Revenge of Graphic Content #3: Heretic (2024)

Previously on Revenge of Graphic Content: Godzilla Minus One…

Hello and welcome back to Revenge of Graphic Content. This week I wanted to die into yet another film (this quickly established itself as a film-heavy dive into horror, didn’t it?) with Heretic (2024), the latest film from A24. And no, this isn’t really a review, it’s mostly an essay. I do give you a brief assessment though, so, huzzah!

A brief assessment

Heretic turned out to be quite a fun movie. I am not reviewing it here, but if you want to know if you should see it, I would suggest at least giving it a try. It is a pretty standard A24 horror film in the sense it is well-produced, is generally entertaining, and has a novel enough concept.

I’d give it a solid three out of five ghost emojis. If you are looking for an assessment of the film, that is where I would put it. Not a bad outing for the writing and directing duo of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods.

Heretic (2024): 3/5 👻👻👻

Heretic is a lot like the standard A24 horror film in that it is more concerned with the appearance of being elevated to the degree that the film just kind of exists. In the words of Peter Griffin, it insists upon itself. The film can do more to earn a level of prestige but ultimately comes to a stop, just before the goal.

But, what I really want to write about, and we’re in spoiler territories below, is the smell of bullshit that pervades both points of view of the film. Not that this is a bad thing, as the movie is very much an exploration of belief vs. disbelief, but it also does a fairly good job of making both sides look like bullshit. It’s the enlightened centrist of religiosity-themed horror.

The film loses the plot, however, in the rather predictable and small-minded motivations of one of the central characters.

---

God’s Not Real, but Also He Is, Maybe

First of all, if you can, take a former Mormon to see the movie with you. It’s an experience. At several times my partner was happily hearing Hugh Grant’s Mr. Reed criticizing Mormon doctrine. To be fair, there is material to criticize about the church, but also I had to remind her that he was the bad guy.

Therein lies the central issue with the film – you get what you take into it as far as belief goes. I am more along the lines of an atheist in the sense that I have no idea what could be out there, but I try not to be smug or assertive about there. I see no evidence of something greater and therefore do not commit to anything beyond the observable and material world.

The film pits Mr. Reed against two missionaries, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East), in a brutal test of faith (or is it?) in the basement of his home. The somewhat affable but supremely awkward Reed coerces and tricks the missionaries into a cruel puzzle box scenario that drifts between a lecture on the nature of faith, a repudiation of their desire to believe in something, and a cruel social experiment and power play masked in the garb of pseudophilosophical malarkey. Both sides take their roles as the arbiters of their perceived views on faith. It’s largely flat, introducing larger ideas that aren’t explored to their potential. The curious wrinkle lies in the roles of the Sisters, who represent the faithful but differ in zealotry and pragmatism.

Sisters, Sisters, here be a Heretic

The Sisters are presented as fairly complex, faithful characters, with Barnes appearing to be more outwardly devout, to a degree, due to her implied past as a recent convert. Paxton seems more pragmatic and ultimately flexible of the pair, her outward expression of belief and proselytizing coming off as her desperate to show she can be a good Mormon but not quite sticking the landing. The details of her connecting quotes spouted by Reed to comics as opposed to Voltaire, for example. Barnes is more worldly but seemingly more committed; an elder figure who has internalized the teachings of her faith and the criticisms of it and is resolute. Paxton is the newer figure trying to come to an understanding in Heretic.

The film does not take a committed stance on the issue of belief and disbelief. That is not something I would want. I can handle ambiguity in situations.

I like the ending as it stands; did Sister Paxton die in the snow or not? Does the butterfly symbolize Barnes coming back to see her, or are they the hallucinations of someone in their final moments? It’s good stuff, it works within the context of the film which shows both sides of thought as taking several large leaps in logic to justify their lack of knowledge.

Well, that all depends on how we (dis)believe Reed’s whole point to his cruelty. Sister Paxton puts together in the climax this is about an issue of control. Is it really suggested that Reed’s hypothesis is that the point of religion is a desire to control others? It’s junior college-level philosophy that offers little; it’s all so flimsy.

That’s it? He’s just a control freak?

I feel like the positioning of Reed’s overarching point, as laid out by Sister Paxton, to be something like that undercuts the character. As a result, his manipulations and seemingly dimestore philosophical arguments (such as evoking Star Wars as a future ground for religion) are more earnest on his part than I feel they should have been. The film sets up that he knows he is spinning bullshit to test the Sisters. Barnes calls him out on this, Reed is cagey in his reactions. The points he lays out in the gauntlet, the lecturing, the clear weakness in his point of view feel like they were either in service of something greater, or, equally terrifying, a mask for nothing.

I almost want to just take the stance that Sister Paxton was incorrect in her assessment of what Reed wanted. The film would be the better for it. I suppose one could interpret his power-play within the basement as him positioning himself as a God of sorts, but it feels too thin. It feels too neat; a small man making himself feel big, a man who thinks he is smarter than he is. I suppose that is it, in the end.

But why does Heretic feel so hollow to me? It is a film where nothing matters, something bleak. I am not above bleakness in film. But that bleakness doesn’t really serve a point, here. Mr. Reed is a character whose suggested motivations ultimately do him a disservice. Either make him a psychopath and pseudo-intellectual or have him tap into a larger truth than something you might hear at a college’s atheism society’s weekly minutes

Heretic isn’t all that heretical.

There are interesting elements seeded into Heretic and the discussion around belief and disbelief. However, Scott Beck and Bryan Woods pull their punches to such a degree the film just ends up entertaining rather than something a little more weightier. I don’t dislike the centrism at the heart of the film and its ending, but it jettisons a great character with flimsy motivation, which I definitely dislike.

---

Thanks for reading. Please let me know what you think about Heretic or my take on the film in the comments.