Heretic (A24)

the imprisoned women in cages. My reading (having seen it twice now) is something like: given that Reed clearly lives in a church-heavy location, such visits from missionaries are not rare (and he makes a point of engaging with different denominations/churches which he mentions to the girls in the beginning, presumably to ensure a steady stream of missionaries knocking on his door). The point of which is to repeat this experiment as often as possible, potentially so he can prove to himself absolutely everyone is controllable?

Beyond that, however, I suppose he comes off as someone very much working through his own perception and understanding of religion(s) (I think his interest in how the two girls would describe the ‘revelation’ differently in line with their contrasting personalities is sincere). So that’s that, but is there more? Is it just a sort of Saw-like exercise for him in actually conclusively proving (in his mind) to Christian missionaries that there is no god and the one true religion is ‘control’, and that’s what makes him the heretic? (Or, I suppose if he’s working through his own ultimately cynical anti-organised religion feeling, to reiterate to himself that all members of organised religions are sheep).

In which case, it appears that he fails given that the ending suggests Paxton is at least entertaining the idea that the butterfly that landed on her hand is Barnes reincarnated.

In any case, I still don’t understand:

a) why the ‘prophet’ saying ‘It isn’t real’ makes Reed amend his plan and claim everything is a simulation. I understand why she says it (to alert the girls the revelation is fake), but imo it doesn’t follow that he now needs to improvise; if anything, ‘It isn’t real’ seems to fit in rather nicely with the behind-the-veil narrative, because most people would think she’s referring to the afterlife (and that’s how Barnes interprets it when referencing the Taco Bell incident). So that bit makes no sense to me. Edit: read a review that suggested Reed kills Barnes because she came ‘too close to the truth’ (even though she didn’t realise the women were being switched, so that means all she realised was that the revelation wasn’t real?) and he presumably didn’t want Paxton to understand this because then his experiment on her would come to an abrupt end… But still this somehow doesn’t gel together for me and feels like, to use court speak, conjecture.

b) The way the cages and everything in the final basement (hello, Barbarian influences!) is set up, it appears Reed repeatedly reenacts his ‘miracle’ before an audience, and so needs an endless supply of women to play ‘the prophet’. I suppose that’s because he, again, lives in a church-heavy area where various Christian missionaries regularly turn up on his doorstep selling their denomination. Which makes a sort of sense and he alludes to just this much, so perhaps it’s just as well that this is under-explained. But the final basement bit doesn’t totally flow/follow for me.

Surely to justify all the hassle of this Reed needs an endless stream of visitors to sell this to? It is hinted at that Mormon leaders feel there’s something fishy about Reed, given the girls are told ‘not to prioritise’ him, but then why doesn’t the church elder suspect foul play/that Reed did something to the girls if Reed is known to be suspicious? And given he has kidnapped this many women from somewhere (granted, he says they’re ‘willingly’ there, but even so, they must have come from somewhere), why doesn’t anyone ever come looking for them? All that being said, I don’t necessarily think these things are plot holes, the fact it’s unexplained makes it more disturbing, if anything.

Edit:

The more I think about this, the more I feel the ending very much works, and at least tries to do something conceptually difficult, just like Martyrs did. There seems to be a theme/correlation where reviews prioritise thematic coherence/‘tying up loose ends’ above any kind of deep exploration of an idea, whereas I think this film knows exactly what it wants to say in the end and does exactly that, even if it doesn’t fit the typical satisfying genre ending structure.

the imprisoned women in cages. My reading (having seen it twice now) is something like: given that Reed clearly lives in a church-heavy location, such visits from missionaries are not rare (and he makes a point of engaging with different denominations/churches which he mentions to the girls in the beginning, presumably to ensure a steady stream of missionaries knocking on his door). The point of which is to repeat this experiment as often as possible, potentially so he can prove to himself absolutely everyone is controllable?

Beyond that, however, I suppose he comes off as someone very much working through his own perception and understanding of religion(s) (I think his interest in how the two girls would describe the ‘revelation’ differently in line with their contrasting personalities is sincere). So that’s that, but is there more? Is it just a sort of Saw-like exercise for him in actually conclusively proving (in his mind) to Christian missionaries that there is no god and the one true religion is ‘control’, and that’s what makes him the heretic? (Or, I suppose if he’s working through his own ultimately cynical anti-organised religion feeling, to reiterate to himself that all members of organised religions are sheep).

In which case, it appears that he fails given that the ending suggests Paxton is at least entertaining the idea that the butterfly that landed on her hand is Barnes reincarnated.

In any case, I still don’t understand:

a) why the ‘prophet’ saying ‘It isn’t real’ makes Reed amend his plan and claim everything is a simulation. I understand why she says it (to alert the girls the revelation is fake), but imo it doesn’t follow that he now needs to improvise; if anything, ‘It isn’t real’ seems to fit in rather nicely with the behind-the-veil narrative, because most people would think she’s referring to the afterlife (and that’s how Barnes interprets it when referencing the Taco Bell incident). So that bit makes no sense to me. Edit: read a review that suggested Reed kills Barnes because she came ‘too close to the truth’ (even though she didn’t realise the women were being switched, so that means all she realised was that the revelation wasn’t real?) and he presumably didn’t want Paxton to understand this because then his experiment on her would come to an abrupt end… But still this somehow doesn’t gel together for me and feels like, to use court speak, conjecture.

b) The way the cages and everything in the final basement (hello, Barbarian influences!) is set up, it appears Reed repeatedly reenacts his ‘miracle’ before an audience, and so needs an endless supply of women to play ‘the prophet’. I suppose that’s because he, again, lives in a church-heavy area where various Christian missionaries regularly turn up on his doorstep selling their denomination. Which makes a sort of sense and he alludes to just this much, so perhaps it’s just as well that this is under-explained. But the final basement bit doesn’t totally flow/follow for me.

Surely to justify all the hassle of this Reed needs an endless stream of visitors to sell this to? It is hinted at that Mormon leaders feel there’s something fishy about Reed, given the girls are told ‘not to prioritise’ him, but then why doesn’t the church elder suspect foul play/that Reed did something to the girls if Reed is known to be suspicious? And given he has kidnapped this many women from somewhere (granted, he says they’re ‘willingly’ there, but even so, they must have come from somewhere), why doesn’t anyone ever come looking for them? All that being said, I don’t necessarily think these things are plot holes, the fact it’s unexplained makes it more disturbing, if anything.

Edit:

The more I think about this, the more I feel the ending very much works, and at least tries to do something conceptually difficult, just like Martyrs did. There seems to be a theme/correlation where reviews prioritise thematic coherence/‘tying up loose ends’ above any kind of deep exploration of an idea, whereas I think this film knows exactly what it wants to say in the end and does exactly that, even if it doesn’t fit the typical satisfying genre ending structure.