Review of The Prophecy (1995) by Roach O — 23 Jul 2009

"The Prophecy" is a film I have to evaluate from both an entertainment and a theological angle, as it sets out to revamp ther premises of my own religion (an exercise I have no objection to so long as it is clear that what is being proposed is a work of fiction, not some "debunking" or conspiracy theory that merely adopts the medium of fiction to boost its own sales.).

As entertainment, I found the film was at its best in its more humourous moments. As a rule, it tends to take itself rather seriously, seeing itself as an apocalyptic saga that has profound things to say (it doesn't), but occasionally, it veers into more comical territory, suggesting that its premise would have worked much better if it had gone the whole "Ghostbusters"/"Men in Black" route. I found the last thirty minutes a little boring, and Viggo Mortenssen a bit ridiculous as Satan, but Christopher Walken is always a joy to watch.

Theologically speaking, the script is a real mess. The premise is that St John's Apocalypse is actually half of the story. There is actually a twenty-third chapter that tells of an on-going second war between the angels, who have been shunned by God and need to find a "dark soul" to ensure victory. The so-called angels in the film, some of whom purport to be real figures like Gabriel, have none of the defining characteristics of actual angels. They are not spiritual but physical, they are not obedient to God, they do not enjoy the beatific vision, and they strangely use the part of the latin Creed defining the procession of the Holy Spirit ("qui cum patre filioque procedit") to suck souls from corpses (O_o) The hero, who lost his faith at the moment of ordination and chose to become a cop, and wrote a PhD thesis on the subject, even identifies an angel's essence as his "faith", which is totally silly both when applied to real life angels and the film's own brand. As for the alleged quotation from St Paul ("Even now in Heaven there are Angels carrying savage weapons"), according to the "Journal of Religion and Film", it is fabricated (I couldn't find it either, or a possible alternate translation.).

To suggest that Scripture as we know it might be missing a final chapter that completely overturns the meaning and direction of the story we know is about as serious a suggestion as Mel Brooks' joke that Moses clumsily let slip a third table of commandments, reducing them from fifteen to ten. The Bible's "arc" is so consistent and integrated that you cannot just add a twist that makes it become something else entirely. Moreover, it tells of an end after which there can be no further development, just as you cannot add any backstory before God created the Heavens and the Earth. So the film is constantly in some sort of bastard zone where some biblical elements are recognisable and Scripture is a reliable guide, and others where everything is transmogrified into a Clive Barker-ish mythology that has absolutely nothing to do with theology as we know it (Indian American rituals even have the last word.).

I wonder if Anne Rice's upcoming "Songs of the Seraphim" series will be what this film could have been if its angels had actually been angels. If you're interested in spiritual drama with a little more theological credibility (though not perfectly orthodox), I recommend the rather good British TV series "Apparitions" starring Martin Shaw. But given the kind of angels that are being served here, I suspect fans of this movie will be more interested in modern vampire films.