch a movie and the way you view it could be different from someone else. And you have more freedom to do that when it’s not explicitly told, ‘here’s what the filmmaker is going for.’”
What does it say about a society if a movie is shunned for forcing its audience to think about what they believe in? Can general populations not be trusted with the privilege of self-thought and determination? Every student at Langley is being constantly stretched into different directions and possibilities as they consider their future: their career, family life, livelihood, and, perhaps most importantly, their belief system. As students graduate and mature, teachers, parents, and the McLean community must be able to honestly believe that they are teaching their teenagers to better reflect upon and analyze the media they consume. While it’s best to refrain from using the i-word (indoctrination), Langley community members should be terrified of a student that blindly believes in what they are told, without question and without doubt.
“That’s part of the human project,” Cohen said. “For each individual person to reason through what makes sense to them about how to interpret their religious beliefs.”
It is, perhaps, an artist’s ultimate fantasy to be misunderstood. “Heretic” is not quite a horror movie as it is a conversation between Hugh Grant and the audience that just happens to include blood. It is an extremely personal piece—there is little shielding Beck and Woods from the criticism they’ve received either from audiences or the Mormon church itself. But such is the risk when making a movie for oneself as opposed to trying to attract the largest audience possible. “Heretic” works to cement itself into the minds of its viewers—but it has to be approached with the willingness to have dearly-held opinions challenged in every possible way. It has to be approached the way every piece of media should be approached: with the intention of wanting to feel something that has never been felt before; and then to discuss it with as many people as humanly possible.
“I think we have stories to tell,” Barycki said. “As a film viewer, it’s a really amazing way to experience a part of life or a story that you’re never going to experience in your own life.”