The Exorcism of Emily Rose

BOO!

Official Exorcism of Emily Rose Site
Horror/Courtroom Thriller
Starring Laura Linney, Campbell Scott, Jennifer Carpenter, Tom Wilkinson, Shohreh Aghdashloo
Rated PG-13 (for language, violence and graphic depictions of demon possession)
Running Time: 114 Minutes
Released:September 9th, 2005


1 Out Of 5 Bites

The ad for the part must have read, "Must contort on cue, emit blood-curdling screams and be frightening-looking enough without much make up." If there is something that "gets" at you in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, it is the physical performance of Jennifer Carpenter (as Emily), and this is not a slam on her. She was able to lend to and bring to the part what she naturally had in physical performance and appearance. There were a few moments that were genuinely creepy, but not as grotesque as actually having sat through what seemed like a retarded Perry Mason Meets Old Scratch.

The Exorcist, this is not. Most of the movie flows from the courtroom and reminisces on the life and times of the family priest, Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), as he came to assist poor Emily and her family in a botched exorcism that results in the 19-year-old's death. And then the fingers point at him. Agnostic attorney Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) is tapped to be the defense for Father Moore and the movie alternately likes to parallel her struggle with things spiritual as shady goings-on commence at her home. Sense the tension already? I didn't either- not under the overarching hokey pretense that is this movie.

Additionally, the prosecutor- (a stiff and stuffy Campbell Scott avec pet caterpillar, er, moustache)- is a "believer" who easily and apparently unreflectively co-opts any possibility of a demonic collusion for a better position from which to argue his case. And the resulting courtroom drama is rife with....well, staunch boredom and puffy witnesses whose dialogue has the mulled cadence of reading direct from cue cards as if to doe-eyed children. The smugness is needlessly suffocating. Every performer seems like they're "ACT-ING"....all the way down to the canned courtroom audience obviously feigning interest and mild shock....again, as if on cue.

Some younger audiences somewhat unfamiliar with the cunning of the Exorcist may be moved to fright from director Scott Derrickson and writer Paul Harris Boardman, who also collaborated on 2000's Urban Legends. But even then, this is only through low-grade and shoddy effects. Derrickson, et al, seem content to rest on the physical laurels of Jennifer Carpenter, and still yet you wonder just how scary can a chick continue to be who bends at the waist and wrists throughout the whole movie. Black a pupil here, dub a Latin speaking male voice there,....but you expect that.

From the fringe, the Catholic hierarchy seeks to manage its image through the hiring of Bruner to represent the good Father. But it seems ludicrous that they would not know whether she was agnostic or not. Maybe they were going on the fact that she was able to argue for the release of a muderer in a prior case who- (GASP!)- murders again while Rose's case is ongoing. But the biggest foible is in the laughable theology of it all.

Linney can only barely manage to tame what is otherwise an absurdity in progress. Her star witness (Oscar award nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo)- an "expert" on the science of possession- drops names like Carlos Casteneda, commensurate with the New Agey-goo-slop argument that "super-sensitivity" enables possession.

The convenient theology of Emily Rose is candy for the pop masses, but here are the lessons in errare:

1) You need the devil to prove that God...or Mother Mary....exists. (This is dualistic....God doesn't need an equally powerful opposing deity to validate God's own existence. But the movie easily by-passes the question of God/Jesus in favor of establishing the case for Mary. But this is a non-starter for the movie's Catholic take on the subject).

2) Encountering the devil is always a power encounter guaranteeing a big fight that you might just lose. (The scriptures are quite clear about a believer's victory in Christ over the devil. It isn't out of the question that if it is allowed, a demonic could act out. There is no reason for it though. The assumption of the victory and authority afforded to the believer by Christ over the devil trumps any and all of the shenanigans viewed in Emily Rose)

3) People can become possessed "automatically." (There is no exploration into the element of human behavior and choice, especially where Emily is concerned. There is no valid position scripturally that assumes one can be overtaken to the point of death by the devil outside of the choices one makes. Even when the scriptural narratives in the New Testament include demoniacs, there aren't always explanations as to causation there as well. Having said that, the case for "automatic" and coerced possession still isn't viable).

Would that the good Father Moore could exorcise us of this flick.