Paranormal Activity and Constantine: Do the producers believe in demons, and does it matter?

The question of this post is whether or not the producers of the "Paranormal Activity" series believe in the existence of demons, or more accurately, is stating such a belief what they are doing in the films. The real question at the heart of this is that of what it is that fictive art does.

As background, starting off, I thought the first three PA movies were well done, but that the fourth really fell apart.

So, by the end of the first movie it is obvious that within the framework of the story, this is a real, traditional demon: an entity that is malicious and purely spiritual in nature, but able to manipulate the physical world. It's not a ghost story, and it's not a story about the tension between spiritual explanations and psychiatric ones. An example of the former done well would be "The Others," with Nicole Kidman. The prime example, for me, of the latter would be "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." But "Paranormal Activity" is a straight-up traditional demon story.

So, the question I have is whether the point of the movie is to make the metaphysical/ontological claim of the existence of demons/angels and explore the different facets or questions of that matter (can they manipulate some types of things but not others? or other like questions). My answer is that this is not the point that can be taken from the movie (JRR Tolkien did not believe that Middle Earth historically existed, but this does not make the Lord of the Rings pointless). Furthermore, I will say that I do not think that it matters as far as the film doing what it does as art. I will also note here, however, that I do not think that the fact (if I am right) that this is not what the movie is doing means that the producers definitely do not believe in demons, NOR that what I am about to discuss cannot have any relevance in a world in which demons are real. It is simply not the question that the movie poses as art.

So, What does the movie do? The key concept for me here is analogy. Take the qualities of the demon in the movie and ask if there are any things in our real world that have these same qualities. Then ask how characters in the film interact with those qualities, and how do those interactions play out.

Whatever the demon's name or origin etc are is inconsequential. Some of these are guessed at throughout the four movies, but they are not, I would submit, the core of what the demon is about. Likewise, the specifics of what the demon wishes to do with those it takes are, relative to this discussion, inconsequential. We are looking for more general characteristics.

We find several things about the demon. The first is that its true nature and mode of action (how it impacts the material world) are unobservable (we can see the effect, but not the means). The second is that it is malicious. The issue of whether this is malicious intent would only muddy the waters for the analogs I will offer, so I will confine this quality to saying that it has a decidedly negative impact. A third quality is that it seeks some kind of control.We do also have a fourth quality hinted at in the first movie and confirmed in the third, which is that it is aided by figures who are elders to those affected (this is present both in the impact of the choices of the older women on the younger women and in the role of parents/adults in the sought after control of the child, Hunter).

I would offer two real world things that could be analogous to these qualities of the demon (there are probably many more that would work; these are just the two most prominent ones I have thought of). The first is psychological and/or psychiatric malady. The second is socio-economic factors and/or higher-up actors with negative impact. Regarding the first, the ambiguity between psychology proper (behavioral based) and psychiatry (with a stronger emphasis on the bio-chemical) is actually a good starting point. The difficulty of distinguishing between the two (behavioral causation and chemical causation) relates well to the aspect of the demon being unobservable in its core nature, because the ambiguity stems from the difficulties in observing those factors directly. It is nowhere near as easy as in the science of physics or chemistry in inanimate material. The same is true for socio-economic forces and actors. The web of possible causality and determining factors is very complex.

The point for the movie, however, is that the things are real (if my analogies hold), just as it is clear that the demon is real, although equally as mysterious, which is part of the point.

The real point is the reaction to it and interaction with it by others. In the first movie the main person under consideration is the boyfriend, Micah. He is not only flippant and calloused; at points he is downright antagonistic towards Katie. In the second movie it is the husband, who ardently and arrogantly refuses to believe in the existence and action of something beyond his comprehension, disbelieves his daughter's testimony, and even "playfully" antagonizes wife's and daughter's fraying nerves with the trick with the pool cleaner ... that is, until what is really happening is undeniable, at which point he does a deal with the devil, completely selling out the sister-in-law, Katie.

To understand the analogy, let's substitute the analogs I have suggested in for the demon. If Katie were to suffer from psychological or psychiatric malady that the male character (whether Micah or the husband in the second movie) does not understand, and thus dismisses them and perhaps even acts antagonistically towards her, rather than trying to understand and find some way of being helpful (other than flippantly trying a ouija board or diabolically making a devil's deal), the root causes go untreated. Perhaps it would be very difficult to even diagnose, let alone effectively treat, the actual causes, but the other person has not even tried, and has even made things worse through antagonism. The same can be true of socio-economic forces. The point is that, whether it be psychiatric, socio-economic, or actually spiritual (demonic), the other person has only made it worse.

Of course, in the case of the grandmother and other women in the third movie, the older generation has actually sold out the younger, knowing full-well what the effects will be. There are human beings who do this to other human beings as well.

In my assessment on the literary level, all horror, when done well, is apocalyptic in the original sense of the word - revelatory. Through analogy, it reveals things to us about the real world we live in.

Constantine

So, let's turn to another film that uses imagery and subject matter that is more properly "apocalyptic," "Constantine," with it's Revelations themes. Here, again, we have the presence of actual demons and angels stated in the fictional reality of the film. Here the term Constantine uses for them is very telling about the concern of the film; he calls them "the influence peddlers." "No direct contact," but they can, in a sense, whisper in the ear ... and their slightest whisper can give great hope or can turn your favorite creature comfort into your worst nightmare. The analogy is that there are human beings who fit this description very well: never working in direct statements, but always (in the negative cases) tearing down through subtle whispering.

Of course, subtle whisperings don't always have to be verbal or made to just one person. The Catholic Church, in her teachings on social justice (in the set of papal encyclicals grouped together as the social justice encyclicals) speaks of "structures of sin." As the old saying goes, "no man is an island," or to quote Aristotle (Aquinas' "the philosopher"), humanity is a political animal by nature. It is possible to use structures to achieve desired ends. And it is possible for intermediaries to willfully look the other way when they have the capability to at least be cognizant of more than they choose to.

Here, the film "Constantine" offers a bit further commentary on the role of other humans, other than the ones actually peddling influence ... the ones who can either help or hurt (even if through negligence) those impacted by the whispering, particularly those who see it for what it is. As a boy Constantine had this sight (represented by the faces on the bus), and for it was treated as if crazy.

Again, the commentary (via analogy) is primarily on human action when confronted with things that we cannot completely grasp, but also know that a possible explanation exists that is not a comfortable one for us to accept.

Constantine carries an extra complication for those (like myself) accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is the issue of suicide. I would offer only these few considerations (NOT from the analogical interpretation). The Church teaches that suicide is a mortal sin, but it also teaches that mortal sin requires adequate understanding and consent. I will not say, as some might, that it is impossible for those to be had in the case of suicide, but I will say that it is all too easy to jump to hasty judgments in cases of suicide, neglecting very real psychological and psychiatric factors that could be mitigating. Further, in the case of the second attempt, the goal actually seems to be (at least in the minds of the film-makers) self-sacrifice. The action is done to trick the Satan character into appearing as a way to stop the diabolical action.

But there is also another role of both this suicide attempt and the first one, a role that I must admit, as a smoker, I hesitate to bring up ... the connection between smoking and suicide (which some might state as the slow way and the fast way of the same thing). But, if I am to be honest about reading the film, I have to bring it up. I also bring it up because it broadens out this treatment of film-art beyond the merely analogical. The connection is not done through analogy, but rather through merely close proximity in dialogue and through visual imagery. The first instance, the one done with dialog, comes in the conversation between Constantine and Gabriel in the library: she tells him, "you're going to die because you have smoked 30 cigarettes a day since you were 15; and you're going to hell because of the life you took [meaning the first suicide attempt]." In art, unlike real life, dialog is never random (truth-be-told, many things in real life conversations are not as "accidental" as we like to think they are either). If the two are in that close conjunction in the constructed dialog, the authors probably did it for a reason. The second instance of the conjunction, though, provides a development in the theme, and it is part of the reason that I say that the second attempt is not the same as the first. It's an easy thing not to catch, but Constantine actually douses his last cigarette in the blood from his wrists.

So there are my main thoughts on those two supernatural horror/thriller films and on the relevant issues of what fictional art does that is different than making metaphysical "scientific"claims.