Starring Laura Linney, Tom Wilkonson, and Jennifer Carpenter
RT: 121 minutes
A lot of horror movies throw you into a dark forest or
creepy house and leave you there, relying on creepy scores and jump scares to
keep you interested. There are some, though, that stand out because of the
action outside of the scary situations. These types of movies keep my
attention more, because I’m allowed to not just breathe, but to see the world
that takes place around the scary shit. This puts the whole scenario into
perspective, and allows the viewer to imagine it taking place in the real
world.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose is one such movie. More courtroom
drama than horror movie, we get a view of the messy aftermath of so many other
exorcism movies… Mainly, what happens to those involved when the exorcism goes
horribly wrong. In this case, Father Moore is put on trial for negligent homicide.
To ratchet up the drama, the prosecution puts a devout Christian on the case,
while the priest gets the Agnostic. It could have been a gimmick for gimmick’s
sake, if it hadn’t worked so well.
Campbell Scott (The Amazing Spider-Man) plays the
mustachioed Ethan Thomas, the prosecutor. He sometimes comes off as laughable,
but he handles the role well and provides a measured counterpoint to Tom
Wilkonson’s (Batman Begins) Father Moore. Ethan goes after Father Moore like a rabid
pup in an attempt to defend his religion from someone he sees as responsible
for a girl’s death. Father Moore, on the other hand, has no interest in being
acquitted; he only wants to tell Emily Rose’s story. That requires him to turn
down plea deals which could save him serious prison time.
Those two actors do well. So did Laura Linney (The Truman
Show), as the Agnostic defense attorney assigned to defend Father Moore. She
handled the role well, and shows growth over the course of the movie… the only
character that does.
It was Jennifer Carpenter’s (Dexter) Emily Rose, however,
that stole the show. She wasn’t in the movie a lot, but when she was it was
clear that it was about her. Fans of
Dexter know Carpenter as the hot-headed sister Debra Morgan to serial killer
Dexter. They also remember that she could go from foul-mouthed badass to
foul-mouthed emotional wreck in the blink of an eye. She does it again here,
staying mainly extremely (and understandably) upset and terrified.
So, to the plot. Emily is possessed, her health takes a turn
and she’s on the verge of death. An exorcism is attempted, but fails. Emily
refuses another attempt in the hopes that her death will help others.
There’s also a doctor that feeds pigeons and dies. He was at
the exorcism, and when he decides to testify on Moore’s behalf, he gets hit by
a car (Devil’s Advocate, anyone?).
This was my first time seeing the movie, and I think if I’d
seen it even six months ago, I would have hated it. Hated it because it wasn’t
a horror movie. It was a courtroom drama that happened to include an exorcism.
In fact, it’s similar to The Exorcist in that regard. But I think I've grown as a person over the course of the past half year.
Horror movies that attempt to be more than what they are
billed as are often maligned for not having enough gore, or enough scary parts
(and there are plenty of creepy and intense parts of this movie), when in
reality they just succeed at providing a fantastic balance between the horrors
of the supernatural and the mundane of real life.
So what happens to Father Moore? In this case, you’ll need
to watch to find out (it does sort of jump the shark when it comes time for the
verdict and/or sentencing), but it’s a damn fine film despite that.
I think it's great that you recognize why you might not have liked this movie in the past. Being students of genre fiction and genre writers, I think it's especially important to broaden our horizons and not get stuck on what horror or romance or YA is "supposed to be." Artful and successful blends of genre should be celebrated just was much as well executed, firmly defined genre. I despise the purist attitude of any genre that only this IS whatever makes X genre, and without that how dare you call it X genre.
ReplyDeleteChad, I agree with your description that this was a courtroom drama about an exorcism, rather than a horror movie. When the movie chose to show scenes of Emily's possession it did a good job! I also enjoyed the characters and how they interpreted their opposing roles.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that this wasn't really a horror movie. Or maybe it'd be more accurate to say that it isn't a horror story, since you can introduce horrific elements to any story to ratchet up the tension if need be. I actually loved that the movie was willing to let the scary moments be scary and then pull away when the story called for something else. Ultimately, I thought the movie didn't really work because it wasn't really sure what kind of story it wanted to tell, but I respected it for being bold enough to do it in a different way.
ReplyDeleteAs for Father Moore, he's probably got nowhere to go after this. It's not like the Catholic church has any kind of system in place to move accused priests to a new parish...
Chad, I liked what you said about not liking this movie if you'd seen it a mere six months ago. I actually think I DID see this movie once before, but it was so outside my definition of a horror movie that I immediately forgot it! Now, as you say, I've grown over the course of this semester. My tastes have become more mature and inclusive. Who woulda thunk it?
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, I LOVE Jennifer Carpenter no matter what she's in. Good post.
I agree that what works best here is the (somewhat innovative) fact that the bulk of the actual narrative takes place post-exorcism. But I feel like they balked, and ruined what makes that concept so riveting--they show all the possession stuff anyway. As decent as I thought Jennifer Carpenter was in the role, every time they flashed back to her story, I had to sort of groan. Why, beyond the obligation to meet certain Hollywood horror movie expectations, were we watching these flashbacks? We know what happens already. What's at stake? What's engaging us in this side of the story? Are we to assume there's some sort of twist to the rote possession story coming? As decent as the film is from a production standpoint, I never quite got a clear sense of what was supposed to be keeping the audience interested in the movie from a story standpoint. I think a more rigidly focused POV (staying with Linney throughout the whole story) would've done the film wonders in this regard.
ReplyDeleteThat's a damn good point about the possession scenes being thrown in to meet the definitions of horror. But, without them, it wouldn't be horror. Do they feel shoe-horned? Well, now that you pointed it out, yes. But, I still like it for what it is. And Jennifer Carpenter can play distraught like no other.
DeleteChad, I liked this write up and I couldn't agree with you more about this film. I honestly did not like this film the first time I saw it, but having seen it within the context of this class has changed my opinion about the film and what its about. I loved this movie, and I loved that it was a court drama about the horror story that happened.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you put it: court drama about the horror story. It's so fourth-wall breaking (that's hip now, isn't it?)
DeleteChad I felt the story had a similar diagnosis: pitched as a horror film, it wouldn't work. Pitched as a legal film that dealt with horror themes? Yeah, ok...
ReplyDeleteThe acting was well done. The story contained too many additional elements that never were capitalized upon. Linney's brief haunting, the point of the doctor, and the end scene where Linney turns down the job, and for what? Moral ground? Because her boss is a dick?
I settled upon that the story works, but could've been cut by at least 20 or more minutes.