Hell House

Matthew Murray

After watching the documentary "Hell House" directed by George Ratliff, the aspect of the film that I found most surprising was Ratliff's ability to create a documentary on such a controversial topic without injecting his own views, beliefs and opinions into it. As the viewer begins watching the film, they are led to believe that the creator of the film may be in strong agreement with the featured Trinity Church and their views. Those specific views include the church believing that by putting on a haunted house featuring scripted scenes, in which members of the church act out certain sins, could be used to convince non-christians to convert to Christianity and in turn "be saved" by Jesus and God. But as the film progresses, the light in which Ratliff shows the church begins to shift, in that the church is presented in a very extreme or radical way that may cause the viewers to be turned off by the actions that are being taken by the members of the church featured in the film. With this form of presentation, one that involves no injections of belief or opinion by the filmmaker, the viewer is able to maintain their own opinion on the subject rather than try to be persuaded one way or the other by the filmmaker, and I thought that was the most surprising tactic by Ratliff.

Hell House

The techniques used in conveying the message of conforming to Christianity, although somewhat effective, I don't think I agree with them. The documentary itself uses sequence well to go through the process of such an event with coming up with ideas, to building the stage and such, and also then performing the "haunted house". The director's use of sequence is effective because the viewer gets to see the long process the people of the church go through to make this all happen, and it shows how committed the church is. By having people of the church tell the veiwer what their own view of something such as speaking in tounge, or their definition of Hell, the veiwer gets a bit overwhelmed with one-sided opinions. And for some people this tactic might actually turn them away from what the film is trying to say, because if the viewer doesn't believe those things they aren't going to listen with all of their attention. Going through the one dad's life makes the people feel more personable in a way. The viewer gets a feeling by the end that they know the family after having seen their every day routine. They also portray the family in a good light, considering the circumstances. Trying to show that even though bad things have happened to them they still made it through with the "word of God". Which makes the documentarian's side more believable, showing real people who got through things with Jesus. The tactic of the "Hell House" in itself is interesting. Whoever came up with the concept of doing this obviously has their head high enough and nose far enough into the Bible to think that they can carry out such a thing to say "black and white" what is right and what is wrong. It's always interesting to me when I hear people say that what's in the Bible is right and whatever anyone else says is wrong. I don't think it's right for the people of the church to at the end of the haunted house thing coup these people up in a room and preach about how they need to go in the next room, in front of everyone standing there, and pray. Because if other people are going in there to pray, you are made out to look like this satanist jerk if you choose not to. If people wanted to go pray with others, they would go to church. Doing that just would make me personally feel bombarded. The film itself is obviously a one-sided project.

Hell House

Well Hell House was uh... interesting. I thought that the techniques used in this were a little, maybe extreme. The things that they were doing in the play were just to the utmost severity of things that could actually happen. The whole thing where people die in every scene was kind of crazy too. Those were just some of my first impressions watching this. I thought that what they were doing was a good cause, but then when they take it that far its almost not a good thing anymore. They turned what was probably supposed to be a fun scary place to go into a crazy religious experience that people who came through may have been just tremendously terrified not in a fun way.

Even though I understand that what they were trying to do was scare people away from doing bad things and hence going to hell, I do not fully understand the whole point of taking it to those extreme levels when most of those things do not happen to 99% of people. I thought the scene where the dad caught his wife cheating by the computer was really dumb, because I couldn't tell if they were trying to pin the going to hell on the father for drinking or the mother for cheating. It was hard to figure some of the scenes out. Another thing I thought was weird was how into Hell House that the kids got. They were doing intense scenes and they were totally cool with it and it almost seemed that they lived for this. I just found it kinda different.

All in all, it was a very informative documentary on what was going on at this church and everything about Hell House. I didn't think that it would be that intense and stuff, and I thought some of the things in the movie were extremely over exaggerated. To tell some people to do good and want to goto heaven is one thing. But to have scenes with people killing themselves and going through so many problems to where the audience probably wants to just go home is a whole different aspect of spreading the good news of the Bible.

Alex Young

I was impressed by George Ratliff’s ability to film the entire documentary without interjecting his own views or opinions on the audience. From beginning to end, you see what one would see as if they were actually present with the church involved with Hell House. At the end of the film, you have only your opinions about the Hell House, not the documentarians. In each scene, you have the voice of a member from the church, be it the pastor, one of the youth, or just another person. It seemed to me that Ratliff took special care to show the people in their most natural light. He did this by using scenes that made the people look ‘good’. These were scenes such as the interviews, where they spoke about experiences that were very touching and special to them. These were good to help build a personal connection between the people on screen and the viewer. However, Ratliff also includes scenes that make the people look bad. This can be observed in the scene after some kids visit the hell house and express their disagreement in view with those depicted in the attraction. This is a good scene to show that they are not all good, but lets the viewer remember that they aren’t all bad either. It leaves a lot of room for the viewers to formulate their own opinions. Throughout all this, there is no voice over from Ratliff. I think this not only helps keep the film objective, but also brings the reader closer to all of the people being showcased. As a viewer, you feel that you are present in the room when the person on screen is talking. The technique of filming meetings and the processes involved with running the Hell House, as well as the interviews with members of the church, really help to put the viewer on the scene, so you can connect with what’s being shown.

Hell House technique

     My fundamental belief in free speech compels me to say that the techniques used by Trinity church such as fear and consequences to deliver their message anyway possible are justified.  The use of  a haunted house to reach the masses is a great idea.  People ultimately have the right of choice to go or not go.  That being said there are many ways this documentary could rub many people the wrong way, is it ethical?  Definitely not, I do not think Hampe would approve.  They use many effects of lighting to get the point of the differences in heaven and hell. A haunted house, what a perfect setting. 
     The flow in the way the documentary is presented from the meetings in the beginning to showing the final product at the end intermixed with interviews from attendees who approved and some who didn't helps the viewer to understand the amout of work the church puts into this to get the point out to the people.  The subject matter aside it is an effective documentary, they are not forcing anything upon anyone. It may be a wolf in sheeps clothing and misrepresented to an attendee who was not expecting a lesson in religion while attending a haunted house.  The documentary is extreme to the point of upsetting to some people but they definitely show the viewers the message they are trying to portray.     DeWayne Peterson

Hell House

Hell House, a documentary by George Ratliff, portrays the development of Trinity Church's own haunted hell house. The purpose of the exhibit and the documentary itself is to use scare tactics to persuade and manipulate the viewer and the audience to the exhibit to convert to Christianity and beg to be saved. I feel as though I watched this entire documentary with my shoulders clenched expecting the worse. The warning at the beginning of the film was an interesting tactic. It was odd to me that he was apologizing for the way society was and that he couldn't do anything to change it. Also, after this warning I was expecting an immediate horrid sight yet the organization of the film had the most unsettling images at the very end of the film. Other tactics that surprised me were the interviews with people in front of the bright white light. This was interesting because of the discussion some of the people putting on hell house have during the building session about how they shouldn't have the color white anywhere because it has too much hope. I think that the video wasn't meant to be ironic in any way but it being shown through the life of the single father with four children just didn't fit the overall message. Even the teenager at one point discusses her time in foster care and says that she believes God will forgive you no matter what, yet the point of the Hell House is to show people that their decisions cannot be forgiven unless they beg for forgiveness. Overall, the documentary was presented in an effective way to prove the point they were trying to make.

Hell House

Hell House, a documentary by George Ratliff, is a film about a haunted house put on every year by the Trinity Church. It’s goal is to scare sinners into believing in God for fear of going to Hell. Ratliff uses several techniques which change the dynamic of the documentary. One of the first techniques I noticed was the use of lighting in the first seen as one of the leaders of the church explains how it is the church’s responsibility to scare non-Christians of hell by using the haunted house. As the leader, a Christian, speaks, the background is bright white, and almost looks angelic. Also, at the end of part one, several yound adults talk about what they believe hell to be like. You can immediately tell these were Christians explaining what they thought because of the background and lighting. They are personified in this way as “Godly.” Lighting is also used in this documentary

Another technique in the documentary is the clips of all the people in the community coming together to be a part of Hell House. The people seem very eager and excited about the haunted house, and you can see just how many people attend Hell House. This technique makes the viewer realize the importance of the community. If a new church were to attempt to make a haunted house such as Hell House, I believe their community would be angered or the people of the church even offended. However, perhaps the reason Hell House still exists is the huge community involved with the actually project of the Haunted House. It may make the church feel like they are a part of helping convert non-believers, instead of focusing on the reality of the extremes they are going to get their message across at the risk of offending others.