When a Courtroom Haunting Turned into a Cultural Obsession
The story that accompanied the latest Netflix Documentary, The Devil on Trial, feels captivating on the surface and reflecting on the story feels like a work of fiction dipped in all the necessary complexities of a real-world situation walking among us. The film is based on the 1981 case of Arne Johnson, the first man in U.S. history to state a legal demonic possession case. This film, and all its retellings, does not simply narrate the story, but additionally and more importantly relives the story and its pop culture inspirations which have fear, and the question of the supernatural which does, at times, need to be asked in real life. The fear and doubt that come with the story line are, unfortunately, the same sentiments that the documentary sparked among its viewers in real life. Unlike simple retellings, the documentary gets fans involved and encourages the retelling of the story, sparking the creation of multiple fan theories and speculative conversations that lasted well beyond the credits.
Emotional and production complexities lie in the depths of the case, turning the sheer story into the film’s deeply haunting and impactful production.
The Case That Split Reality in Two
The documentary reenacts the bizarre and terrifying ordeal of the Glatzel family. Young David Glatzel, barely 11, becomes the center of chilling phenomena—whispers in the dark, violent episodes, and visions no child should carry. When the Warrens step in, the haunting deepens, culminating in Arne Johnson allegedly inviting the demon to “take him instead.” Months later, Johnson kills his landlord, and the defense argues it wasn’t Arne who wielded the knife—it was something far more sinister.
The film presents the story through a blend of archival footage, interviews, and dramatization, but what made audiences obsess was how the documentary refuses to spoon-feed a verdict. It sits in the grey zone, intentionally ambiguous, pushing viewers to ask: What if demonic possession really did walk into a courtroom?
The Fan Theories That Exploded Online
Even before release, Reddit threads and horror forums crackled with theories. Many expected the documentary to take a firm supernatural stance, especially with the Warrens’ involvement. Instead, its quiet neutrality led viewers to craft their own “unofficial truths.”
Theory 1: David Was Never Possessed—He Was Misdiagnosed
A large section of fans argued that the film subtly hints at psychological explanations. They pointed to David’s episodes, which some believed matched symptoms of trauma or neurological disorders. After release, director Chris Holt commented in an interview that he “wanted David’s story to be shown with empathy without assigning labels,” which only fueled debates. Viewers interpreted this comment as a clue that the team saw the haunting as metaphorical rather than literal.
Theory 2: The Demon Did Transfer to Arne
Another faction insisted the documentary coded its sequences to imply that Arne did invite something in. The slow-motion shots of Arne during the dramatized exorcism, the flickering lights, and the eerie silence before the transfer moment became fan-favorite frames for analysis. Some fans freeze-framed the exact second Arne screams, claiming a shadow figure flickers behind him, though the production team denied any hidden CGI.
Theory 3: Lorraine Warren Knew More Than She Revealed
A more conspiratorial theory suggests Lorraine Warren had details she never shared publicly. Fans point to her quiet pauses during archival interviews and her elusive wording. In a behind-the-scenes conversation shared on a podcast, Holt said Lorraine’s old interviews were “longer and stranger than the world ever saw”—a statement that sparked endless curiosity.
The Alternate Endings Fans Believed Existed
The way the documentary intersperses reenactments with actual historical footage, led many to ponder what alternate endings the filmmakers could have incorporated or what other narrative trajectories to which the filmmakers could have pivoted.
A relatively popular alternate ending theory presumes the film possessed a cinematic “reveal” in which a bona fide expert entered the film and debunked the entire possession narrative with competing scientific reasoning. Others speculate that the documentary used to conclude with a Glatzel family member’s confession of the exaggeration/poor understanding of the events surrounding the possession narrative.
Addressing this theory lightly, Chris Holt claimed the only alternate cut was “a version with more courtroom detail,” whereas many fans their belief that the studio cut the film to have a more enigmatic or even unsolved mystery feel to it.
How the Cast and Crew Reacted to the Theories
Since The Devil on Trial hinges on the real lives of people, rather than actors performing scripted roles, this leaves much of the cast and the audience to contain the reaction to the interviewees, investigators, and surviving family members.
The actors in the dramatizations also commented. A panel at a small horror festival featured the actor portraying Arne Johnson, who said that he “felt the weight of someone playing the role of a character stuck in the dilemma of belief or disbelief” and added that, in contrast to the claims of some fans that Arne was nothing more than a supernatural victim or an unaccountable man, he was a victim of a supernatural possession. Johnson added that he was surprised in a pleasant way that the fans “dove into the psyche” of the character rather than just limiting their fascination to the horror.
Cinematographer Martim Vian commented that David’s bedroom set was redesigned three times. The first two iterations, according to Holt, “didn’t feel haunted enough,” and the last design, based on the witness sketches of the layout of the Glatzel home, was taken into practical consideration. Holt, who the fans assumed was symbolically dramatic with his lighting, explained that they had “only one working lamp on set that flickered naturally, so we kept it.”
The Production Challenges That Affected the Documentary’s Tone
The documentary makes for an impressive piece of work, with the crew having to work through the obstacles to finish the final product.
- Emotional Stress from Interviews Some interviewees broke down while describing David’s suffering. To gain more control, producers stated they had to pause, reset, or change the subject to a less sensitive question.
- No Archival Footage Some of the early exorcism tapes had to be reconstructed, as the originals were unusable. There was no intention for the audio reenactments to have an eerie echo. It was a result of painstaking efforts to duplicate the acoustics of the basement recording studio owned by the Warrens.
- Lack of Content The real Arne Johnson case is still controversial, so the team had to be careful regarding the case’s court content. Fans of the film, in some cases, did not understand the legal requirements and were concerned the film had “withheld secrets.” Holt stated that legal requirements drove what could not be shown.
- Last-Minute Changes to Narration The documentary was supposed to conclude with a more ultimate narratorial statement on belief and skepticism. Members of the preview audience, however, felt that the statement was too conclusive. In response, the statement was modified to be more vague in order to preserve tension.
Why Audiences Still Can’t Let the Story Go
David Glatzel’s haunting is a story that seems to never get closure. To some, it’s a case of true possession. To others, a product of illogical yet resourceful psychology, or a family completely immersed in fear and faith. This ambiguity of the case is what the film is built upon. And to no surprise, the theories, rewatches and speculation surrounding this film have flourished into a life of their own, almost akin to the haunting.misunderstood psychology, or a family overwhelmed by fear and faith, the film thrives on the thin line between truth and myth. And the theories, rewatches, and speculations have become part of its identity—almost an extension of the haunting itself.
Watch Free Movies on YesMovies-us.online