I think enough time has passed and enough bad smoke has cleared out of the way, and so I can now finally review The Nun without people complaining. Upon its release last October, I recall many people in the horror community being disappointed with it — calling it boring, not scary, just out to get money, etc. It’s totally okay for everyone to have different aesthetic preferences and to have different evaluative categories for what counts as scary. However, I must say that I disagree with the crowd, and I think it’s time for us to revisit this film from a new perspective.

I saw the movie opening week, and I actually enjoyed it. I thought it was fun, aesthetically pleasing, and visually spooky. Let’s be honest, though. I’m sure most of you would expect this of me. It’s basically gothic churchwave, so liking the movie is almost inevitable for me haha. However, I also think this film, when read allegorically, provides a vital social commentary on the current abuse within the Catholic church (and other denominations as well).

In this sense, I think The Nun might be… dare I say it? … one of the most important religious films of the last decade.

Structure of this Article

First, borrowing from the insights of Schleiermacher and Heidegger, I shall provide a short hermeneutical justification for my interpretation of The Nun. This method will be briefly compared to other important horror films — especially Night of the Living Dead.

Second, I shall list the important characters and give a plot synopsis, while also acknowledging some of the problems with the film. Most of these problems, in my opinion, are related to the plot.

Third, I shall explain my allegorical reading of this film as a critique of and psychological processing of systemic religious abuse. I think this allegorical reading also helps alleviate some of the problems within the film itself.

Fourth, I shall do my usual top”moments/things I liked about the film.

Why This Reading is Legitimate

Hermeneutics basically means: “How the heck do I interpret something?” Usually, this is applied to literature, but I think it also can be applied to film. Within hermeneutics, there are all sorts of camps that arise on how to interpret things: structuralist, literalist, historical-criticism, literary criticism, poststructuralist criticism, postmodern criticism, feminist criticism, minority criticism, post-colonial criticism, etc.

Questions that one might ask are things like: What was the intention of the author? Who was the intended community? What was the historical context of the author? What new and creative interpretations come about if we read the text from the perspective of e.g. someone living under colonial rule? How does this text/art/film portray women? Etc.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) both had similar insights into how we can think about the important facets that go into a text/art/film, and thus how this information can help us properly interpret it. Here is a (perhaps crude, but oh well) summary.

Imagine that you have two streams flowing into a lake. The first stream is the text/art/film, and second stream is the reader (e.g., you or me). These two streams both flow into the lake, and thus create “meaning.”

Stream 1: Text/Art/Film (i.e., the object you are trying to interpret). This will include things like historical context, author’s intention, the author’s own worldview, literary genre, etc.

Stream 2: The Reader (i.e., the subject doing the interpretation). This will include things like your own historical context, culture, presuppositions, worldview, community needs, etc.

The Lake: The Meaning that arise from the combination of these two streams.

We get things wrong when we focus on only one stream at the expense of the other. We cannot simply dismiss the intentions of the author, but we also cannot dismiss our own context and how potential meanings can arise out of a text when viewed from a new perspective or placed into a new context.

A famous example of this is the masterpiece film Night of the Living Dead (1968) from George Romero. This film is brilliant and scary on its own. You could show it in any culture, and I think they would all find it terrifying. This was Romero’s original intention: to simply create a terrifying exploitation film. However, audience members and critics alike could not help but notice the parallels to American culture living under the threat of nuclear destruction, ecological destruction, the Vietnam war, and racism. I could try to describe all of this myself, but allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia:

Furthermore, many have noticed that Duane, the Black American character in the film, contains many parallels to Martin Luther King Jr.

Interestingly enough, Romero claims that he didn’t deliberately make any of this social commentary. Do we then claim that these interpretations are illegitimate? I don’t think so. They are new meanings that develop when Romero’s creative stream and the culture’s creative stream combine into one.

Similar to the commentators on Night of the Living Dead, I wish to now do the same thing with The Nun.

Characters and Plot

The main characters are as follows:

Sister Irene: Portrayed by Taissa Farmiga, Sister Irene is a novitiate within the Catholic Church. A ‘novitiate’ is kind of like someone who is in the beginning stages of becoming a nun, but has not yet taken the full vows of dedication. She struggles a little bit with full commitment to the life that would be required of her in the religious order, and she also gets into trouble for teaching kids more ‘liberal’ interpretations of scripture. By ‘liberal,’ I mean she teaches kids that dinosaurs existed before humans, and the point of the Bile is that God loves you.

Portrayed by Taissa Farmiga, Sister Irene is a novitiate within the Catholic Church. A ‘novitiate’ is kind of like someone who is in the beginning stages of becoming a nun, but has not yet taken the full vows of dedication. She struggles a little bit with full commitment to the life that would be required of her in the religious order, and she also gets into trouble for teaching kids more ‘liberal’ interpretations of scripture. By ‘liberal,’ I mean she teaches kids that dinosaurs existed before humans, and the point of the Bile is that God loves you. Father Burke: Demian Bichir plays a minister within the Catholic Church, who works for the Vatican as a miracle and demonic investigator. Basically, the church won’t claim that a miracle occurred or that someone is possessed by a demon unless there is a thorough investigation. Father Burke is the one who carries out these investigations. We also learn that in his past, he tried to perform an exorcism on a young boy, who tragically died in the process. He is constantly haunted by the fact that he was unable to save the child.

Demian Bichir plays a minister within the Catholic Church, who works for the Vatican as a miracle and demonic investigator. Basically, the church won’t claim that a miracle occurred or that someone is possessed by a demon unless there is a thorough investigation. Father Burke is the one who carries out these investigations. We also learn that in his past, he tried to perform an exorcism on a young boy, who tragically died in the process. He is constantly haunted by the fact that he was unable to save the child. Frenchie: Frenchie is the local town’s playboy, portrayed by Jonas Bloquet. Despite being a womanizer and non-Catholic, Frenchie has a good and caring heart. He is also in charge of delivering food to the nuns at the abbey (around which our story is centered). Occasionally, he serves as comedic relief.

Frenchie is the local town’s playboy, portrayed by Jonas Bloquet. Despite being a womanizer and non-Catholic, Frenchie has a good and caring heart. He is also in charge of delivering food to the nuns at the abbey (around which our story is centered). Occasionally, he serves as comedic relief. Valak (aka “The Nun”) : Basically, a super-demon who comes from hell to antagonize the abbey. Valak is played by Bonnie Aarons, who previously had this role in The Conjuring 2.

Plot Summary [Spoilers]

The film is set in 1952 in Romania. Opening scene is of two nuns who must go down into a room covered in crosses and a Latin sign that reads, “God ends here.” One of the nuns enters through the door, brings out a key, and is subsequently killed. The second nun takes the key, runs to the upper floor, ties a noose around her neck, begs for the Lord to forgive her, and then jumps out the window to kill herself. And this all happens while Valak — in the form of a blasphemous Nun — is quickly closing in on her.

A few days later, this nun’s body is found hanging by Frenchie when he delivers food to the abbey.

Given that suicide is considered a serious sin by the church, the Vatican sends Father Burke to investigate the matter. Because he is a man going to investigate an abbey populated by only nuns, he elects a young novitiate to accompany him: Sister Irene. These two representatives meet up with Frenchie, and he takes them to where he found the body. Frenchie placed the body in a large ice box room (remember that this is the 1950s). But when they arrive, the body has been moved into a different position…

Father Burke acquires the key from her hands.

After burying the nun, the trio go into the chapel where they meet the head Abbess (the nun in charge of the abbey). The other nuns are observing a vow of silence for one day as they grieve the loss of the two nuns, so our trio must return the next day. Burke and Irene stay in the abbey overnight, while Frenchie decides to go back home.

On his way back, he is attacked by a demon, but manages to escape.

During the night, we learn that Irene had visions as a child (somewhat similar to Loraine’s psychic abilities in the other Conjuring movies). We also learn the backstory of Father Burke’s failure to save the young boy.

While he sleeps, Burke is awoken by music, and he goes outside, whereupon he sees a vision of the boy he tried to save. The vision comes to life, and then throws him into a grave in the cemetery outside the abbey. Irene finds out what is going on, and is able to dig up Father Burke. Demonic hands try to pull him back, but he escapes. Within his coffin, he finds a bunch of occult books.

The next day, Sister Irene (but not Father Burke) is permitted to enter the rest of the abbey. Irene meets another nun named Sister Oana, who informs her that there is a constantly changing shift of nuns praying to keep evil at bay. This is where we get the lore dump.

We learn that a long time ago, there was an evil duke, who was obsessed with the occult. He tried to summon Valak — a super powerful demon — from hell, but he was stopped short of completing the ritual. However, in the process, a ‘gateway to hell’ was created. The gateway was sealed with a Catholic relic that apparently holds the actual blood of Christ (yes, I know this is getting sort of ridiculous). Unfortunately, during a bombing raid during World War II, the foundation was shaken, and the gateway was opened once again. Now, Valak has escaped, and is trying to possess someone in order to leave the abbey. (Apparently, he can’t do this unless he has a physical body).

While waiting for Irene, Father Burke learns Valak’s real name. If you recall from The Conjuring 2, knowing the name of a demon gives you power over it. When Father Burke tries to enter the abbey again, the abbess stops him. But! It turns out that the abbess is actually a lifeless dead body, who informs Burke that Irene is going to die. The dead body then attacks Burke, but he gets away. Did we all see this coming the entire time? Yes, yes we did.

Irene has another vision of Valak, and is then attacked by the demon nun. Burke hears her struggles, and tries to save her. But before he can, he is attacked as well. Honestly, at this point, I thought Father Burke was going to die. Something about him just screams “I’m definitely going to be killed in this movie.” However, Frenchie shows up with a special shotgun, and saves Burke. While in town, Frenchie was talking to other people at a cavern, and they told him that the abbey is haunted, and his friends are in serious danger, so he decided to return.

Sister Irene goes into a dark, desolate chapel with the remaining nuns. They all start praying fervently in order to combat the evil of Valak. Then, there is a shock wave that sends the nuns flying across the room, smashing through pews and crashing into walls. Irene is antagonized by Valak during this time. Irene then notices Sister Oana’s dead body lying next her, and she realizes that all of the nuns around her were actually visions. They are all, in fact, dead.

Our heroes reunite, whereupon they are attacked by a dead body, which Frenchie then kills with his shotgun. We now learn that the nun who killed herself at the beginning of the film did not actually commit suicide. Instead, she sacrificed herself so Valak couldn’t possess her to escape the abbey. At this point, Irene decides to take her vows to dedicate herself fully to the life of a nun.

They go into the catacombs to find the relic of Christ’s blood. There is a statue of Mary that is pointing to the relic. This fulfills recurring visions that Irene had as a child, in which she would receive the message that “Mary leads the way.” Yes, I am aware that it is cheesy.

Valak then attacks irene and Frenchie, while Burke is attacked by a demonic version of the boy he failed to save. Sister Irene is briefly possessed by Valak against her will, but Frenchie throws some of the blood from the relic on her, which frees Irene. Valak unleashes this crazy dark forces upon Frenchie, which incapacitates him. Irene and Valak then fight in a pool of water — it’s a type of well or something like that.

Valak tries to drown Irene in the water. We also notice that Burke is probably dead near the water. (I knew it! I knew he was going to die!) While Valak is pushing Irene’s head under water, he notices that the relic is broken, and all of the blood is missing. Irene then pushes her face out of the water, and spews the blood of Christ from her mouth, onto Valak’s face. This sends the demon back to hell, and seals the gateway again. Somehow, Father Burke gets up! This dude won’t die! I thought maybe that Valak possessed him, but it turns out that he is just invincible. Frenchie also lives.

The trio reunite outside the abbey. During their last conversations, Frenchie reveals to Irene that his real name is Maurice (sound familiar? Give it a sec). As he turns away from the camera, we see an upside down cross burned into the back of his neck.

The movie ends with a clip from the first Conjuring film. There is famous scene in which Ed and Lorraine are performing an exorcism on a man named Maurice, and we learn that this same man in Frenchie. Implication: Valak was able to possess Frenchie and escape.

Problems with the Plot?

As you might know already, this movie did not get the best reviews. It has only a 5.4/10 on IMDB, a 46 on Metacritic, and a 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. The Rotten Tomatoes summary of the critical response is the best:

Now, just because other people don’t like a movie, that’s no reason to feel ashamed for liking it yourself. It’s always fun to like movies that other people don’t like. Don’t be embarrassed about it. Though perhaps I’m simply speaking to myself because I liked the movie haha. But I’ve heard from others out there who like the movie too, so more power to y’all.

However, I do think that some of the problems others have mentioned about the film are legitimate. Let’s take a quick look at some of them.

Some within the horror community have grown tired the Conjuring Universe. Many feel as if the structure of these movies are codified to the point of redundancy. Typically, they have the following format:

Get the characters to the main, haunted location.

Creepy scenes.

Lore dump (i.e., something about the background of the demon is told to us)

More creepy scenes

Demon showdown

Resolution (if it is part of the expanded universe, then there is often a tie-in to other films in the universe, or something that sets up for a sequel)

The Nun follows this same structure, but seems to feel kinda sloppy in doing so. Furthermore, many feel like the plot devices used to get us from creepy scenes into the lore dump and into the showdown are illogical. Really? The actual blood of Jesus is just sitting in a relic at this random abbey? There’s a special gateway to hell? — that sounds rather archaic, as if hell is located underground. And Irene has had special visions since the time she was child about ‘Mary leading the way’?

These plot points lead to another complaint others had: the movie lacked the realism of the other films. I think this is definitely true. The first two Conjuring films are notorious for giving a realistic picture of what it might be like to experience demonic attacks (if there are such things. I’m not going to make a claim either way about the existence of demons because I’m agnostic about that specific topic). The Nun, however, feels more fantastical than the other films, given all the visions and gateways to hell. We could also put this film in the category of dark fantasy. It seems like when the characters step into the abbey, they walk through a door into an alternate dimension.

Finally, some other people thought the movie was boring. That’s subjective, and totally fine. Some people are more entertained or frightened by certain movies, and others might not react the same way. A lot of it is determined by our individual personalities. Though I personally did not find the movie boring.

I fully admit that the movie has these problems. However, rather than responding to them individually, I would like to give a new, allegorical reading of the entire film.

A New Interpretation of The Nun

Warning: the following language might sound overly-religious. I typically try to keep everything as neutral as I can, because I never want to sound preachy. However, in this particular instance, it will be difficult to discuss religious analogies without sounding ‘preachy.’ I ask for your forgiveness in advance.

In my perspective, The Nun is a film about systemic clerical abuse within Christianity. Though I do not wish to demonize all Christians, the fact of the matter is that we are currently living in a real life horror story. Children, nuns, and other lay persons have been routinely abused by priests/pastors, and these atrocities were covered up by leaders within the church hierarchy. You can read more about it here, though I’m sure most of you are familiar with the circumstances.

I actually saw The Nun during its opening week, and it came out the same time as (one of many) bombshell reports about abuse in the Catholic church. I went to the film with a heavy heart, and sincerely grieving over the fact that so many innocent people were being abused in religious institutions. When I went to the theater to see this film, I felt encouraged by the general message: religious persons victimized by something demonic, are rising up and defeating evil. As time went on, I’ve thought more and more about this metaphor.

I see this film as a type of psychological processing of systemic abuse within the Catholic Church. Thus, I think this movie is more enjoyable when watched as a religious movie — or as religious commentary — rather than as purely a horror film.

In the film, Valak was a horrendous evil hiding in the heart of the abbey. The evil had been repressed, covered up, but finally broke free. And now, that which was meant to be a sacred space — a house of worship dedicated to the love and adoration of God — is terrorized by a demon. Notice, furthermore, that Valak takes on the form of a nun. In other words, it is a corrupted and blasphemous religious imagery. Something that is meant for the service of the divine is instead a vessel for evil.

Some people had an issue with Valak being too powerful, but I loved this part. I thought it made the stakes so much higher, because a simple exorcism might not work, and you can be possessed even against your will. Though the super-demon might feel less realistic, I think it is a better analogy for clergy abuse, because this allows Valak to trespass over typical boundaries given to demons.

Important for the analogy of this film is that most of the movie takes place in a ‘sacred space’ — the abbey. In our folk religion logic (warranted or otherwise), sacred spaces provide immediate protection against demonic forces. However, with this film, it is precisely the sacred space that holds the demon and within which it operates. The nuns are working tirelessly to combat this evil that could overcome them at any time, and the tragedy is that their suffering is kept in silence. It is covered up by those in power, and society has turned a blind eye to their plight. They are left abandoned in the middle of a forest. No one even knows that all of the nuns are dead. We only find out about this fact because a body is hanging from a noose on the doorway where a delivery boy drops off food. At all times in this abbey, while members are trying to continue with their religious practices — praying, worshiping, singing, etc. — they are haunted and attacked by a demonic force.

I think that’s a perfect metaphor for the suffering victims in Christianity. They try to engage with something that is meant to be holy and sacred and draw them closer to God, but all the while a demon is trying to kill you. There is something painful and evil haunting them at all times. And this suffering is silenced by the church, such that — for many years — they had to suffer alone. I think of all the innocent children who were abused by a priest, but might have continued attending a worship service with that minister every Sunday. The terror that the protagonists of the film experience in the abbey — the way it becomes an alternate, dark dimension — I see as an analogy for these victims stepping into religious buildings.

Now, let’s look at Sister Irene, the main protagonist. I loved this character. I thought Taissa Farmiga gave an excellent performance. She is really talented, and I hope to see her in more films soon. Also, if you’ve seen the movie or pictures of the movie, you might notice that she looks exactly like the actress who plays Lorraine Warren. That’s because they are sisters, though Taissa is 21 years younger than Vera. And yes, I do have a crush on Taissa because she’s adorable in this film, but don’t tell her because I get really nervous talking to girls.

Taissa Farmiga stars as Sister Irene in The Nun. Photo Credit: Warner Bros.

Anyways… She was a wonderful character with a strong performance. But beyond how cute Taissa is, I loved seeing a nun rise up against and defeat an evil preying on the innocent. Though I doubt the script writers intended this, I think she is a good metaphor for the current predicaments within the Catholic Church, and the hope that the victims will someday overcome.

Furthermore, I loved that it was a female protagonist who is active and who seems to have a sense of volition and autonomy. She doesn’t simply react to the events around her. Rather, Irene is actively investigating, questioning, and fighting. Often in religious movies, female characters are basically like NPCs in an RPG video game. They have a set location, react to the questions of the player characters, and have no autonomy beyond plot devices or auxiliary ‘world building.’ But that is not the case with this film.

Notice that she worked with children, and educated them about how religion can be about divine love rather than fundamentalism. In this sense, I feel like children are wrapped up in her character and the analogy for which she stands — namely, the struggle of the innocent victims of religious abuse against the evil that oppresses them.

Father Burke, in my reading, is great character to be included in the film. He represents the priests and ministers within religion who are deeply disturbed by the current crisis, and wish to resolve it. I mentioned earlier that he seems like a character who would certainly be killed in the film. Though I’m glad he wasn’t because it shows the grit and determination of these people fighting against church corrupt from within.

Furthermore, Burke is haunted throughout the film by the boy he was unable to save from a demon. I’m sure there are many sincere, kind hearted religious ministers, who feel the same way. They were unable to save innocent children from predatory priests, and this guilt haunts them but also fuels their desire to save others. I think this is an important aspect of the film because it points out that not all priests/pastors are evil. But more importantly, as we live vicariously through Burke for the duration of the film, it can encourage us to be like him and fight for the innocent. No matter how many times we should be defeated, we must get back up again.

The last point reminds me of the scene in which Sister Irene saves Burke from the coffin. Perhaps there is analogy here. Father Burke is buried in a coffin by a blasphemous demon. He is then saved from this coffin by Sister Irene. Thus, Burke — symbolic of sympathetic priests — experiences a type of ‘death and resurrection’ where he is saved by the oppressed and the victimized, which are symbolic in the character of Sister Irene. In other words, it is the action and testimony of the victims — rather than the powerful — that ultimately saves the priesthood. I do not wish to imply that the suffering of victims is necessary for a good priesthood, but rather that being a good priest today means listening, accepting, and loving the victims of abuse — i.e., moving from the demonic and into activism. Perhaps this analogy is a stretch, but I’m having fun with these so I’m not gonna stop haha.

Frenchie, in this reading, is symbolic of non-Catholics and the non-religious persons who sympathize with the victims of predatory priests and pastors. The real life examples would include reporters who broke the stories and exposed the cover up by religious institutions. He recognizes the danger his friends are facing, and is willing to ‘step into the abbey’ in order to help them.

Thus, I see our three heroes — Irene, Burke, and Frenchie — as embodying the three major players in our current society who are working against the ‘demon’ of abusive clergy.

Furthermore, I love the portrayal of how these figures combat and defeat Valak. The first of which is prayer.

Prayer, in this analogical reading, is symbolic of non-violent activism and resistance. Prayer is often seen as a passive and lazy excuse to avoid actually having to do anything. For an example, a natural disaster happens, and we promise to send our thoughts and prayers as if it has magically efficacious power and is no different than any other cause and effect principle within the natural world. But instead, in this film, we see prayer as the power by which the nuns are able to resist Valak, who is at all times trying to destroy them. Valak works through violence and death and intimation. The nuns work through persistent non-violent resistance.

I think this is a great analogy to the work of activists in our own world, who are working against corruptions within religious institutions. Despite how much those in power might seek to cover up through intimidation or suppression, activists must stay steady in their resistance to evil.

This analogy reminds me of a biblical passage from the Book of Revelation:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” Revelation 6:9-10 (NRSV)

Prayer, in the film under consideration, is more than non-violent resistance to evil. It is also a cry for that evil to be defeated. It is a hope birthed in midst of hopeless. I see the work of Sister Irene and the nuns as carrying out this cry.

This analogy leads me to a second analogy from from the Book of Revelation, which is found in how Irene defeats Valak in the final showdown.

The actual blood of Christ relic is, admittedly, something that causes the film lose a good portion of its realism. If taken literally, it’s kind of a silly ending. However, as a religious analogy, I think it functions brilliantly.

When Irene is about to be killed, and Valak is about to win, she spits the blood of Christ from her mouth into the face of the demon, which defeats him. Even if it was accidental, this is a perfect metaphor of the martyrs having victory of their oppressors. For example, consider the following Biblical passage:

“Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. But they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, Revelation 12:10-11 (NRSV)

The victims of oppression conquer through the blood of the Lamb (i.e., Christ) and the word of their testimony. This is exactly what Irene does, and it is illustrated by the blood of Christ coming out of her mouth — i.e., the two of these things are combined into one action that defeats evil. It is victory of the oppressed over the oppressors, of the victims over predatory priests.

There are probably other analogies within this film, but I think what I’ve provided is sufficient. I believe that this religious interpretation makes the film much more palatable than seeing it as failed realism. Furthermore, given our current cultural and religious situation, I think it’s message makes it one of the most important religious films of the last decade.

Top Memorable Moments

1. The Gothic Aesthetic

Though this movie has gotten plenty of criticism and disappointment, one common element has been appreciated: the cinematography and aesthetic of the film itself. And I’m right in line with this group. I think the look, feeling, and world of The Nun is awesome. It’s like one of those old Hammer Horror films but placed into our own era. You don’t see too many films try to tackle that aesthetic or genre anymore, so I was really excited the filmmakers went with this route. Additionally, I think it perfectly fits a character like Valak. Mixing these old and new art mediums and visual styles feels (at least to me) like a gothic film version of churchwave.





2. The Filming Locations

Related to the cinematography, I think the chosen sets and filming locations are beautiful — especially the abbey. Though films in the Conjuring Universe can get tiring in that many feel formulaic, one aspect I always appreciate is how pretty the set designs are.

The Nun was mostly filmed in Corvin Castle and Sighișoara, Romania. Corvin Castle is often postulated as the infamous inspiration for Castle Dracula in Bram Stoker’s original story. Vlad the Impaler was even held prisoner in this castle by John Hunyadi. As you would imagine, the castle is often believed to be haunted.

3. The Opening Scene

The hallway lined with hundreds of old, decrepit crosses is a really cool shot. But perhaps my favorite of the film is when Valak is seemingly gliding down the hallway toward one of the nuns. As Valak passes each set of burning candles, we see a brief glimpse of the demon before the candles are snuffed out. Meanwhile a crucifix hanging from the wall is slowly turning upside down. And then, when [spoiler happens], the crucifix ignites in flames.

You can watch the full opening here:

4. The Music

I think the composition for this film by Abel Korzeniowski is amazing. I especially love how he is able to mix elements of what we might consider to be Exorcist-inspired music with aspects of Gregorian chant. Admittedly, I’m a sucker for Gregorian and Eastern chant. Even back in high school, I used to listen to it during the drive to school in the morning. Yes, I’m aware of how incredibly weird that is. Nonetheless, I think the music is perfect for the film, and I wish Korzeniowski was getting more attention.

Here is one of my favorite pieces from the film:

5. Sister Irene Praying

I already mentioned that I have a crush on Sister Irene, so I won’t retrace my steps here. [But, Taissa, if you’re reading this, feel free to contact me. We can talk about obscure christian psychedelic rock from the 60s or watch VeggieTales together.]

Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this scene. If you’ve watched enough religious movies, then you are probably aware that scenes where the characters are praying can be excruciatingly boring. If you need an example, just watch War Room, which is an entire movie of people praying, and it will make you wish you were dead.

But, primarily for the reasons mentioned in my analogical reading of the film, I really enjoyed this scene. It had a sense of real urgency that other prayer sequences normally lack. Also, Irene getting pentagram carved into her shoulder was pretty freaky, and I thought Taissa had a really solid deliverance.

6. Valak

I like many of the scenes with Valak in this film — especially the one with the shadows and the mirror. But I especially love the shot where Valak rises up from the water. I don’t have any deep analysis of this moment. I just think it’s cool.

Here’s sequence:

Concluding Thoughts

Thank you for sticking around and reading this article that is way too long. Nonetheless, I thought that this movie had something important to say that was being overlooked, and I wanted to take time for its voice to be heard. I hope that in the following years, this film will get a reappraisal and find a community that will appreciate it.

If you are a victim of priestly abuse, or suspect that the practice is happening in your church, I’ve read that you should contact your local authorities. Also, here are a couple of websites that might offer some additionally useful information: