Looking back over the past few years in religion news, it would be hard to find a more haunting headline than this one from The New York Times: “In a First Among Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women.”
In fact, the third most clicked Rational Sheep post ever (more popular, alas, than the overture for this project) was a “Crossroads” episode on that topic, with this headline: “Young men are flocking into pews — But the New York Times says these marriage-hungry guys are joining ‘bad’ churches.” In that post, I noted:
This is supposed to be a story about why so many young men are walking through the doors of traditional Christian churches in the post-pandemic years. The men get some ink here, but the final word — the high ground, in debate terms — was given to progressive evangelicals and exvangelicals who believe the real story is that young women are fleeing these same churches.
Why? Because these churches have failed to modernize their doctrines on the ordination of women, “reproductive rights” and other gender doctrines.
In other words, this is another case of “good” religion vs. “bad” religion.
Tragically, from the Gray Lady’s point of view, all those young men are flocking into “bad religion” churches and, thus, many are voting for “bad” political candidates. Growing numbers of young women are embracing “good,” highly personal, forms of faith — not traditional doctrines and rites.
Now, what does this trend look like when woven into the sermons preached by Hollywood? Yes, this can be seen in the omnipresent Girl Boss trope in superhero, science fiction and fantasy flicks.
But what do the doctrines of “good religion” and “bad religion” look like in the popular and highly profitable world of horror movies? That was the big question in a recent Religion Unplugged movie review-essay by Joseph Holmes: “‘Black Phone 2’ Dials Into A New Era Of Faith-Based Horror — But Loses Its Signal.”
The key, according to Holmes, is that players in Hollywood are increasingly affirming “natural” or even pagan forms of individualistic faith, while portraying traditional forms of faith — especially Christianity — as flawed or even dangerous. Holmes argues:
This is very clear in this year’s horror films like “Presence,” “Death of a Unicorn,” “Sinners,” “The Conjuring: Last Rites,” “The Front Room” and now “Black Phone 2,” which all portray the church as the problem, or at the very least powerless, and individual spiritual women as the ones with the wisdom and the power to fight evil. And this religion is always more male-coded, and spirituality more female-coded.
The connection to trends in the world of church life?
The reasons given by women who leave are overwhelmingly that churches and organized religion are not liberal enough and therefore oppressing the marginalized — a narrative that Hollywood would sympathize with because Hollywood tends to be left-leaning.
It’s important to note that the artist behind the Black Phone franchise is writer-director Scott Derrickson, who, two decades ago, created the more traditional faith-driven horror film “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” (see this “On Religion” column: “Hollywood doubts and the Devil”). It also helps to know that Derrickson is a graduate of Biola University, an evangelical school once known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.
Holmes plunges into the plot details in which female spirituality clashes with toxic masculinity. Here is a bit of background:
“Black Phone 2” takes place four years after the events of the first movie. Bad dreams haunt a now 15-year-old Gwen (played by Madeleine McGraw) as she receives calls from the original film’s black phone and sees disturbing visions of three boys being stalked at a winter camp. Accompanied by her brother, Finney (Mason Thames) — who is still dealing with his own trauma after being kidnapped by and eventually killing The Grabber (Ethan Hawke) in the first film — they head to the camp to solve the mystery. They confront the Grabber — who’s grown even more powerful in death.
Surprise! A religious institution plays a crucial role, as the frame for the ultimate conflicts in this morality tale.
Gwen discovers in a dream that there’s a mystery going on at a Christian youth camp called “Alpine Lake” (totally not a Christian version of “Friday the 13th’s” Crystal Lake). …
Once there, they discover a snowstorm has canceled the camp and trapped them, and The Grabber is back from Hell and is back to get his revenge — but also because he has a history at this camp.
The devils and the non-doctrinal female angels are in the details, of course.
Gwen is the ultimate “spiritual, not religious.” She doesn’t go to church, but she talks to Jesus all the time. She also consults tarot cards (or the equivalent) and Jungian psychology of dreams. And yet, she is the most spiritually and morally enlightened of anyone in the film.
Her dreams are always accurate. She’s the most powerful person in the dream world. And whatever she believes about what the right thing to do is — whether it’s her brother needing to open up or needing to pursue the truth at Alpine Lake Camp — she’s always right. …
Meanwhile, male characters and exemplars of organized religion are shown to be foolish or complicit in evil until they listen to Gwen. … Alpine Lake Camp, a Christian institution, lacks both the spiritual power and moral clarity of Gwen. The camp is revealed to have a brutally grisly history that the institution, and many of those in it, is invested in covering up as much as possible.
And so forth and so on.
This is not the world in which a brilliant, but perhaps troubled, Catholic priest steps forward to wrestle with spiritual and physical forces of evil that threaten souls in the real world. These alternative faith movies are not going to end with a painful resolution that somehow affirms ancient truths rooted in the belief that God’s creation is both glorious and fallen.
So, am I arguing — in Rational Sheep terms — that “Black Phone 2” is a “signal” in which the culture asks an important question that the church cannot ignore? If you need a refresh on the “signal” concept, see this post containing all the details and a strong case study.
Frankly, I struggle with horror movies. They are not my thing. But millions of people disagree with me.
Thus, I wonder if some pastors and youth leaders will hear young people and young adults talking about this film and others like it. Would this make a good hook for a retreat program?
That is not for me to judge (although I hope to have students this coming summer to which I can address that question). Readers: What think ye?
However, I want to mention one more thing in this post.
A decade after “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” I attempted to arrange a meeting between Derrickson and a Hollywood legend — William Peter Blatty, a traditional Catholic believer who won an Academy Award for turning his novel, “The Exorcist,” into a screenplay. I hoped that this could lead to an on-camera discussion of movies that wrestle with incarnate evil.
However, Blatty died before that could happen — four years after I had tea with him and we discussed his classic and his personal motives for writing that horrifying R-rated parable.
For those interested in Blatty’s views on good and evil, here is the full text of my original 2013 column: “William Peter Blatty and ‘The Exorcist’ — Taking incarnate evil seriously for 40 years.” I believe that what he has to say remains relevant, especially in contrast with current Hollywood trends.
In the middle of a New York Magazine dialogue on heaven and hell, damnation and salvation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered this theological zinger: “I even believe in the Devil.”
The Devil is a major player in the Gospels and faithful Catholics know that, he said, before adding: “Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history.”
The principalities and powers of elite America were shocked, shocked by his confession. But one veteran Hollywood scribe pounded out a friendly email of support, from one conservative Catholic to another.
“I told him to quit honing into my territory,” said William Peter Blatty, who won an Academy Award in 1973 for adapting his novel, “The Exorcist,” for the big screen. “I don’t tell him how to write Supreme Court opinions. ... He should let me take the heat for talking about the Devil. That’s my job.”
The 85-year-old Blatty was joking and being serious at the same time, which is business as usual whenever he explains the twists and turns in his life since 1967. That was the year when memories of a sobering theology lecture he heard as a Georgetown University student began evolving into the novel that transformed him from a comedy pro into a horror legend.
Grief also helped shape the novel, in which a Jesuit psychiatrist tries to help a 12-year-old girl who is exhibiting the symptoms of demon possession, complete with fountains of green vomit and obscenities.
The fictional Father Damien Karras experiences paralyzing doubts after his mother’s death. Blatty was typing the second page of his earliest take on the story when he received the call that his mother had died.
“I knew what I wanted to do. I wanted to make a statement that the grave is not the end, that there is more to life than death,” said Blatty, in a Bethesda, Md., diner near his home, not far from the Georgetown neighborhood described in “The Exorcist.”
After studying the explicit details in the journals of exorcists, he decided that a story about “what happens in these cases could really be a boost to the faith. It could show people that the spiritual world is real.”
The bottom line: “The Exorcist” scared the hell out of millions of people. There were lines around the block at theaters and reports that janitors – literally – had to clean up the mess left by moviegoers who regretted consuming snacks during such a head-spinning, stomach-churning nightmare. When box-office receipts are adjusted for inflation, it remains the most successful R-rated movie ever.
That’s the Hollywood story, which is being marked with 40th anniversary celebrations. But for Blatty, it’s just as important that his work had an impact on people in a radically different setting. As a Jesuit in Los Angeles once told him, there was a “thundering herd of people headed into the confessionals” at churches in the weeks after the movie opened.
Amen, said Blatty. The goal was to defend the faith through writing that he considered a ministry, his own “apostolate of the pen.”
The key to “The Exorcist,” he explained, is that his protagonist’s crisis of faith is much deeper than his doubts about the reality of demons. Caught up in grief and guilt, this Jesuit is tempted to believe that God cannot condescend to love fallen human beings – like him.
“Karras has started to doubt his own humanity,” said Blatty. “In the end, he is the ultimate target of this demonic attack. The Devil is tempting him to despair.”
In one crucial passage in the novel, an older, experienced exorcist explains: “I think the point is to make us ... see ourselves as ultimately bestial, vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps. ... For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it finally is a matter of love: of accepting the possibility that God could ever love us.”
If readers and moviegoers pay attention, said Blatty, the chills caused by the demonic acts on the screen are merely the first step in a spiritual process that should drive them to look in the mirror.
“My logic was simple: If demons are real, why not angels? If angels are real, why not souls? And if souls are real, what about your own soul?”
If Blatty’s work sent people back to church, were helped by his desire to make clear what evil is, God bless him. And them.
Rabbi Harold Kushner believed that we all have a hunger for the supernatural. If we didn’t seek it in a relationship with God we might be inclined to seek it through horror films, the occult, etc. Lots to digest here (this post), my first thought is that nature abhors a vacuum and Kushner was onto something. The average person, if given a choice, would rather see the devil than God. Because apart from grace, that’s who and what we are. I did see The Exorcism of Emily Rose (kids I knew were watching it) but I personally think horror movies should be avoided. Period.