Editorials
Michele Soavi’s ‘The Church’ Continues to Evoke Evil & Rip Faces After 35 Years
When Italian horror comes to mind, it’s the unholy trifecta of Dario Argento, Lucio Fulci, and Mario and Lamberto Bava that dominate the discussion. However, Michele Soavi is another essential – albeit underrated – Italian horror savant from the ‘80s and ‘90s who cut his teeth as Argento and Fulci’s apprentice, before ascending to become their peer through formative films like StageFright and Dellamorte Dellamore (aka Cemetery Man). Soavi has a flair and appreciation for immersive and complex camera visuals, intimidating antagonists, and gruesome gore, all of which are on display in the director’s most polarizing film, The Church, which now celebrates its 35th anniversary.
This cinematic achievement began as Demons 3, the third film in Argento and Lamberto Bava’s popular supernatural horror series. However, the horror sequel soon pivoted into an original project early on in its production after Bava walked and Soavi took over and completely rewrote the script. In doing so, Demons 3 was banished to hell and The Church was born. 35 years after its debut, The Church is still a scrappy, underrated piece of Italian horror cinema, but one that audiences have only grown more fond of in recent years.
The Church beautifully adheres to the whole “strangers trapped in a haunted church subgenre” and it’s much in the same vein as Prince of Darkness, From Beyond, Dark Waters, or Lucio Fulci’s Demonia. These movies often have conflicted people from diverse backgrounds and belief systems who are forced to grapple with faith and the meaning of life, which usually culminates in a grueling fight for survival. The Church is no different and while it subscribes to many of Soavi and Argento’s preexisting tropes, it actually feels more akin to a Fulci or Bava picture, despite Argento and Soavi’s extensive rewrite of Franco Ferrini and Bava’s screenplay to make it their own (Bava’s original concept was largely set on a grounded airplane). The Church is honestly like Indiana Jones meets Evil Dead, with a touch of The Exorcist thrown in for good measure. There’s also lots of business with Satanic goo and ancient artifacts, which seem to be staples for these types of gothic, religious demon stories.
The titular church itself is utterly gorgeous and really does a lot of the heavy lifting here. The Church was shot at the Matthias Church in Budapest for its exteriors and the St. Elizabeth of the House of Arpad Church and the St. Nicholas Church in Hamburg for the interiors. Curiously, Argento has indicated that the production’s hunt for the right church proved to be difficult since nobody in Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland would agree to be a filming location due to The Church’s intense subject matter. It’s often cliché to claim that a location is one of a film’s most important characters, but it’s absolutely true in the case of The Church and a testament to the movie’s atmosphere…as well as a reflection of its cast of one-note caricatures. The Church leans on the running theme of young women who get victimized by manipulative men, not all of whom are possessed by demonic spirits, but are still inherently wicked. This is hardly new territory for the genre, but it’s still fitting for the film’s grim subject matter.
The Church kicks off to a genuinely wild and unexpected opening that attempts to give some context to the demon-conjuring madness that follows with a prologue that’s set in the past and looks at Teutonic Knights and witch massacres. It’s highly reminiscent of Conan the Barbarian and feels like the type of approach that Sam Raimi would take with one of his Evil Dead movies, particularly Army of Darkness, where horror explicitly co-exists with revolutionary history. It’s a distinct introduction that immediately begins The Church on a memorable note — albeit a confusing one — that sets it apart from the rest of Soavi and Argento’s filmography. It’s a striking start that’s hard for the rest of the movie to follow through on.
The Church’s prelude is crucial to understanding the rest of the film, but it’s easy to imagine an ambitious sequence of this nature getting completely edited out of the movie or instead turned into exposition that’s revealed deeper into the movie. If nothing else, The Church deserves respect for retaining such an out there period piece introduction that runs for over ten minutes. The film is better off for taking this approach to its storytelling than the more conventional angle that one would find in most other horror films. Oh, and there are ducks! When was the last time that you saw a horror film that had ducks in it?
Once The Church leaves the 12th century, the movie features a church sermon where a Bible passage about outcasts who resist Satan’s temptations gets recited. This becomes a guiding light for the various characters who get embroiled in this demonic situation. Later on, “The world is the devil’s,” a famous Latin quotation, is also casually recited. This becomes The Church’s creed and it speaks to how dark forces are everywhere and can appear when people least expect it. For instance, there’s beautiful symmetry between the shots of the cross that end The Church’s prologue and the ones that conclude the film, which signify that this curse is still active and that greater dangers are to come. The cycle conceivably begins anew. The evil is never over and the devil is never gone.
The Church is a horror movie that understandably receives a lot of criticism because it’s light in story and more of a gothic tone poem where you’re meant to get consumed by the moody atmosphere, much like the characters who are stuck in the titular church. Such an approach doesn’t always work, and it’s a risky maneuver to attempt. Audiences will either be on board with The Church or just be perplexed over what’s going on, but those who are into it will truly love what it’s going for. The film’s final half-hour where all hell – literally – breaks loose and The Church really gets to the good stuff. There are exceptional practical effects and monster work by Danilo Bollettini, Renato Agostini, Massimo Cristofanelli, and Sergio Stivaletti, all of whom had previously worked with the likes of Soavi, Argento, and Lamberto Bava. The rogue gargoyle angel and facehugger-esque creature that jumps out of a holy water stoup are incredibly memorable, as are the visuals of banging a church bell with a severed priest’s head or the young woman who rips off her grotesquely aged face in a mirror. A vicious jackhammer death is also quite original.
These compelling effects convey demonic entities in truly creative and terrifying ways that feel like something from a John Carpenter or David Cronenberg picture rather than an Italian horror movie. The writhing clay monument that emerges during the finale functions as if it’s something from out of Society. The Church’s cinematography by Renato Tafuri, another frequent Soavi and Argento collaborator, is really on point here. Massacres play out through silhouette and through the cross-shaped vantage point of Teutonic knights. There’s such a curious, exploratory camera that freely travels through the movie, as if it’s a rogue force of nature that’s as desperate for answers as the characters who are at the center of the movie.
The Church is a mixed bag that’s akin to a collection plate that’s full of junk from the conjugation’s pockets. It’s arguably the worst of Soavi’s features and it can’t compare to StageFright or Dellamorte Dellamore, but to be fair, those are true genre classics. The Church is still an interesting ride and mostly successful at what it does. It’s worth noting that production on The Church proved to be equally frustrating for Soavi. His dissatisfaction over the final product became the beginning of the end for Soavi’s collaborations and working relationship with Argento, which would properly dissolve following 1991’s The Sect (aka The Devil’s Daughter). Soavi headed down his own path, which is ultimately what pushed him into obscurity and gradually turned him into a less iconic horror director who retreated to TV movies. The Church isn’t void of its creepy charms, but the rift that it precipitated between Soavi and Argento is its worst crime. One wonders what the two could have brought out in each other through future horror collaborations, even if they happened to be further attempts to resurrect the Demons franchise.
The Church struggles to reinvent its subgenre, but its gonzo narrative and satisfying gore make it a decent relic of the late ‘80s that’s still worthy of unearthing 35 years later for a late-night horror session. It’s a movie that’s only more fascinating when viewed in the larger context of Soavi and Argento’s careers, as well as the growing number of Satanic gothic chamber plays that followed in the subsequent decades. The Church couldn’t take over the horror world and rejuvenate Soavi’s career, but maybe that’s just proof that the world is, in fact, the devil’s.
‘The Church’ is available to stream for free on Tubi and rent on Apple TV+
Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.
Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.
Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.
It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.
At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.
It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.
As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.
Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.
Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.
Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.
I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.
Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ Is Now Available to Watch at Home!
‘Infested’ Review – One of the Best Spiders Attack Horror Movies in Years
Five Underseen Vampire Horror Movies to Stream This Week
‘Stream’ – Horror Movie from the Team Behind ‘Terrifier’ Sets August Theatrical Release
Limited Edition ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ Monster High Doll Releasing This Week!
You must be logged in to post a comment.