Stream It Or Skip It: ‘The Devil on Trial’ on Netflix, A Documentary Account of the Infamous ‘Devil Made Me Do it’ Murder

The documentary The Devil on Trial (now streaming on Netflix) tests the “true” part of “true crime” by presenting different perspectives on a sensational murder case. In 1981, Arne Johnson stabbed Alan Bono to death, and tried to claim in court that he was possessed by a demon during the murder. The story was known as the “Devil Made Me Do It” case, a high-profile endeavor since it involved famous “demonologists” Ed and Lorraine Warren, whose work as ghost hunters and psychics are the basis of The Conjuring movie series; in fact, 2021’s The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It is based on this very story, which, per the documentary, might have a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened. 

THE DEVIL ON TRIAL: STREAM IT OR SKIP IT?

The Gist: The first image we see is a cassette labeled “possessed child speaking vulgarities, 8/14/80.” Then, a couple of opening title cards lay everything out on the table: We’re about to see some reenactments “based on documented events,” and “all photos and recordings are real.” We meet David Glatzer, who sets the hook by saying, “When I was 11, I was possessed by the devil.” This is the first time David has spoken publicly about the events that followed his alleged possession, and he wants to “set the record straight.” In the early 1980s, he lived in Connecticut with his parents and three older siblings, including sister Debbie and brothers Alan and Carl. Alan and Carl are talking heads in the doc; it also includes archival interview footage with Debbie (who’s now dead).

Debbie was dating Arne Johnson, and they were about to move into a house together when something strange happened: David was helping clean up a bedroom in their new home when he says he felt someone watching him, and was knocked down by an invisible force. He went home, and creepy shit started to happen. Something was making the house shake, and David was having violent outbursts where he cursed up a storm and had to be physically restrained. His mother contacted Ed and Lorraine Warren, described as “the supernatural police department”; they urged the Glatzers to document the behavior with photos and audio recordings, and began visiting the family regularly. The Warrens brokered a good old-fashioned Catholic exorcism for David, and during the ritual (procedure?), Arne leapt atop David and urged the demon to possess him instead, an act that a Russian Orthodox priest defines as “transgression.”

Not long after that, Arne and Debbie were hanging out with their landlord and friend, Alan Bono, on an evening that went alarmingly wrong. A disagreement led to a scuffle led to Arne fatally stabbing Alan, four times in the chest. Arne himself participates in the film, and sticks to his claim that he blacked out the night of Alan’s death. At this point, we meet the true crime documentary filmmaker’s favorite subjects: Journalists and lawyers. The latter concocts the demonic possession defense, which had been successful in England a few times, but never been used in a U.S. court before. The former pokes a hole or two in the Warrens’ claim that they had “scientific proof” of demonic possession, which pretty much only proves that the Warrens don’t know what the word “scientific” means. And THEN we get significant commentary from Carl Glatzer: “I’m not buying it,” he says of the possession claims. Then director Chris Holt drops the narrative cheat: 7 MONTHS BEFORE THE MURDER, reads a title card. And that’s when a reasonable explanation is finally – finally! – trotted out.

What Movies Will It Remind You Of?: This is as good a place as any to remind you that a couple of Conjurings and the Annabelles and The Nun are all streaming on Max – as is The Devil Made Me Do It, another documentary covering the story.

Performance Worth Watching: Carl Glatzer is by far the most credible voice in the movie.

Memorable Dialogue: Ed Warren drops a manipulative doozy that makes you want to throttle him: “A skeptical public is the best protection that the devil has.”

And Carl recalls what he said to the Warrens when they first visited the Gantzler home: “Honestly, I think my family’s nuts.”

Sex and Skin: None.

Our Take: Here’s hoping the perfectly reasonable explanation is what draws viewers to The Devil on Trial, because it offers a far more convincing Occam’s Razor alternative to all the supernatural hooey. But it also means Holt is trying to have his cake and eat it too, drawing viewers in with sensationalist claims, then bait-and-switching to Carl’s far more plausible account of what happened. Holt manipulates the narrative so he has a big third-act reveal and a potent ending, which at least does some service to the likely truth, although it really isn’t enough.

Holt trots out plenty of voices backing the possession claims – David, Alan, a priest who wasn’t a witness to anything, archival footage of the Warrens and Debbie – as well as a detective who has little of substance to say, and a reporter who shrugs that you can’t prove or disprove demonic-possession claims (note to that reporter: the burden of proof isn’t on you, it’s on the claimants, dummy). How about interviewing a skeptic skilled in debunking ghost stories, or a mental health expert who might offer an explanation for the behaviors Carl (and his similarly incredulous father) witnessed and didn’t participate in? 

A far more compelling and even-handed version of this story would do better justice to Carl’s skeptical point-of-view by further exploring the assertion that the Warrens are money-and-fame-chasing scam artists, and better illustrating how and why the Glatzer family is now fractured and estranged. That approach would render Holt’s timeline manipulation unnecessary, and open the door to a deeper and more thoughtful and analytical account of this sad, disturbing story. The Devil on Trial does some diligence to an outrageous series of events, but not nearly enough. 

P.S. Anybody else creeped out that the film includes significant commentary from Arne, who ultimately did some time for manslaughter, but probably deserves to be a convicted murderer? That component feels like a travesty of justice, and the film’s failure to examine that any further is just another way it fails the viewer.

Our Call: SKIP IT. The Devil on Trial tells a well-worn story in a shallow, disjointed and contrived manner.

John Serba is a freelance writer and film critic based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.