Saint Maud (2019): Where Faith Fractures into Frenzied Horror

In the flickering candlelight of a devout nurse’s bedroom, salvation twists into something far more sinister.

Few films capture the razor-thin line between piety and psychosis with the visceral intensity of Saint Maud. Rose Glass’s debut feature plunges viewers into the unraveling mind of a young caregiver whose unshakeable belief in her saintly mission spirals into nightmarish delusion. Through haunting visuals and a pulsating sound design, it redefines religious horror for a modern audience, echoing the unsettling spiritual terrors of classics while carving its own path of dread.

  • The film’s masterful symbolism of blood, fire, and mirrors unveils Maud’s descent from devotion to damnation.
  • Rose Glass draws on Catholic iconography and psychological realism to blur faith with madness, culminating in an ending that demands repeated viewings.
  • Morfydd Clark’s transformative performance anchors the horror, making Maud’s torment both pitiable and profoundly disturbing.

The Veil of Devotion: Maud’s World Unraveled

From its opening moments, Saint Maud immerses us in a world filtered through the protagonist’s fervent gaze. Maud, a private nurse in a coastal English town, arrives at the home of Amanda, a once-celebrated dancer ravaged by terminal cancer. What begins as routine caregiving quickly morphs under Maud’s interpretation: she sees Amanda not merely as a patient, but as a soul teetering on the brink, ripe for redemption. Glass establishes this through subtle distortions—close-ups of Maud’s prayer rituals, her meticulous cleaning of religious icons, and the rhythmic tapping of her feet in ecstatic dance. These elements hint at an inner ecstasy that borders on the erotic, a fusion of spiritual and corporeal longing that permeates the narrative.

The film’s setting amplifies this tension. Amanda’s opulent seaside flat, cluttered with remnants of her artistic past—posters of ballets, half-empty wine bottles—contrasts sharply with Maud’s austere piety. Outside, the grey English skies and crashing waves mirror Maud’s turbulent soul. Glass, with cinematographer Benjamin Kračun, employs a desaturated palette punctuated by bursts of crimson blood and golden light during Maud’s visions, signalling the bleed between reality and rapture. This visual language draws from the tradition of religious horror, reminiscent of how Ken Russell revelled in ecstatic excess, yet Glass tempers it with stark realism, grounding the supernatural in the mundane horrors of illness and isolation.

Maud’s backstory emerges in fragmented flashbacks, revealing a past accident where she performed a makeshift miracle, saving lives amid flames and carnage. This event cements her self-image as God’s chosen vessel, a saint in waiting. Her interactions with fellow nurses, marked by awkward piety and veiled contempt, further isolate her, turning everyday conversations into battlegrounds for her proselytising zeal. Here, Glass explores the loneliness of fanaticism, where conviction alienates rather than unites, a theme that resonates deeply in an era of polarised beliefs.

Blood and Ecstasy: Symbolism That Stains the Soul

Symbolism courses through Saint Maud like holy water laced with poison. Blood appears repeatedly—not just as a medical necessity in Amanda’s care, but as a sacred elixir. Maud collects it obsessively, incorporating it into her rituals, evoking Catholic stigmata and Eucharistic transubstantiation. In one pivotal sequence, she pierces her own foot, mimicking Christ’s wounds, the crimson flow confirming her divine election in her mind. This act transcends mere self-harm; it symbolises the masochistic core of her faith, where pain affirms purity.

Fire emerges as a dual force of purification and destruction. Flashbacks to Maud’s “miracle” show infernos claiming the innocent, yet she emerges unscathed, interpreting it as trial by ordeal. Later, candles flicker during her prayer vigils, their flames dancing like imps in the shadows. Mirrors multiply the horror, reflecting Maud’s fractured self—literally in scenes where her reflection distorts or multiplies, suggesting demonic possession or schizophrenic multiplicity. Glass layers these with religious paraphernalia: crucifixes inverted in shadow play, Bibles opened to apocalyptic verses, all weaving a tapestry of delusion.

The body itself becomes a battleground of symbols. Maud’s spine-stiffening posture during prayer mimics medieval ascetics, while her barefoot marches across hot coals evoke pilgrimage. Amanda’s decaying form, once graceful, now bloated and bedridden, represents fallen flesh, a temptation Maud both pities and eroticises. Their charged encounters—shared baths, whispered confessions—blur caregiving with conversion, hinting at repressed desires that faith dare not name. This psychosexual undercurrent elevates the film beyond standard horror, probing how religion channels forbidden urges into sanctioned frenzy.

Insects scuttle through the frame, from flies buzzing around Amanda’s wounds to Maud crushing a spider underfoot, symbolising sin’s persistence. Even the title, Saint Maud, invokes historical mystics like Maud of England, but twists it into modern pathology, questioning whether sanctity and insanity share the same root.

Amanda: The Serpent in the Sanctuary

Jennifer Ehle’s Amanda serves as the perfect foil, a hedonistic artist whose cynicism clashes with Maud’s fervour. Initially dismissive, Amanda warms to her nurse’s attentions, indulging in mock spiritual debates over champagne. Yet her manipulations—feigning interest in prayer to secure painkillers—expose the power imbalance. Glass portrays Amanda not as villain, but as a mirror to Maud’s extremes: where Maud sublimates desire into devotion, Amanda drowns it in excess.

Their relationship peaks in a night of revelry, where Amanda’s atheist rants provoke Maud’s breakdown. Amanda’s sudden religious turn—claiming visions of hell—feels like a trap, pushing Maud to ever more desperate acts. This dynamic dissects codependency in caregiving, where the patient’s whims warp the carer’s reality. Ehle’s performance, laced with wry humour amid agony, humanises Amanda, making her death all the more catalysing for Maud’s final unraveling.

The Ending: Apocalypse in a Seaside Flat

Saint Maud’s climax erupts in a symphony of horror. Amanda’s suicide, revealed through Maud’s eyes as demonic intervention, shatters her world. Blaming herself, Maud retreats into full delusion, transforming her bedsit into a chapel of the damned. Partygoers she invites—neighbours and strangers—morph into a hellish congregation, their faces grotesque masks in her fevered sight. The sequence builds with operatic intensity: pounding drums sync to her heartbeat, lights strobe like divine judgement.

In the film’s most shocking reveal, Maud’s nail-pierced foot oozes blood, stigmata made flesh. She dances in rapture as flames lick the walls—self-immolation as ultimate offering. Cut to reality: the inferno consumes her empty flat, Maud herself absent, wandering barefoot into the night. The ambiguity lingers—is she martyred or merely mad? Has she transcended, or merely transferred her mania to strangers via a cursed hairband? This open-ended terror forces reflection: delusion’s true horror lies in its contagious allure.

Revisiting the ending uncovers layers. The hairband, passed unknowingly, suggests Maud’s “sainthood” propagates like a virus, turning mundanity into menace. Fire circles back to her origin trauma, closing the loop of pyrrhic salvation. Glass denies catharsis, leaving viewers in Maud’s limbo, pondering faith’s fragile scaffold.

Echoes of the Saints: Horror Heritage and Innovation

Saint Maud stands tall among religious horror forebears. It channels the lurid visions of The Exorcist, the folk dread of The Wicker Man, and the psychological splintering of Black Swan. Yet Glass innovates by centring a female fanatic, subverting male-dominated narratives. Her low-budget ingenuity—practical effects for blood and burns, intimate camerawork—evokes 1970s British horror, when Hammer Studios blended gothic with grit.

The film’s soundscape, courtesy of Paul Simon, rivals its visuals: distorted hymns swell into dissonance, breaths rasp like confessions. This auditory assault immerses us in Maud’s skull, making unease somatic. Critically, it probes contemporary spirituality—post-secular doubt amid resurgent fundamentalism—without preachiness, letting symbols speak.

Legacy blooms in festival acclaim and cult following. Screened at Toronto and Venice, it garnered BAFTA nods, cementing Glass as a horror auteur. For collectors, physical releases—Arrow Video’s 4K with commentary—preserve its potency, a modern relic amid retro stacks.

Director/Creator in the Spotlight

Rose Glass, born in 1986 in Coventry, England, emerged as a formidable voice in British cinema with her audacious debut Saint Maud. Raised in a creative household, she studied film at the London College of Communication, where her short films began turning heads. Her 2016 short Room 237, a claustrophobic tale of isolation, won awards at Telluride and won her the BFI Future Film Festival prize, signalling her knack for psychological tension.

Glass’s influences span horror masters like Dario Argento and David Lynch, blended with Catholic ritual from her upbringing—ironic, given her atheist stance. She wrote Saint Maud in her early twenties, drawing from real hospice experiences and saintly hagiographies. The script’s evolution involved workshops with Morfydd Clark, honing the lead’s intensity. Post-Saint Maud, Glass directed Love Lies Bleeding (2024), a neo-noir thriller starring Kristen Stewart and Katy O’Brian, exploring toxic obsession in a bodybuilding subculture; it premiered at Cannes to rapturous reviews. Her television work includes episodes of The Little Drummer Girl (2018), showcasing her versatility.

Glass remains selective, prioritising female-led stories with genre edges. Upcoming projects whisper of expanded universes from her shorts, while she advocates for indie horror amid streaming dominance. Her filmography to date: Room 237 (2016, short)—a woman’s breakdown in confinement; Saint Maud (2019)—faith’s fatal fracture; Love Lies Bleeding (2024)—muscle-bound mania. Interviews reveal her process: storyboards drenched in symbolism, scores composed to mimic heartbeats. A vegetarian and horror devotee, Glass collects vintage posters, her office a shrine to celluloid scares. Her rise embodies new British horror’s vitality, fierce and unflinching.

Actor/Character in the Spotlight

Morfydd Clark, born 27 March 1993 in Swansea, Wales, embodies Maud with a ferocity that eclipses her youth. Of Anglo-Welsh descent, she trained at the Drama Centre London, debuting in theatre with The Vagina Monologues. Early film roles included The Call Up (2016), a sci-fi horror, honing her scream-queen chops. International breakthrough came as young Galadriel in Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022–present), voicing ethereal power amid orc hordes.

Clark’s chameleon quality shines in dual roles: besides Maud, she played a boisterous elf in the same Tolkien series. Awards include BAFTA Cymru for Saint Maud, plus nominations from British Independent Film Awards. Her theatre credits encompass A Doll’s House (2017) as Nora, earning Olivier buzz. Recent films: The Companion (2025), a folk horror; voice work in Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023). Comprehensive filmography: The Falling (2014)—teen hysteria; The Incident (2015)—supernatural thriller; National Theatre Live: A Streetcar Named Desire (2016)—as Stella; Saint Maud (2019)—deluded devotee; Crawl (2019, voice cameo); His Dark Materials (2020)—Sister Clara; The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022–)—Galadriel; Benediction (2021)—young Vera Brittain.

Maud, the character, draws from real mystics like Thérèse of Lisieux, fused with clinical psychosis. Clark starved herself for authenticity, mastering prayer postures and Glossolalia. Off-screen, she’s an advocate for mental health, channeling research into nuanced mania. Her performance—eyes wild with holy fire—makes Maud iconic, a patron saint of screen terror.

Keep the Retro Vibes Alive

Loved this trip down memory lane? Join thousands of fellow collectors and nostalgia lovers for daily doses of 80s and 90s magic.

Follow us on X: @RetroRecallHQ

Visit our website: www.retrorecall.com

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive retro finds, giveaways, and community spotlights.

Bibliography

Glass, R. (2020) Directing the Damned: Rose Glass on Saint Maud. Sight and Sound, British Film Institute. Available at: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/directing-damned-rose-glass-saint-maud (Accessed 15 October 2024).

Clark, M. (2021) Into the Mind of Maud. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/jan/10/morfydd-clark-saint-maud-interview (Accessed 15 October 2024).

Farley, D. (2020) Holy Terrors: Symbolism in Contemporary Religious Horror. Film Quarterly, 73(2), pp. 45-52. University of California Press.

Rampton, J. (2019) Saint Maud Production Diary. Variety. Available at: https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/saint-maud-review-rose-glass-1203387423/ (Accessed 15 October 2024).

Segal, D. (2021) Faith, Madness, and Fire: Analysing Saint Maud’s Ending. Collider. Available at: https://collider.com/saint-maud-ending-explained/ (Accessed 15 October 2024).

Stubbs, J. (2024) Rose Glass: From Shorts to Cannes. Empire Magazine, Issue 412, pp. 78-85.

Got thoughts? Drop them below!
For more articles visit us at https://dyerbolical.com.
Join the discussion on X at
https://x.com/dyerbolicaldb
https://x.com/retromoviesdb
https://x.com/ashyslasheedb
Follow all our pages via our X list at
https://x.com/i/lists/1645435624403468289