Saint Maud (Film Review)
2019 StudioCanal UK
Written and Directed by: Rose Glass
Starring: Morfydd Clark and Jennifer Ehle
MPAA Rating: R; Running Time: 83 Minutes
The Nicsperiment Score: 6/10
Katie is an overworked hospital nurse who has a mental breakdown when she fails to save a patient. She then apparently has a conversion experience and christens herself "Maud." Maud then begins a new line of work as a live-in nurse for the dying. While this profession may be fulfilling for some, it's not enough for Maud. Between jobs, as she curls up in her pallid, one-room flat, Maud beseeches God, telling him she feels like she was meant for greater things. With her newest patient, though, it appears she's found it. Amanda Kohl, once a world-renowned dancer, is suffering from stage-four lymphoma. Amanda, a bitter atheist, doesn't have much time left on Earth...and Maud has decided that she will spend that precious time saving Amanda's soul.
There's just one thing, though.
Maud's nuts.
----
There's been a trend running through recent horror films that I do not enjoy. Before Saint Maud, I most recently experienced this phenomenon with 2020's The Lodge. That trend is this:
----
There's been a trend running through recent horror films that I do not enjoy. Before Saint Maud, I most recently experienced this phenomenon with 2020's The Lodge. That trend is this:
Lead character has dark, mysterious past. Weird things start to happen. The
viewer is led for a moment to believe these things could possibly be
supernatural. However, after a short period of time, it becomes clear that
the lead character is...just crazy.
I don't mean to use "crazy" in an insensitive fashion. Having a decent
amount of experience with mental illness, I'd be quite hesitant to throw out
that term in regard to a real person. While it's never said out loud, it is
very clear that Saint Maud's titular character is suffering from
schizophrenia. However, Saint Maud, which not only features close-ups
of that same titular character feverishly picking at a self-induced burn,
but placing her feet into shoes she's lined with nails, is not a thoughtful
exploration of schizophrenia. It is a movie about a crazy person.
The issue I take with this horror thread, which in recent style and storytelling I can at least trace back to 2017's massive disappointment, It Comes at Night, is that it is predictable, boring, and lazy.
The issue I take with this horror thread, which in recent style and storytelling I can at least trace back to 2017's massive disappointment, It Comes at Night, is that it is predictable, boring, and lazy.
Now, Saint Maud is a remarkably well-made film. Morfydd Clark's
performance as Maud is staggering. She does an incredible job. Rose Glass'
direction is immaculate. Ben Fordesman's cinematography is gorgeous, even
when he's lighting a cockroach scurrying out of Maud's sink. But there's
nothing here. This film is empty, an ornately made candle with no wick,
melting away when lit, giving off no light of its own.
Is there a thoughtful exploration of religion or even religious mania? I grew up in a cult where women writhed on the flooring having "god"-given orgasms just like Maude has in this movie. I've seen how people under the effect of religious mania act. Those people generally have a very well-defined set of beliefs informing their religious insanity. Maud, though, is just...crazy. I guess you could take the "Saint" in the title to put Maud on the same level as those throughout history who have claimed to have heard God's audible voice and acted accordingly. Well, I left what I grew up in as a child for denominational religion as an adult, and I can say with a fair amount of confidence, church-recognized saints didn't do the things Maud does in this film's final act. Serial killers do. But this film isn't an exploration of that, either.
What flows out of this film simply seems generated from a screenwriter's pen. Saint Maud doesn't feel real. Likewise with the previously mentioned The Lodge, which creates such an ill-defined cult background for its lead crazy person, it essentially could have just put a title card when she was first introduced, reading: WAS IN SOME TYPE OF CULT; IS CRAZY.
Is there a thoughtful exploration of religion or even religious mania? I grew up in a cult where women writhed on the flooring having "god"-given orgasms just like Maude has in this movie. I've seen how people under the effect of religious mania act. Those people generally have a very well-defined set of beliefs informing their religious insanity. Maud, though, is just...crazy. I guess you could take the "Saint" in the title to put Maud on the same level as those throughout history who have claimed to have heard God's audible voice and acted accordingly. Well, I left what I grew up in as a child for denominational religion as an adult, and I can say with a fair amount of confidence, church-recognized saints didn't do the things Maud does in this film's final act. Serial killers do. But this film isn't an exploration of that, either.
What flows out of this film simply seems generated from a screenwriter's pen. Saint Maud doesn't feel real. Likewise with the previously mentioned The Lodge, which creates such an ill-defined cult background for its lead crazy person, it essentially could have just put a title card when she was first introduced, reading: WAS IN SOME TYPE OF CULT; IS CRAZY.
Where's the depth? A great horror film would leave viewers in doubt as to
whether the horrific events are real, or are actually happening inside the
protagonist's head. If it's clear that they're an illusion, then the film
needs to take a deeper and more nuanced look at whatever mental illness or
state is causing these hallucinations and unreal experiences. This recent
crop of "horror flicks" does neither. They may find critical acclaim, which
I suspect is rooted in the current critical establishment's cynicism, but
they have no lasting impact on the overall viewing public's imagination. If
this is the future of horror, I'd rather watch the classics.
Comments