Shocking! ‘Heretic’ Movie Villain AND Film Debase Women – Unbelievable Details Inside!

Spoiler Alert: This commentary contains spoilers about the movie “Heretic.”

I saw the movie “Heretic” four days post-election. Perhaps it was too early.

Lured by the allure of shocking moments and Hugh Grant playing a maniacal antagonist in what seemed from the previews to be a spooky, haunted house, I sought solace in the big screen from the incessant news cycle.

While I got some of what I sought, I was also presented with, at a pivotal moment, women incarcerated. Accompanied by a significant monologue from Grant’s murderous Mr. Reed suggesting they were exactly where they wanted to be.

They had elected to be subjugated.

It was a glaring example of toxic mansplaining. We had just seen for 90 minutes that the women were imprisoned due to a systematic process of entrapment, terror, threats, and assault. This was the last thing I wanted to see. (The preview for “Babygirl,” in which a strong woman yearns to be dominated by an attractive 24-year-old, didn’t soften the blow either.)

The cultural impact of a second Trump administration has already begun, even though its effects on the economy and international relations remain to be seen. The day before “Heretic,” my teenage daughter and her friends were taunted by male classmates chanting “Your body, my choice — Trump 2024,” an incident happening nationwide with alarming frequency.

This, despite the fact that a majority of white women voted for Trump. I, however, along with millions of others, did not. So please excuse me if I acknowledge but fail to appreciate the irony of Reed’s “I did this because you let me” speech in “Heretic,” or its portrayal of caged women.

With our reproductive freedoms being revoked in many states, a convicted rapist being elected president, and the ultra-conservative agenda of Project 2025 gaining political traction, witnessing women punished because they didn’t realize an odd but seemingly normal man was a psychopath hits a bit too close to home.

It may not be fair to evaluate a film based on the potential outcomes of an election held long after its production. But horror is political, and the influence of various religious forces on contemporary American government — including but not limited to right-wing Christianity — has been on the rise for years. You can’t release a film where a man obsessed with religious authority is revealed as a murderous lunatic lecturing two young women on their choices without expecting some sort of response beyond “Hugh Grant in a career-best role!”

For the record, I enjoyed his performance and overall found “Heretic” enjoyable. It successfully hit all the typical creepy chords while being more thought-provoking and less gory than most of the genre. Writer-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods clearly have an interest in exploring the distinction between faith and submission, but the film categorically rejects Reed’s assertion that his victims chose, or deserved, their fate.

Mr. Reed is quickly identified as a decidedly evil character who lures two likable young Mormons to his home under the guise of interest in their faith, then traps them in his house, cut-off from the outside world, for a forced and increasingly menacing TED Talk that culminates in a direct challenge of their faith.

The only “choice” Sister Paxton (Chloe East) and Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) make is to enter his house, let him shut the door behind them and take their coats. (Ladies, always keep your coats).

Beyond his apparent discontent with organized religion, we learn little about Reed. Grant opts for an eccentric professor approach rather than a conflicted would-be monk, reminding us that a charming smile and twinkling blue eyes are just genetic traits, not indicators of a person’s character. (Seriously, has anyone checked Hugh Grant’s basement recently?)

The female characters are better developed. Paxton is a kindhearted and enthusiastic missionary born into the faith; Barnes joined following her mother’s conversion and appears somewhat more worldly. When they realize the man who answered the door isn’t what he appears to be — there’s no Mrs. Reed, the front door is locked, the windows are too small to escape through — they try their best to cooperate and then, as things escalate, to get away.

Both Reed and the film are fixated on deconstructing religion, including the willingness to believe in the seemingly impossible. There’s plenty of discussion about Mormonism’s polygamous history and the dangers of choosing one faith over another when they share similar mythologies. All of which results in the women being forced into the inevitable basement/hole common in horror movies.

By the time Sister Barnes accuses her captor of presenting a magic trick as a miracle and Sister Paxton discovers the imprisoned women, the film discloses its own ruse. Reed’s insanity isn’t rooted in his belief that faith is a desire to be controlled — if it were, there would be men in those cages too. No, stripped of its significant symbolism, “Heretic” is the story of a serial killer who, like many serial killers, exclusively targets women.

One could infer from this a commentary on the subjugation of women found in conservative interpretations of what Reed refers to as “the big three” — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — or even society in general. But “Heretic” neither earns nor seems interested in this critique. Reed’s issues with religion are gender-neutral; his pathological needs are not.

A few weeks ago, this would have been acceptable, albeit a bit disappointing. While it sets itself up to be about more than a man creatively luring women into captivity and murder, “Heretic” doesn’t have to be anything more than it is — not every movie can reflect real societal horror with the precision of “Get Out.” (“Barbarian” was a thrilling watch, even if it didn’t provoke deep questions about the True Nature of Airbnbs.) Much has been said about the film’s concluding scene, which leaves “Heretic’s” judgment about faith and justice unresolved. But I found myself less concerned with the existence of God or the destiny of the young protagonist and more worried about the caged women.

Who were they and how long had they been trapped? Was anyone going to find and liberate them? Had they been psychologically broken or was there hope for their recovery? Are we really comfortable with the possibility of them simply starving or freezing to death?

In horror movies, there are always anonymous victims, sacrificed for a scare or two. There was a time when that wouldn’t have troubled me much. Leaving “Heretic,” I felt done with that. When a film’s antagonist so clearly uses women as props, the film itself needs to do better.

If you have the audacity to display women in cages for our amusement, you’d better devise a way to set them free.