Since I just finished one novel
regarding exorcism, I'm, of course, an expert. Which is great, because The
Exorcism of Emily Rose follows much the same pattern as The Exorcist,
and it’s super-gratifying to feel like I’ve prepared correctly for this
experience. The ordeals in the two stories are so similar, in fact, that it
feels as though one could have had fan-fiction roots in the other—and The
Exorcist did influence The Exorcism of Emily Rose, right? It had to
have.
Certainly The Exorcist’s
prominent influence in the horror genre contributed to The Exorcism of Emily
Rose’s similarities to it. But they are both said to have been based on
true stories. Maybe they are based on actual common experience, and that’s
simply the way possession functions. Or maybe they’re based on accumulated
tradition regarding possession and exorcism. Burning smell, thumping sounds,
environmental manipulation, attack followed by eventual possession. I liked The
Exorcism of Emily Rose’s addition of the witching hour, though. Nice touch.
When the priest busts out The Roman Ritual I was like, “Hey, I knew that
was coming!” and I felt smart. Because, yeah, I’m an expert now. I know what
they’re talking about.
In my last post I wondered if maybe
I found movies scarier than books, though I would have assumed the opposite.
But The Exorcism of Emily Rose is scary. And I watched it in broad
daylight on a portable DVD player while my husband drove our family across
I-70. Not a scary environment. Serious nervousness in the passenger seat
anyway. That 3:00 stuff in the dark? Creepy. When the camera pans over to a
clock reading 2:59, the anticipation is almost nauseating. The idea of being
all alone in your dorm room when there’s that prickle of fear, followed by the
unbelievable. There’s no one around to save you from what you have to suspect
are delusions. And which is scarier? That it’s real or that you’re
losing it?
One hour, two minutes, and
forty-five seconds into the film brought an irritating little revelation. We're
several days into a trial and we JUST found out there was another witness to
the exorcism, AND he's a medical professional? That's handy. Good thing he took
the liberty to call the lawyers. Funny that didn't come up in interviews with
the defendant or the family. I mean, it DOES seem a little deus ex machina
for this to come up right now when it's sorely needed, but whatever. I predict
he’s going to die before he’s of any use. *spoiler alert* Oh, look. He died before he was of
any use. Tension resolved and was rebuilt again in a matter of minutes.
I liked this movie. It was scary as
all get out, but so good. The tension had a certain deliciousness to it. I’d
give it four-and-a-half (out of five) stars for enjoyability and tension. Which means, of
course, that everyone else probably hated it.
The Exorcism
of Emily Rose. Dir. Scott Derrickson. Prod. Tom
Rosenberg. By Paul Harris Boardman. Perf. Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, and
Campbell Scott. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2005. DVD.
Chris Daniels
ReplyDeleteKristin, Ummmmmm, I ADORE this movie. So your assumption is just WRONG!!!! Lol. I do agree though, this movie is pretty terrifying.
I've see it, ohhhh, 6, 7 times now? Very disappointed upon my first watch when I was 16, hoping it would be Exorcist scary. Then watched it more and more until I finally started understanding the deeper meaning behind it all. Now, to me, it's a classic of the possession genre.
I agree that the new witness and him dying are super predictable and cliched. The movie does have its flaws, but on the large, most of it works really well for 2nd time filmmaker. Have you seen Sinister yet????? His other best movie???? This and Sinister....WOW!
Good post former crit partner!!!!! Glad you were scared. It did have it's similarities to The Exorcist, but once you've seen one possession movie, you've seen them all, honestly. They aren't very original, but they are very effective for some scares.
I found several courtroom inconsistencies stuck in my craw and killed my enjoyment of the movie. So much was put on whether or not the priest would be convicted that it ended up being important that several obvious breaches of courtroom protocol were broken. Then, after all that, it just didn't seem like the conviction was based on anything.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned the movies being scarier than the books, which I certainly agree with in the case of this semester. I wonder how much of that is the subgenre? A psychological horror has a lot more room to stretch its legs in a book, but when it comes to more visceral kinds of stories, the screen is the king of building physical suspense.
Mike, for me, it's always kind of a toss-up. For instance, a LOT of Stephen King's books-into-movies adaptations are God-awful. The books are MUCH better. But then you get something truly amazing, like The Green Mile, and the books were good, but the movie was AWESOME.
DeleteI'm glad you found the whole 3 AM thing creepy too. It's especially creepy when I wake up in the middle of the night for no "good" reason and yep, it's 3 AM. Aaahhhh!
ReplyDeleteI personally found the surprise (!) doctor witness more annoying than anything else. He had an obligation to come forward sooner, the rat bastard. So I was glad he got nailed by that demon car. Good post.
Oh yeah, I completely forgot that the surprise doctor witness just sort of materializes out of thin air halfway through the movie. Certainly convenient... I assume the fact that he dies pretty quickly is meant to quell our distaste for such a late surprise, but why, if the Father was SO worried about telling Emily's story, did he give that Doctor his tape recorder to hold onto anyway? I mean, just send that to a news station. Or, like I say in my post, write a friggin book or something. There's no reason why you have to plead innocent and go through a whole trial in order for someone's story to be told... And, even so, recorded evidence would be a huge help... So, basically, that doctor existed merely to provide a somewhat twisty plot beat. No bueno.
ReplyDeleteIt was a tad unfortunate that Emily's first encounter with the demonic was so well enacted as to make us believe she was, in truth, suffering some sort of nightmarish delusion. It's awful and intense and very emotive and then the rest of the film just sort of flatlines in comparison.
ReplyDeleteKristin,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis. It was good, scary, and even a little predictable. It worked and I would actually recommend this film to anyone who likes horror movies. I watched it with a pillow over my face, but would peek up at the good parts. It's the most enjoyable exorcism experience I've had.
I honestly think the Chruch put a hit out on that doctor, even though they claim it was the demons... just kidding this movie was excellent your anaysis was point on, and that 3AM thing still creeps the hell out of me.
ReplyDelete