Review of The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) by Markb. — 19 Sep 2005

Since this dog-days box office smash does double duty as a demonic possession thriller AND would-be hot-button courtroom drama, it allows cowriter/director Scott Derrickson the admittedly unique if dubious distinction of having done TWO of the worst directing jobs of 2005! His handling of the trial scenes, in which attorneys Laura Linney and Campbell Scott face off over whether or not catholic priest Tom Wilkinson was negligent in ordering the failed exorcism of (and denying medicine to) a sweet, earnest but devil-infested girl (Jennifer Carpenter) who was eventually killed by whoever or whatever took over her body, is as lazy and perfunctory as a garden-variety 1975 ABC-TV Movie of the Week at best.

..which still makes it preferable to his fraudulent and endless use of P. T. Barnum-like gimmicks in the allegedly scary flashback sequences. At least legendary schlockmeister/showman William Castle was ambitious enough in his day to jerry-rig entire movie theaters showing his stuff; whenever Derrickson wants to get an unearned rise out of his audience, he simply turns the sound up to 11, and running faucets, doorknobs and Fluffy the cat become objects of phony terror.

(I mean, if the mere presence of loud, sudden noises is normally indicative that the minions of darkness are present, then shouldn't anyone living down the street from a bowling alley call Ghostbusters?) I've always found William Friedkin's film that started all this, The Exorcist, to be one of the most ridiculously overrated horror films of all time largely because it doesn't really immerse its audience in the situation beyond the blasphemous grossouts; whenever I've viewed it in theaters, many of the viewers only paid attention during the sensationalistic pea-soup-vomit/ use-a-crucifix-for-a-nonworshipful-purpose / kick-the-priest-in-a-place- that-ensures-he'll-never-be-a-father-should-he-change- his-mind-about-his-calling sequences; during the talky scenes, they often talk too.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose has the exact opposite problem; the trial, as uninterestingly as it's filmed, at least brings up a few potentially provocative questions: how responsible is a man of God in a Christian country when his actions, sincerely believed to be God's will, go disastrously wrong? When do medicine and religion get to work hand and hand and when must they of necessity be at odds with one another? Can an agnostic believe in the possibility of good and evil supernatural forces and still be an agnostic? Does revealing the preence and methods of the Devil truly glorify God or put undue emphasis on His enemy? Sadly, every time Derrickson threatens to deal with one or more of these questions, he nervously reverts to the trite, third-rate boogedy-boogedy-boogedy once again.

He also fails his wonderful actors, who are certainly capable of rich, multishaded characterizations, but you couldn't prove it here; smug, supercilious Scott, gruff-but-principled Wilkinson, and doubtful-but-compassionate Linney are all drawn with the thickest of crayons.

Ultimately, it's Jennifer Carpenter in the title role who suffers the most, however; her endless possession scenes are technically skillful to be sure, but only once do we get a brief glimpse of what Emily was like before being taken over, and as a result Derrickson robs both Carpenter of the chance to prove that she's an actress of any more range than Linda Blair, and us of the opportunity to truly experience her tragedy since we don't get a real chance to know what she could've been.

Actually Derrickson's approach reminded me not so much of The Exorcist as of another notorious 1970s box office hit, the el cheapo psuedodocumentary In Search of Noah's Ark, which packed movie houses (for a week, anyway) by promising to reveal where the ark was hidden, then completely copping out.