The Conjuring is the reason why I love horror films. In the last 12 years, I have seen every “Conjuring Universe” film in the cinema (except The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, which was direct to Max), which also means that I have seen, firsthand, the slow descent of this beloved franchise into soulless Hollywood slop.
The Conjuring was modern horror done right. James Wan managed to effortlessly thread that line between emotional storytelling and all out terror. What was ostensibly “basic haunted house fare” was elevated by Wan by way of creative scares and effective use of blocking and sound design; the basement “clap clap” jumpscare was one of the most memorable at the time. What made The Conjuring different – and arguably more popular – than your run-of-the-mill haunted house films, was the rooting of the central heart of the story in its protagonists, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Portrayed by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, they have seen wide fanfare as their on-screen chemistry (at times) pushes the films into the realm of romance which, when paired with the high (demonic) stakes, makes for an extremely riveting time at the movies. This was what made the Conjuring films different from other horror films released in the time period – including Wan’s other brainchild, the Insidious franchise.
The Conjuring was a breath of fresh air. It was a true story adapted for the screen and did well financially and critically. Soon after its release, we begin to see the Hollywood machinery take hold over the franchise. The creepy doll featured in the prologue of The Conjuring, Annabelle, became wildly popular, which led to a spinoff. Annabelle was a prequel that was negatively received by critics but made $257 million against a $6 million production budget. This was when Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema cracked the code: they could now make spinoffs that capitalized on the fanbase of its predecessor with smaller budgets and bigger backend payoffs. James Wan said in a 30 minute featurette for Warner Bros. that the spinoffs were a way to “pay homage to the different subgenres within the horror genre” and that the “mothership films” were to stay grounded and “true to the real-life cases.”
The Conjuring 2 was one of Wan’s strongest works, utilising the framework he created in the first Conjuring film and ramping it up to a 20. It was pacey, eerie and full of tension. (It’s also a damn good Christmas film and that is a hill I will proudly die on.) It also grossed $320 million on a $40 million production budget (with generally positive reviews!).
Then, the “Conjuring Universe” exploded into existence. Annabelle, Annabelle: Creation, Annabelle Comes Home, The Nun, The Nun II, The Curse of La Llorona, The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It. It was year after year of spinoffs and IP expansion, while the franchise became the most profitable horror stint in history, grossing over a cumulative 2 billion USD. It was also year after year of the same shit repackaged in a different box. A crucifix has to spin upside down. Some religious object has to catch on fire. You need a jumpscare where someone is run-crawling, and you definitely need someone being dragged on the floor, briefly holding onto a doorframe for dramatic effect. To top it all off, you will have a horned, demon creature-thing to seal the whole deal.
The problem for me isn’t that these films exist, it’s about why they exist. To me, these films are not products of storytellers seeing an opportunity to tell stories about the fallilbility of faith, or the power of fear within an established universe. Nor are they, as James Wan mentioned, paying “homage” to the horror genres. They were made because some studio executive at Warner Bros. went on Twitter a week after the Conjuring released and thought, “huh, what if that creepy doll had her own trilogy?” They are shameless cash grabs. They know audiences will flock to the cinemas for a new Conjuring film, which means that they don’t have to care about quality, they just need to push out a new film every year.
Look, I’m not against studio horror. Not by any means. I think studio horror can be a great way to make horror accessible and mainstream. I’m not expecting Hereditary-level terror in a mainstream horror film. What I do expect, however, is that a certain amount of care and thought is put into it. The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, and Annabelle: Creation are perfect examples of this and proof that this universe is full of potential if done with purpose and heart. These films were scary, relentless, and a very good time at the movies. I remember watching Annabelle: Creation with my cousins and were thrilled at how effective the jumpscares were. Looking at the broader image of studio horror, recent examples like Smile and Smile 2 come to mind. They were gory, scary, and full of well thought out jumpscares. They also made a huge amount of money.
The issue is that studios treat horror like a commodity. The moment a horror film does well financially, every single executive scrambles to figure out how much more they can milk out of the IP. Horror has always been a profitable genre. Films like Paranormal Activity had the highest percentage return on investment ever for a film, grossing $193 million worldwide on a budget of $15,000. Due to this pattern, studios now treat horror like a cash mill, with Blumhouse churning out their yearly dose of slop to make some form of money.
Another comical example is Universal forking out $400 million for the rights to the Exorcist franchise to reboot it, only to have The Exorcist: Believer tank at the box office, killing the planned trilogy. Now, Mike Flanagan is attached to write, direct and produce the next installment – completely separate from David Gordon Green’s mess. While I have my reservations for the general idea of Universal’s $400 million acquisition for The Exorcist, I do have faith in Mike Flanagan. This is because Flanagan has proven, time and time again, that he knows how to do horror. He approaches the genre with heart and care. According to him, he “aggressively” pursued The Exorcist because he had “something to add”. Now that kind of passion is something I can get behind.
Instead, now we have films like The Nun, spinning off the hit antagonist from The Conjuring 2. Valak, the Demon Nun, was so effective because it was novel. No one had done it before. It was religious iconography perverted to the extreme. Horror fans absolutely loved it. It was also the perfect antagonist to symbolise the fallibility of faith. Then, in classic Hollywood fashion, The Nun gave her a backstory and set up a (loose) connection with The Conjuring. That film did insanely well at the box office but to abysmal reviews, grossing $366 million against a $22 million production budget.
I thought the film succeeded in atmosphere but fell short in every other department. In the wake of its success, The Nun II gave her even more backstory with the same characters. At the end of the film, the demon is banished, which convolutes the entire timeline – how does that now fit in with The Conjuring 2? How does this link with The Conjuring? The franchise became so obsessed over IP expansion that it forgets to tell compelling stories. There are no filmmakers with anything to add to the universe. It’s clear why Warner Bros. and New Line kept Michael Chaves on to direct the last three installments in the franchise – he directs like he grew up watching clips of the Conjuring films and unlike James Wan, is unable to harness both scares and heart at the same time. Even then, his scares are mediocre, predictable, and lazy. But then, he rakes in millions of dollars in profits, so why not have him direct.
As much as I praise James Wan for his craft, I think he is also a part of the problem. He has a strange pattern. He kickstarts successful horror franchises, directs the first two movies (which end up being the best), and then abandons them and sits in the “Producer” chair. I noticed this with both The Conjuring and Insidious. Wan creates the foundation, and then abandons his brainchild to be fostered by dysfunctional parents. Then, the franchises descend into cashgrab territory. I still do not have a theory behind this abandonment complex, but I do think it’s peculiar and exclusive to James Wan. (Editor’s Note: And maybe Spielberg with the Jurassic franchise.)
And so, 12 years, 10 features, 8 spinoffs, and one very tired demon nun later, we finally arrive at The Conjuring: Last Nights, the supposed “Final Chapter” of the Conjuring franchise.
Is this film going to be good? I highly doubt it. I’m all for giving filmmakers second (or third) chances in the hopes that they will learn from audience feedback. I do believe that every creative deserves the opportunity to grow and sharpen their skills in their craft. However, Michael Chaves (who is directing Last Rites), has proven to us, time and time again, that he just doesn’t get it. The Curse of La Llorona was widely criticised by critics and audiences for being flat and predictable. Then, he was given the reins to The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, which was boring, uninspired, and just flat out unscary. It is widely agreed to be the worst entry among the Conjuring films. He was also then offered to direct The Nun II which, although brought audiences to the theatre, left most people disappointed with how tame and lazy it was.
My question is this. If James Wan doesn’t want to direct the Conjuring films anymore, why not offer them to someone actually capable of helming such a valuable IP (or horror in general)? David F Sandberg did a fantastic job with Annabelle: Creation. There are so many directors out there who would be perfect for the job. Scott Derrickson, Gary Dauberman, Rob Savage, just to name a few. It is evident that the studios today only care about the profit they turn.
And I get it. I get that profits are the main motivator for studios. At the end of the day, it’s a business. But you’d at least hope that they’d have the heart to care for the audience now and then. Which isn’t to say that profitability and quality are mutually exclusive — you definitely can have both. The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2 are very clear examples of this. It just seems to me that studios know that they can cheap out on production and still have audiences flock to theatres due to the nostalgia factor. Most people are going to go see The Conjuring: Last Rites won’t even realize that Chaves is directing it. There’s a reason why Chaves’ name is barely ever mentioned in the promotional material for the last two Conjuring films, while James Wan’s name is plastered all over the earlier projects. It is the natural association of the Conjuring projects to James Wan that drives general audiences to the theatres.
The Conjuring: Last Rites is a testament to how far the core franchise has strayed away from its roots. From what used to be genuine, terrifying domestic horror, we now have CGI monsters, Bibles catching on fire, and a Decepticon-level barrage of demons. I am still hopeful that Warner Bros. will pull off a miracle with this film, but I remain highly skeptical (for good reason). If this film is going to once again disappoint, then it might as well be the last rites for the franchise.
Follow Us