Modern Hollywood’s Love Affair With Satanism
by Leo Grin“It is the eve of St. George’s Day. Do you not know that tonight, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?”
Those are words spoken by a superstitious old woman to Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (1897). Fearing for the outsider’s safety, she gives him a crucifix. “I did not know what to do,” Harker writes, “for, as an English Churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as in some measure idolatrous, and yet it seemed so ungracious to refuse an old lady meaning so well and in such a state of mind.”
But later, overcome with terror in the bowels of the Count’s Transylvanian castle, he has reason to be most grateful:
Bless that good, good woman who hung the crucifix round my neck! For it is a comfort and a strength to me whenever I touch it. It is odd that a thing which I have been taught to regard with disfavour and as idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of help. Is it that there is something in the essence of the thing itself, or that it is a medium, a tangible help, in conveying memories of sympathy and comfort? Some time, if it may be, I must examine this matter and try to make up my mind about it. In the meantime I must find out all I can about Count Dracula. . . .
Over a century later, Stephenie Meyer managed to write four bestselling books concerning vampires (later translated into a quartet of popular movies) without the word crucifix appearing even a single time in her hundreds of thousands of words. The toothsome undead in HBO’s True Blood (based off of Charlaine Harris’ popular, sex-drenched “Southern Vampire” novels) are similarly unconcerned with the possibility of their nocturnal bacchanalia being interrupted by the appearance of a cross. In these movies, it’s not God but other bloodsuckers who provide supernatural support for the good guys.
This godless trend isn’t limited to vampire movies. A few weeks ago I checked out The Last Exorcism at an upscale theater here in LA. Here’s a breakdown of the damage to my bank account:
Parking: $2
Ticket: $12.75 (plus a $1 “convenience charge” if you order it over the Net)
Popcorn: $8
Soda: $5.75
As I took my seat, I looked around and saw that a few dozen others had joined me, shelling out up to $30 each in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression, all in the hope that The Last Exorcism would prove an even remotely worthy successor to 1973’s The Exorcist, still widely hailed as one of the best horror movies of all time.
That older film was suffused with the quiet theological majesty and splendor I grew up with while attending Catholic grade school for eight years. It’s a movie that worked because it strove to portray the underlying tenets of the faith — the existence of God chief among them — as every bit as real as the demons tormenting the characters. The main characters were true heroes, powered by their imperfect but heartfelt faith, fighting in the name of God for the side of right.
As this new picture unwound up on the screen, however, we were treated to something quite different and (when you think about it) quite underhanded, regardless of your faith or lack thereof. The main character was an atheist evangelical preacher, which spiritually speaking makes him the Protestant equivalent of a homosexual priest — a walking contradiction in terms, a leftist charlatan masquerading in true believer’s clothing, a spiritual and moral eunuch. The other denizens in this bizarre portrayal of America’s deep South “fundie-land” were all unhinged weirdos (with the exception of the one character later revealed to be gay, natch).
As demonic horrors wreaked havoc on the protagonists, no countervailing otherworldly power of Good manifested itself. Unlike 1973’s The Exorcist (which, given Hollywood’s current state, may as well have been made a thousand years ago), faith in God was rendered impotent at best and utterly delusional at worst. At the end of The Last Exorcism, as the last scintilla of hope is drowned in scenes of gruesome murder and bleak nihilism (painfully, almost plagiaristically, reminiscent of 1999’s The Blair Witch Project), the audience I was with let out a collective groan, and I heard multiple variations of “Oh, come on!”, “You’ve gotta be kidding me!”, and (my favorite) “Awwwww, man. . . we shoulda seen Takers!”
Mind you, these reactions came not from a church group or an audience of young Republicans, but from the very kind of young, diverse, urban, opening-night audience that Hollywood claims is its key demographic. Even they appeared to sense, and be artistically disappointed by, the essential cheat at work: modern Hollywood wants us to believe that supernatural forces of Darkness are frighteningly real, even while they dismiss all supernatural forces of Light as laughable superstition.
Even more recently, still stinging from The Last Exorcism, I took yet another chance on the vampire genre in the form of Let Me In. The desolate, abused young boy in the film had a fundamentalist mother who — surprise! — was a divorced drunk incapable of keeping track of her youngster’s whereabouts, much less helping him in any way. The absent father, asked over the phone by his crying kid whether true evil really exists, assumes that the superstitious Christian nonsense force-fed by the boy’s mother is responsible for such strange questions.
But again, we are presented with a situation where the filmmakers want to drink their blood and have it, too. Despite the mother being portrayed as a Bible-thumper, we never see the vampire run into, for instance, any sort of cross hanging on the walls of the boy’s home. The boy seems to have no Biblically inspired moral base or code. God, once again, is conveniently MIA, even as his followers are portrayed in the crudest stereotypes as utter hypocrites powerless against the creatures of the night.
That creature, meanwhile, is lovingly brought to life with state-of-the-art special effects and all of the emotional empathy the director can conjure. We are meant to sympathize with the demonic succubus inhabiting a twelve-year-old girl’s body, even as we are revolted by the pile of mostly innocent victims left in her wake. The film ends with the little boy seduced down a road destined to lead to a life of serial killing on behalf of his new playmate. It’s the gruesome culmination of another lopsided Hollywood fight between good and evil, with evil walking away with another easy win (if the filmmakers had any guts, they would have had that little undead minx move in next to Sandra Bullock’s character from The Blind Side — then we’d see what she was really made of!)
Hollywood is cheating in the horror movie arena just as they do in the political and social arenas. They are, by turns, scaring us and seducing us with deeply anti-Christian mythological monsters, while simultaneously mocking anyone who believes in the corresponding existence and power of supernatural forces for good. It’s yet another attempt to scrub any trace of God from our popular culture, spitting in the faces of the upwards of eighty percent of Americans who identify as Christians, and in the process disappointing the near one-hundred percent of theatergoers who don’t want to drop thirty bucks on a movie where villains and nihilism conquer all.
The sad truth is that a group of Anton LaVey-lovin’ Satanists couldn’t have written horror scripts any more one-sided than the ones currently being green-lighted by modern Hollywood.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
210 Comments
Although I too am irritated with the treatment of vampires in film over the past few years, I'm not going to bust their chops for not relying on Christianity as their "savior". You want to bust their chops for rewriting cultural history fine, but don't get upset because you don't have Vampires burning at the touch of a crucifix, or being destroyed by it's shadow from a full moon. That was overdone as it is. The modern take (ignoring Twilight which is basically teenage angst told through a melodramatic vampire story with far more Christian undertones than is anywhere near useful) is that the "holy item" only works for someone with faith.
Personally, I'm a bit a sick of the whole vampire recoiling from the cross thing since it really has no root in vampire lore. However I DO like the way Chelsae Quinn Yarborough turned it on it's head in Hotel Transylvania where the vampire good guy, St. Germaine uses a cross to hold the human Satan worshipers at bay with a warning that he understands that the burns are quite painful.
The point is, that the vampire trope has changed over the years. To paraphrase Billy Joel, the vampire is not always evil and he's not always wrong.
They need to do away with the inconvenient problem that vampires are undead damned souls in order to turn them into pouty sexy superheroes. Of course the whole idea of damned souls is pretty alien to Hollywood these days, too. They've essentially done the same thing with witches, pretty much gutting them of religious context, be it Christian or pagan.
hollywood has been conducting its war against God for 30 or 40 years now… Just ask Ron Howard or Tom Hanks..
That the vampire is no longer always evil or always wrong is part of a larger modern trend to depict the bad as good or, at least, indifferent. Vampires have gone from power at a cost to power with little cost because we can't have consequences like a damned soul or an uncontrollable lust for killing interfering in the power fantasies of young people.
isn't this really just a play on the don't judge a book by its cover riff? the guy who should be bad is really good etc?
If you want to see a movie that goes in a different direction, take a look at the low-budget 1994 movie "Dark Angel: The Ascent". The gist of the plot is that a young demon, whose family's job is to torture damned souls in Hell, sneaks off to Earth to see what it's like. What makes this movie so different is that the minions of Hell work for God, are deferential to God, and torment damned souls not because they are evil themselves but because it's their job. On Earth, the young demon goes about punishing bad people until falling in love starts to cloud her moral compass.
I'm sorry, I can't see much of a problem with that. Yes, part of the horror of vampirism is that it turns the person into a being that can only survive by feeding off the living. But at the same time the vampire story had become stale and uninteresting. If you want to know the real reason the vampire trope has changed so much don't look at Hollywood, look to Stone Mountain, Georgia and to White Wolf Games. But to be honest it probably started with Barnabas Collins. Hollywood just played with it.
Personally, I don't watch or read a lot of vampire stories anymore. I did make it a point to get a copy of Let The Right One In though- the Original Dutch version of Let Me In. I've heard it was a really good one so I'm going to give it a chance.
As for the part about witches: I'm sorry you are unhappy that witches are portrayed as something other than Satanic. Personally I find most Christians' attitude that anyone that doesn't follow their God religion automatically follows their God of Evil (Satan) to be simply sad and ignorant.
Where's Peter Cushing when you need him? If Peter was in any of these "cute teenage vampire" movies, he would have wiped the cast out in about five minutes.
In all the classic horror films starring Chaney, Karloff, Lugosi, Price, Cushing, Lee, etc…..there is a difference between good and evil. The idea of a Christian warrior like Cushing's Dr. Van Helsing would never be accepted in today's Hollywood.
My problem is that witches have been robbed of any religious context, not just the traditional Christian context that views any magical powers that don't come from God as Satanic but even their pagan religious context of gods and spirits. They have powers that come from… somewhere… and they are doing these strange rituals to appeal to… something… but, again, it all just boils down to a way to give normal people superpowers and where great power once came with great responsibility and often a hefty downside, now great power just comes with great power and few real downsides or responsibilities.
As for White Wolf, they rode the Anne Rice wave, though they played a role in bringing werewolves into the mix. Their more recent role-playing game Exalted emphasizes the power-fantasy element of the whole thing by letting people play what are essentially demigods.
Hmm. First of all, let me just say that a) I'm pretty religious, and b) I do agree with you to a point. But I have to disagree a little, too. I don't think books like Twilight or, say, Harry Potter, are Satanic. Mediocre YA escapist melodrama being touted by millions the world over as examples of great literature? Yes. Evil? No. Both of them have some serious Christian undertones, and I don't think there's anything wrong with escapist melodrama on occasion. I enjoy both series' for what they are: light, fluffy reads.
I just don't see the problem with some vampire/horror stories not having a Christian element to them. I think that if you're going to have a movie about an exorcism, however, then not including the Catholic priest is a bit ridiculous. How can you have an exorcism without somebody to perform it?
That's only one, and that is fairly modern concept of witchcraft. Witches/Vitkis/Vitkors/will workers have many different traditions and they don't always call upon otherworldly powers. It has a lot to do what tradition the witch comes from. Try suggesting that a Nordic practictioner of spaecraft is calling on other powers they're likely to chuckle at you. Then when you get into the Hermetic and theosophist orders it's even more so.
Okay, you 'don't like Twilight. To be honest neither do I. I also hated Bram Stokers Dracula (the movie not the book which is a masterpiece); barely tolerated Underworld (there are your superheroes); thought that Giles and/or Xander should have staked Angel after he killed Ms. Calendar; and refused to watch more than ten minutes of From Dusk to Dawn (there were NO good guys). But I'm not going to complain because vampires don't recoil from crosses. Like I said that really has very little connection to actual vampire lore.
At the same time I think the Anita Blake stuff has become a joke, (Please Anita, you didn't just do that!) and Poppy Z. Brite stuff is just boring. You're right modern vampires have sort of lost their fear factor, but a tthe same time I don't think that's always a bad thing.
Good call Leo. And of course the depraved Hollywood secularists love to defile children in their evil onscreen pursuits.
Speaking of ignorance, are you aware that Satan is not a God of Evil or any other kind of God?
That's not the way Christians portray him, or even treat him. Christians and Muslims have elevated him to the level of Godhood. They blame him for the evil they themselves commit. Christianity and Islam both ceased to be a monotheistic religion long ago- if they ever were.
Personally I find most Christians' attitude that anyone that doesn't follow their God religion automatically follows their God of Evil (Satan) to be simply sad and ignorant.
Well… the thing is, that comes from the Savior Himself. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad [Matt. 12:30]." He said that if you don't follow Him, you fight against Him, whether you take an active stance or not. It's pretty straight-forward doctrine. Repeating that isn't sad and ignorant, it's the truth.
And you just described how Charlemagne justified executing 6000 Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity. Sorry, I'll pass. I guess that means we'll have simply agree to disagree. Historically and theologically I find it to be ignorant and sad.
Great article, Leo, and it really hits the nail on the head why so much that passes for horror is so unsatisfying these days. "Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty is a religious man, well educated in philosophy and in his faith, which allowed him to infuse his novel and screenplay with timeless themes. On the other hand, so-called horror "masters" like Stephen King seem thoroughly uneducated in any coherent philosophy, let alone religion, and create their horror with vaguely defined preternatural boogie-men playing on common phobias. The latest crop of horror filmmakers seem to be of the same non-school as King, with no strong convictions (other than that everything is relative, which is actually the antithesis of a conviction) and no background in what they are even writing about.
So what? That someone takes a scriptural passage too far does not discredit that passage. It discredits the person who got it wrong. To blame God for the failings of men is what is truly ignorant and sad.
Just keep talking and someone will hire you to write the next (non-)horror screenplay.
I have to disagree with you about From Dusk Till Dawn not having good guys. You forgot about Harvey Keitel's character a preacher who has lost his faith is taken hostage by criminals with his family and in the face of evil (that would be the vampires) reafirms his faith and does his best to fight the evil. Though he dies, he is (along with his kids) a good guy.
The entire tone of so much of what Hollywood has produced for some time now reminds me of the atmospherics that pervaded "Cabaret."
A sense of impending doom coupled to decadence.
Their insistence on darkness and pessimism gives me to believe that they haven't yet emerged from the gloom of the Cater Administration.
Cobalt-Blue, you said, "Personally I find most Christians' attitude that anyone that doesn't follow their God religion automatically follows their God of Evil (Satan) to be simply sad and ignorant."
Why do you find it ignorant? Just because you're not a believer? We, as Christians, hold up the Bible as the inerrant word of God and in that Bible it says that if you're not for God, you're against Him. I realize it's difficult for a non-believer to understand, but it's just the way it is in our belief system. Hollywood has demonized the Christian for a long time and it's just absurd. To portray them as hopeless drunks, or raving lunatics has run its course. In a way, it surprises me that there aren't more Hollywood types that hold Christians in a positive light. Then again, it doesn't really surprise me.
Regardless of what Hollywood does or says, the fact is, in the end, God wins, regardless of how pathetic He is displayed on the bigscreen.
Well, they are in the sweetness and light of the Obama Administration now, so . . . your point remains valid.
Remember back during the Bush years when all those articles came out saying that the (then) current rash of horror/gore movies were the result of who was in the oval office? That it was 'Bush's Fault' people were scaring and grossing themselves out?
Well, who's fault is all this (now) current crapola? I mean, besides the people that go see 'em….
Another wonderful contribution by Mr. Grin.
What we have in Hollywood now is the Secular mindset that Utopia is achieved through the absence of Absolutes, that the path to Nirvana is paved with Relativism, the 'good intention' of making all things equal. Sorry, but all things are not equal. Some ideas are transcendent. Some beliefs are superior. The Great Sifter that is History clearly reveals which ones. Denying their superiority to placate the dissatisfied benefits no one. Why should we be interested in the self-esteem of the willfully blind? Building up the self-esteem of a loser only produces contented losers.
Method actors seem to work so hard to understand autistics, sociopaths, rape victims, rapists, misfits and victims of big business. They work for months to understand the motivation of the character they play. If playing a fireman they move into a firehouse. If playing a criminal they visit prisons. Etc. Etc. Etc. I can not tell from where I sit that an actor's preparation for portraying a Christian requires more than watching the mother in the movie Carrie. It is the refusal of (most of) Hollywood to understand us that shapes their portrayal of us, and the cause behind this, to echo the theme of this thread, is Satanic. The fact that Hollywood gets a thrill from thinking they have hurt us should tell us something about who they are. The fact that Hollywood does not understand us explains their disbelief about our motivation, that we are not looking for the ruin or destruction of anyone, but their redemption, born out of love for all humankind.
Actually King's early books, some of them anyway, did have a good v. evil context. There was never any real treatment of Christians as heroes but everyday people recognized evil and tried to defeat it. I haven't been able to read him much since the early works but The Stand in particular and Salem's Lot and The Shining were all like this. I don't even try to read him now but those books were great examples of the genre.
I always had a problem with the movement to change the Vampire from the soulless epitome of evil into a brooding loner fighting an internal moral battle against his own true nature. Mainly because the Vampire is no longer a horror figure, it becomes a romantic figure. Such a simplistic over-the-top moral quagmire just almost sinks right into melodrama.
So what do we get? Teen Angst (Twilight, Let the Right One In<the original>) or action movies disguised as horror (Underworld).
I can accept that perhaps, the convoluted paths are just the predictable turn one has to take to do something new with the Vampire genre, but the bottom line is it played-out beyond belief.
"You have to have faith for this to work on me!" says Jerry Dandrige, aka The Vampire from Fright Night. In this classic, it wasn't the cross, but the faith behind it that made the Vampire shudder and recoil in spiritual pain.
I'm left thinking Fright Night (1985) was the last authentic vampire movie that held to the Christian and demonic tenants. Not following these (vampires in the sun, vampires who don't fear the cross or Holy Water — and hey, I'm protestant — etc.) is like having the climatic Western gunfight occur, not at High Noon with .45s on a dusty deserted street, but around 3-ish, with parasols, in Castro Street.
Do you think we can trust the current moviemakers in Hollywood to honor the vision of C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters"?
You go see……………………………………………………………… BLOODSPRAYCROTCHPUNCHFACEFISTER " a musical tragedy"…………………………………Roger Ebert wrote'It blew my @ss off and replaced it with my face'
I've always love Vampire and Dracula movies that takes place in the 1800's and back. The only modern Vampire movie I like was the Lost Boys. Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman is my favorite. Interview with the Vampire was a surprisingly good too. Love the Exorcist with Linda Blair. Speaking of God. Yes, no matter how the movie ends, God always wins. The Chillers channel had the real story of Vlad Dracul prince of Romania. No matter how evil he was, God won at the end. I've never watch the Twilight saga and I have no plans to watch it either. I'll wait on Let Me In.
In the movie the Sixth Sense. Bruce Willis finds the boy in church. He asks him what is he doing here? He says that he feels safer here.
The other night I noticed the same sympathetic portrayal of evil on the television show "The Vampire Diaries," though I did not watch the whole show.
"A sense of impending doom coupled to decadence. "
Excellent line, Professor. May I quote you?
"The Great Sifter that is History clearly reveals which ones. "
The challenge is that history has been overtly lied about for a long time.
Excellent post.
While there are certainly modern practitioners of witchcraft who treat the rituals as a sort of psychotherapy and don't actually believe in the supernatural aspects, I've yet to see any sort of witchcraft that has an entirely scientific perspective and does not rely on some sort of supernatural or mystical cosmology that leads to religious questions, even if the practitioner, themselves, gets to play god by manipulating or divining the universe through their own force of will.
But my point is that the "traditions" that one sees in movies that are related to vampires, werewolves, and witches exist because they arose out of a particular supernatural cosmology and they make no sense divorced from it. Why do vampires have no reflection in a mirror? Because mirrors were thought to reflect a person's soul. If that's not true and they just reflect light, then there is no reason for a vampire to have no reflection. Why does Van Helsing use a eucharistic wafer against Vampires? Because in Catholicism, a eucharistic wafer is the Body of Christ. If that's not true, there is no reason for a vampire to recoil from a cracker. Why to vampires recoil from crosses? If God and Jesus aren't real, it doesn't make any sense, either. So what we are left with is the really silly idea that the symbol doesn't matter and that the vampire is recoiling from the faith of the person holding it, whether they believe in the truth or nonsense, and that, in turn, has its own cosmological implications. What's really happening is that most moviemakers aren't terribly religious and simply want the trappings without all of the cosmological and moral implications of those trappings, so what we get are vampire and witch powers that are like superpowers with a stylistic theme. To quote from the article A Critical Appreciation of John Milius’s Conan the Barbarian, which talks about Stephen Schiff's idea of "recombinant-genre" movies:
"Postmodernism is concerned with demographics more than it is drama, with form more than function, with the mechanical more than the natural. It is cynical, relying for its effects on the automatic identification and instant appeal of known quantities, the 'junkyard' of images, icons, motifs, and gimmicks that have developed in the kinetic, commercial, American twentieth century. Postmodernism is the sound bite, the bumper sticker, the high concept: content removed from its context and now accepted in and of itself, one dimensionally. Postmodernism does not reinterpret; it merely reiterates. Purveyors (one hesitates to use the word creators) of postmodern entertainment do not as a rule respectfully borrow from and build upon the work of their artistic forebears or stand upon their shoulders; they simply take. Postmodern narrative is a series of non sequiturs lined up like so many separate squares on a game board. Cut to the chase. Go over the top. Use stick figures who do not grow or mature but who transform. Astonish with sudden shocks, or persist in ratcheting up precalibrated shocks; do not enlighten with outcomes of gradual revelation. Above all, be impatient."
In most movies, television shows, and books these days, the vampirism or witchcraft "is a series of non sequiturs lined up like so many separate squares on a game board" but they are "content removed from its context".
I suppose it´s possible in the sense that being hit by a meteor is possible.
Are you sure you know what the word "ignorant" means? You toss it around like every joe-blow atheist/anti-Christian, as if we by nature are supposed to be aware of your personal theology and be in awe of your magnificent insight into history.
What is a person ignorant of if he or she believes, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad"? What was Jesus ignorant of exactly?
It's my guess that you are ignorant of what Jesus is saying … not that Jesus is ignorant.
By the way, Jesus wasn't talking about murder in His name, as much as you think Charlemangne shows. It is a teaching device similar to when Jesus said we must hate our mother and fathers. He wasn't actually saying to hate your fathers and mothers. Likewise, he isn't saying you should kill people who don't follow Him. I know that strikes those ignorant of the Bible as odd, but it's true.
I guess we also might say that Stalin, that grand ol' atheist, killed 10 million Russians for not being for him. Should I take it to mean that atheism is "ignorant" and "sad." It would seem you're ignorant of history or logic or any number of things that deal with reality.
Cobalt-Blue, the idea that somebody who doesn't follow the living God is a Satanist is sad and ignorant. But the Bible teaches that anyone who is not a follower of God is in the kingdom of Satan. The person may not know it, and might be horrified to hear that this is the case, but it is what the Bible teaches. For example, Acts 26:17-18 quotes God saying: " I will rescue you from the people and from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'
Some Christians have elevated him to that level, you mean?
The Bible reports that Satan is not a god, but a created being. So are you going to blame the Bible on that one too?
Christians can blame the devil on whatever they want; it doesn't liberate them from their sins. Your unique take on Christianity shouldn't be confused with the real thing, you know?
Doesn't Hollywood realize God always wins.. He can out wait anyone all he has to do is let them die off and when he decides to act out against his opposers all he has to do is not include them in his future plans. It's really that simple. Hollywood can continue on in it's atheistic disrespectful ways but that does not mean they are shielded from God's wrath. He can react any time He sees fit. And He will, He promises he will.. It will take the world by storm and all the Hollywood people will be looking for ways to hide themselves but no place will be deep enough. God always wins they should know this.
I'm religious but dont see the need for every piece of entertainment to have God in it. I have difficulty seeing how not referencing religion when dealing with supernatural subjects automatically makes one a satanist.
On the flip side, I don't spend a whole lot of time looking to Hollywodd to guide my spirtuality anyway.
Heck no. No pun intended, but Hollywood finds a way to screw up everything.
But it goes way beyond that … because by casting a moral judgment on Christianity or other religions to which he dislikes, Cobalt actually agrees with the Bible that there is such a thing as good and evil. So his argument isn't a moral one … even though he would like to think so … but a religious one through and through. Rather, his argument is what is the true source of morality.
By tossing around the words "ignorant" and "sad," he's trying to manipulate us in the same way that he blames Christ for doing. If you don't agree with Cobalt, you are "ignorant" and "sad" because you are not for what he believes.
He can't get around it. And what he also cannot do is convince people that his moral aptitude is superior to Christ's … because Cobalt appears to live in contradiction to what he wants to believe.
I too do not give alot of thought to the movies that get put out there. But what is happening is through those movies messages are being relayed to the youth of today. That of a demonic mindset anti God. We may not take those things in but many youth do. And they are drastically affected by these things that is why the criminality and types of crimes from the youth are done more and more without conscience. So what Hollywood is doing is damaging the youth. In ways they just may not expect or count on. I say profit is never a justification for contaminating young minds. The reality is everything about life is encircling religion and God. It is either pro God or against God.. There really is no middle ground this is the world we live in and the reality. In fact it is the universal question that is in the process of being answered can man rule themselves without God? We are all seeing what happens when humanity tries to do it without God. It's not working out too well is it? That answer is just about complete earth shaking events are soon coming to end this issue soon.. Can we live trying to not think about God? Sure we can try but the sooner we realize that this is what life is all about and why the world is the way it is the sooner we will be at peace and safe from those who work to corrupt minds against God those who work for God's adversary Satan.
While I get your point, I don't want entertainers telling me anything more than the story. The sad thing to me is, if you are correct, that young people aren't thinking for themselves. I am a skeptic and question everything, then decide what makes sense for my self. Do other people really not do this for themselves?
Unfortunately it's not just horror movies that are missing God nowadays.
Excellent article, Mr. Grin.
The fact that you think Christians have elevated Satan to anything, and that they blame him and not themselves for sinning shows that you have no grasp of what Christianity is. Christians nor Christianity solely blames Satan, otherwise there's no point in asking God for forgiveness as nothing would be their fault. I mean that's just logical. But there's no logic in people sh*t talking Christians, it's just generalizations based off of what people hear on tv or by reading a verse from Leviticus about not eating shellfish or something. Because that stuff alone completely debunks all of Christianity and what it stands for: taking responsiblity for your actions and caring for your fellow man.
I gave up such films after seeing "The Devil's Advocate" back in '97. At the end of the film, My question was. "Where was G*d ?" It seems that we must believe in supernatural Evil, and we as mere mortals are powerless to do anything about it.
The same thing happened in the last episode of "Star Trek Deep Space 9", Our hero saves the day (barely) But, without the help of the good supernatural beings that have guided his fate from the start of the series.
It isn't "Cool" to be good in either TV or the movies these days
Big difference between Charlemagne and Christ. Look it up sometime.
Okay, look at this positively. Much like the blind side and now, apparently Secretariat, one of the conservative friendly movie producers should make a movie aimed at regular Americans in the tradition of The Exorcist. I have to say that the priests in that movie seemed more real and godly than any portrayal of priests since. There is a huge market just waiting to be tapped that shows heroic men and women facing down fantasy evil and actually winning. The looney left couldn't make a movie like that to save their lives. I have a recomendation. There is a new series of conservative books by Larry Correia, called Monster Hunter International. It is a hard core conservative series of urban fantasy books. There is a great picture at his website of a Black Hawk helicopter door gunner with an M.H.I. patch on his helmet. It looks really cool. Someone should jump on this opportunity because there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of people to entertain with a good, good vs. evil and the good guys win horror movie. I think the movie Fright Night was like that, now that I think of it. Two underdog good guys who rise up to the challenge to defeat a vampire. It was a great movie because it was a conservative movie.
You are so right. I posted down below before I saw your post and I also mentioned Fright Night. It seems to be the one movie right at the top of my head that runs counter to the sex fest of True Blood, or the teen angst of Twighlight.
Hollywood thrives on filth , plain and simple . Their ideal world is the polymorphously perverse paradise where there is a pill for every mood and a sex act for every lunatic. They exist because they have created a demand ( viewers ) who want moral anarchy , sulky teenage sociopathic leaders and "magical" solutions to everything. Ignore them , take away their money and they will go away.
I read a wonderful book recently that might give you some hope. It's called "The Reapers Are the Angels" by Alden Bell. It's a zombie book that frequently mentions God in a good way. How shocking! The main character often muses on how lucky she is to live in a world, even a dystopian one, that has so much of God's beauty in it. I raved about this book in my site in large part because of the author's respect for God. It's so much easier to take the cheap shot and he never does. The book is so much more beautiful because of it.
Since so much of modern horror relies on shock and gore it really doesn't seem surprising for it to lack spirituality…it lacks everything other redeeming value, too. But aren't we pretty much over being scared of supernatural beasties? The chainsaw weilding-maniac came next, and now we seem to be stuck in the torture porn era. But that reflects a bit more of what we're scared of in reality–child abductors, rapists, serial killers–these are the real monsters, and sadly they exist far too often in the real world, which seems to have an ongoing paucity of real vampires. (Even more sadly, the Catholic Church's recent scandals have, in many people's eyes, irrecoverably tarnished its image) But I do have to point out that two of the other great horror movies of the 70's (and greatest horror films ever) a) feature a crazy, abusive, Bible-thumping mom and b) let Satan win decisively. **SPOILER** I'm referring to "Carrie" and "The Omen," of course. So it's not a _completely_ a new trope, IMHO. But what those movies and "The Exorcist" have in common is that they were made by master film makers with very talented people in front of and behind the camera. "Last Exorcism" probably failed just as much because it lacked several of those critical things. It sounds like it was a crappy movie, period. You can't eat a frozen burger and complain it doesn't taste like a bone-in ribeye fresh off the grill. "Let Me In" is intriguing because the idea of something as horrible as a vampire being encased in a child is a scary thought, and a pretty original take, IMHO. It sounds like it does what a horror movie should do, or at least the original did.
Oh–and Leo, if you join the Arclight you'll actually get $1 _off_ your online ticket. Or you could try the Landmark, which has free parking. Plus, the Westside Tavern downstairs is an excellent restaurant for your post-movie dining.
Well if you want to base your entire philosophy on the power of science, the control of mankind, and the rule of selfish desire, who else do you turn to be that fine fellow who started it all?
I go back to Rosemary's Baby, where was G-d in that? And worse, Roman Polanski, the child rapist ,was the director.
SATANISM=ATHEISM=MARXISM
No offense, but maybe Christians shouldn't be going to horror movies looking for validation of their faith in the first place? Also, before we finish condemning Hollywood, I'd like to mention that last week's episode of "Glee" dealt with issues of God/faith/prayer in a positive way I haven't seen for years on a network show. Surprisingly touching and effective. (and two great covers of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "One of Us.")
Mr. Grin makes an excellent point in observing that modern film makers want us to believe in the reality of the "Forces of Darkness" while simultaneously ridiculing the existence of the "Forces of Light." This is why that, even with the most advanced special effects, almost all of these films lack dramatic force and are usually just stomach-churning rather than scary. If you know that the storyline is set up to be a walkover for the vampires, werewolves, satanists etc. then why bother showing up?
The Bible also commands us not to murder. Why is Christianity blamed when its followers disobey its tenets?
Not to mention that the role between a king and the faith of his people was seen quite differently and much more politically in ancient and medieval times. This attitude applied to pagan kings as well as Christian ones; Christianity can hardly claim to be the only religion that was used by absolute rulers for political gain. That particular situation was more complex than what you've reduced it to.
But vampires NEVER existed. I may not like the sparkle vamps, but it's not like someone can reach into history and prove that in fact, they do NOT glitter in the sunlight. Vampire mythology has simply evolved. It may not resonate with those who never moved beyond Stoker's vision, but there really can't be said to be a "wrong" portrayal of a creature that doesn't exist, IMHO.
I'm not really troubled by that, because it mirrors the Christian notion of man's tendency toward sin. For example, Angel gaining a soul and struggling against his vampiric nature seems to me very much like the dichotomy between the "old man" and the "new man" as Paul phrased it. We want to do good, but we do evil, too.
It's not a perfect allegory, but then I don't expect non-Christians to create work that recognizes and praises God. It's always a pleasant surprise when they create something that does reflect His truth, whether they intended it or not.
So I'm quite happy with vampires struggling against their evil nature, just like I'm happy with a demon-spawn summoned by Rasputin to destroy the world instead being raised by American soldiers and scientists and thus being given a choice to choose good or evil.
Having said that, I'll agree with you that the vampire thing seems to have been played out. I thought "Angel" was pretty much the last word on the topic (and it was, in my book), but people keep making vampire stories. I feel the same way about zombies. They just keep churning them out…
My favorite line from that movie! Most of the time, the vampire stories play to the "inherent power" of the crucifix and the holy water themselves, rather than the Godly faith behind them. As a Protestant, that appeals greatly to me. I can see how a Catholic may disagree with me, but I tend toward Jonathan Harker's Protestant wariness of idolatry.
Very well stated. Is that paragraph from the Conan essay yours? It's great.
Makes me feel guilty that I never liked that movie much.
I feel like the subject is being taken a little too seriously. It's like complaining that James Bond movies do not, in fact, correctly portray the abilities, equipment and actions of British intelligence. But re: the religious symbolism–could it be that many horror movies sell overseas to non-Christian countries so the film makers want to avoid any Christian connection purely out of box office concern, not spiritual disdain?
No. I think it hits a little too close to home, and the temptation to "modernize" some of the sins – that is to say, completely re-write them – would be too strong a temptation for most writers and directors. Lewis "modernized" them (such as his treatment of Gluttony), but then, he was a brilliant theologian.
Unless it was, say Walden Media producing it, I'd be expecting a Leftist Sucker Punch against Republicans, the Christian Coalition, Glenn Beck, George W. Bush, and the regular targets. Not to say that we're above reproach, but I'd expect the devilish finger-pointing to be pretty one-sided.
Indeed, the same Satanist cult that runs Israel runs Hollywood. There is no mystery there.
Yeah, I think he forgot they aren't real, lol. Same thing with witches.
Great post, Leo.
It's of a piece with the Progressive mindset which has always sided with the depraved murderous bastards–Soviets, Chi-coms, Viet Cong, PLO–over the forces of political, religious and economic liberty.
Once "liberated" from belief in absolute good and evil, it's instructive to see how often the "open mind" gravitates to the dark side.
It's not that we're seeking validation. We'd just enjoy a little acknowledgement that we exist and that we have something to say about supernatural evil.
Okay, maybe that *is* seeking some form of validation. I guess what I really mean is that it would be nice to see a movie where the only Christians that show up aren't caricatures meant to mock and belittle us.
On the flip side, what seems a shame to me is that with all of our CGI technology and visual wizardry, someone could make a pretty awesome movie about angels, but haven't. Though it is not without its cheese, something along the lines of Peretti's "This Present Darkness" could be quite visually stunning. Maybe something along the lines of "300", but with angels versus demons?
I can't think of a single movie which featured angels – the good guys, rather than the fallen ones – as butt-kicking warrior spirits. The only portrayals I can think of are anemic and New Agey, like "City of Angels". "The Prophecy" and "Constantine" come close, but for spoiler-y reasons I don't think they count.
I agree with you, I just mean to say, to me it's no longer "horror." Someone else mentioned Barnabas Collins, I concur, that is where it started going off in a romatic direction. The last Vampire Movie I can say I enjoyed (as a horror movie) was probably "Fright Night", and mainly because it got the idea right…the freakin' Vampire is purely evil. Although I do admit to a certain affection for "From Dusk to Till Dawn" due to a Salma Hayek snake dance.
The sympathy for vampires probably comes from a realization that why should your soul be damned to hell forever because you just happened to be in a dark alley one night and got bit by a vampire. The damnable acts after that would be if you continue to bite others and spread it around, but the current genre of vamps are fighting their nature to not do evil, which is actually pretty admirable. Not a lot of introspection about where the "first" vampire came from that started the whole gig, but eh, it's entertainment!
It seems that we must believe in supernatural Evil, and we as mere mortals are powerless to do anything about it
Au Contraire! We can vote her out of the Speakership in another month!
That's what I notice when watching "The Late Show with David Letterman".
I hear you, and I don't blame you…that's why the "Glee" episode worked so well. We saw surprisingly sincere discussions of faith (ok, through song, but still) from characters who hadn't previously mentioned it. A series regular asked a fellow character to go to church(!!) And he goes(!!)
I think those kiddie beauty pageants are creepier than anything ever put on screen.
How can something that does not exist "win?"
"Doesn't Hollywood realize God always wins..
If so, then why so angry?
I'm being serious – this is one of those things I just never "got" even when I was an altar boy (nothing happened): Christianity isn't a "dualist" belief system, God is omnipotent and can "win" over any force of evil as quickly and easily as blinking an eye. There's literally ZERO CHANCE, in the "story" of Christianity, for The Devil or whoever to claim any sort of victory; so why all the fighting and effort and consternation?
For that matter, why bother protesting Hollywood or TV or books or trying to have ANY effect on the broader culture? It's not like Satan is going to "win" because he got a higher overall score at The End; so why break your back saving me or any other "heathen" when your guy is ALWAYS going to win, anyway?
Cobalt-Blue says:
"You want to bust their chops for rewriting cultural history fine, but don't get upset because you don't have Vampires burning at the touch of a crucifix, or being destroyed by its shadow from a full moon. That was overdone as it is."
To the eighty percent of people in this country who are Christians, the sanctity of a crucifix in the face of a vampire will never become passe. Quite the opposite — it's the movies that deny or ignore this that are at risk of being ignored, marginalized and forgotten.
Cobalt-Blue also says:
"Personally, I'm a bit a sick of the whole vampire recoiling from the cross thing since it really has no root in vampire lore."
Anything featured so prominently in Stoker's masterpiece must be said to have attained a position of honor in "vampire lore." The novel Dracula acts as a great prism, with thousands of years of legendry being poured into one end, and a newly constructed modern version shining out from the other into our era. Take every vampire story ever recorded throughout history, and none have attained the mythological power and influence of that novel. The fact that it came relatively late in the game, and that its genesis as a conscious work of fiction is well known to us, doesn't make it somehow less canonical or valid than the older myths and superstitions.
And Dracula, unlike too many movies in modern Hollywood, honestly addresses the essential fact that Christians are wont to fight demons (real or metaphorical, take your pick depending on your own beliefs) with the most potent physical symbols of their faith in God.
To the degree that Hollywood ignores or mocks this, especially when explicitly depicting Christian preachers and fundamentalist families, they're cheating. Which to me explains a lot about why the films feel so artistically and spiritually bankrupt.
Cobalt-Blue also says:
"The point is, that the vampire trope has changed over the years. To paraphrase Billy Joel, the vampire is not always evil and he's not always wrong."
Then it's no longer a vampire. Their being "evil" and "wrong" were the WHOLE POINT of the myth in the first place.
Buck_Turgidson says:
"so-called horror "masters" like Stephen King seem thoroughly uneducated in any coherent philosophy, let alone religion, and create their horror with vaguely defined preternatural boogie-men playing on common phobias."
Hi-ya Buck, long time no talk (since the old Dirty Harry's Place days, I think).
I agree with Mike_AR's reply to you: King's early novels, especially Salem's Lot, possess a coherent morality lacking in most of his later work. Granted, in Salem's Lot he's borrowing heavily from Dracula, which might account for how he managed to toe the line so well there.
Here, from Salem's Lot, is King's version of the Jonathan Harker crucifix scene from Dracula:
Great article! I have always had those nagging thoughts about this very issue at the back of my mind, but not the ability or intelligence, I suppose, to express them. But your argument is pointed and quite persuasive and reminds me of one of my favorite shows over the last few years – Reaper on the CW (cancelled now, sadly). It was a dramedy about a young man who discovers his parents sold his soul to the Devil and now he must fulfill his debt to the Devil (played pitch perfect by blue-eyed "devil" Ray Wise) by working to recapture souls that have escaped from hell. There were demons and fallen angels and all kinds of references to hell….God never showed up ONCE in the series. I kept waiting for some kind of reveal or twist when finally God would show up. These kids kept trying to figure out how they were going to escape from the Devil's schemes but not ONE time did anyone ever mention God. So yes, I realize now that is most certainly is insidious to base stories around the defeat (or not)of pure evil, but to never even try to explore what the opposite of evil is. As if one could exist without the other. But I suppose its completely indicative of the vacuum Hollywood currently lives in.
Interesting…have to check it out.
Ha! I had forgot about that!!!! Yes, you are right… but please keep it to yourself, as we all know that truth is equal to bigotry these days. Don't worry, I'm not going to report you to the White House "snitch" line ; )
That is exactly the point the media is thinking for the youth telling them what to think and that is just what happens that explains the fads in dress and grooming it has always been this way. Young ones are very susceptible to the media and the media knows this. Not all are like you. You are most likely and exception to the rule. Although many young ones think they think for themselves when in reality they are just doing what they are told via the tv.. When one can live without the box TV then you can say you think for yourself.
BuckwheatPicard says:
"I'm religious but I don't see the need for every piece of entertainment to have God in it."
"Every piece"? Who on earth put forth that sweeping proposition?
BuckwheatPicard also says:
"I have difficulty seeing how not referencing religion when dealing with supernatural subjects automatically makes one a satanist."
When the "supernatural subjects" in question are evil demons pulled directly from Christian-inspired mythology, walking around murdering with impunity using otherworldly powers, while hapless Christians are left both physically defenseless and spiritually bereft because God is a complete no-show, it makes one, if not a conscious Satanist, then at the least a fellow traveler in Satanism and a useful idiot to their maleficent cause.
Thumbs up! But I also have been frustrated at times (as a rabid fan of vampire stories/films – lame I know, don't ask me what it is) that the genre (especially with True Blood-ish shows) never deals with the consequences of vampirism. What about the soul? What does being "un-dead" mean? What happens when you genuinely die, for real?Maybe it doesn't need to be the Christian God that is brought into it, but there should be SOME discussion of an "opposite" to being un-dead and soulless. Does that make sense?
Just for the record there is no anger in my statements they are just facts that are being publicized for the benefit of those who don't like what they see with Hollywood. Just because God will bring an end to evil does not mean we should be ashamed to speak of it. In fact doing so helps warn others of what is eventually coming. Why should the devil have peace he does not deserve it nor do those who practice evil. Speaking the truth is God's way of warning and paving the way for his will to come. He never does anything without a warning. That is not anger it's kindness it gives people a chance to avoid what's coming.
To you God does not exist that does not mean he does not exist.. That is not proof.. Denying something is not the answer.. Someone is proven by what they have left behind or made. The earth is his proof and everything on it. Yes one can choose to deny even what they see but then that is mere foolishness speaking.
maatkare says:
"But aren't we pretty much over being scared of supernatural beasties?"
Well, as we speak they're touting the new Blu-ray release of The Exorcist, and went so far as to give the newest version a single night in select theaters a week ago. Done well, such scares are evergreen, and as long as we fear Death and Darkness they'll never go out of style.
maatkare also says:
"the real world . . . seems to have an ongoing paucity of real vampires."
I would argue that most of our elected officials these days qualify. Their bloodsucking puts ol' Drac's to shame.
maatkare also says:
"It sounds like [The Last Exorcism] was a crappy movie, period."
I and the rest of the audience seemed to enjoy it well enough until it went off the rails in the last minutes, dashing all hope of any sort of redemptive, or even marginally non-Satanic, moment. The whole movie was a grueling build-up to a restoration of faith, and then at the very climax Lucy yanks the football away and the audience does a collective Charlie Brown flop.
maatkare also says:
"if you join the Arclight you'll actually get $1 _off_ your online ticket. Or you could try the Landmark, which has free parking. Plus, the Westside Tavern downstairs is an excellent restaurant for your post-movie dining."
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm in the Marina Del Rey area, so the Arclight is generally too far a drive for my tastes, but I'll give The Landmark (and the Westside Tavern) a try.
And welcome back — when I saw your posts stop appearing awhile back, and the little avatar on your old ones get replaced with some sort of "account deleted" message, I wondered what had happened to you.
I agree with you. I was surprised, for instance, in the Storm of the Century the daemon who described his role as one who cd. "punish," laid out the communities' sins incl. abortion that gave this evil creature the right to inflict punishment on them. Not to spoil it for some the community was given a choice in order to be rid of the malevolent character. There was a good vs. evil context, yes, but the 3rd and unseen Protagonist , like most of the supernaturalers today was practically non-existent.
Yes it does–but remember in S2 True Blood dealt with Godric's wanting to die after millenia of bringing nothing but death and destruction and he tried (vainly) to keep other vampires from being so violent. But the more time tv shows delve into the deep thoughts, the less screen time there is for the blood and nekkid people, and that's what most people are tuning in for, not philosophy. I do remember in "Interview with A Vampire" Louis being tormented about the idea of a god that allowed something as awful as him to exist at all–it quite blew my teenage mind at the time.
We all have our agency, and we all decide how to react to the teachings of Christ. The atrocious behavior of one fanatic does not change the truthfulness of the doctrine.
FF,
I asked you a question on another thread. You never answwered, so I'll try again:
Why are you here? You've been posting here long enough to realize no one agrees with you, and you're not changing any minds, so why are you here? Why do you waste your time like this?
Remember, ducking a question IS an answer. And not the kind of answer you should be proud of.
Leo is hilarious. The last Exorcism was made for 2 Million — Let Me in GROSSED 5 Mil. Leo was one of the few people who saw it.
His whole post reeks of how many dirty books do I have to seek out and read before I can prove they are writing dirty books.
Edmund Burke said something along similar lines: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
It's a truism, really. Anyone who is indifferent to good and evil, or unwilling to work toward a greater good, is actively making the world a worse place; evil people don't usually have too many problems with their motivation. It's kind of like what Orwell pointed out, that pacifism only allows people who are still warlike to step all over you.
Just because the outcome is inevitable doesn't mean you stop fighting for what is right.
Never did get into vampire stuff of any sort. Guess it really tickles some people's fancy. And there sure are lots of books and movies using it.
Maybe they should start fighting vampires with copies of Silent Spring or the Port Huron Statement–the holy documents of the left.
You must be logged in to post a comment.