Netflix’s ‘Midnight Mass’ Joins a Long Line of Horror That Plays With Catholic Beliefs

It exposes religious intolerance, decries false piety and draws attention to the evil that can result from blind religious belief.

Horror and Catholicism have walked hand in hand on screen for almost a century. From Benjamin Christensen’s 1922 film Häxan to Mike Flanagan’s 2021 Netflix series Midnight Mass, scary films and television shows have portrayed the Catholic religion in both reverent and shocking ways.

Midnight Mass incorporates both approaches.

Set in a small, mostly Catholic community, the series gives a detailed depiction of everyday Catholic life. It also suggests an uncanny side to some elements of the religion, particularly the central sacrament of the Eucharist, or Communion, in which participants are understood to partake of the literal body and blood of Christ.

For many believers, Catholic ritual is meant to evoke a sense of wonder. For others, it can call up distrust of the religion’s overt mystical and supernatural claims and anger at the ongoing scandals within the Church.

In my experience as a scholar of religion in film, horror movies can offer a complex picture of Catholic belief, ritual and daily experience.

Demon-fighters and exorcism

Many horror films depict Catholic ritual as a means of fighting evil, especially demonic possession.

For instance, The Conjuring, a horror film franchise, fictionalizes the experiences of Ed and Lorraine Warren, a married couple, who are self-professed demon hunters and lifelong devout Catholics. In the filmsThe Conjuring, its two sequels, and the prequels Annabelle and The Nun – the Warrens employ the instruments of their faith, including prayer and sacramental objects such as rosary beads, to free possessed people.

In other films, often with the words “exorcist” or “exorcism” in the title, Catholic clergy are the heroes in the fight against evil. These movies often depict priests as martyrs whose sacrifices may even absolve them from violence they commit during the ritual.

In the 1973 film The Exorcist, which centers around the possession of 12-year-old character Regan MacNeil, two priests give up their lives in an attempt to expel the demon. The film has also been criticized for representing physical violence in a way that it appears necessary for saving the young female protagonist.

Similar violence is questioned within the 2005 film The Exorcism of Emily Rose. In it, a priest is found guilty of homicide after the titular character dies during an exorcism. The movie’s narrative ultimately absolves him of moral, if not legal, guilt for her death because he believes himself to be acting according to the will of God.

Also read: ‘Narcotic Jihad’ and the Delusions of the Catholic Church

Catholic symbols and the fight against evil

Screen heroes often don’t have to be priests, or even Catholic, to fight evil with Catholic ritual and symbols. In horror television and film, vampire hunters employ religious symbols like the Christian cross, but also specifically Catholic elements such as holy water and the consecrated Communion wafer. Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula leans heavily on such Catholic symbols.

Still, not all screen vampires fear the emblems of Catholicism. Many narratives make a point of the inefficacy of sacramental objects. These films and series include The Strain, Interview with the Vampire and even the Twilight franchise.

More importantly, many vampire narratives make use of the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine consumed during Mass are the literal body and blood of Christ. Such stories connect Catholic rituals and vampirism. In fact, Midnight Mass creator Mike Flanagan has stated that Catholic ritual and vampirism are “explicitly linked. You are dealing with a mythology that is steeped in blood ritual and resurrection.”

Other types of screen horror subvert or dismiss Catholic ritual and symbolism altogether. According to scholar Jana Toppe, modern zombie stories represent the opposite of Catholic belief regarding eternal life.

Toppe suggests that zombie narratives have come to “satirize” the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. In most zombie films, the eating of flesh does lead to a resurrection of a body, but one without a soul.

Gothic Catholicism

For every horror film that sees the rituals of Catholicism as instruments in the fight against evil, another portrays the Church itself as evil.

Swedish-born actor Max Von Sydow blesses actress Linda Blair as she lies in a possessed state in the film ‘The Exorcist’. Photo: YouTube

This representation dates at least back to horror’s roots in the 18th-century Gothic novel, which dramatized the Enlightenment distrust of the irrational in general and the supposedly occult and uncanny nature of Catholicism in particular.

Gothic’s use of Catholic tropes – ruined abbeys, lecherous priests, nuns walled up in convents and so on – created a picture of the religion that could be both repellent and fascinating to readers.

According to scholar Susan Griffin, in England and in 19th- and early 20th-century North America, Catholics – usually from countries outside the English-speaking world – were often portrayed as a “racialized other” in Gothic as well as early horror.

Horror’s critique of Catholicism

For years, horror film and television have also critiqued the Church’s secular and political influence, as well as the moral failures and sins of its adherents and hierarchy.

Horror narratives often reflect the Church’s reluctance to recognize or acknowledge the evil in its own midst. This has tragic relevance both in light of the child sex abuse crisis and its cover-up, as well as revelations about the treatment of Indigenous children in boarding schools administered by Catholic religious orders, among other groups.

Horror can call up historical abuses. The 2018 film The Devil’s Doorway is a supernatural film inspired by the abuse experienced by women at Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries, where the so called “fallen women” were confined and subjected to hard labor. In another example, the 2015 Polish film Demon combines Catholic characters with the Jewish mythological figure of the “dybbuk,” a spirit of the dead, to interrogate Catholic complicity in the Holocaust.

Other narratives critique the institutional church while treating faith respectfully. In the television series Evil, for example, a Catholic psychologist and an atheist raised in the Muslim faith investigate supernatural occurrences for the Vatican alongside a tortured but devout Catholic seminarian. In doing so, they address issues within the church such as abuse, racism, misogyny and clericalism, or the privileging the clergy over everyday believers.

Also read: ‘Antebellum’ Fails at Making a Horror Movie Out of the Experience of Racism in America

Complexities of Catholicism and horror

The representation of Catholicism in horror is varied and complex, and emphasizes the narrative and aesthetic creativity, as well as the subversive nature, of a genre so often undervalued as merely shocking and violent. Flanagan’s show is a case in point.

Midnight Mass exposes religious intolerance, including the othering of the community’s Muslim sheriff, which recalls representations of Catholics in the Gothic novel. The show also decries false piety and draws attention to the evil that can result from blind religious belief.

At the same time, the series emphasizes the possibility of redemption, as well as the complexity and authenticity in each character’s religious experience.

In Midnight Mass and other narratives, screen horror’s evocations of Catholicism parallel the intricacies and contradictions, along with the good and the evil, within the Church itself, and perhaps within all powerful institutions.The Conversation

Regina Hansen is Master Lecturer, Rhetoric, Boston University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Movie Review: Three Misses, One Hit in Netflix’s ‘Ghost Stories’

Anurag Kashyap, Dibakar Banerjee, Karan Johar and Zoya Akhtar have collaborated on another anthology – this time of horror short films.

After Bombay Talkies (2013) and Lust Stories (2018), four Indian filmmakers – Anurag Kashyap, Dibakar Banerjee, Karan Johar and Zoya Akhtar – have collaborated again on an anthology, Ghost Stories, now streaming on Netflix.

Their earlier movies revolved around cinephilia and lust, while this recent release, as the name attests, deals with horror, a genre that Akhtar and Johar have not tried before – though technically neither have Kashyap or Banerjee, but at least their past films explored darker human psyches. It seems fitting, then, that Ghost Stories starts and ends with shorts by Akhtar and Johar: two ‘novices’ ushering us in and out of this world – a relatively risky endeavour in a film about fear.

Akhtar’s short, Nurse – opening with a scene comprising recognisable horror film tropes (an overcast sky, a woman standing alone in a vast landscape marked by distinct cawing, a hen dropping dead to the ground) – signals an amateurishly ‘spooky!’ intent, but soon relaxes to find a more natural rhythm. Here, we meet Sameera (Jahnvi Kapoor), a young nurse in charge of an elderly ailing lady, Mrs Malik (Surekha Sikri), who, battered by delusions, keeps calling out for her son, Armaan. He’s nowhere to be seen or heard.

Also read: In a Tumultuous 2019, These Four Hindi Films Brought Out Our Shared Humanity

Akhtar sets up compelling parallels between the two women: Sameera is attractive in the present, Mrs Malik was in the past. Sameera waits for her boyfriend, Guddu (Vijay Varma), Mrs Malik for Armaan. Both have suffered the consequences of familial abandonment.

Akhtar uses mirrors to depict these similarities. There are several scenes where Sameera sees her image – sometimes reflected in one, at other times in multiple mirrors. When she wears Mrs Malik’s brooch, and looks at her reflection, whom does she see: herself or her patient? Later, we see them sitting side by side, their images locked in a nearby mirror. Sameera and Mrs Malik have something else in common: the long, desolate hallway connecting their rooms.

Nurse is a story of morbid hope – of premonition – where Mrs Malik hears a doorbell before it’s rung, thinking it is Armaan (not too different from Sameera’s wish that Guddu will come to see her). The conceit of premonition is also built in the segment’s aural design: in several scenes, we first hear the sound and then see its accompanying visual. There’s also some cheeky wordplay (“Do you think I’m deaf” said by Mrs Malik sounds a lot like “do you think I’m dead”).

But despite these technical ingenuities – and attention to detail – Nurse, ending with a banal twist, doesn’t quite work. Akhtar has taken a small, affecting story and tried to force-fit it into the genre of horror. Somewhere between wracking the nerve and brushing the heart, her short loses its way.

Kashyap’s segment, Bird, is centred on a young pregnant mother, Neha (Sobhita Dhulipala), who babysits her nephew (Zachary Braz) during the day. Presumably by accident, the similarities between Nurse and Bird are remarkable. Both derive their dramatic mileage from a ‘failed’ childhood (Neha, we’re told, couldn’t be a good daughter; the karmic question, then, seems: is she even allowed to be a mother?), feature mirrors in key scenes, make frequent use of hallways and involve pain-alleviating pills.

Neha’s house has an attic, hosting a nest, a crow and a few eggs. Every now and then, Neha feeds the crow, in effect caring for the eggs. The parallels here, too, between the two ‘characters’ are quite evident: the stairs leading to the first floor seems similar to the small ladder attached to the attic. The crow, like Neha, is a mother-to-be. Neha, by caring for the crow, is trying to atone for her childhood sins. We appreciate the implication: the house is a nest, and Neha is the crow.

Many of Kashyap’s feature films work as excellent, isolated set pieces – where a good film form materialises with full force – but often fail to come together as a whole. The director, by that reason alone, should make impressive short films (and his piece for me, in Lust Stories, was the best of the lot). Bird, though, isn’t nearly half as impressive. You can pick and dissect, and be sporadically impressed by individual frames and stray strands of motifs. There’s enough ambiguity here to keep you guessing – is this a story of multiple miscarriages, of a distant oedipal bond, of a lifelong guilt – but it struggles to find a sense of cohesion. Bird, in essence, lacks an umbilical cord, continually connecting the audiences with the director: the filmmaker’s baby, as a result, is stillborn.

Banerjee’s segment, Monster, is more symbolic than Kashyap’s and is by far the best piece of the quartet. It opens to an anonymous man (Sukant Goel) – identified as “Visitor” in the end credits – entering a deserted countryside, Bisgarah (“Smalltown”). The place has just two survivors, both of them unnamed – “Little Boy” (Aditya Shetty) and “Little Girl” (Eva Ameet Pardeshi) – who detail the laws of the land. The Saugarah (“Bigtown”) people, Visitor is told, “ate the people of Smalltown”. To temporarily survive, the people of Smalltown began eating their own. The rules, as explained by Little Boy, are these: “If you move, you’ll die; if you speak, you’ll die; they don’t eat those who eat.”

A dominant society setting the rules for others, which, if not followed, can spiral into you getting lynched. These rules reduce people of Smalltown to non-people, worse than ‘second-class citizens’, who are forced to self-annihilate. The Bigtown people, in contrast, have become cannibals; moving zombie-like, they all look the same from a distance – a terrifying commentary on the perils of monoculture. (At the end of the film, we finally meet the ‘real’ people of Bigtown, who have nothing but disdain for Smalltown – especially Councilman (Gulshan Deviah), who asks Visitor, “Are you interested in history? Bigtown was once a touchstone mine. It was the capital of the state. We’ll be great again.”)

Also read: ‘Good Newwz’, the ‘Dharmafication’ of WhatsApp ‘Pati-Patni’ Jokes

Monster is an excellent example of layered and symbolic storytelling. Using clever hints, Banerjee constantly sustains our interest. When Visitor enters an abandoned classroom, we see an incomplete map of India – with nearly its entire western coast, including Gujarat, erased – on the blackboard. In the next scene, Smalltown’s school principal is vomiting in the courtyard, standing near a tricolour drooping from a pole. A complex film, designed to inform by being obscure, succeeds not because it is difficult to understand, but because it invites multiple points of engagement and interpretations: it compels you to revisit the piece (a crucial element lacking in Bird).

Further, Monster has wonderful performances (Shetty, in particular, deserves praise for portraying a dubious boy with deceptive ease), even has flashes of humour and is marked by consistently impressive writing. It has some powerful visuals (especially of Visitor holding hands, begging for mercy from a bloodthirsty mob, which is disturbingly reminiscent of Mohammed Naeem, in Jharkhand, a few years ago). But a truly remarkable bit about this short is how it resists simplification, right till the very end, while still being riveting. We don’t even know its design: was it a dream or was it real? Perhaps a bit of both: a (bad) dream slowly becoming real.

Among all the filmmakers, Johar has perhaps had the most fun in the last two versions of this series. Unburdened by audiences’ expectations and producer’s demands – of making a blockbuster – he’s given himself space to breathe. His short in Bombay Talkies felt personal and poignant, while his Lust Stories piece was deliciously subversive and meta. Here, though, like Akhtar, he seems to be burdened by form, of making a ‘horror’ film, and as a result, his is the most trope-ey and disappointing segment of the lot.

Granny is about Ira (Mrunal Thakur), a young woman marrying an affluent man, Dhruv (Avinash Tiwary), who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with his (dead) grandmother. Dhruv needs her permission for everything; he wishes her good night, without fail, as a daily ritual. Even the housekeepers are in awe of the old lady.

Ira, quite justifiably, feels spooked and sidelined. It’s a very Rebecca-like set-up, the similarity finding echoes in story (replace the dead wife with the dead grandmother), characters (shifty housekeepers) and production design (a claustrophobia-inducing mansion). But Johar’s methods of invoking horror are painfully clichéd: characters shooting menacing glances, a door creaking open, the housekeeper standing with a flashlight held close to her face (even when the room is washed with light).

Johar gives us very little to hold on to, except brief flashes of meta commentary. I laughed out loud when Ira bursts into “fuck you granny” and, later, the granny returning the favour with, “Look at my fucking face.” A different decade, a different medium and an incredible amount of change: 2001, 19 years later, seems to belong to a different century now, when it was “all about loving your (grand) parents”.

Jordan Peele’s ‘Us’: Black Horror Movies and the American Nightmare

Peele’s films reflect the way many African-American directors have used the horror genre to narrate the black experience.

Jordan Peele’s debut horror film, Get Out (2017), pitched its black hero into a genteel white world in which lethal racist violence lurked behind every idyllic facade. In his second horror feature, the recently released Us, the cast of African American protagonists is extended and their object of terror modified. Here a middle-class family of parents and two children, on holiday in California, is suddenly drawn into a life-and-death struggle with horrifying doubles of themselves.

Us has opened to critical acclaim, and is also proving highly popular with audiences. The numbers are appropriately monstrous: the film’s box office takings from March 22-26 alone amounted to more than four times its comparatively modest $20 million budget. Given the huge success of Get Out – together with his work as producer on Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman (2018)Us confirms Peele’s status as a significant player in contemporary Hollywood.

Peele’s two films to date as writer-director are, of course, not the first horror movies to achieve broad audience appeal. Think, for example, of precursors such as John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) or Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). Nevertheless, with the success of Get Out and Us, the horror film has again become an object of mass consumption, rather than something enjoyed principally by niche demographics. Not quite fun for all the family, perhaps, but certainly entertainment for many spectators whose cinematic tastes may not normally extend to horror.

The mainstream success of these two films owes a good deal to their sheer polish. Rather than the relatively cheap look of, say, the British Hammer Horror titles released between the late 1950s and 1970s, Peele’s films have high production values. They interweave terror with comedy in a winning combination. And Get Out and Us are tactful, too, in their renditions of violence.

Peele’s camera moves on briskly from signs of bodily damage, avoiding the exploitation imagery to be found in other horror directors such as Rob Zombie (as in 2003’s House of 1000 Corpses, with its crazed family mutilating teenagers at Halloween).

Like Get Out, Us prompts us to think once more about the relationship between African Americans and horror films. The genre has proved attractive to black filmmakers in the US during the past 50 years. Why?

American nightmare

From the arrival of the first slave ships on the East Coast, African Americans have often fashioned their experiences into narratives of horror. Instead of reporting the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they have testified to a Gothic fate of enslavement and violence.

Little wonder, then, that in his speech The Ballot or the Bullet (1964), the radical black activist Malcolm X said: “I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.” Or that in her novel Beloved (1987), Toni Morrison paints a nightmarish picture of: “Whole towns wiped clean of Negroes; eighty-seven lynchings in one year alone in Kentucky; four colored schools burned to the ground; grown men whipped like children.”

In the face of this grim historical record, horror is a compelling genre for African American artists. Far from appearing somewhat fantastical, the genre oddly holds out instead the promise of documentary accuracy. And just as novelists such as Morrison have found horror valuable as a means of reckoning with history, so too black filmmakers have exploited its power to move audiences to sombre reflection (as well as its marketable capacity to frighten them out of their skins).

Villains and victims

“The monster exists”, Barry Langford, a scholar of film genres, suggests, “to teach an object (social) lesson of some kind.” So it’s worth stopping to think about what we are taught by the figure of the monster in horror movies directed by African Americans.

The first lesson comes from a set of films that, at first sight, recycle racist tropes in presenting their monster as black. What is distinctive here, however, is a tendency to motivate the monster’s violent actions – instead of expressing mindless savagery, these are to be understood now as the inevitable outcome of racial injustice.

Examples of this cinema of black protest include William Crain’s Blacula (1972), in which an 18th-century African prince becomes a vampire in contemporary Los Angeles after his plea to abolish the slave trade is ignored. Or Bill Gunn’s Ganja & Hess (1973), featuring a black anthropologist turned vampire and similarly adapting the shopworn Dracula plot to reflect on the legacy of white dominance. Both of these films date from a time when stylistically inventive and politically energised African American horror films flourished even in the face of restricted budgets.

But elsewhere in black American horror cinema, the colour coding of the monster is adjusted. In these rather different scenarios of terrifying white threat, the African American protagonist takes on the role of the endangered. This subversive move is, of course, available to others besides black filmmakers. George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968), for example, shows a resourceful black protagonist menaced by the white undead. But there are many instances of this sort of plot within the black cinematic canon, extending from Crain’s Dr. Black, Mr. Hyde (1976) to Get Out itself.

To juxtapose Peele’s new film with Get Out is to see a further twist in the racial dynamics of the African American horror film. In Us, the central black characters are neither monsters nor victims in any simple sense, but actually both (as are their white equivalents). Monstrosity is in fact hard to locate here with any authority. The vulnerable black family we root for as it struggles against its terrifying doubles is after all itself vampiric, in its exploitation of those people less economically advantaged.

Andrew Dix, Lecturer in American Studies, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.