Ticket to Heaven

This is a descent cult movie but it could have been better , the end scene with the so called de programming is rushed and also the cult itself stays a bit shallow The transition from summer camp to cult is in my opinion to sudden .

I also compared this title to Split image with James Woods and that movie was better in the details and the psychological backstory .

Tho on the surface it seems a bit dated, A TICKET TO HEAVEN is an offbeat, thoughtfully produced, and deeply absorbing tale about the religious cults of the 1970s. It shows in detail just HOW they work, and explains to us in step by step fashion just how rational, intelligent people, often with absolutely no interest whatever in religion, could wind up being recruited and converted to the unthinking followers of philosophies which, to outsiders, seem absolutely ridiculous.

The film is unique in that it also shows us one possible path back OUT of that jungle of conflicting ideas, tho the path chosen here is the most controversial of the possible choices. Unspoken, but always hovering over the action, are the issues of civil liberties and religious freedom. There's a LOT of heavy stuff going on here.

This film is a deep sleeper... a Canadian made gem that deserved much more attention than it got from US audiences.

Nick Mancuso plays David Capelle, a Toronto schoolteacher whose life is currently at loose ends after a painful breakup with his long time lover. He needs SOMETHING... ANYTHING... that will give back to his life the direction and stability that was lost.

On a vacation to California an old friend introduces him to a New Age religious group. From then on (and in an amazingly short time, just one weekend) David literally vanishes from his old life and the rest of the world, his every thought and action now dictated by the needs of his newfound "family". He has willingly given up his entire personality to the group-think of the movement.

David's sole link to his old life and the outside world is his friend Larry (Saul Rubenek), a Toronto accountant who aspires to stand up comedy. Larry's suspicions about occasional cryptic phone calls from David lead him to go to California to find out for himself just exactly what the hell is going on with David. After the group makes an attempt to recruit him too, Larry returns home to Toronto and sounds the alarm with David's friends and family.

After seeing the situation for themselves, David's family resorts to the most drastic action possible... kidnapping him from the group and using psychological deprogramming. This is probably the ONLY film or TV production that deals with this emotionally charged and legally sensitive topic truthfully, and in detail. It's electrifying!

There are standout performances here from the entire cast. Meg Foster as "Sister Ingrid", the leader of the local group, is intense and FRIGHTENING. She's a cold, calculating package of almost maniacal devotion to the movement. She gives an outstanding performance which, for me at least, was TOO good; in my mind she'll ALWAYS be "Sister Ingrid", no matter what role I see her in. Meg Foster is now typecast for me.

For sheer intensity tho, the grand prize goes to the Canadian actor R. H. Thompson. His portrayal as Linc Strunk, the deprogrammer that David's friends engage, is POWERFUL. Strunk is the mirror image of Sister Ingrid; he's just as cold, calculating, intelligent and determined as she is, but his mission is to convince David that the group's concepts are patently absurd, and at their base they're essentially an evil con game. Strunk's "In Your Face" confrontations with David are tense intellectual, theological, and philosophical battles of will that are absolutely riveting. Mancuso and Thompson give each other as good as they get from beginning to end.

The finished product here is at the same time chilling, disturbing and inspiring... and it provides an unsettling cautionary message for us all.

This 1981 film is supported by a great cast and film score. The careers of Rubinek, Cattrall and Mancuso were boosted by this excellent film. An anti-cult film, "Ticket To Heaven" (1981) shares a similar subject with "Split Image," released the following year. TTH, for me, is a much more entertaining and realistic film. Filled with dramatic moments and fine performances, it deals with the true story of a depressed young man drifting into the cult of Sun-Yung Moon. "Split Image" (1982) portrays the identity crisis of a young man seeking answers beyond the illusions of his own shallow life and those of his family and friends. His search leads him to a new-age cult, where he finds the leader and his goals to be more sinister and empty than the life he ran away from. Carried by the cast and a fine music score by Bill Conti, "Split Image" doesn't provide the realistic, powerful performances from the lead characters that make TTH the choice between the two. Both films communicate worthy messages and deserve a look. While many of life's questions can be answered by the Bible, proper spiritual guidance and direction is essential, particularly for those who are not mature enough to seek God on their own. At the time these films were released, cults were very active and predatory. Today's youth are more likely to drift into new-age or satanic cults than Christian ones or, perhaps more likely, choose a life that is without spiritual goals or substance. Both these films can help by providing some answers or by stimulating thought on subjects that might otherwise be avoided.

TICKET TO HEAVEN is dramatically effective, sociologically interesting, and thoroughly engaging. It has one of my favorite endings,which leaves the viewer with an intense sense of catharsis and relief. Great performances, especially by R.H. Thomson as the "deprogrammer"- what a classic character! This is an unsung sleeper which lends much insight into the world of cults and their effect on families-- track it down on video if you can!

This film should be required viewing for anyone who believes in Free Will, or that Individual Liberties are all that matters.

The most profound lesson for me is the clear message that NO-ONE, no matter how cynical and initially unsympathetic, would be able to resist the methods this group employs to suck in new inductees - provided only that they are unaware in advance of what is going on. The process is brilliant, diabolical and irresistible. The sleep deprivation, constant presence of others, constant barrage of reinforcing messages, powerful peer pressure and not a moment available to think - I don't believe anyone could resist. They simply wouldn't have the time to realise that they *want* to resist.

Of all these influences I find the character of Ruthie perhaps the most frightening and effective: cute as a button, shining with enthusiasm and energy, playful, flirtatious, controlling, prettily wheedling - and totally dedicated to bringing in new freshly-emptied heads for 'Father'. I fear for my gender, because for a certain age group of men, a smiling, cajoling Ruthie can get almost anything. Various fundamentalist groups have employed such 'flirty fishing' techniques with terrible effect.

This film blends its didactic message into a tense storyline with huge skill. It's helped, perhaps, by the fact that we want to see and understand the raw documentary details as much as we want the story to play out. I still think it's well done: we see the induction process operating successfully on a typical unarmed and unresisting victim in the form of David; and on a more resistant but still unarmed Larry. Only Larry's well-prepared rescuer (Eric?) is equipped to break free of the web.

The film benefited enormously from having a set of fine actors who have gone on to great things in the industry. I'll leave it to others better versed to explore the individual performances, but to me all the parts are handled skilfully and thoughtfully by competent actors. I was particularly affected by the frequent use of what I like to call 'face acting': flashes of CU and ECU in which an actor can reveal internal thoughts and struggles without clunky words. A tiny grin on the face of Linc Strunc when he sees a point hit home in David; the final darted glance by the rescued David at the Heavenly Children standing at their car - not fear, not triumph, but not conviction either. And Meg Foster, of course, whose mutant eyes make actual acting unnecessary.

Interestingly odd note: the scene in which an exhausted David falls asleep at the wheel of the van taking his companions home, and swerves off the highway into a ditch. In his mixed terror and relief at surviving the accident, the other members gather round, laughing and hugging him, without a hint of blame for having nearly killed them all. This was genuine and touching, but the open and loving camaraderie is also one of the chains that bind David to the group. Clever, I thought.

Perhaps the most significant question of the film - unstated and perhaps unintentional - is this: the Heavenly Children are a cult, and defined as such, so we may ignore their teachings and beliefs as mere fantasies with no basis. But what distinguishes a cult from other faith-based belief systems whose primary symbols are a deity, a messiah, and a Satan? Their wider acceptance? Whatever one's opinion about religion in all its forms, it certainly creates the mind-set and iconography in which cults have flourished throughout the centuries - sometimes going on to become the standard in their part of the world.

CD