A24's Empire of Auteurs

This article makes me like the company a lot less. Never had that reaction to a puff piece before.

I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look?

They know they’re going to miff some people, and one of them is me.

I don’t care what religion their employees are. But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another?

I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. Plenty of movies coming out. Plenty I haven’t seen that came out years and decades ago.

If they weren’t in such a competitive market, i probably wouldn’t care. But they’re so easy to avoid, why not?

What do you think about Monty Python and their religious mockery then?

Is it the religious mockery that bothers you or something else?

Religion should not be off limits to mockery, satire, etc

Christianity deserves mocking. Organized religion is dumb and toxic.

Depends on how well it’s done. Monty Python’s religious mockery varies a lot. Some is quirky and insightful, but much is just dumb.

It’s a bit of an unfair question to ask, because the Pythons are competing with A Clockwork Orange, not to mention Oscar Wilde, Alexander Pope, and Chaucer. English religious mockery is a crowded market - even Thomas More took part.

But this wasn’t even religious mockery. They weren’t actually mocking anybody directly.

They were doing it very indirectly by supporting a group that is by itself is perfectly legitimate, but goes out of its way to offend others by its practices. But it doesn’t seem the group actually did anything offensive.

They supposed to be edgy by their mere presence.

It’s religious mockery by proxy, which isn’t funny or insightful. From the description, it doesn’t seem anybody was laughing. Certainly not the audience (us).

You’re being pretty confidently dismissive about the religious validity of Satanists for someone claiming religious offense.

The Satan of the Bible isn’t that dissimilar from Heaphestus - a divine being that gave humanity something the gods reserved for themselves so we could better our lot in life ourselves. Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure, doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree, especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission.

Its all fake marketing. What kind of Satanists can't even get their own "pig’s head, for ritual use?" The negative reaction exhibited by the parent comment also figures into the game plan of negative marketing [0]. If this was 30 years ago Blackmore's document would unironically call it "synergy."

  Blackmore drew up a document enshrining their shared goal: “Create a 
  narrative and controversy that transforms ‘The Witch’ into an iconic film.” 
  The satanists planned the parties; A24 minded the guest list, and canvassed 
  butchers in search of a pig’s head, for ritual use. 

0. https://www.trimarkdigital.com/blog/what-is-negative-marketi...

Me and my O9A friends pirate A24 movies because it is what Lucifer would do.

I mean, its Eggers. All of his movies are about witchcraft and other dark folklore

> Just because Christians decided to make him an evil figure

The Old Testament predates Christianity.

> especially since Satan is responsible for punishing the evil souls sent to Hell which seems like a righteous mission

The Bible doesn’t say anything about Satan’s responsibilities. You’re probably referring to fanfic works, such as Milton or Dante.

it sounds to me like you're confusing Hephaestus with Prometheus? If not, what is it that he gave us the gods reserved for themselves?

I’m not dismissing them at all. They’re a legit religious group.

But I don’t think they’re throwing satanic parties to grow appeal among satanists, or because some of their employees happen to be Satanists - the two reasons companies embrace religious celebrations.

Maybe I’m wrong - maybe they’re trying to brand their movie “The Witch” as a modern Satanist movie, and get a built in audience. Maybe.

What’s more likely is they are trying to be edgy. And they failed. Inviting a bunch of Satanists as a marketing ploy is boring. It’s like something out of marketing satire.

I’m reminded of how Silicon Valley lampooned Satanism the way Monty Python lampooned Christianity.

It’s not offensive. It’s just boring.

If we’re going down the “you won’t watch movies made by companies whose practices you disagree with” route. . . well, I hope you like books.

The Bible does seem to imply some responsibilities of Satan however, mainly to tempt people to deny God in some way.

Could you clarify whether you meant Prometheus or Hephaestus?

Hephaestus is traditionally described as a “fallen God living under Mt. Olympus.” Not evil, but the most imperfect - although not weakest - of all the Gods.

Also, as a master craftsman, he was called upon to build things other gods destroyed.

That’s Homer’s take. The Roman Virgil saw him very different.

I had assumed when you said Hephaestus, you meant Hephaestus, but another commenter pointed out you may have meant Prometheus.

I love books!

The main sources for Satan are Genesis, Job, the temptation narratives, and Revelations. The show very different behavior.

But outside Genesis, it’s hard to support a Prometheus narrative. The bet made with God in regards to Job is not very empowering to humans.

I guess the connection is via Pandora and her box (or pithos, which like Pandora was also made by Hephaestus), a story that resembles Eve and her apple.

A very fake and controlled controversy, managed by the company making the controversial product.

>I mean satanic parties? Not because some of their employees are satanists, but because they like the look?

as I understand the relatively clear text I was reading A24 wanted to market The Witch, so they made a deal with the Satanic Temple, part of the deal for marketing purposes was to have parties after some showings of The Witch, the person who seemed to like the "look" was mainly Joe Blackmore who was from the Satanic Temple and in charge of planning the parties.

So yes it is true that they did it to generate controversy which would help get lots of free press for their movie which meant people went to see it which got them money to make more movies.

>But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another?

of course the way they generated the controversy was because having Satanic parties would be guaranteed to piss off one particular religious group, which it seems really is the group the Satanic Temple exists to piss off.

I guess making a deal with someone could be seen as a form of endorsement, but in the case of religions it generally isn't seen that way.

> But when they’re endorsing one religious group to piss off another?

This is a ridiculous take.

The Satanic Temple is about as much of a “real” religious group as The Church of the Sub-Genius or Pastafarians. If you’re equating them with other organized religions… well honestly, they probably find it hilarious that someone is taking them this seriously.

Y’know what, nevermind, carry on. Fight the good fight!

2005 called...

not sure what Christianity did in the last 20 years to make it suddenly deserving of being taken seriously

They don't even make the product. They remarket stuff that already existed.

The Witch is actually a really good movie, by the way. One of those horror movies people not into horror movies may miss out on. In case anyone here thinks it's all just hype and controversy.