What do you think?
Rate this book
American Hauntings: The True Stories behind Hollywood's Scariest Movies―from The Exorcist to The Conjuring
We investigate seven of America's greatest hauntings; cases so compelling that they have been hailed as genuine by parapsychologists, and turned into major media productions in Hollywood. Just how accurate and reliable are media portrayals of these 'true life' hauntings, and how strong is the evidence supporting the original claims? We scrutinize the evidence behind such films as The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, An American Haunting, The Conjuring, and The Haunting in Connecticut . Also examined is the reliability of popular TV shows such as Unsolved Mysteries and Paranormal Witness .
- GenresNonfictionFilm
192 pages, Hardcover
First published June 19, 2015
7 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 15, 2022
Skeptics are absolutely necessary. Although I’m interested in ghosts, that doesn’t mean I’m not skeptical myself. A good scientific method has not been developed for dealing with the subject and so many people seem to simply not believe and nothing will convince them, while others will be easily swayed by dewy eyes and good acting. Having read work by at least one of these authors before, I knew this book would essentially debunk the ideas behind these movies and in this I wasn’t disappointed.
It seems to me they overstep several aspects of their case. Firstly, they step beyond the movies covered (listed here: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) to critiquing the entire subject. There are several places where a paragraph loses focus and sidesteps the subject line. One chapter doesn’t deal with a movie at all, which seems to indicate there was no intention of really giving the subject a fair hearing. They’re building a case against poltergeists.
As the last remark indicates, the book reduces all putative entities in the films to poltergeists. It also seems more than a little naive to complain that Hollywood movies embellish stories. Books, at least some of us feel, are better for conveying facts. If a film is boring or has no visual appeal, why make it? Books like this one are necessary. Skepticism is very important. It’s also important, however, not to become reductionistic in logic simply to win your argument. The world is a weird place and not everything, it seems to me, has yet been explained.
It seems to me they overstep several aspects of their case. Firstly, they step beyond the movies covered (listed here: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) to critiquing the entire subject. There are several places where a paragraph loses focus and sidesteps the subject line. One chapter doesn’t deal with a movie at all, which seems to indicate there was no intention of really giving the subject a fair hearing. They’re building a case against poltergeists.
As the last remark indicates, the book reduces all putative entities in the films to poltergeists. It also seems more than a little naive to complain that Hollywood movies embellish stories. Books, at least some of us feel, are better for conveying facts. If a film is boring or has no visual appeal, why make it? Books like this one are necessary. Skepticism is very important. It’s also important, however, not to become reductionistic in logic simply to win your argument. The world is a weird place and not everything, it seems to me, has yet been explained.
June 4, 2024
I just finished reading American Hauntings. I was all over the idea of a book that researched the movies of hauntings "Based on a True Story". I hate when Hollywood takes major liberties to sell any movie based on history or books, and am quick to jump on their deviations from what I've read.
I loved the extensive notes. But as I read, I began to realize that the authors were not taking an unbiased look at the research. They were eager to report any evidence of fraud and sloppy reporting (which often is there). I believe the Amityville Horror to have been fiction, and the American Haunting (was taking the legend of the Bell Witch and spun off to tell a significantly different one). I tend to agree that "following the money" can lead to finding who is likely to prefer profit to accuracy. But the authors consistently referred to all statements that supported the possibility of real hauntings as "allegations", "he claimed...", "she insisted..." They generated as many invented "possible alternative explanations" no less extravagant than the paranormal. When examining original accounts, they insist that with weird things going on it would be normal to get a picture (rather than go to the aid of the person who'd been hurt). When pictures were taken they were "too blurry" or "easy to misinterpret", when film didn't print for no reason, that was seen as fraud. They use the usual metric "if it can be faked by a stage magician, it must have been faked by someone." Since poltergeist phenomena tend to happen around disturbed young people, clearly those stressed children are seeking attention. Adults are seeking attention and money. Those with strong religious bias will tend to follow their belief system. I agree with their dismissal of Ed and Lorraine Warren; they, like the Winchester brothers on the show Supernatural, interpret everything they encounter as demonic. They don't accept that different psychics will read the same energy differently.
They question motivations constantly. If the people were scared, why did they stay in the house? (I say this applies as much to victims of hauntings as to victims of domestic abuse, sometimes they can't figure out an option.) I'll give them that they do cover the reports of parapsychologists. But when four scientists said they couldn't find evidence of fraud, and one said he did, they preferred the "skeptic". A skeptic, like a scientist, should be one who questions, but has not picked his results before examining the facts.
In their conclusion Bartholomew and Nickell say "We must approach the subject of poltergeist and hauntings with caution, and stick to the facts as we know them, not as we wish them to be." But throughout the book they reject any report that accepts the possibility of reality of spirits or psychic phenomena. They say that reports of and belief in ghosts all over the world and throughout history is due to people looking for reassurance that death isn't the end, not because they are experiencing things that really happen.
One thing I did respect was the way they covered how the movies tend to create a circus atmosphere that attracted lookie-loos to the houses mentioned in the films, even in the days before Google and Mapquest. I was appalled to read that from Amityville, NY, to Southington, CT, to Harrisville, RI, fans of the movies and the occult in general ignored the privacy of the people who lived in the houses, even those who'd moved in after the incidents happened, and who had no experiences. (One quote had the Warrens tell the writer "make up whatever you want". In my opinion, they were clearly trying to make money out of the movies, and didn't care about accuracy.) The "tourists" invading private homes mentioned in movies and books were only concerned with their own fantasies, and didn't care about what really happened to the people involved. They simply wanted to continue the fantasy Hollywood had fed them. That's fine if you go visit The Bell Witch Cave, it's open to the public.
"It is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fiction as they do to realities, and in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond."
They point out that shaman will use legerdemain to reinforce the spiritual healing they perform because reinforcing the person's belief makes it work better. Well, so do doctors use placebos to help their patients. This doesn't mean that the energy healing isn't also part of the process.
I've been seeing similar biased arguments since the 60s. Owen Rachleff's Occult Conceit 1971, argued that since JB Rhine had only found two people who could predict 25 of 25 cards in a Zener deck in decades of research, then that wasn't statistically significant, so it didn't count as evidence of clairvoyance. He didn't understand statistics. Science guys! Start with the theory, come up with a way to test it, test, interpret the results, THEN come to your conclusion. You can't learn anything by deciding on the conclusion first, then gathering evidence to support it.
I did like reading the thoroughly researched background information, but I'd have had a great deal more respect if they'd have concluded as the Society for Psychical Research so often does that the evidence is inconclusive. And I'm glad I found it at the library, I wouldn't spend $40 on it.
I loved the extensive notes. But as I read, I began to realize that the authors were not taking an unbiased look at the research. They were eager to report any evidence of fraud and sloppy reporting (which often is there). I believe the Amityville Horror to have been fiction, and the American Haunting (was taking the legend of the Bell Witch and spun off to tell a significantly different one). I tend to agree that "following the money" can lead to finding who is likely to prefer profit to accuracy. But the authors consistently referred to all statements that supported the possibility of real hauntings as "allegations", "he claimed...", "she insisted..." They generated as many invented "possible alternative explanations" no less extravagant than the paranormal. When examining original accounts, they insist that with weird things going on it would be normal to get a picture (rather than go to the aid of the person who'd been hurt). When pictures were taken they were "too blurry" or "easy to misinterpret", when film didn't print for no reason, that was seen as fraud. They use the usual metric "if it can be faked by a stage magician, it must have been faked by someone." Since poltergeist phenomena tend to happen around disturbed young people, clearly those stressed children are seeking attention. Adults are seeking attention and money. Those with strong religious bias will tend to follow their belief system. I agree with their dismissal of Ed and Lorraine Warren; they, like the Winchester brothers on the show Supernatural, interpret everything they encounter as demonic. They don't accept that different psychics will read the same energy differently.
They question motivations constantly. If the people were scared, why did they stay in the house? (I say this applies as much to victims of hauntings as to victims of domestic abuse, sometimes they can't figure out an option.) I'll give them that they do cover the reports of parapsychologists. But when four scientists said they couldn't find evidence of fraud, and one said he did, they preferred the "skeptic". A skeptic, like a scientist, should be one who questions, but has not picked his results before examining the facts.
In their conclusion Bartholomew and Nickell say "We must approach the subject of poltergeist and hauntings with caution, and stick to the facts as we know them, not as we wish them to be." But throughout the book they reject any report that accepts the possibility of reality of spirits or psychic phenomena. They say that reports of and belief in ghosts all over the world and throughout history is due to people looking for reassurance that death isn't the end, not because they are experiencing things that really happen.
One thing I did respect was the way they covered how the movies tend to create a circus atmosphere that attracted lookie-loos to the houses mentioned in the films, even in the days before Google and Mapquest. I was appalled to read that from Amityville, NY, to Southington, CT, to Harrisville, RI, fans of the movies and the occult in general ignored the privacy of the people who lived in the houses, even those who'd moved in after the incidents happened, and who had no experiences. (One quote had the Warrens tell the writer "make up whatever you want". In my opinion, they were clearly trying to make money out of the movies, and didn't care about accuracy.) The "tourists" invading private homes mentioned in movies and books were only concerned with their own fantasies, and didn't care about what really happened to the people involved. They simply wanted to continue the fantasy Hollywood had fed them. That's fine if you go visit The Bell Witch Cave, it's open to the public.
"It is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fiction as they do to realities, and in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond."
They point out that shaman will use legerdemain to reinforce the spiritual healing they perform because reinforcing the person's belief makes it work better. Well, so do doctors use placebos to help their patients. This doesn't mean that the energy healing isn't also part of the process.
I've been seeing similar biased arguments since the 60s. Owen Rachleff's Occult Conceit 1971, argued that since JB Rhine had only found two people who could predict 25 of 25 cards in a Zener deck in decades of research, then that wasn't statistically significant, so it didn't count as evidence of clairvoyance. He didn't understand statistics. Science guys! Start with the theory, come up with a way to test it, test, interpret the results, THEN come to your conclusion. You can't learn anything by deciding on the conclusion first, then gathering evidence to support it.
I did like reading the thoroughly researched background information, but I'd have had a great deal more respect if they'd have concluded as the Society for Psychical Research so often does that the evidence is inconclusive. And I'm glad I found it at the library, I wouldn't spend $40 on it.
December 5, 2024
Poor. I knew for instance that the Amityville Horror was mostly bunkum, but I was interested in what could have started these "haunting" cases and how they became films and/or what the movies based their plots on, I was disappointed. This is just "A, B, C were all just bunk and hoaxes. Blah blah, attention getting, outright fakery and boring.
I felt the only really interesting section was the very end were the author talked about reasons and motives for faking hauntings and poltergeists. If that one section was more built into each case and more motives and reasons behind the hauntings could have been explored it would have had some interest.
Dull. Skip this. It's all money cons and attention grabs behind the stories.
I felt the only really interesting section was the very end were the author talked about reasons and motives for faking hauntings and poltergeists. If that one section was more built into each case and more motives and reasons behind the hauntings could have been explored it would have had some interest.
Dull. Skip this. It's all money cons and attention grabs behind the stories.
August 30, 2018
Lots of bits and pieces about the real events that several movies in the past 50 years are based upon. Lots of 'what if' and 'did that really happen' type of commentary. Some entries have a lot of coverage and offer similar event to support the official research of the phenomenon presented as the sources for the films. Not quite what was listed in the right ups in the library catalog but not bad.
July 9, 2022
A much drier read than what I expected, yet still enjoyable. The first story is the least interesting, and sets a bad tone for the rest of the sections. I was most into the sections on The Amityville Horror and the Exorcist. Spoiler alert- 80% of the time it’s a hoax perpetrated by a maladjusted kid or teen.
September 23, 2018
Adequate debunking of so-called true stories, but poorly written.
October 28, 2018
A thorough and skeptical look the supposedly true stories behind Hollywood horror movies. I'm always up for further confirmation that the Warrens are awful.
February 7, 2016
An author's tone can make or break the reading of a book and is the central reason why I struggled to finish this one. The author's disdain for the paranormal inspirations behind some of Hollywood's horror hits is very clear from page 1. As someone who enjoys reading the tales about such things I was hoping to hear an open evaluation of the occurrences that inspired films such as The Exorcist and The Conjuring. Instead of an even handed account of natural phenomenon that caused these "paranormal" events I got short and opinionated views of what really happened. I do not dispute that there are explanations behind the occurrences - sources that are not otherworldly but rather come from sources not evaluated during the time they occurred because the state of mind of those involved. However - there was a lack of full storytelling that lost me. I know some of these cases (being an avid reader of paranormal accounts in history) and noted some of the details and sources missing which would have given a fuller story that could have been used to draw the reader in by filling out the story more. I'm sad that this book wasn't all it could have been.
January 24, 2016
Although I cannot be considered a skeptic, I really enjoyed American Hauntings. Beautifully written and lucidly argued, with a dry sense of humor, and all the citations my heart could desire, its primary value to me was as a study of how stories are told, retold and shaped over time to match the expectations of different audiences. This is a phenomenon that only the foolish would try to deny. Tales of haunting and possession serve various purposes, as Bartholomew and Nickell's analysis of Popper the Poltergeist and the events at Amityville makes clear, and I delighted in their literary delvings into the case of the Bell Witch. One should regularly dust the cobwebs off one's assumptions and scholarship of this calibre deserves respect.
April 11, 2018
Great book!
I think it can be summed up in this quote:
"The story of poltergeists is the story of us - of the human condition that faces the possibility of death on a daily basis. The desire to believe in an afterlife is the driving force behind the poltergeist myth. It is the same desire that blinds those who look at the evidence and see what they want to see."
I think it can be summed up in this quote:
"The story of poltergeists is the story of us - of the human condition that faces the possibility of death on a daily basis. The desire to believe in an afterlife is the driving force behind the poltergeist myth. It is the same desire that blinds those who look at the evidence and see what they want to see."
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews