FILM-MAKERS have been refused permission to shoot a horror scene in a 14th-century church in Northumberland, intended for inclusion within the forthcoming star-studded sequel 28 Years Later, directed by the Academy Award-winning British director Danny Boyle.
The Consistory Court of the diocese of Newcastle refused to grant a college for a Grade I listed church, St Mary the Virgin, Morpeth, for use for filming on the grounds that the proposed scene was “intrinsically objectionable” and that it could be “inappropriate” for it to be shot in a sacred space.
The recent film, which is resulting from be released next yr, completes the “28 Days” trilogy and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, Jack O’Connell, and Ralph Fiennes. All three movies are directed by Mr Boyle.
The petitioners for the school were the Rector of Morpeth, the Revd Simon White; a churchwarden and ex officio member of the PCC, Dr Andrew Mowat; and the supervising location manager of DNA Films, Camilla Stephenson. Ms Stephenson said that she hoped that “just a little movie magic” may very well be created within the church through a story that may result in light, but which might have “to start . . . with darkness”.
But, while the Rector and PCC were in favour of filming, this was against the recommendation of the Archdeacon and the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), of which Mr White was a member.
The film is described within the judgment as portraying “a post-apocalyptic world wherein persons are largely infected by a ‘rage’ virus which leads them to violence”, and the entire series falls into the category of “the horror genre”, being “violent and really gory”.
Permission was sought to make temporary non-structural disruption to the constructing which might afterwards be fully restored.
The prospective scene, the judgment says, shows a ten-year-old boy, Jimmy, running into the church to hunt refuge from individuals who have been infected with the virus. Inside, Jimmy closes the door and sees his father, the Vicar, who’s at peace within the knowledge that judgement day has come; he takes off a golden cross from around his neck and hands it to his son. The infected then burst through a window and overwhelm the vicar, while Jimmy escapes with the cross.
The Archdeacon of Lindisfarne, the Ven. Catherine Sourbut Groves, formed the view that the subject material of the film rendered filming in a consecrated space inappropriate, no matter whether the proposed scene is likely to be considered intrinsically unobjectionable, writing: “I sincerely don’t think God would want his buildings to be so used for such ghastly events.” She notified the parishes in her archdeaconry of her concerns and counselled against their agreeing to the proposal.
The film-makers had also approached other parishes to hunt permission to film the scene, but had been refused. The Church Commissioners had also turned down an approach to film at a redundant church in Northumberland.
The petitioners at St Mary’s indicated that they wished to think about the chance presented, and resisted the Archdeacon’s advice.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful Judge Simon Wood, drew attention to Canons of the Church of England F15 and F16.
Canon F15 states that the church or chapel shall not be “profaned by any meeting therein for temporal objects inconsistent with the sanctity of the place”.
Canon F16 states that, where any church or chapel is for use for a play, concert or the showing of a movie, the minister shall take care that the “words, music, and pictures are resembling befit the House of God and are consistent with sound doctrine and make for the edifying of the people.”
Considering the scene to be filmed, the Chancellor said that “the theological and other objections” suggested that “on the face of the script itself, it will probably properly be characterised as intrinsically objectionable”. It contained, the Chancellor said, “notions and imagery which offend against the Canons of the Church of England and which those best placed to advise have characterised as theologically problematic, allowing the church to be profaned, inconsonant with sound doctrine, not edifying to the people and never befitting the House of God.”
The Chancellor said that, within the scene, the boy entered the church in search of sanctuary and a spot of refuge and protection; yet what was described thereafter was the antithesis of that idea.
Had the scene been intrinsically unobjectionable, the court would have been obliged to take a look at the film as a complete and consider the broader context, the Chancellor said. But it was not needed to try this, since the court was satisfied that the scene was objectionable by itself. The scene involved zombies post apocalypse, which itself was a discouraging secular use of a sanctified space, he said.
“Whilst reasonable people may hold differing views as to the consonance or otherwise of filming this scene on this church,” the Chancellor said, there was a “powerful and well supported opinion that the scene was intrinsically objectionable in its own right and that whatever the wider context” it could be inappropriate to allow the filming to happen.
The Chancellor also expressed concern that the PCC had made its decision based on a script seen only by one person. The script was obtained by signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and it was not known by what authority and in what capability that NDA was signed, and to what liability it was subject. The PCC based its decision, as recorded in its minutes, on the one who had read the script, who had described it as having “moderate profanity” and “little or no if any profanity.” The decision of the PCC was “questionable at best”, the Chancellor concluded.
The petition due to this fact failed, and a college was refused. The judgment is dated 5 July, but it surely was sent to the film-makers early within the morning of 24 June. Because the petition had been pursued within the face of opposition by the Archdeacon and the DAC, the Chancellor said that the petitioners must pay a contribution to the prices of the petition.
The petition had been a controversial one which had generated an excellent volume of labor for the Archdeacons, the Registry and the Registrar, the DAC, which had convened an urgent meeting, and for the court itself, he said. He reported that the Registrar had handled 228 emails before debate in regards to the costs issue; his own inbox contained 66 emails on the matter. All had been called upon to play a component in helping to resolve a dispute arising from the petitioners’ disagreement with the Archdeacon’s very clear counselling.
The court had no want to punish, he said, but it surely had a responsibility to discourage unnecessary and inappropriate litigation. The three petitioners were liable to pay costs of £997.80. Whether it was shared amongst them or met by one alone was a matter for them.
