|
| Exorcism of Emily Rose, The |
|
  (7/10)
|
Runtime: 114 |
| Public Rating: 8.78 (76 votes) |
Director: Scott Derrickson |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Horror/Courtroom Drama |
Year: 2005 |
| Writer(s): Scott Derrickson, Paul Harris Boardman |
| Distributor: Screen Gems |
| Reviewed by: Mel Valentin |
| |
Co-written by Paul Harris Boardman and Scott Derrickson (with Derrickson handling directing chores), The Exorcism of Emily Rose opens with a family, grim with grief and anguish, gathering solemnly, silently in a semi-darkened kitchen. The family is reeling from the loss of their daughter, Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). A priest, Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), involved in the church-sanctioned ritual exorcism is accused of negligent homicide. Enter his defense attorney, Erin Bruner (Laura Linney), a career professional (read: a single woman, devoid of family or friends) with her eyes on a senior partnership at her law firm. Father Moore, a resolute man of God convinced of the rightness of his actions (as well as a perceived duty to Emily Rose) is contrasted with Bruner's lack of faith (she claims to be an agnostic). Erin has a conflict of interest, however, between serving her client and the Catholic diocese paying the legal bills. The diocese wants Father Moore to accept a plea agreement. Father Moore obviously doesn't.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose unfolds primarily as a series of flashbacks, as witnesses testify (both first-hand and second-hand) to Emily Rose's mental and emotional deterioration and the fateful decision to perform a ritual exorcism to rid her body (and mind) of the demonic forces possessing her. The flashbacks follow Emily from high-school senior from an ultra-religious Catholic family, rewarded with a full college scholarship to her troubled months at an unnamed university, her mental and physical states deteriorating after a night time attack in her college dormitory by a malevolent, invisible force. Paranoid hallucinations follow, as the faces of passersby take on disturbing, distorted shapes. Emily undergoes medical examination (she's diagnosed with epilepsy, and later with “Epileptic Psychotic Disorder”) and treated with anti-psychotic drugs. Medical science, however, seems incapable of treating her condition, ultimately forcing Emily to leave college and return home. There, Emily's family calls on Father Moore's help. Eventually, Father Moore receives permission from his superiors in the Roman Catholic Church to perform the ill-fated ritual exorcism.
As background, the “true” events underlying The Exorcism of Emily Rose occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Bavaria, Germany. Derrickson and Boardman set their film during the fall and winter months in the American Midwest (actually Vancouver, British Columbia). The general contours of the case, a college student, Anneliese Michel, wracked by psychotic episodes (or demonic possession), underwent a series of ritual exorcisms that covered almost eleven months. In fact, the Catholic Church hesitated to recognize demonic possession and authorize ritual exorcism. After Anneliese Michel's death, her parents and the priest were indicted on negligent homicide charges (for refusing medical treatment and Anneliese Michel's emaciated state at her death). For dramatic purposes, Derrickson and Boardman compress those events into months, not years, but the final, ambiguous result of the trial is duplicated here. The time period is equally ambiguous. The Exorcism of Emily Rose seems to be set in a timeless present, with cell phones and computers conspicuous by their absence.
In large part, The Exorcism of Emily Rose's limitations can be traced to Derrickson and Boardman's need to distinguish their film from William Peter Blatty's seminal novel of demonic possession, The Exorcist (later turned into a seminal horror film by William Friedkin). If told as a straightforward story of demonic possession, audiences and critics would immediately perceive The Exorcism of Emily Rose as derivative and unoriginal. Adding a courtroom drama component to the mix allows Derrickson and Boardman to claim greater originality, if not in substance, than in the approach to similar material. For example, in The Exorcist, the central character, Father Damien (Jason Miller), suffers from a profound crisis of conscience and religious belief. As he becomes involved in the events surrounding a young girl's (apparent) demonic possession, he's irrevocably restored to his faith. Here, Father Moore never doubts himself or his decision to perform a ritual exorcism (nor does he doubt his religious faith). That doubt is transferred to his defense attorney, Erin Bruner (whose character arc takes her from disinterested agnostic to puzzled semi-believer).
From a dramatic perspective, Erin's decision to allow Father Moore to testify is handled with little preparation. Missing are bridge scenes, scenes that give Erin moments of self-doubt and self-questioning that, if used properly, make the change in her character believable. Erin's movement from agnostic to semi-believer is also handled poorly. Derrickson and Boardman include several scenes of Erin waking unexpectedly at exactly 3:00 a.m. on consecutive nights during the trial (a portent of evil menace with next-to-no effect on Erin or Father Moore's storyline). Apparently, the demonic forces arrayed against Father Moore simply want to disturb Erin's sleep patterns indirectly undermining her courtroom performance. A neater parallel between the two storylines would have, at minimum, offered a more satisfying dramatic payoff to Erin's supernatural experiences.
As one line of defense, Derrickson and Boardman can claim that their film is based on a “true story” of demonic possession, both in the particulars of the possession itself and the trial that followed, where the priest that presided over the exorcism and the girl's parents were indicted for negligent homicide (the film seems to absolve the parents of culpability, instead focusing on the priest's actions, including his advice to forego continued medical treatment for Emily's condition). That defense, however, must be squared with the results of the courtroom revelations on screen and in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, it falls short, due to an incomplete character arc for the central character, Erin Bruner or even for Father Moore (who whispers about a supernatural conspiracy by dark forces to influence the results of the trial, but which proves to be another dead end, story wise).
Although The Exorcism of Emily Rose delivers the obligatory shocks, scares, and shivers audiences have come to expect from the recent resurgence of supernatural horror, it stumbles awkwardly in the wrap-around, dialogue-heavy courtroom segments where little is at stake for the central characters. Ultimately, A-level cast notwithstanding (including a standout performance by newcomer Jennifer Carpenter in the title role), The Exorcism of Emily Rose proves to be a flawed, disappointing misfire.
© Mel Valentin, 8th September, 2005
|
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of Exorcism of Emily Rose, The? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of Exorcism of Emily Rose, The (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
