The Excorcism of Emily Rose (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

But before the red herring of censorship is raised yet again, I have no desire to prohibit the screening or viewing of this film. Even if I knew beforehand that it would lead to death of some innocent or innocents.

John notes above that "excoriating [the film as I have] seems suspiciously like blaming violent movies for violence. or ozzy osbourne for the occasional teenage suicide". I think we can say with certainty that violence in pop culture begats violence on our streets, that there's been at least one suicide where the note includes a direct attribution to Ozzy's "Suicide Solution", and, as mentioned above, the hysteria caused by the film "The Exorcist" and its effect on the events of the film here in question.

Still and all, I have no desire to censor violent films, Ozzy, or anyone else, even though I accept that some may be harmed as a result. It's the price one pays for free expression, and its a rather small price to pay given the myriad virtues that such freedom allows. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from criticism as some fragile flowers may have erroneously concluded. Agreeing that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the way I see it I'm just holding up my end of the social contract here. The idjits splatter the wall with bullshit, and the rest of us do our best to spray it off. Again, and again. And again.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Even if this movie only expresses one point of view, which the director has every right to do, I think audiences generally have a bit more common sense about things than some care to believe.

 

[Ruz-El]

Huh, I always thought it was the shit load of drugs and alchohol, access to guns and no parental supervision that led to these suicides, being as "Suicide Solution" is an anti-suicide song.

good thing they banned "Copkiller" before anyone got hurt, although no one got hurt due to "Fuck The Police", so I'm not sure if that really meens anything.

People with a belief system are not "IDJITS", and a movie isn't going to set them off. It's easy to blame pop culture, but the roots of violence are deeper.

I'm looking forward to the movie, it looks like a nice piece of entertainment.

 

[Kevin M]

Agreed, it is the weakness of people that hurts other people and if it hadn't been "this" thing that set them off then it would have been "that".....I will never blame the artist for what some morons do with their art once it is out in the world.


For the record, "Suicide Solution" is about alcoholism, Ozzy has stated that he wrote the lyrics about AC/DC's Bon Scott as well as his own problem with alcohol. It isn't specifically about suicide, rather about knowing how destructive the stuff is to you & still drinking anyway...it's like suicide.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, good luck with alllll that.

I'm not touching this discussion with a ten foot crucafix, I will say, though, that the film itself looks scary as all hell and I can't wait to see it.

 

[John Doran]

what does objectivity have to do with anything? they're not making a documentary or a political exposé...i mean, if you discovered that peter benchley had what you took to be an irrational hatred of great white sharks, would his lack of objectivity compromise the narrative of Jaws? and if so, why?

and ease up on the invective; it implies a kind of bovine hubris that is in stark contrast to the intelligence suggested by your prose style.

 

[Rich Malloy]

John, I don't believe you need to be quite so tentative as I don't believe we're crossing the line into forbidden discourse on this. From all accounts, it seems that discussing this film at all will require that we grapple with the primary issue it raises: whether this girl suffered from psychological problems and was killed as a result of naive practices, or whether she was infested with a supernatural force and her death was an unfortunate result of the only proper therapy. On this forum, we've discussed whether aliens exist, whether psychics speak with ghosts, whether a photo over the Himalayas revealed flying dragons, and whether all manner of occult and legendary creatures exist or not. Surely, for some the question of the existence of ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, witches, warlocks - even aliens - even dinosaurs - even pre-human hominids - are wrapped up in their larger notions of religion. And while I understand that there are some who are preoccupied with these things, nonetheless the question of ghosts, devils, demons, witches, etc., do not comprise a theology even though certain fringe sects emphasize these aspects. And if one were to say, well fine, but this case is a bit more specific in that we're talking about a uniquely Catholic scandal that involves questions of doctrine, I would simply respond by pointing out that my POV about this case is exactly the same as the Catholic Church's: that this poor girl was the victim of homicide via naive practices, and not demonic possession.

Finally, a further distinction: I recall a long thread that excoriated a particular John Travolta film, lambasting its crude theology and ridiculing the whole belief system. But whatever you or I may believe, in the eyes of the law, specifically the First Amendment and United States Tax Code, Scientology is every bit as much a religion as Catholicism, Mormonism, or good ol' fashioned, foot washin' Evangelical Pentacostalism. This discussion is not at all like that one. And though I certainly would have found myself among the anti-Hubbardists had I participated in that thread, here I find myself on the side of the Catholic Church. Not because of any pre-existing loyalty or commitment to its teachings, but only because I share its view of these events. At the same time, I wouldn't accuse any of you of heresy for rejecting the Church's position on this matter.

 

[John Doran]

well, maybe. all i know about that aspect of the film is that the byline, like so many other similar films, is "based on a true story". and all i know about that description is that it seems like filmmakers feel that all you need to base the claim is that there be, for instance, a person who had the same first name as the main character...

but at any rate, i am curious as to how you believe a movie like this could purport to be a literal retelling of events. do you think that there will be a text intro that states as much? or an outro? and if so, why do you think those things will be included?

 

[Rich Malloy]

How could a movie like this "purport to be a literal retelling"? Haven't you seen the same marketing material I have, the trailers, the website (see in particular "The Synopsis"), and perhaps even the interview with the co-writer linked to on the previous page? It's certainly possible that I missed or misread something, but it strikes me that the primary focus of the marketing of this film is the notion that this was a true event that the filmmakers have portrayed faithfully, objectively, and without the usual trappings of the horror film genre. That is, a just-the-facts so you-can-make-up-you're-own-damn-mind approach. I've seen nothing that would undermine this perception, that would in anyway suggest the film is primarily fictive, or attempt in anyway to disown or diminish its relation to the real victim and the actual events.

But it's certainly possible that I've misapprehended their intentions or missed something where they clearly distinguish this film from the events they otherwise claim it was based upon. So now that you know what I'm basing my perceptions on, let me turn it around: what makes you think the filmmakers aren't suggesting that this is a literal retelling of a true event?

 

[Kevin M]

So...calling the filmmakers "idjits" because they might believe in this religious/demonic "bunkum" somehow isn't crossing the line of forum rules regarding religious debate? That doesn't sound like a legitimate critique of the script or of the film but just basically calling people who believe "idiots".

I have not personally come to any definite discovery as far as "beliefs" go but on the other hand I certainly wouldn't insult someone as being an imbecile if they did believe, filmmaker of a tragic case involving religion or not.

 

[Rich Malloy]

You really didn't think I'd notice how you've changed my phrase "demonic bunkum" by adding the term "religious" to that construction? That's not honest, not nice, and - save that I want to clarify what I really said - not worthy of a response. I don't go around slyly putting words in your mouth just so I can hang you up on a forum rule in order to prevent you from expressing your opinion.

And like I said above, I concede that for some the question of the existence of ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, witches, warlocks - even aliens - even dinosaurs - are wrapped up in their larger notions of religion. But that doesn't mean we don't otherwise discuss these issues, pro or con, often criticizing and debunking them. That said, I understand that in this case we're talking about a uniquely Catholic scandal that involves questions of Catholic doctrine, but let's not forget that we're talking about old doctrine that the Church has since reformed (forbidding a discussion of this topic on "religious grounds" would be like forbidding someone to say the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round simply because the Church at one time believed this and condemned all those who didn't). My position, that this girl was killed as a result of naive practices and not demonic infestation, happens to be the official position of the Church. As far as I'm concerned, that's neither here nor there in the general discussion of ghosts, demons, witches, and whatever other supernatural beings might be part of this or that religion's universal cosmology, but I'm just pointing out that the only ones speaking heretically in this instance are those who reject the Church's position.

My ire toward the filmmakers, the "idjits" as I referred to them, does not stem from their heresy or whatever fringe religious beliefs they may hold. It's solely because this whole thing smells of exploitation to me. The exploitation of the death of a real person under extremely tragic circumstances. Unlike other films about demonic possession - say "Evil Dead II" or "The Beyond" - this one happens to include a real victim who's real tragedy is being played for all its worth to sell this film as a "real story". Except, much like adding a crucial buzzword to unfairly change the meaning when quoting someone else's statement, this one shades the truth to give credence to the lie, and I suspect ultimately a preference for the lie.

 

[TheLongshot]

Reminds me of the marketing for "White Noise", with a lot of people involved with the film being believers in that phenomenom.

Jason

 

[John Doran]

i'm not saying it's not: i am agnostic as to the intentions of the filmmakers and as to the actual content of the film itself. i have only been trying to determine the quantity and quality of evidence you have for your own positive belief that it is a literal transcription of an actual event...

 

[Rich Malloy]

My position is not that the film is a literal transcription, only that it purports to be.

 

[John Doran]

right. and what's your evidence for that?

 

[Rich Malloy]

 

[Kevin M]

Again, your words, not mine....or am I supposed to believe that this statement was made with full respect to those who do believe in such things? I am not a believer personally but...again...I certainly wouldn't call those who do believe "credulous and easily-deluded" off hand....that is elitist super-ego in it's worst form and has just as much potential for destructiveness as the superstitions you were trying to lump together, IMO.

Bare in mind that I understand what you are basically saying, that any religion or superstition that prevents a child from receiving proper medical/psychiatric help is dangerous, I suppose it is the way you are saying it that I have a problem with.

edit: misspelled psychiatric, sorry.

 

[John Doran]

i figured you had something more to go on that that stuff, rich...

for one thing, that first piece is a description of the "real" story, and isn't by or about the filmmakers or film.

and as far as i can gather from the interview with derrickson, the film is shooting for ambiguity. here's what it says:

i dunno, but it sounds to me precisely like it's going for a perspectival rashomon kind of thing, in an attempt to paint a story in shades of grey rather than the black and white of both religious and secular zealotry.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Bravo

 

[Rich Malloy]

Henry and Kevin, while we clearly disagree on certain, certainly less-than-relevant matters, I'm glad we agree on the key point. As Kevin phrases it:
I think if we can find common ground on this point - Kevin, Henry, myself, and not-the-least the Catholic Church - then I think we've actually muddled our way through the misunderstandings and hyperbole to some degree of understanding.

That's all well and good in the abstract, and given that we agree on this point, I'm not sure why my statements have proved somewhat controversial. After the death of Anneliese Michel and the conviction of her killers, the Commission of the German Bishop-Conference declared that she was not possessed and her death the result of "naive practices", all of which lead to a reform of the 1614 exorcism rite (the German Bishops wanted it abolished altogether). It seems to me that the filmmakers (previously criticized by me as either cynical or idiotic for this reason) have decided to inject some doubt into the verdict of the court, the public, the Conference of German Bishops, and the Vatican on this matter, if not quite suggesting that this girl was certainly "infested with demons" at least shading the truth sufficiently to give credence to that lie, and, I suspect, ultimately a preference for that lie.