Removing satan, not the fun
In the many years since William Friedkin’s most famed horror movie, “The Exorcist,” brutally swept audiences off their feet, it has become quite the contest in the movie industry to de-throne such an important landmark of horror films. From its exhausting line of sequels to the steady release of so-so horror movies claiming to be the scariest movie since, it seems that the contest is still going strong. “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” starring Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson, is yet another contender joining in its ever-lengthening line of heirs. In some regards, it is no different than the list of losers it follows, but in others, it offers a bold and gripping look at life and after-life with the devil.
By far the movie’s greatest strengths are its courtroom scenes, which follow the prosecution of Father Moore, a Catholic priest charged with negligence in the death of Emily Rose, who died while under his care. However, these scenes are often as much a burden on the viewer as they are entertaining. Since the interchange between the courtroom drama and the flashbacks of Emily’s possession are so frequent, watching the film almost becomes as frustrating as flipping channels between a football and baseball game which are being played at the same time. This division is executed well enough, but it still leaves us constantly out of the moment, wondering when we will be able to flip back.
I’m particularly fond of the trial scenes simply because they are new and are based more on fact from first hand accounts than the speculation we are given by Father Moore. The actual exorcism scenes, which were plentiful, were all rehashed from Linda Blaire’s famous portrayal and seemed only put in to make the movie scary. Emily, under the influence of six demonic forces, speaks wildly in foreign tongues, eats bugs, scratches walls and apparently does jumping jacks in the middle of the night, which I thought was one of the few perks of being inhabited by a demon; perhaps the demon would also like to spontaneously work on its tennis serve as well. Most of these scenes are directed with nods toward the original “Exorcist,” such as similar styles of music and dark lighting.
But I was confused as to why after all of her psychotic episodes, her parents would still allow her to remain unrestrained and left to wander around where she pleases. The one time they did restrain her, they tied her hands to bedposts with pillow sheets, which was like restraining a two-year-old with a paper chain. Digital ghosts are also usually less effective than using actual staged effects as Friedkin did in the ’70s. Emily seems to see everything in CGI: faces in the sky, bleeding people and even the devil himself appears as a cartoon in a black cloak.
All horror anecdotes aside, the trial aspect of the movie moves at a much quicker pace and offers two sides to the controversial issue. The trial scenes focus primarily on the defense lawyer, Erin Bruner, who starts off as a skeptic but changes her faith quickly enough, offering little to no speculation. The drama behind the trial’s questions of faith and responsibility keeps the movie expertly paced from beginning to end. And while not much of an argument is put up for agnosticism, there are duel interpretations represented of the event which befell Emily Rose. This argument sets the movie apart from previous “Exorcist” reincarnations and makes “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” a worthwhile viewing experience. It gets three paws out of five because of both its remarkable originality and its faceless conformity. Just as Emily discovered during her ordeal with the devil, anything divided amongst itself is only as good as its darker half.
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Sep 23 2005. Filed under Other.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
