Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
The Exorcism of Emily Rose was already added to my list of ‘watch later’ on Netflix, but I hadn't gotten around to seeing it until this course. Before starting the movie, I saw that it was based on a true story, so I looked into it. Normally with found footage movies, like Paranormal Activity, they say ‘based on a true story’, but aren’t actually. This one is. I found an in-depth article about the real Emily Rose, a girl named Annalise Michelle. I can't explain a lot of the parallels as eloquently as the article, but there were a few nice details I did notice in the movie after reading about the real case.
I appreciated the reference of the ‘123456’ praying up and down on her knees, because apparently that was a thing that Annalise Michelle did. For context, they say her cause of death was malnutrition because she starved herself (fasting) and spent all of her time on her knees praying. But here we get differences in the movie versus the actual case. The main modification is the verdicts of the case. In the movie, we get a very satisfying ending, ‘guilty but free’, whereas in real life everyone involved went to jail. But it’s based on a true story, not a documentary.
The best thing about this movie is that it leaves the audience with a question of what ‘truly happened’ to Emily Rose. Or does it? We see some very solid arguments and visual recreations of a scientific versus a paranormal case. No outright demons are shown, but the persuasion factor is there because of the point-of-view of the movie. It focuses on the mind of the defense attorney as she begins to believe the priest’s claims. A nice choice for the big screen, but in the real case there was no competition, the medical side won. In media, the idea of religious views as a defense works and made the doctors seem horrible (ex: forced sedation), but in real life science is more rational than the supernatural. We have separation of state and church.
Now for the movie to stand on it own. The pacing was excellent in how the evidence was presented, which is high praise because pacing is really easy to mess up. I loved the recurring images and parallels between the defense attorney, the priest, and Emily Rose, like the hallways, 3 am, smelling smoke, and the doors moving on their own. Speaking of the defense, the dialog from both attorneys was excellent and the acting in this movie was great. It may not have been a super scary ghost tale, but a lot of scenes left me unnerved and uncomfortable. Examples of this (and good acting) are when Emily Rose is having her muscles contract, when her voice changes, and her crazy eye movements. The whole spook factor to this movie can go to the acting and not so much to things like setting or music.
Overall: I would watch this movie again with friends, but probably
not by myself since I already know what happens.
Maddy,
ReplyDeleteOne of the best moments in this film is in the barn during the ritual when the demon takes over. Emily's voice changes and her eye fill in black. A very unsettling and unforgettable few seconds.
The film did okay. I think its redemption was that the main plot was the court proceedings with the possession as a subplot. I'm a firm believer there is just too much to this type of haunting to smash into only 2-3 hours of allowed screen time.
I was also saddened when the guilty verdict was handed down; even though I was familiar with the case this was inspired. Sometimes you want popular culture to instead give you the good twists, but had the Father been let off, I more than likely would have raged at the inaccuracy of basing it off "a true story." An excellent double-edged sword I make for myself here. LOL!
-Alexis
That's the difficulty with the ending. If it said guilt or not guilty I would have been upset by both, so it chose a sort of middle ground that left me actually satisfied.
DeleteI agree that an exorcism is hard to throw into such a short time as a movie. I think that's why this one works, because the exorcism is secondary to the court case, so only what is relevant to the case in regards to the possession is shown.
Hi Maddy, I loved the paragraph where you talk about the movie as a stand-alone film. Great point about the parallels between Emily's possession and the phenomena that Erin experiences. The only one I noticed was the hallway. Good catch!
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the acting was fantastic. Anyone who has seen *Ozark* is familiar with Laura Linney's chops. But I was so impressed with Jennifer Carpenter as Emily. I wonder if she's a dancer. Her muscular rigidity, etc., as you say, was very convincing (and to me, really disturbing.) The way she writhed across the red floor in her dorm room was amazing. And I also loved the "1,2,3,4,5,6" counting. Very eerie.
It seems like I'm the only one who didn't love the courtroom aspect. I don't think that Bruner made a strong case for possession. All she did was play a tape and offer Father Moore's testimony--of course, a priest will say that it was possession. To me, the testimony about medication came across as mumbo-jumbo. I wanted more Emily Rose.
I think if we got a series rather than a movie about Emily Rose it would have worked better for seeing more of Emily, but given the time there just wasn't room for her and the attorney to be main characters.
DeleteYes, you and I seem to like this movie for the similar reasons. While Alexis and Glenna are on Team Exorcism Series, you and I seem to be on Team Two Hours is Enough Exorcism for Me.
ReplyDelete"The best thing about this movie is that it leaves the audience with a question of what ‘truly happened’ to Emily Rose." According to IMDb, the director, Scott Derrickson, wanted this movie to make people ask questions, not think they got the answer. And yet I have to agree that he stacked the cards by giving us the POV of the defense attorney, Emily's family/friends, and Father Moore.
"I would watch this movie again with friends, but probably not by myself ..." Yeah. I tried to bribe/guilt my husband into watching it with me this time but he couldn't last 40 minutes. Traitor.