Has anyone else seen this trailer? I saw it this morning. All I can say is…it about scared the pants off me. Nothing has scared me this much since Blair Witch Project. Here’s the link -
I wonder if it’ll turn out to be more of a courtroom thriller. They may have showed the majority of creepy stuff in the trailer.
Anyone know what “true story” this is based on?
I believe it’s based off a trial that happened in Germany about twenty years ago. I’m guessing there will be court scenes and flashbacks to whatever happened to this girl.
I love Laura Linney and am glad she’s in it. The girl playing Emily seems to be pretty talented as well.
Very much so (bumping this old thread). I just got back from a Saturday night showing and I’ve got the feeling that the 99% of teenagers expected more of a horror movie than a courtroom drama. At least all of the constant talking and lights from phones in the middle of IMing each other may conclude that.
I’ve seen it twice so far. I loved it, in case that wasn’t clear enough. I was expecting some creepy moments and I certainly got those, but the movie managed to present the whole scenario in such a way as to allow the audience to decide for themselves what really happened. It certainly made me wonder, as someone who was a very devout fundie Christian for nine years (and very much into ‘spiritual warfare’ during that time) and who is now an atheist, what exactly goes on during alleged demonic possessions and exorcisms.
I agree that a lot of moviegoers probably went into this one expecting to get just a retelling of The Exorcist and maybe they were disappointed. I wasn’t disappointed in the least. To me, The Exorcist requires much more of an effort to suspend disbelief; the makeup and effects make it clear that it’s a monster movie, that there can be no doubt that Regan is possessed; in TEOER, makeup effects are used sparingly and much of the freakiness is conveyed by Jennifer Carpenter’s unnerving performance and physical contortions. It’s much easier for me to believe that someone could go through such an ordeal (as a result of epilepsy/psychosis/sleep paralysis/whatever combined with deepy held religious beliefs, or as actual demonic possession if you believe in that sort of thing) and so to me, it’s far more creepy than someone’s head spinning around.
The courtroom drama scenes were really there to provide a forum for the competing world views to debate their interpretations of the events, and that was fine with me. Nothing Oscar worthy there, but I found it thought-provoking nonetheless.
My main criticism of the movie is that it was probably about 20-30 minutes too long. I think they could have tightened up the editing and trimmed it down without losing any of the effectiveness.
Secondary complaint, which I’ll spoilerize:
The cats coming in and attacking the priest. We’ve seen so many comical portrayals of small animals suddenly jumping for someone’s throat (Holy Grail, anyone?) that this use of the cats was almost unintentionally funny to me and my friends. I think it would have been far more effective if they had just had the cats coming in and start hissing at the priest instead of making an improbable jump for his throat. Just my opinion.
As a longtime fan of horror movies and someone who lists The Exorcist among the top three horror movies of all time, I have to say that the possession/exorcism scenes in TEOER are among the best in the genre, better in my opinion than anything in The Exorcist. I can only wonder how much greater a horror movie The Exorcist would have been if they had used a similar approach to those scenes as TEOER.
I think it’s irresponsible to make a movie which makes excuses for a murderer and asks the audience to take seriously something as patently asinine as “demonic possession.” Evil spirits are not something which needs to be debated or considered. The reviews I’ve read for this movie piss me off. There was a real victim at the heart of this story who was murdered by religious fanaticisim. That kind of deadly stupidity needs to be condemned, not sympathized with.
And here is where these discussions usually veer off into GD territory.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, through most of human history, the majority of humanity has believed in evil spirits, from the Sidhe to the Djinn, from Demons to the Loa.
In fact, a great deal of humanity believes in them to this day.
And if someone believes in Angels, they by default have to believe in Demons, right?
While science says one thing, human nature and history tend to balance that out.
Regardless of what I believe, I think it’s safe to say that for the vast herd of humans, the jury is still out.
My problem is not that a movie would posit the existence of the supernatural for entertainment purposes but that a movie would take a real murder case and ask the audience to sympathize with the murderer and blame evil spirits.
I thought that the verdict of “guilty” pretty much confirmed that the priest was being held responsible for negligent homicide.
However, DtC, I’d point out that while the movie is ‘based on a true story’ (of Anneliese Michel, in case anyone didn’t know) the movie is clearly fiction. I’d agree with your accusation of irresponsibility if this story had been presented in the same way on 20/20, but it wasn’t.
As for “Evil spirits are not something which needs to be debated or considered,” I really have to disagree with you there. Since when is debate and careful consideration a bad thing? Don’t you realize that these are opportunities to learn as well as educate others?
The way the movie was presented, I took it that Emily’s conditions and experiences were interpreted by her and her family to be demonic in nature because that’s what they believed in. Certainly if she believed in demons and believed that she was being possessed, then it is possible that something like an exorcism rite would at least relieve some of her anxiety momentarily. Sadly, such relief would be short-lived as the rite would fail to alleviate her other symptoms. But if you see the movie (I’m guessing you didn’t see it, DtC) it is clear that the supernatural, demonic explanation is only presented by witnesses who are devout Christians. Many of the scenes are shown again during the testimony of the scientists and doctors and there is a depiction of Emily suffering from disturbing (but entirely plausible) episodes of dementia and seizures.
What I find most interesting about this depiction is that it does open up the possibility to discuss and consider the reality behind “demonic possession.” Perhaps to you this movie seems only to legitimize Christian superstitions, but after seeing the movie, I was actually able to engage some of my friends in a lengthy discussion about the subject in which I was able to point out (for example) some of the similarities of the symptoms of ‘possession’ to the stories of alien visitations and abductions, and that the ‘bad guy’ in these experiences depend on the background of the person suffering from them. My friends, some whom are Christian, agreed with me that Emily’s Christian beliefs would have made her interpret her condition as a spiritual one and that she needed better medical treatment, but also that some sort of spiritual counsel or ritual combined with proper medical care would have probably alleviated her anxiety as well.
Now, some skeptics might think, “that’s no good because you’re still perpetuating the myth of demons.” Maybe they’re right, but you know, I’ve been trying to defuse popular religious and spiritual myths for a while now, and I’ve had very few ‘converts.’ If I knew a young person who was suffering greatly and believed that a spiritual solution was necessary to help them, I don’t know that I would be able to deny them that just because I think it’s silly. They obviously take it very seriously, are not likely to be convinced by even a logically convincing argument from someone who has not had their experiences, and will continue to suffer great anxiety without relief until a spiritual solution is attempted. In TEOER, after the exorcism fails to help Emily, she imagines that she is visited by Mary, the mother of Jesus. Emily’s question is one that untold multitudes of people from all faiths and walks of life have asked; ‘why am I suffering?’ Essentially, ‘why do bad things happen to good people?’ As someone who is not religious, I would answer, “probably because bad and good things happen to everyone regardless of your ‘karma’ or whatever.” But would that provide any comfort to someone who has determined that they will have unwavering faith in a God who is supposed to love them? Not likely. For Emily, such an answer would be unthinkable. She the answer she gets from Mary in her hallucination is also the answer that a lot of people invent; “Your suffering has a purpose. You’ve done nothing to deserve the suffering, but if you patiently endure it, other people will be inspired/blessed/comforted/educated/whatever.”
I’m not sure what I’m trying to say here. Maybe if I put it like this…My aunt recently died after a prolonged illness. She was a very devout Catholic and she would often pray that her suffering would end, one way or another. She had a friend who was also a devout Catholic, and she would visit her and reassure her that God still loved her and that he had a grand purpose, mysterious as it may be, for her illness and suffering. And you know what? That thought was very comforting to my aunt. It allowed her to have hope and to continue life as best as she could until the illness finally overcame her. And when she died, the people that were with her reported that she was calm and ready to ‘meet her maker.’ What kind of good would I have done to try and convince her that there was no purpose to her suffering, that there was likely no god waiting for her with open arms at the end of her life? If I would have done that, I would have truly been evil.
So now we’ve got situations in which debate and arguments may be beneficial (discussing with friends after a movie) and a situation in which debate and arguments do little to help and may in fact be harmful (my aunt’s illness and death). Is it always the best policy to argue in favor of ‘the truth?’ I’d say, “almost always.”
I see your point, but the movie would have sucked if it had been resolved that nothing supernatural happened. That’s not horror, that’s Scooby-Doo.
I think that statement is only true if what you’re making is a horror film. If you’re trying to make a legal thriller, a lot of drama can be found in stripping away the ritual and beliefs that a person used and shining a light on their actions. Of course, this is based on an actual story of an unrepentant killer, but for dramatic purposes a moment when the accused suddenly realizes how his actions might appear to others can be very powerful.
But I think the problem with the film is that no clear artistic decision was made. It’s as if they couldn’t choose between making a courtroom drama and a horror film, and ended up making neither.
It’s a shame. Linney, Wilkinson and Scott are all excellent performers.
thwartme
I thought it worked quite well as both a horror film and a courtroom drama. And it wouldn’t have worked at all as a horror film if they portrayed what actually happened.
I saw this today and went into it with precisely this attitude. (It wasn’t my choice to see it.)
After actually watching it, I was quite pleased. The movie is very even-handed and skeptically-minded dopers will no doubt be satisfied that nothing supernatural is presented as factual in the film at all, despite the impression given by the trailers. Everything that occurs before the trial is presented as subjective analepsis – rational testimony is illustrated rationally, superstitious testimony is illustrated from that point of view, and even the most “supernatural” occurances related by the superstitious folks are easily explained from a scientific point of view. There’s no bullshit like everyone experiencing the temperature of the room dropping to sub-zero, or more than one person witnessing an impossibility like levitating furniture or rivers of blood and ectoplasm. All “evidence” for the “possession” is carefully vetted so that it can be interpreted as outright hallucination, coincidence, or the impressions of suggestible people.
It can’t even be said to “defend” the defendant – there is direct analogy made between him and one of the defense attorney’s previous clients who went on to kill again.
Just going on the trailers, I’ve opined to my friends that the existence of The Exorcism of Emily Rose is offensive in the same way that The Amityville Horror is. It’s disgustingly exploitive to take a tragic case and create entertainment that presents a ridiculous supernatural basis for the tragedy which exculpates guilty parties, and then market it as a “true story.”
Emily Rose doesn’t do this at all – it resembles the “true story” on which it is based much more closely than I expected. The only improvement that I would have insisted on if it were my film is that the anorexia been represented more graphically – although of course that would have easily quadrupled the special effects budget. It would have underlined the “Why the hell wasn’t this girl hospitalized” question better, though.
Overall, though, I think the movie is fantastically realistic. Just like the reality that it’s based on, rational people won’t see anything mystical, and mystical people won’t see anything rational. Neat trick.
Interesting review, Larry. Thanks. Maybe it’s not what I thought it was after all. I might even check it out.
I haven’t seen this movie but from your description, Cuckoorex it seems as if it might be morally ambiguious in much the same way as the movie Frailty.
Have you seen it before, Cuckoorex? Great movie that uses the same thematic device if your description is accurate. I highly reccommend it.
Yes, you should. I did, and I thought of you after I saw the film. Really.
As others in the thread have indicated, the ‘supernatural forces’ in the film are mostly explained away, but the door never really slams shut.
Dio, you could compare an excorcism to hypnosis. In both cases there are skeptics, and in both cases the person undergoing the treatment has to believe ahead of time that the treatment will work in order for there to be any anticipated effect afterwards.
In the movie, Emily has given permission to have the excorcism performed on her so there was some preconcieved expectation on her part that it work. She was also on medication, which didn’t seem to be effective, during most of her sprititual treatment.
In my opinion, it seemed the only way to have saved her would have been to put her in a forced catatonic state. The family wasn’t willing to do that.