John Krasinski’s new film, A Quiet Place, which he both directs and stars in, may at first seem like a typical thriller, with lurking monsters threatening to kill everyone in their path. But it’s actually a surprisingly religious movie, as Bishop Barron explains, witnessing to the monastic response to evil, the dignity of life, and the sacrificial death of Christ on the Cross. A listener asks about the next steps for someone who has said “yes” to Jesus and the Church.

*SPOILER ALERT!* This episode contains spoilers so only listen after you’ve seen the film, or if you don’t plan to see it.

Topics Discussed

  • 0:04 – Introduction, Bishop Barron’s vacation
  • 2:25 – What is the plot summary of the movie?
  • 4:40 – Did John Krasinski intend on making this a religious movie?
  • 6:25 – What are some of the key religious motifs presented in the film?
  • 10:20 – How does this movie display the beauty of the pro-life argument?
  • 15:25 – How does the Christus Victor theory of atonement become a motif within this film?
  • 18:50 – How does the Church draw parallels with the ending of A Quiet Place?
  • 21:40 – Question – What are the next steps for someone who has said “Yes” to Jesus/Church?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 comments on “WOF 123: Religion and “A Quiet Place”

  1. Shalom Beloved (befriended) Disciple of Christ Jesus.
    Your commentary is wonderful.
    I ready, To Light a Fire, and saw the video and know
    your work ethic — so, truly, thank you for your time.
    I truly think the film is also a commentary on the
    ‘petra’ or ‘catacombs’ not only lived out in places
    of bodily oppression, persecution, and martyrdom;
    but in other nations, where sometimes prudence
    & discretion have to of the utmost with the cultural
    & media bias.
    Among people, sometimes in their countenance,
    aided and abetted by words & actions of believers,
    the Church has a bad reputation. So, sometimes,
    even if something is beautifully, completely true —
    like The Transfiguration, to avoid charges of necromancy,
    utmost discretion *had* to be used.
    But in cases of innocent human life being deliberately killed;
    from the moment of conception to a natural death;
    it is never a prudential judgement to quiet the witness
    of The Sacredness of human life.
    There is a great disconnect regarding the encyclicals,
    Rerum Novarum by Leo xiii,
    Humanae Vitae by Paul vi,
    and Evangilium Vitae by John Paul ii,
    (requested by John Cardinal O’Connor
    who has the Charism of Life granted by the Church).
    While Christ Jesus said beware the leaven of the
    Pharisee (supposed to be blameless teachers of the Law)
    and Herod, who feared God, but did not have regard for the Law;
    it is never a prudential judgement to teach consenting
    to a ‘Herodian,’ especially regarding human life.
    (the prefigure of John The Baptist).
    Prudence while in petra is one thing,
    giving human respect in words to use
    is quite another.
    Lord Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life;
    told us, let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes,’
    n’est pas?
    Bishop Jenky gave a letter, and in obedience to his
    Shepherd Office – every Priest *had* to ready the letter,
    *before* the election of 2012. Ven. Fulton J. Sheen
    and John Cardinal O’Connor would have approved
    whole heartedly.
    In the Peace and Joyful Companionship of Jesus Christ,
    my heartfelt prayers and well wishes.
    – Joseph Paul;
    a.k.a Jeffron Ben Noah

  2. James Prather Apr 21, 2018

    Is the nail striking Emily Blount’s foot on the stairs also reminiscent of Genesis 3:15 (“he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”)? Granted the verse refers to Jesus and not Mary, this injury occurs minutes before the birth of the child, the child who is Jesus in your reading. I think it ushers in your reading of the bathtub birth as the birth scene from Revelation well, spanning Genesis to Revelation in the process.