I watch a lot of movies about demonic possession and trials, usually not at the same time, but with similar disappointment in the tropes and quality. In contrast, The Exorcism of Emily Rose puts the existence of demonic possession on trial with great results that surpassed my expectations. The film is loosely based on a true story about a trial of a Catholic exorcist, a parish priest played by Tom Wilkinson, for the negligent homicide of the titular character. The story starts after the authorities are called to investigate and assign a prosecutor. The narrative predominantly follows the defense lawyer, played by Laura Linney, as she prepares her case and when someone answers her questions, the movie cuts to a depiction of past events in flashbacks. Rashomon inspired the filmmakers, and that inspiration is reflected in the overall quality of the film.
So why did The Exorcism of Emily Rose get bad reviews? The lesson of demonic possession seemed to be pointed in the direction of a punishment for women who don’t know their place. The film presents as if it is going to follow the same tropes: weird religious family, a girl gets possessed once she enters the secular world, all the people who actively participate in the ritual are men facing off against an adolescent girl. It initially feels as if demons are a really a psychological reaction and suppression of memories of rape or sexual assault since some scenes resemble The Entity, but the issue is not explored, and later a boyfriend who sleeps in the same bed as Emily is introduced with no fuss from the family. The story also teases as if Linney’s character is going to go down the same path as the possessed, and the priest will have to save her thus prove the objective existence of demons and exonerate himself. Thankfully this storyline never emerges, and the ambitious, hard drinking woman attorney never needs to be saved in the conventional sense though she does emerge from the experience questioning the consequences of her zealous defense in her quest to make partner. I don’t know why the movie seems to tease these themes as if it was the direction that the story was going because the actual story is more nuanced and complicated, but I can understand if viewers were turned off by this first impression. The mashup of genres was not entirely seamless, and perhaps the filmmakers should have veered away from the obvious horror tropes that did not support the overall trajectory of the story.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose’s nonlinear storyline actually makes the lately tedious possession story seem fresh, especially as opposing equally plausible, less supernatural theories are explored. It also helps that the trial actually resembled a trial as opposed to a stage for characters to tell their life stories and give long speeches while the judge spouts some wise nonsense that completely resolves the conflict. I did raise an eyebrow when the defense let her client testify, and she accepted the case without looking at the evidence. Maybe do a little homework before negotiating? The cast is a huge asset because the majority of the cast is respected and rarely appears in supernatural movies, which lends credibility to what could solely be a sensational story line. Everyone seems well intentioned and honest even if they are at odds.
While The Exorcism of Emily Rose overtly has a secular lawyer defending a spiritual explanation opposing a Sunday school lawyer suggesting a scientific reason, I also appreciated the nuance in distinguishing types of Christianity and the intersection of faith and profession. The prosecutor, played by Campbell Scott, is a Protestant, specifically a Methodist. Instead of his faith preventing him from performing his duties, it is a motivating factor. He is a man of faith and science offended that another person who presents as a Christian abused his spiritual authority and tries to use his secular authority to rectify a violation done in the auspices of Jesus’ name, i.e. blasphemy. On the other hand, the performance can be read as a Christian who does not believe in the supernatural and does believe in science. This movie recognizes that many Protestants don’t see Catholics as sharing the same faith and treat them with derision. I thought that there was an intriguing power dynamic displayed in the courtroom scenes in which the judge, who is played by a woman, often sided with the defense and rebuked the prosecutor for violating rules of decorum.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose surprised me by suggesting that the possession was not a punishment, but a sign that the titular character was a saint vulnerable to spiritual forces. Um, that is new to me, but it was a nice change from women being vulnerable for a negative reason, usually disgust over emerging sexuality. I was dismayed at the continued stigma of mental illness and the negative depiction of taking prescription medication albeit Gambutrol is fiction. Too many people who suffer from mental disabilities refuse to take prescription medication because they don’t believe that they are sick, and movies use the trope that the person isn’t sick, but special and misunderstood by the public. Taking medication only hurts the special person. Am I really supposed to believe that it was easier to find a science expert on possession than a neurologist and a psychologist? If this happened in real life, fine, I’ll suck it up, but I suspect that the defense chose this expert because she told the story that the defense wanted to tell, which is a perfectly rational strategy albeit a cynical, less noble one.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose hinges on the importance of telling the story of the titular character posthumously regardless of the professional consequences to the parish priest or the defense attorney. While I like the idea of the importance of telling women’s stories, this story is actually told by a man, the priest, and this story happens to be his story too. I would have preferred if the story devoted a little time to authenticating her letter and confirming that the defense’s story was Emily’s story. In the real world, living perpetrators’ account of what happened is usually accepted at face value instead of challenged. Considering that the deceased isn’t there to challenge it, there is always a distinct possibility that any defense’s account could be self-serving when a victim does not survive. I did like the idea of the prosecutor speaking for the deceased and challenging who can best serve this story, but this aspect of the narrative isn’t emphasized as much as the supernatural part.
My major criticism of The Exorcism of Emily Rose is the anti-cat propaganda. Cats don’t go near visitors then hiss at them. They hide, or they don’t. Satan couldn’t use them because they can’t be manipulated, especially in groups. Also the early shots reminded me of Hellions, which was released subsequent to this movie, and gave the movie a more supernatural, traditional horror movie tone than it should have struck considering the less sensational aspects of the plot were more interesting.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose was so good that I am willing to go down the rabbit hole. I will probably watch Requiem, which is another movie based on the same book, The Exorcism of Anneliese Michel by Felicitas Goodman, to see which movie is better. Then I will probably read the book to see what is fact and fiction.